Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Suarez: Sell or Keep?


WhiskeyJar
 Share

Suarez: Keep or Sell?  

308 members have voted

  1. 1. Suarez: Keep or Sell?

    • Keep him; he is nuts but he is world class and we do not sell world class players.
    • Sell him; he is world class but too much of a nuisance to our club. Time to cash in.
    • Not sure if we should sell him or keep him.


Recommended Posts

Oh so he used the word 6-10 times in an affectionate manner?

 

Oh im sorry, my bad.

 

No, see my response to Xerxes.

 

There were microphones located all around the pitch that picked up what he said.

 

You think our lawyers would have gone to trial without that eveidence?

 

Fucking hell your abit of a thick bastard arent you?

 

Now you're just making things up. There was no audio or visual evidence.

 

Oh and it's *you're

 

If you're going to insult someone's intelligence it's good to get the basics right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, see my response to Xerxes.

 

 

 

Now you're just making things up. There was no audio or visual evidence.

 

Oh and it's *you're

 

If you're going to insult someone's intelligence it's good to get the basics right.

 

Shit, your arguement got so weak you had to resort to picking on grammar. Hahahahaha

 

Thats pretty funny

 

The fact you think multimillion pound lawyers would go to trial without evidence is also pretty funny.

 

Get some rest, you sound like you need it. Don't draw the curtains though you might get the wrong idea when you wake up in a dark room

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clueless' date=' the end.[/quote']

 

Sigh another cunt who wants to be made to look stupid

 

Ok cunt....

 

Lets hear your argument, make it a good one cunt because im bored of making cunts look like cunts

 

So make sure you got your story straight because Coro's one failed so badly he had to resort to watching out for grammar errors

 

A true cunt i think you will agree. But are you more of a cunt? Lets find out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

The fact you think multimillion pound lawyers would go to trial without evidence is also pretty funny.

 

 

You've no idea what you're talking about. Defence lawyers love to go to trial when there's no evidence. That's the best time to be a defence lawyer. If there were recordings of him racially abusing players, the FA would have released it, Sky would have released it, and the FA would have included it in their report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shit, your arguement got so weak you had to resort to picking on grammar. Hahahahaha

 

The fact you think multimillion pound lawyers would go to trial without evidence is also pretty funny.

 

*argument

 

It's incredible just how little you know about this case but still, that doesn't stop you from posting up your vomit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shit, your arguement got so weak you had to resort to picking on grammar. Hahahahaha

 

Thats pretty funny

 

The fact you think multimillion pound lawyers would go to trial without evidence is also pretty funny.

 

Get some rest, you sound like you need it. Don't draw the curtains though you might get the wrong idea when you wake up in a dark room

 

;)

 

You're talking absolute fucking shite Jsims.

 

I wasted so much time explaining this shit to people at the time that I'm not going to expand on that.

 

But just know that you're talking every shade of shit right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I last read the report when it was first released, so I might be foggy on a couple of things, but...

 

There was no independent evidence that Suarez repeatedly abused Evra. The only 'evidence' for that is what Evra said - which Suarez strenuously denied. There certainly weren't any microphones picking up what was said.

 

I defended Suarez (and still do) against the charge that he repeatedly abused Evra, for the reasons given above. I believe, personally, that Evra exaggerated things. In any case, it was a travesty that he was found guilty of the charges laid before him on the evidence presented.

 

That said, Suarez did, to my knowledge, admit to calling Evra a 'negro'. This was obviously meant to offend Evra. To insist that Suarez meant it in an affectionate way (or even to argue that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he meant to offend) just doesn't wash with me. Of course Suarez knew what he was doing. He was baiting him for a reaction.

 

Again, I defended Suarez at the time (and still do) against the charge made by many that, because he called Evra that, he is therefore a racist. Often people call others offensive terms or terms we know they will be offended by - not necessarily because we have an issue with that aspect of their make-up, but because we want to offend and upset them for various reasons - in this case to put Evra off his game. I think we've all see enough of that side of Suarez's game since to know that he's not beyond using various methods to achieve that.

