Liverpool F.c.

[MrRed]

Quite funny how all the scousers like your post bojo,typical mickeys double standards .....proves exactly my point that they cant man up and admit that one of there own is a diving cheating scum..............lets blame someone else....which lets face it is a Liverpool trait isn't it

oh see there we go, true colours. are going to stop being a tedious, pisspoor, unfunny <deleted> or do i have to be so sad as to start reporting posts for offence in the liverpool thread?

heysel and hillsborough shit for the uninitiated.

The truth hurts soft lad!

you're being an unfunny tit. and all the emoticons and smilies in the world don't particularly disguise that.

Unfunny to you obviously but i did not know it was a prerequisite to disguise anything,again the truth hurts.

forgot the smiley

Edited November 14, 2012 by MrRed

[BangrakBob]

You should call yourself MrScum not MrRed - it is all right having a laugh and banter but you're being an antagonistic troll and basically embarrassing the club you represent on here with your apparent lack of respect and non-existent mancunian wit

Edited November 14, 2012 by BangrakBob

[rixalex]

I am ofcourse reminded that Nani took the whole diving issue to a completely different level. If you have a Nani in your team you shouldn't really be passing judgement on anyone else

welbeck and young are both worse than suarez for it as well, before anyone mentions nani.

Welbeck and Young worse than Suarez?! You are having a laugh. There's a reason why Suarez has been right at the centre of all this diving furore, and why Welbeck and Young haven't, and it's nothing to do with this imaginary conspiracy Liverpool fans conjure up the moment there is any a sort of a scandal connected to the club. It's to do with the amount of times he has blatantly dived over the last year or so.

As for those who say if you have or have ever had a diver in your team, that means you can't pass judgement on any player from any other club... well ok then, by those standards none of us here, no single fan of any club, can pass judgement on any player, and whenever anyone dives, we, that is all of us, must not whisper a word about it, because to do so, would be hypocrisy. That's obviously a complete nonsense. The only way in which it is hypocritical is if you have your head in the sand about your own players, but not about others. United fans haven't had their heads in the sand about Ronaldo, about Nani, or about Young... or any other United player who has dived. When they dive, we moan about it and admit it, we don't deny it game after game, or keep coming out with the excuses. Well at least i don't, and all the supporters i know don't, including those supporters who post here. Can you quote one United supporter on any of these threads who has defended Nani's diving? I don't think you can. Personally i think you are creating a strawman type argument along the lines of: you can't have a go at Suarez because you defend divers in your team. Er, no we don't.

[StevieH]

Unfunny to you obviously but i did not know it was a prerequisite to disguise anything,again the truth hurts.

forgot the smiley

any chance you could just fuc_k off out of the liverpool thread now then and stop being an offensive, trolling prick? or do i really have to call the admins on you? would prefer you weren't that much of a <deleted> to be honest but it's up to you.

[StevieH]

Welbeck and Young worse than Suarez?! You are having a laugh. There's a reason why Suarez has been right at the centre of all this diving furore, and why Welbeck and Young haven't, and it's nothing to do with this imaginary conspiracy Liverpool fans conjure up the moment there is any a sort of a scandal connected to the club. It's to do with the amount of times he has blatantly dived over the last year or so.

no it isn't rix. in the past year i've seen suarez dive twice, i've seen welbeck dive just as badly twice, i've seen young dive far more pathetically twice. in fact one of suarez's i'd not even seen until you (i think) posted a link to it on here. then there was the stoke one recently.

the reason suarez gets focused on is that he was tagged a pantomime villain and a dirty cheating foreigner before he even arrived in england thanks mainly to the handball and sending off in the world cup against ghana.

but as usual, i don't know why i am bothering to argue this with you. you have your entrenched, biased position, naturally of course, i have mine. twain shall never meet etc.

[carmine]

Why are you lot having a pop at each other when we have two Chelsea related threads with endless ammo to fire at them!

