Liverpool F.c.

[MrRed]

What would it be ridiculous to mention The Times also?

Grow up lah! its a forum you have your view i have mine...

Can't agree with you on this. I think tha people of Liverpool have every valid reason to view that rag the way they do. Scumbag paper, scumbag owner and the editor at that time was, and is vermin.

And lets face it, its garbage, a boil on the arse of journalism. What does it say about a nation where its the biggest selling "paper"?

Can't agree with me on what?

Like i have said it is a forum that is all

People in Liverpool still watched sky sports didn't they!

[rixalex]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22302801

Nobody bigger than the club? Could've fooled me...

Time i think for some more "Save The Suarez" T-Shirts.

[Devil]

What would it be ridiculous to mention The Times also?

Grow up lah! its a forum you have your view i have mine...

Are you seriously that ignorant Mr Red?

You know full well what the *un paper means to anyone associated with the club.

[Rimmer]

One post using profanities has been removed, please understand to post in this manner is against forum rules and the poster will be warned

[mad mary]

I guess Suarezs ban has put to bed any argument over him getting the Player of the year award.

regarding the poster deliberately trying to bait Liverpool fans with references to/from the *un.Out of order ,it's a cheap shot.

Now Liverpool have to refocus for the remainder of the season without Suarez,maybe some good will come from it by gelling the players & giving the likes of Sturridge more opportunities to shine.

Not good what I'm hearing about Stevie G needing a shoulder operation.

[uptheos]

OK, so he's banned for 10 games and can't play again in the EPL until October, that's about 6 months.

He now has 6 free months, loads of money and club backing to pay for it, so I expect to hear that he's using the 6 months to acquire the much needed top notch rehabilitation everyone says he needs. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise and this is just what he needs, as he would never have been able to fit rehabilitation into his busy playing and training schedule.

[BangrakBob]

The PR efforts are woeful, you think they'd have learnt in recent times. Who is running this dog & pony show....

i disagree, they were way better than usual. we got out in front of a story for a change. and brendan said all the right things tonight too.

They did well out the blocks last sunday, but then Rodgers tried to make out like Suarez was the victim once the ban was released. I understand Rodgers words and defense, but he was commenting on the ban without knowing what the FA would come up with today, regarding reason. Bit dangerous in my mind, and no matter how you feel about it, he shouldn't be accusing the FA for going after Suarez, he did bite a man no matter what anyones opinion of the ban is(insane. ludicrous). I'd be careful if I was Rodgers, he wants to be around when Suarez is gone.

[BangrakBob]

OK, so he's banned for 10 games and can't play again in the EPL until October, that's about 6 months.

He now has 6 free months, loads of money and club backing to pay for it, so I expect to hear that he's using the 6 months to acquire the much needed top notch rehabilitation everyone says he needs. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise and this is just what he needs, as he would never have been able to fit rehabilitation into his busy playing and training schedule.

It looks like we'll be in Europa on fair play rule so he will be playing in that from July

[uptheos]

OK, so he's banned for 10 games and can't play again in the EPL until October, that's about 6 months.

He now has 6 free months, loads of money and club backing to pay for it, so I expect to hear that he's using the 6 months to acquire the much needed top notch rehabilitation everyone says he needs. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise and this is just what he needs, as he would never have been able to fit rehabilitation into his busy playing and training schedule.

It looks like we'll be in Europa on fair play rule so he will be playing in that from July

Won't this interfere with his program?

[uptheos]

The PR efforts are woeful, you think they'd have learnt in recent times. Who is running this dog & pony show....

i disagree, they were way better than usual. we got out in front of a story for a change. and brendan said all the right things tonight too.

They did well out the blocks last sunday, but then Rodgers tried to make out like Suarez was the victim once the ban was released. I understand Rodgers words and defense, but he was commenting on the ban without knowing what the FA would come up with today, regarding reason. Bit dangerous in my mind, and no matter how you feel about it, he shouldn't be accusing the FA for going after Suarez, he did bite a man no matter what anyones opinion of the ban is(insane. ludicrous). I'd be careful if I was Rodgers, he wants to be around when Suarez is gone.

Rodgers is not known for giving brilliant interviews.

[smokie36]

OK, so he's banned for 10 games and can't play again in the EPL until October, that's about 6 months.

He now has 6 free months, loads of money and club backing to pay for it, so I expect to hear that he's using the 6 months to acquire the much needed top notch rehabilitation everyone says he needs. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise and this is just what he needs, as he would never have been able to fit rehabilitation into his busy playing and training schedule.

I expect we'll see him on a yacht before too long.

