10 Games

[Funkasy]

Suarez is probably selling more shirts and shoes now. so the sponsors shouldnt give a damn.

[Whelan]

Very true. But I don't think it's really an anti Liverpool thing... the media just have a nice little collection of 'every ready' stories to run with....

 

John Terry in scandal.

Luis Suarez's outrageous antics.

Man City's spending madness.

Arsenal's tight wallet.

England's crap manager.

United's utter brilliance.

 

Those 5 subjects will cover a good 3 seasons worth of crap for them.

 

I agree, and I wasn't really arguing that per se, just that it is illogical to look to appeal to an industry that is dictated, or influenced by people who either don't care or, actively dislike you.

 

Although - it is quite clear, given their general liberal attitude - that Daniel Taylor and Jamie Jackson of the Guardian are anti Liverpool, and anti City and United sycophants.

 

Put it this way I gave you two stories (you only had room for one) - one story would piss United fans, and United off and the other would piss Liverpool fans and Liverpool off, which story would you go for - if commercial interest was the most important aspect?

 

It is obviously United who you don't piss off. That isn't me being paranoid, or with a chip on my shoulder, it is common sense.

[FanchesterCity]

I agree, and I wasn't really arguing that per se, just that it is illogical to look to appeal to an industry that is dictated, or influenced by people who either don't care or, actively dislike you.

 

Although - it is quite clear, given their general liberal attitude - that Daniel Taylor and Jamie Jackson of the Guardian are anti Liverpool, and anti City and United sycophants.

 

Put it this way I gave you two stories (you only had room for one) - one story would piss United fans, and United off and the other would piss Liverpool fans and Liverpool off, which story would you go for - if commercial interest was the most important aspect?

 

It is obviously United who you don't piss off. That isn't me being paranoid, or with a chip on my shoulder, it is common sense.

 

AND... Ferguson has so much power, if he decides to ban a reporter from the club, that reporter's employers are not impressed. He's wielding so much influence it's just wrong. That's not all down to Ferguson himself, but the might of the club too... but the result is the same, it's not in the media or the FA's interests to piss them off.

 

Of course, if ever there were to be a mega scandal at United, then the media would turn, of course they would... the balance of power would shift, but until then....

[Phoenix]

We should really think about loaning him out to a club who start earlier than us. That would be the best telll the FA to fuck off. Appealing is doomed from the start.

[Whelan]

AND... Ferguson has so much power, if he decides to ban a reporter from the club, that reporter's employers are not impressed. He's wielding so much influence it's just wrong. That's not all down to Ferguson himself, but the might of the club too... but the result is the same, it's not in the media or the FA's interests to piss them off.

 

Of course, if ever there were to be a mega scandal at United, then the media would turn, of course they would... the balance of power would shift, but until then....

 

And if any journalist was stopped coming into Liverpool, it wouldn't be quite so disruptive - but, we are still one of the biggest names in European football and have, second to United, one of the biggest group of fans - and tend to be one of the major draws throughout the season!

 

Perhaps that needs to be emphasised a little more - I shouldn't be using this as an example really, but Murdoch is in no doubt as to how strong we as a club, and fan base can be, we just don't exert that enough.

[Moo]

We should really think about loaning him out to a club who start earlier than us. That would be the best telll the FA to fuck off. Appealing is doomed from the start.

 

Absolutely.

Don't some lower divisions start 2 weeks before the PL? That's got to be 3 games at least.

The FA have been fucking us over since we won Number 5, we can speculate why, when they ridiculously*chose Everton to enter the CL qualifying the following season.

[AdamD]

The whole process is fundamentally flawed as the FA continually states that the 3 man panel is "independent" but when they charged him the statement said while the standard punishment for violent conduct was a three-match ban, that was "clearly insufficient in these circumstances".

 

If that isn't prejudging and clearly putting pressure on the panel then nothing is. Surely grounds for an appeal?

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

The ten games ban is very harsh and the FA have now set down a mark for players stupid enough to try biting a chunk out of another player. While everyone is going mad on here about the size of the ban and rightly so, I think the club are being put under the spotlight for all the wrong reasons by him.

 

He is by far the best player in the squad and we all love him, but how far can the club go before having to do something serious regarding him?

 

He is a genius of a player but he does so many wrong things that lands the club in the media spotlight. This is the second time he has munched on a player and he still has the punch against Chile to be sorted out. He has a inability to keep his mouth shut to the media which went against him with Evra and other times with the FA.

He has obviously been told by the club more than once to quit doing stupid things and it isn't working. I can certainly see him doing something that will get him a serious ban with in a year, he has a self destruct button in him. In the meantime every time he does something stupid his value decreases as he does things so often.

 

As a club how long can they risk it with him? He does something stupid again the FA are really going to go town on him. As much as we love him, from the clubs point of view they cant be far off thinking sell him asap while he still has some value and buy two or three players to strengthen the squad.

You have to remember if a top team came in for him he would probably want out anyway, so you could not blame the club if they did sell him.

The major problem is not about the club defending every time he does something stupid, The problem is can the club stop him doing stupid things before he goes to far?

[Red Banjo]

Its good to get an outsiders point of view with FC giving us his 2 pence.

 

We really are fucked. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

 

This is the mess we cannot possibly untangle. I might scream.

[Lario]

"It deserved a 10 game ban. It was an awful act of brutality." Jamie Redknapp.

 

Fuck me.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

Its good to get an outsiders point of view with FC giving us his 2 pence.