[MrRed]

Unfunny to you obviously but i did not know it was a prerequisite to disguise anything,again the truth hurts.

forgot the smiley

any chance you could just fuc_k off out of the liverpool thread now then and stop being an offensive, trolling prick? or do i really have to call the admins on you? would prefer you weren't that much of a <deleted> to be honest but it's up to you.

Not once have i resorted to name calling as you have (<deleted>) ,you jumped to conclusions earlier in the thread ....as your club always does,i understand it is a touchy subject for you but the victim here is the game and Suarez is the main protagonist in it.

Call the admins

[MrRed]

You should call yourself MrScum not MrRed - it is all right having a laugh and banter but you're being an antagonistic troll and basically embarrassing the club you represent on here with your apparent lack of respect and non-existent mancunian wit

Sorry wingman....but again i am entitled to my opinion and it is also the opinion of many in football,you are another who is so shortsighted and has his head in the sand over Suarez.......now that is an embarrassment to LFC ISN'T IT?

Suarez is not a diver

Respect? for Liverpool....na mate i am a manc get over it!

[MrRed]

Welbeck and Young worse than Suarez?! You are having a laugh. There's a reason why Suarez has been right at the centre of all this diving furore, and why Welbeck and Young haven't, and it's nothing to do with this imaginary conspiracy Liverpool fans conjure up the moment there is any a sort of a scandal connected to the club. It's to do with the amount of times he has blatantly dived over the last year or so.

no it isn't rix. in the past year i've seen suarez dive twice, i've seen welbeck dive just as badly twice, i've seen young dive far more pathetically twice. in fact one of suarez's i'd not even seen until you (i think) posted a link to it on here. then there was the stoke one recently.

the reason suarez gets focused on is that he was tagged a pantomime villain and a dirty cheating foreigner before he even arrived in england thanks mainly to the handball and sending off in the world cup against ghana.

but as usual, i don't know why i am bothering to argue this with you. you have your entrenched, biased position, naturally of course, i have mine. twain shall never meet etc.

The reason he gets focused on is because he is a cheating diver end of story,stop embarrassing yourself.Nothing to do with the World cup he has done enough here for all to see.If you want to go back further at Ajax then we could....but lets not eh!

Now i suggest we leave it at that.

[BangrakBob]

You should call yourself MrScum not MrRed - it is all right having a laugh and banter but you're being an antagonistic troll and basically embarrassing the club you represent on here with your apparent lack of respect and non-existent mancunian wit

Sorry wingman....but again i am entitled to my opinion and it is also the opinion of many in football,you are another who is so shortsighted and has his head in the sand over Suarez.......now that is an embarrassment to LFC ISN'T IT?

Suarez is not a diver

Respect? for Liverpool....na mate i am a manc get over it!

My point had nothing to do with Suarez, you can talk about him diving all day, you know what I was talking about.

[StevieH]

Unfunny to you obviously but i did not know it was a prerequisite to disguise anything,again the truth hurts.

forgot the smiley

any chance you could just fuc_k off out of the liverpool thread now then and stop being an offensive, trolling prick? or do i really have to call the admins on you? would prefer you weren't that much of a <deleted> to be honest but it's up to you.

Not once have i resorted to name calling as you have (<deleted>) ,you jumped to conclusions earlier in the thread ....as your club always does,i understand it is a touchy subject for you but the victim here is the game and Suarez is the main protagonist in it.

Call the admins

either you know what the 'always the victims never your fault' song refers to and are trolling or you're genuinely too thick to get it.

any which way, any chance you could stop trolling and polluting the liverpool thread like a 12 year old off his ritalin now eh?