[rijit]

It's lack of leadership from the top, the top bod should have taken 100%control of the situation him and the pr team​ told Rodgers EXACTLY what he should and shouldn't say, ie NOTHING, all 2 similar to the last pr fiasco, bad top end management..

[mad mary]

Mascherano rages, but FA can't punish Defoe

by IAN LADYMAN and NEIL ASHTON

Last updated at 23:10 24 October 2006

• Comments (0)
• Share

Jermain Defoe 'nibbles' Javier Mascherano

West Ham's Javier Mascherano claimed Jermain Defoe should have been sent off for biting him on the arm, as it emerged the Tottenham striker will escape FA punishment for Sunday's unsavoury clash.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-412157/Mascherano-rages-FA-punish-Defoe.html#ixzz2RaLjLtrY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

________________

Can't punish lol.yet they can throw the book at SUarez...The whole FA needs give their collective money grabbing heads a wobble.

The FA reports that Suarezs behaviour was trully exceptional & alien in football.

Edited April 26, 2013 by mad mary

[Mossfinn]

It's like an excerpt from Lords of Flies in here today, give Stevie a break.

thanks for the concern bob but don't worry about me mate. i'm thick-skinned enough to survive a savaging by poodles.

As Dennis Healy would say, ' it is like being savaged by a dead sheep',

[Mossfinn]

What would it be ridiculous to mention The Times also?

Grow up lah! its a forum you have your view i have mine...

You are of course right, some views are thoughtful, some erudite, others impassioned, defensive, insightful and then there are others, best left to fester in there own mire of noxious melancholy in the hope of attention.

[mad mary]

It's like an excerpt from Lords of Flies in here today, give Stevie a break.

thanks for the concern bob but don't worry about me mate. i'm thick-skinned enough to survive a savaging by poodles.

As Dennis Healy would say, ' it is like being savaged by a dead sheep',

.Pointless..Who gives a flying fish about Healy in regards to LFC ?

[Jimjim]

I suspect suarez might not even play in the Confederations Cup because of that punch or elbow to the head of the Chile player, or whatever that was. We'll see.

In any case, some of the most ridiculous arguments for the length of the ban coming out of that FA panel. Truly remarkable. You can tear down every argument they have easily.

Seriously, twitter?

He was made an example of and they basically said that. Which is ridiculous. That should not even come into consideration. It's just a PR exercise which is massively unfair to any player facing a ban.

Biting is not part of the game, like tackling. Obviously. So the arguments about bad tackles being similar don't wash, we get it.

But is off-the-fall headbutting part of the game? I think not. But just a 3 game ban for that earlier this season.

Just as Suarez's stupid bite was in the heat of the moment, so was the decision for this ban. The panel just got caught up in the the furor and did not look at things with a clear, fair head. It really is quite laughable, just as laughable and ridiculous as the incident they were punishing.

I've seen many come to his defense (as far as the crazy length of the ban) in the way of players, former players, managers and even journalists who have criticized him the past. All say he shouldn't have done it. But many of them are also saying the ban is way out of order and far too long.

It's like because he didn't understand the seriousness, as they say, they made him go sit in the corner for a further five minutes.

If they are really saying it's a big ban because he plays for Liverpool, and he has a higher profile, etc. Then please, every time one of the top 6 or 7 teams has a player who gets a red card for violent conduct in a high profile match should get a longer ban than 3 matches every time, right? If that's supposed to be taken into account, that is. That's what they're saying.

Ridiculously inconsistent, with poor reasoning. Great job FA panel!

I have more to say but decided that, just like Suarez's season, this rant is over!

[Jimjim]

I think this idea that he has some kind of mental disorder and needs help is typical of the nanny state society. The guy gets frustrated in an highly charged adrenalin game. It's not like he does this week in week out. I'm sure we all know or have known competitive people that take it too far and have been told to calm down. A couple of incidents in however many hours of football is not what I would call a disorder.

That's not to suggest I don't think he should be dealt with harshly, but bonkers he ain't.

not coming xcross as the brightest of posts mate, best you re read what you've written and have a very long think about it .

Nice condescension since you can't respond intelligently to mjj's post which actually talked some sense.

Suarez is a beast on the pitch and loses his head sometimes. Mental disorder? Give it a rest, will ya?

He's one of those Jekyll and Hyde type characters who off the pitch is quite a normal, non-controversial person who married his teenage sweetheart and is still with her.

We all know the mad things he's done on the pitch.

Gazza doesn't spring to mind at all, no. It just shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

He's someone who made a mess of his personal life with addiction and probably severe depression. Suarez shows none of those signs. All his issues are on the pitch where he seems to have occasional but serious anger problems in the heat of the moment. There are absolutely no similarities at all.