 

I can't actually recall if the term 'Suduca' was noted in the report as something said by either party.

 

All in all, Suarez deserved to be punished for admitting to referring to Evra as a 'negro' in the context it was said, but not for the rest of the allegations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You what, mate? See what I did there.

 

The only way it becomes racist is if it is coupled with a derogatory term.

 

Shut up.

 

Firstly, you are wrong.

 

Secondly, do you believe that Luis was addressing Evra "affectionately"?

 

I am going to enjoy this:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, you are wrong.

 

Secondly, do you believe that Luis was addressing Evra "affectionately"?

 

I am going to enjoy this:P

 

Who gives a fuck what anybody believes. At the end of the day, referring to somebody as 'Negro' in South American culture is not racist and little Englanders ranting and raving that it is won't make a difference.

 

*Awaits some moronic individual to 'remind' me that the game was played in England, not South America*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I last read the report when it was first released, so I might be foggy on a couple of things, but...

 

There was no independent evidence that Suarez repeatedly abused Evra. The only 'evidence' for that is what Evra said - which Suarez strenuously denied. There certainly weren't any microphones picking up what was said.

 

I defended Suarez (and still do) against the charge that he repeatedly abused Evra, for the reasons given above. I believe, personally, that Evra exaggerated things. In any case, it was a travesty that he was found guilty of the charges laid before him on the evidence presented.

 

That said, Suarez did, to my knowledge, admit to calling Evra a 'negro'. This was obviously meant to offend Evra. To insist that Suarez meant it in an affectionate way (or even to argue that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he meant to offend) just doesn't wash with me. Of course Suarez knew what he was doing. He was baiting him for a reaction.

Again, I defended Suarez at the time (and still do) against the charge made by many that, because he called Evra that, he is therefore a racist. Often people call others offensive terms or terms we know they will be offended by - not necessarily because we have an issue with that aspect of their make-up, but because we want to offend and upset them for various reasons - in this case to put Evra off his game. I think we've all see enough of that side of Suarez's game since to know that he's not beyond using various methods to achieve that.

 

I can't actually recall if the term 'Suduca' was noted in the report as something said by either party.

 

All in all, Suarez deserved to be punished for admitting to referring to Evra as a 'negro' in the context it was said, but not for the rest of the allegations.

 

But you're wrong. You are an Englishman who grew up surrounded by a culture which stigmatizes the world (I assume). Suarez didn't.

 

Negro is not an offensive term in his mind and who are we to judge that? The British, bastions of morality. It is a word - just like any other in the dictionary. What makes it offensive is its cultural context, vile history and the societal ramification of its use.

 

Suarez didn't deserve to be punished by the FA for fuck all, nor did John Terry - because allegations such as racism mustn't be dealt with by kangaroo courts. Who the fuck are the FA to determine whether somebody is guilty of that? Its rotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
But you're wrong. You are an Englishman who grew up surrounded by a culture which stigmatizes the world. Suarez didn't.

 

Negro is not an offensive term in his mind and who are we to judge that? The British, bastions of morality. It is a word - just like any other in the dictionary. What makes it offensive is its cultural context, vile history and the societal ramification of its use.

 

Negro can be an offensive term, of course. I'd wager he meant it to be an offensive term, but that's just a guess with no evidence. It doesn't mean there was any evidence. Anyway, this is nonsense, it wasn't even that single instance he was 'done' for. It was for all the other made-up shit, with absolutely no video or audio evidence for.

 

Do I think Suarez is a racist? Nah. Do I think he'd say just about anything to anybody on the pitch? Fuck yeah. That doesn't mean the FA didn't call it wrong, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be thrown out of court (I mean, John Terry called somebody a 'fucking black cunt', clear as day, and got fuck all).