[MrRed]

Manchester United fans sang Hillsborough chants yesterday, that's what most people who have heard about the situation think. Indeed, one of Europe's largest sport broadcasters run their story under the following headline:

Their line has come from the Press Association, who provide copy and to some extent the news agenda for big media outlets up and down the country. There is no if-but-or-maybe going on here, it's being reported widely that Manchester United fans sang songs about Hillsborough yesterday. The news is bigger than either game the respective clubs played in yesterday and carries on a narrative about how the country and football are reacting to the files being released which the Hillsborough families so fiercely fought for.

Let's get to the nuts and bolts of this and what was actually sung, it was this:

It's never your fault, it's never your fault, always the victims, it's never your fault.

Manchester United fans were insisting last night that the song isn't about Hillsborough and that it's a general dig at Liverpool. I've been a regular visitor to Old Trafford for over a decade and agree with this. I honestly can't remember it being sang prior to the Suarez and Evra situation and it was a response to the way Liverpool were handling the issue - which I'll forever maintain was appallingly.

The FA was picking on them, the country was being xenophobic to the cultural differences of a poor innocent Uruguayan. The panel was unfair, the verdict was wrong, to put the response bluntly - IT JUST WASN'T FAIR!

That ditty fit in well with the situation and if you're going to remove that from the game then there won't be many chants passing the sanitary test. The song is sung at Old Trafford, and on the club's travels, regularly - whether the club is playing Liverpool or not. That came as quite a surprise to the BBC journalist who 'broke' the story which makes you wonder how much about the situation he actually knows.

Other songs sang at Old Trafford which could upset the media are:

Murderers, Murderers, Murderers, Murderers.

We've won it three times, we've won it three times, without killing anyone, we've won it three times.

Both are references to the Heysel disaster in which 39 Juventus fans died and around 600 people were injured. In the aftermath 14 Liverpool fans were imprisoned having been found guilty of manslaughter. If you expect football fans to not criticise their fiercest rivals after fans of theirs have been sent to prison for playing a part in killing people - then you're not dealing with reality.

So, we have perhaps the two biggest rivals in English football, and we expect that one is not going to sing songs criticising the other team for the part some of its fans played in the deaths of 39 people? This isn't conjecture or baseless accusations, 14 people went to prison. Whether it fits copy or not, regardless of who it suits and what the situation is at the time, singing about Hillsborough and Heysel is gulfs apart.

Let's look at another song sung at Old Trafford often enough that I know the words:

You used to sing Munich but not anymore, since 96 scousers lay dead on the floor.

It's not nice is it? Part of a song called 'In Your Liverpool Slums', it's an infrequently sang verse compared to the main part and one person said it was sang by one or two others yesterday. They weren't happy about it and that's understandable, of all the days to wheel that out - yesterday wasn't it given the intense media glare and the articles which had already been half written. It was also incredibly insensitive and was probably meant to take shots at Liverpool in a week when nobody else 'dared', bit stupid really.

In all my visits to Old Trafford I've never heard any others, aside from a drunk village idiot once shouting something about '96 wasn't enough'. I have heard stories about others and accusations but not actually heard them sung.

The song the media are criticising today, and which some have said was an attack on Hillsborough victims, was: It's never your fault, it's never your fault, always the victims, it's never your fault.

I've explained that the ditty isn't about Hillsborough but I want to make clear I still think it was stupid to sing it yesterday when that so easily could be construed. It was also insensitive timing and not painting Manchester United in the correct way, but then football fans have never been the obedient type - that's part of the thrill, or at least it once was.

Attacking Liverpool this week was never going to be received well and that's what the fans did, criticise them for that and they'll have to accept it.

Having spoken to some people who sang it yesterday, they agree it was poor timing but insist it wasn't about Hillsborough. Yesterday's timing more to do with what they thought was a whitewash over any bad behaviour from Liverpool fans, that the media had been focusing on Hillsborough chants this week (understandably so) with anything similar from Liverpool fans just mentioned as an afterthought. I hadn't considered that and whilst it doesn't excuse that stupid timing, it gives an opinion, but then in reality the majority will have sang it simply because '...other people were', but then would you put your hand into a fire if Johnny did, as we've all been asked at primary school.