Talking sense you and him wouldn't know it it if slapped you in the face !!!! gazza throughout his career showed plenty of signs that he could do with help, no one took any notice, cos all everyone was concerned with was to see him on the pitch, sound familiar? look where he's at. and saying suarez is a happy homing loving boy, excludes him from having issues? ,, he's continually showing signs, that he's got/developing potential issues and denying that they are there, in the mid to long term imo puts him well at risk, but hey ho don't worry, I'm sure while you and muggy bandy about sun and star based platitudes Liverpool and its knob head fans will continue to get their penny's worth out of him without dealing with the real issues.

Sorry, I guess I hadn't paid enough attention to you before.

You're clearly just a troll out for an argument and a laugh rather than talking reasonably about anything to do with Liverpool. Carry on.

[sumrit]

Mascherano rages, but FA can't punish Defoe

by IAN LADYMAN and NEIL ASHTON

Last updated at 23:10 24 October 2006

• Comments (0)
• Share

Jermain Defoe 'nibbles' Javier Mascherano

West Ham's Javier Mascherano claimed Jermain Defoe should have been sent off for biting him on the arm, as it emerged the Tottenham striker will escape FA punishment for Sunday's unsavoury clash.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-412157/Mascherano-rages-FA-punish-Defoe.html#ixzz2RaLjLtrY

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

________________

Can't punish lol.yet they can throw the book at SUarez...The whole FA needs give their collective money grabbing heads a wobble.

The FA reports that Suarezs behaviour was trully exceptional & alien in football.

Stop bleating on about Defoe's lack of a punishment.

I don't think there is probably anybody, either here on this forum or anywhere else, that's thinks the (lack of) punishment Defoe received was correct.

The referee got it wrong with just a booking and the FA certainly copped out and got it wrong when they hid behind their stupid "the official saw and dealt with the situation at the time so we can't do anything" rule. I'm sure the FA would cop out again and say they would have dealt with it more harshly if their rules (as they saw them at the time) permitted it.

But that doesn't mean that everybody in the future should be treated with the same stupidity.

Just because one player cons the referee and gets a penalty for diving does that mean ALL dives should be awarded with one????????????

Suarez acted like a total d*ckh**d (and not for the first time). Both he, Liverpool AND their supporters should accept that and move on.

Maybe if Liverpool had done the same as Man U (over the Cantona kick) by taking the lead and had banned Suarez themselves until the end of the season the FA just might have deemed that sufficient punishment.

And just one last thought. Unlike Suarez, Defoe has never repeated his biting offence.

[sumrit]

I suspect suarez might not even play in the Confederations Cup because of that punch or elbow to the head of the Chile player, or whatever that was. We'll see.

Punching or elbowing, just another minor 'heat of the moment' indiscretion that should go unpunished is it?

In any case, some of the most ridiculous arguments for the length of the ban coming out of that FA panel. Truly remarkable. You can tear down every argument they have easily.

Seriously, twitter?

He was made an example of and they basically said that. Which is ridiculous. That should not even come into consideration. It's just a PR exercise which is massively unfair to any player facing a ban.

Well an eight match ban obviously wasn't a long enough deterrent was it!

If this ban is a big enough deterrent to stop both Suarez and all other players from biting an opponent then I'm all for it. If he or anybody else repeats the offence then he wasn't made a big enough example of. Make the next ban longer..........whoever the offender is.

Biting is not part of the game, like tackling. Obviously. So the arguments about bad tackles being similar don't wash, we get it.

Late, over the top, leg breaking fouls (as well as headbutting) are not part of the game, tackles are fine...........or can't you tell the difference.

Just as Suarez's stupid bite was in the heat of the moment, so was the decision for this ban. The panel just got caught up in the the furor and did not look at things with a clear, fair head. It really is quite laughable, just as laughable and ridiculous as the incident they were punishing.

What Suarez did most definitely was NOT laughable or ridiculous, it was DISGUSTING!

[wellred]

Cameron leaned on the FA so the decision was never going to be impatial.

What they did was deal with the present issue and not attempt to remedy the root cause. They could have said its a 10 game ban but if you agree to undergo such and such therapy then we will cut it down to x games. And it was only 10 because he got 7 at Ajax.

I don't think anyone is disputing that what Suare done was stupid but once again you do have to question the FA's logic here. John terry only got 4 games for being racist remember.