 

We really are fucked. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

 

This is the mess we cannot possibly untangle. I might scream.

 

Seriously, watch some porn.

 

The blood will flood from your brain (to somewhere else) and you'll have a break from giving a fuck.

 

Doesn't last forever though, unfortunately. Unless you want to break your dick.

[mike23]

If we appeal the ban then maybe it might eventually be reduced to 8 or something but how exactly do appeals work? Could he start serving a ban now on the basis that he accepted he had no objections to serving a 3 match ban and have it reduced later or if he appealed would he still be able to play for now and only start serving the ban when the appeal had either been successful or rejected. The over the top ban just seems like pure spite from the FA to me. They knew it wouldn't really affect us this season much but they were determined to fuck up the start of next season too.

[Deen]

Why would he stay when he can go to Munich or Dortmund?

[Dr. J]

"It deserved a 10 game ban. It was an awful act of brutality." Jamie Redknapp.

 

It is this kind of hyperbole that leads me to the drink. The 'bíte' didn't even leave a fecking mark.

 

He was always a twat. Or do we have to treat him with bend over respect because he was a former Liverpool captain?

[Guest ShoePiss]

"It deserved a 10 game ban. It was an awful act of brutality." Jamie Redknapp.

 

It is this kind of hyperbole that leads me to the drink. The 'bíte' didn't even leave a fecking mark.

 

He was always a twat. Or do we have to treat him with bend over respect because he was a former Liverpool captain?

 

No, fuck him. He's a tiny footnote in out history anyway.

[Guest ShoePiss]

If we appeal the ban then maybe it might eventually be reduced to 8 or something but how exactly do appeals work? Could he start serving a ban now on the basis that he accepted he had no objections to serving a 3 match ban and have it reduced later or if he appealed would he still be able to play for now and only start serving the ban when the appeal had either been successful or rejected. The over the top ban just seems like pure spite from the FA to me. They knew it wouldn't really affect us this season much but they were determined to fuck up the start of next season too.

 

Think you have it right, the 3 game ban would be served regardless of appeal and the rest would come into effect once decided.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

If we appeal the ban then maybe it might eventually be reduced to 8 or something but how exactly do appeals work? Could he start serving a ban now on the basis that he accepted he had no objections to serving a 3 match ban and have it reduced later or if he appealed would he still be able to play for now and only start serving the ban when the appeal had either been successful or rejected. The over the top ban just seems like pure spite from the FA to me. They knew it wouldn't really affect us this season much but they were determined to fuck up the start of next season too.

It can also increase.

[index1000]

"It deserved a 10 game ban. It was an awful act of brutality." Jamie Redknapp.

 

Fuck me.

 

To be fair if Redknapp was on the end of a 'nibble' from the mad little bugger he would have been on the injured list for 6 months.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

As highlighted above, could anybody elucidate the following for me:

 

If we were to loan Suarez out to (i) a foreign team that plays games between the end of the season and next season would they count? or (ii) a domestic team that plays games before the start of next season would they count?

 

Finally, could a loan of such structure ever be a possibility, registration wise? i.e. You can have him for x games/weeks, at which point we have the right to recall

[Guest ShoePiss]

As highlighted above, could anybody elucidate the following for me:

 

If we were to loan Suarez out to (i) a foreign team that plays games between the end of the season and next season would they count? or (ii) a domestic team that plays games before the start of next season would they count?

 

Finally, could a loan of such structure ever be a possibility, registration wise? i.e. You can have him for x games/weeks, at which point we have the right to recall

 

Very much doubt it can be circumvented like that but fuck it yeah let's have him over here playing for Portland Timbers F.C.

 

Beckham went to AC Milan and Landon Donavan to Everton for short loan periods so I wonder...

[FrenchEyeGlass]

Very much doubt it can be circumvented like that but fuck it yeah let's have him over here playing for Portland Timbers F.C.

 

Beckham went to AC Milan and Landon Donavan to Everton for short loan periods so I wonder...

 

In the recent article by Barrett he mentions that if he goes to another club his ban still applies.

 

But I agree, I doubt it could be circumvented in such a way. Although, perhaps a cunning lawyer could make it work.

 

Thankfully we don't have one of those.

[Red Banjo]

They would never allow it.

 

I imagine the ban would have to be served from now till the end of the PL season, then from the start of the next PL season until the number of games has been reached.

 

Imagine the outcry from the baying masses if this 'fair ban' handed down was somehow not fulfilled because we found a loophole.

 

There would be a black hole vortex where the Daily Mail used to be

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

In the recent article by Barrett he mentions that if he goes to another club his ban still applies.

 

But I agree, I doubt it could be circumvented in such a way. Although, perhaps a cunning lawyer could make it work.

 

Thankfully we don't have one of those.

Any EU country apparently but elsewhere not a problem.

[Guest San Don]

The stupid fucks have opened a can of worms. Even the kick it out man has jumped on the fact that a bite is deemed worthy of a longer ban than racism according to the daily manc!

[TheDrowningMan]

Xenophobes? I think the relative punishments meted out depending on nationality and / or race speak for themselves. Casual racists who tolerate and by their actions tacitly endorse derogatory comments as long as they're made by white Englishmen? Seems that way. Homophobes? We've seen time and time again that players can use viciously anti-gay language with nary a word said against them. Naturally, the players who do so tend to be English.

 

Yep, that's the FA, and they're irrefutable facts.