Those supporters left themselves open to a media storm which was excitedly ready to get going. In a rush to condemn something and create copy people get things wrong, and in getting things wrong they make things worse. Not only that but as the fire they poured petrol on then raged they stood back and claimed there was no blame on their hands.

Yesterday a prominent journalist who works for our esteemed public service broadcaster launched the storm and then when it was revealed he may have gone over the top he leaned back on a statement from the club - which came well after his Tweets - as somehow justifying everything.

The elastic need for accuracy in these chant situations has been going on all week - and could have even played a part yesterday. Many Manchester United supporters were unhappy with an article from a senior journalist at one of the country's largest newspapers which was calling for an end to vile chants. They felt that, whilst it did mention other clubs and chants, the concentration was on Manchester United fans and again suggested a Heysel song was about Hillsborough, make your own mind up:

He was pulled up by many Manchester United fans who were worried that people reading it would think the 'Murderers' chant was about Hillsborough, and that was obviously what anyone would think having read it. He refused to change it, presumably because it didn't really matter - but it does. It certainly does, it really really matters. As explained earlier, the two situations are gulfs apart.

This is why the most emotional times are the worst to discuss these issues, because when things are launched from an emotional perspective accuracy takes a back seat and anger comes easily. However irrational the situation seems, we have to be rational when looking at it.

Manchester United fans had been angered this week from what they thought was irresponsible reporting, they thought they were being singled out for criticism and perhaps had a point. Just adding '...and of course all clubs have their bad elements' into an article changes nothing if the narrative throughout has been the opposite.

And the narrative last week, understandably, was 'stop the Hillsborough chants' with Munich and other things added on. Cries of 'but they've been singing about Munich since way before Hillsborough' were met with a schoolteacher dismissal of 'He started it first, blah blah blah, grow up'.

But if we're being honest, that does anger Manchester United fans. They feel they faced decades of Munich abuse and then tried to hurt their rivals back with sick songs about Hillsborough. It's pathetic, but if we're going to look at the situation honestly then that's a factor.

They may have sung about Liverpool having a victim mentality but over the past few days there has been one building up amongst themselves, but then football chants are often hypocritical.

Here's a couple of the Munich songs I've heard often enough to know the words:

Who's that dying on the runway, who's that dying in the snow? It's Matt Busby and his boys making all the f****** noise because they can't get their aeroplane to go.

Always look on the runway for ice. (Always look on the bright side of life)

There's also a song about Duncan Edwards not having his head, particularly sickened me but can't think of the actual words. More recently the Carlos Tevez song which ends with '...he hates Munichs' and of course, who can forget the delightful Leeds United fan who taught their child to sing 'I like to Munich Munich' to the tune of 'I like to move it' and proudly plonked a video on YouTube.

Leeds United have faced their own sick chants after two of their fans were killed in Istanbul. Always look out for Turks carrying knives being the main one. And even Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, two 10 years olds killed in Soham, weren't spared as vile chants started about them simply because they supported Manchester United.

It's so widespread that almost any club who has suffered a tragedy gets taunted about it by rivals, but that isn't where what many would call 'sick chants' ends and this is why calls for an end to them are a bit soap-box vanity and not based in reality, what exactly is it we want to end? All of the above are wrong, we know that and don't need journalists to pontificate about how out of line they are.

But where is this line? I've been at Old Trafford and heard Liverpool supporters sing 'There's only one Harold Shipman' and I have to be honest, I laughed. It was wrong to and I quickly felt the same kind of guilt you do following hearing a Michael Jackson joke. Shipman killed more than 250 people, it's not funny in the slightest, the chant is wrong, but at the same time it didn't feel like the end of civilised society.

City's going down like a Russian submarine, a Russian submarine.