[carmine]

Cameron leaned on the FA so the decision was never going to be impatial. What they did was deal with the present issue and not attempt to remedy the root cause. They could have said its a 10 game ban but if you agree to undergo such and such therapy then we will cut it down to x games. And it was only 10 because he got 7 at Ajax. I don't think anyone is disputing that what Suare done was stupid but once again you do have to question the FA's logic here. John terry only got 4 games for being racist remember.

Probably should have been resersed, Terry 10 matches and Suarez 4.

[uptheos]

OK, so he's banned for 10 games and can't play again in the EPL until October, that's about 6 months.

He now has 6 free months, loads of money and club backing to pay for it, so I expect to hear that he's using the 6 months to acquire the much needed top notch rehabilitation everyone says he needs. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise and this is just what he needs, as he would never have been able to fit rehabilitation into his busy playing and training schedule.

I expect we'll see him on a yacht before too long.

Exactly smokes, after going on and on about how he needs help, let's see the reality.

[mjj]

Terry didn't get a ban for being racist, he got a ban for a racist remark. If you think what he done is worse than Suarez, I will come and bit you and you give me a racist remark. We can keep doing this until one of us gets bored. I bet you stop first. :-)

[rixalex]

Suarez acted like a total d*ckh**d (and not for the first time). Both he, Liverpool AND their supporters should accept that and move on.

Yep. As i said before, we all know that the FA is not renowned for always making the most consistent decisions or the most sensible decisions, but at the end of the day, someone has to make these decisions, and whoever makes them, and whatever the decisions are, there are always going to be disagreements. Nobody could do the job the FA does and get roundly applauded by everyone for every decision they make. Dishing out punishments is a totally unscientific subjective business. The trick surely is for players to do all they can to not be subjected to these decisions... grabbing someones arm and biting it is not really doing all you can, is it? Outside of the club is slightly different, but inside of the club, the far better thing to do, is simply express contrition and take it on the chin. Certainly from a PR point of view that is what the club should do. Different if they are contesting that the incident ever took place, but when they are fully accepting that the moment of stupidity did occur, just accept it, learn from it, and move on.

[sharecropper]

How on earth can Liverpool STILL qualify for any Fair Play place in Europe, with the Suarez bans this year? It's beyond belief. Lucky that you can still qualify somehow though, even if not on your football results any more.

[Jimjim]

When you see even Ferguson suggesting the ban is too much, you may be on to something. Even he suggested for Liverpool to do a pre-emptive ban would have been no use and unnecessary as he said it didn't help them with Cantona. So that part not such a huge PR blunder as many posters for some reason think they should have done as a given.

However, I think Suarez's denial of the claim a 3 match ban not being sufficient has done him on this one.

Seems a petty rule, but it's there nonetheless.

This is from the report:

"In all cases, the Regulatory Commission may increase any punishment that it

imposes if it believes a denial of the Charge or any claim by the Player that the standard punishment would be clearly excessive in their case, to have been an abuse of process or without any significant foundation."

[JacknDanny]

Suarez acted like a total d*ckh**d (and not for the first time). Both he, Liverpool AND their supporters should accept that and move on.

Yep. As i said before, we all know that the FA is not renowned for always making the most consistent decisions or the most sensible decisions, but at the end of the day, someone has to make these decisions, and whoever makes them, and whatever the decisions are, there are always going to be disagreements. Nobody could do the job the FA does and get roundly applauded by everyone for every decision they make. Dishing out punishments is a totally unscientific subjective business. The trick surely is for players to do all they can to not be subjected to these decisions... grabbing someones arm and biting it is not really doing all you can, is it? Outside of the club is slightly different, but inside of the club, the far better thing to do, is simply express contrition and take it on the chin. Certainly from a PR point of view that is what the club should do. Different if they are contesting that the incident ever took place, but when they are fully accepting that the moment of stupidity did occur, just accept it, learn from it, and move on.

Without getting into the argument of whether the ban was right or not, I think most people on here would accept that what Suarez did was absolutely wrong.

In my opinion Liverpool FC have made a huge faux pas. They should have took it upon themselves to ban Suarez until the end of the season ( as United did with Cantona, and his incident was much earlier in the season). That way they would have been seen to be doing something and maybe the FA would have took that into consideration.

But Liverpool are trying to turn it around that they and Suarez are the victims here .

Undoubtedly Suarez has been made an example of, as Defoe should have been done. I believe it is highly unlikely you will see another player bite another, therefore the ban serves its purpose.

[Travel2003]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22302801

Nobody bigger than the club? Could've fooled me...

Time i think for some more "Save The Suarez" T-Shirts.

You beat me to it.

The question is, how will the T-shirts look like this time?

[Johnnyy]

So thats Liverpool already out of the title race next season.