 

Can't jsims just be banned and save all the aggro? He's clearly a WUM cunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh another cunt who wants to be made to look stupid

 

Ok cunt....

 

Lets hear your argument, make it a good one cunt because im bored of making cunts look like cunts

 

So make sure you got your story straight because Coro's one failed so badly he had to resort to watching out for grammar errors

 

A true cunt i think you will agree. But are you more of a cunt? Lets find out....

 

Any need really ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negro can be an offensive term, of course. I'd wager he meant it to be an offensive term, too. It doesn't mean there was any evidence. Anyway, this is nonsense, it wasn't even that single instance he was 'done' for. It was for all the other made-up shit, with absolutely no video or audio evidence for.

 

Do I think Suarez is a racist? Nah. Do I think he'd say just about anything to anybody on the pitch? Fuck yeah. That doesn't mean the FA didn't call it wrong, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be thrown out of court (I mean, John Terry called somebody a 'fucking black cunt', clear as day, and got fuck all).

 

Can't jsims just be banned and save all the aggro? He's clearly a WUM cunt.

 

Yeah, this is what I'm getting at. Its impossible for us to judge, or prove and its why he wouldn't have been found guilty for a single thing in a real courtroom - where this should have played out. I still find it astounding that such a serious allegation was dealt with so pathetically and irresponsibly, and was allowed to.

 

Its certainly a tired subject. I spent hours defending that twat (rightfully, not just out of tribalism), which makes his flirting with Arsenal even more galling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're wrong. You are an Englishman who grew up surrounded by a culture which stigmatizes the world (I assume). Suarez didn't.

 

Negro is not an offensive term in his mind and who are we to judge that? The British, bastions of morality. It is a word - just like any other in the dictionary. What makes it offensive is its cultural context, vile history and the societal ramification of its use.

 

Suarez didn't deserve to be punished by the FA for fuck all, nor did John Terry - because allegations such as racism mustn't be dealt with by kangaroo courts. Who the fuck are the FA to determine whether somebody is guilty of that? Its rotten.

 

 

You're carrying on as if we were looking at this incident as if it came out of nowhere, with no background or context, and we can only guess at Suarez's motives. This wasn't the case. It followed an altercation between the two. That's when Suarez called Evra a 'negro'. To my mind, it seems more reasonable to deduce that he did mean it in an offensive rather than an affectionate way.

 

And then, looking at Suarez's character on the field as whole, supports the idea that he was baiting Evra. He's had plenty of form for it since. He bit that Russian, FFS! Now, that doesn't make him a cannibal (just as him calling someone a racist term doesn't make him racist) but, by the same token, you'd have a hard job convincing anyone that he was giving him a love bite. It seems obvious to me that he was trying to put Evra off his stride (as he does with others) and knowingly resorted to racial abuse in this instance.

 

And how do you know that 'negro' isn't an offensive term in his mind? it might not be where he comes from (although, as I understand it, even there it can be depending on the context), but who's to say he hadn't learnt at some point, say his time in Europe, that it is considered offensive. Are you ruling out that possibility? That would be odd. even odder when we look at the Evra incident and accept (as anyone with common sense surely must) that he wasn't being affectionate when he used that term to him.

 

As for whether or not the FA should have jurisdiction over such matters is another issue. I would probably agree, but when I said he should've been punished for that remark I was referring to the fact that he was judged (for better or worse) by an FA appointed panel with their balance of probability criteria. And, on balance, I think he did mean it offensively.

 

And, now you mention the Terry case, he was found not guilty because Terry's defence (that he was only repeating back what he thought Ferdinand said) couldn't be found to be false beyond reasonable doubt. Do you believe that was the case, that what Terry said was true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
Haven't read back' date=' but are we discussing Suarez's (alleged) racism because we (may) have reason not to like him anymore?[/quote']

 

Nah, because jsims is being a 'tard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...