The above was sung when Manchester City weren't very good and criticised because it was a reaction to the Kursk disaster in which 118 sailors lost their lives. Not tasteful, but just the same as saying 'Going down like the Titanic' which is perfectly acceptable, even in print.

How about attacks on individual players?

Jamie Carraghers/Ryan Giggs is illegitimate, he ain't got no birth certificate, he's got AIDS and he can't get rid of it, he's a scouse/manc b******.

AIDS isn't a funny matter, more than 30 million people have been killed by it, but I can't recall those songs being criticised by the media.

Gary Neville shags his sister, and his brother, and his mother. All the Nevilles shag each other, they're all inbred.

The babys not yours, the babys not yours, oh Steven Gerrard the babys not yours.

Adebayor, Adebayor, he used to like coach trips, but not anymore.

How about when you sing songs about people at your own club?

'He's gonna die, Malcolm Glazer is gonna die, how we'll kill him I don't know, cut him up from head to toe, all I know is Glazers gonna die.'

None of those are tasteful, all of them are downright nasty, and all designed to hurt people. I don't know where the line is with these chants and if people genuinely want to stop it - rather than create headlines and collect brownie points - then perhaps they need to tell us all where that is. It's wrong to sing about Hillsborough and Munich but where does that circle reach out to? We are not going to make any progress if these things are brought-up when emotional events happen - because it polarises a section who then react with anger.

As we stand, most people who have heard anything about it think Manchester United fans were singing abusive stuff about Hillsborough yesterday. They think that because that's what they been told by huge media organisations, with little doubt. When a BBC editor says 'Follow colleague @BenSmithBBC who was at Old Trafford and heard Hillsborough "abusive chants" from a small minority of fans in home section" then fans can't be blamed for getting that impression.

Now the big news about Hillsborough is chants, and that's entirely missing the point. Let's talk about this when we're not all so emotionally charged and looking for great copy, we may then actually get things right and help the situation, rather than inflame it.

It was irresponsible for Manchester United fans to attack Liverpool yesterday, they made their club look like the bad guy, but it was even more irresponsible for huge media organisations to willfully misreport the situation. Instead of talking about bringing people to justice for the deaths of football fans, and that they were wrongly blamed, we're shifting the focus back onto football fans and eagerly banging the stick of decency over their heads.

Now may seem like the perfect time but the reporting, and reaction to it, has proved it's anything but. Hillsborough isn't about Manchester United versus Liverpool but it's being warped into that.

[rixalex]

no it isn't rix. in the past year i've seen suarez dive twice,

I rest my case.

If you can rustle up one single solitary person who regularly watches the Premier League and who doesn't support Liverpool, and who also has only seen Suarez dive twice in the last year, i might consider the possibility that i am i the one being affected by prejudice on this. Just one. I think you're gonna struggle. And why would that be?

Answer A: Because Suarez is a serial diver, and everyone can see it (besides those at LFC)

Answer B: Because everyone, from all the different clubs, is in on this unfair media witch hunt against him.

[rott]

Unfunny to you obviously but i did not know it was a prerequisite to disguise anything,again the truth hurts.

forgot the smiley

any chance you could just fuc_k off out of the liverpool thread now then and stop being an offensive, trolling prick? or do i really have to call the admins on you? would prefer you weren't that much of a <deleted> to be honest but it's up to you.

Does calling somebody "softlad" mean that you are an offensive, trolling prick and a <deleted>?? Or is it something else??

Just wondering like.

[MrRed]

Unfunny to you obviously but i did not know it was a prerequisite to disguise anything,again the truth hurts.

forgot the smiley

any chance you could just fuc_k off out of the liverpool thread now then and stop being an offensive, trolling prick? or do i really have to call the admins on you? would prefer you weren't that much of a <deleted> to be honest but it's up to you.

Does calling somebody "softlad" mean that you are an offensive, trolling prick and a <deleted>?? Or is it something else??

Just wondering like.

There is a line between trolling and speaking the truth,just because you don't agree with my opinion.... you! like the other two resort to a post that says nothing only abuse.

soft-lad / lass Noun. Affectionate expression for an inept or overly sentimental male/female.

You should know what softlad means

[rott]

Unfunny to you obviously but i did not know it was a prerequisite to disguise anything,again the truth hurts.

forgot the smiley

any chance you could just fuc_k off out of the liverpool thread now then and stop being an offensive, trolling prick? or do i really have to call the admins on you? would prefer you weren't that much of a <deleted> to be honest but it's up to you.

Does calling somebody "softlad" mean that you are an offensive, trolling prick and a <deleted>?? Or is it something else??

Just wondering like.

There is a line between trolling and speaking the truth,just because you don't agree with my opinion.... you! like the other two resort to a post that says nothing only abuse.

soft-lad / lass Noun. Affectionate expression for an inept or overly sentimental male/female.

You should know what softlad means

I was obviously being too subtle for you Mr Red, your kopite mate has recently been given to calling a few people (including me) softlad.

I have never known softlad to be an affectionate expression.

Nothing in your response makes any sense to me, I would suggest you calm down, take a deep breath and read my post again.

[MrRed]

] I was obviously being too subtle for you Mr Red, your kopite mate has recently been given to calling a few people (including me) softlad.

I have never known softlad to be an affectionate expression.

Nothing in your response makes any sense to me, I would suggest you calm down, take a deep breath and read my post again.

Apologies

[Mossfinn]

I thought this was the Liverpool thread.

Not a thread just to rant over and throw vitriol in all directions.

Anyways, any truth in the story that city will come in for Suarez in the window or not.

Apologies if discussed earlier, I didn't feel like sorting through any more diatribe, past this page.

[smokie36]

I thought this was the Liverpool thread.

Not a thread just to rant over and throw vitriol in all directions.

Anyways, any truth in the story that city will come in for Suarez in the window or not.

Apologies if discussed earlier, I didn't feel like sorting through any more diatribe, past this page.

I'd like to see this return to normal too. When is King Kenny/Benitez returning?

[Mossfinn]

Any more dramas like selling a striker without having one coming in, when you have such a paucity in that area and I wouldn't count against either

[smokie36]

Any more dramas like selling a striker without having one coming in, when you have such a paucity in that area and I wouldn't count against either

I do wonder why there is such a scarcity of quality strikers in the English game at the moment. Any ideas folks?

[Mossfinn]

I presume you mean English strikers in the English game, Sterling isn't too bad, better when he gets a little experience behind him.

But there is a lack in general, my view is down to TV and Foreign generated money that dilutes the indeginous gene pool, but that only tentatively strokes on a Liverpool thread and by definition, perhaps should be on a thread of its own.

but agree with what you are doing.

[MrRed]

Any more dramas like selling a striker without having one coming in, when you have such a paucity in that area and I wouldn't count against either

I do wonder why there is such a scarcity of quality strikers in the English game at the moment. Any ideas folks?

We at United have got a few good English strikers

[nev]

Any more dramas like selling a striker without having one coming in, when you have such a paucity in that area and I wouldn't count against either

I do wonder why there is such a scarcity of quality strikers in the English game at the moment. Any ideas folks?

Well teams converting to one up front does not help, what happened to the two up front working in partnership.

[BangrakBob]

I presume you mean English strikers in the English game, Sterling isn't too bad, better when he gets a little experience behind him.

But there is a lack in general, my view is down to TV and Foreign generated money that dilutes the indeginous gene pool, but that only tentatively strokes on a Liverpool thread and by definition, perhaps should be on a thread of its own.

but agree with what you are doing.

Just to clarify something here - Sterling is a winger by trade and Smokie is a Spud

[BangrakBob]

I thought this was the Liverpool thread.

Not a thread just to rant over and throw vitriol in all directions.

Anyways, any truth in the story that city will come in for Suarez in the window or not.

Apologies if discussed earlier, I didn't feel like sorting through any more diatribe, past this page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/20341219

Says he's happy to stay in this mornings' article.

I think there is more chance of me eating my own head than Suarez leaving in January. It would possibly be the worst sale in football history considering the circumstances of the club's squad, new manager, system and the owners ineptitude regarding purchasing another striker pre-season.

The summer? I think we'll have to see if we buy a striker this January, where we finish in the league and if the owners open up their wallets in the summer. I think he'll still be around.

Edited November 16, 2012 by BangrakBob

[rixalex]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/20341219

Says he's happy to stay in this mornings' article.

I think there is more chance of me eating my own head than Suarez leaving in January. It would possibly be the worst sale in football history considering the circumstances of the club's squad, new manager, system and the owners ineptitude regarding purchasing another striker pre-season.

The summer? I think we'll have to see if we buy a striker this January, where we finish in the league and if the owners open up their wallets in the summer. I think he'll still be around.

Suarez and Aguero are for me about the best two players in the league right now, from an attacking perspective anyway, so putting them together in the same team makes perfect sense and i can't see why City wouldn't at least try to make this happen... what is to stop them after all?... they have an open cheque book, and that can make the most improbable things happen.

Agree though that if Liverpool did allow it, it would be complete and utter madness.... but then again, the last transfer window did show that a mad streak exists, did it not?

[MrRed]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/20341219

Says he's happy to stay in this mornings' article.

I think there is more chance of me eating my own head than Suarez leaving in January. It would possibly be the worst sale in football history considering the circumstances of the club's squad, new manager, system and the owners ineptitude regarding purchasing another striker pre-season.

The summer? I think we'll have to see if we buy a striker this January, where we finish in the league and if the owners open up their wallets in the summer. I think he'll still be around.

Suarez and Aguero are for me about the best two players in the league right now, from an attacking perspective anyway, so putting them together in the same team makes perfect sense and i can't see why City wouldn't at least try to make this happen... what is to stop them after all?... they have an open cheque book, and that can make the most improbable things happen.

Agree though that if Liverpool did allow it, it would be complete and utter madness.... but then again, the last transfer window did show that a mad streak exists, did it not?

Have to disagree with your opening statement Rix.......... Suarez and Van Persie without a doubt.

[rixalex]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/20341219

Says he's happy to stay in this mornings' article.

I think there is more chance of me eating my own head than Suarez leaving in January. It would possibly be the worst sale in football history considering the circumstances of the club's squad, new manager, system and the owners ineptitude regarding purchasing another striker pre-season.

The summer? I think we'll have to see if we buy a striker this January, where we finish in the league and if the owners open up their wallets in the summer. I think he'll still be around.

Suarez and Aguero are for me about the best two players in the league right now, from an attacking perspective anyway, so putting them together in the same team makes perfect sense and i can't see why City wouldn't at least try to make this happen... what is to stop them after all?... they have an open cheque book, and that can make the most improbable things happen.

Agree though that if Liverpool did allow it, it would be complete and utter madness.... but then again, the last transfer window did show that a mad streak exists, did it not?

Have to disagree with your opening statement Rix.......... Suarez and Van Persie without a doubt.

RVP has been great of late, but with him i'm always holding my breath as to when he is going to get his next injury and be out for six months or more. True, he hasn't had one for a while, but i'm not sure whether that means his injury days are behind him, or there is a big one coming round the next corner!

And with regards Suarez and Aguero, i'd actually put Aguero marginally ahead on the basis he is less prone to doing something stupid.

[smokie36]

Any more dramas like selling a striker without having one coming in, when you have such a paucity in that area and I wouldn't count against either

I do wonder why there is such a scarcity of quality strikers in the English game at the moment. Any ideas folks?

We at United have got a few good English strikers

The hair regrowth specialist.....who else?