The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[Kopite]

FFS, we've now been put on a par with Ed Miliband.

 

Labour MPs broke cover last night to call on Ed Miliband to ‘get a grip’ after a series of own goals led to claims that he may not lead his party into the next General Election.

The whispers against him surfaced in public for the first time as he came under fire for his political and personal skills.

Ominously for Mr Miliband, the criticism was led by Graham Stringer, the first Labour MP publicly to call on Gordon Brown to resign when his poll ratings plummeted. Mr Stringer said Mr Miliband must reassert his control over his party – and put a stop to Labour ‘incompetence’.

Sheffield MP Meg Munn said he could still be a success, but added witheringly: ‘Whether he will be is another matter.’ Others said he should be more ‘credible, less weak’, but Left-wing MPs accused supporters of David Miliband of plotting against his brother.

Mr Stringer lambasted Ed Miliband’s failure to sack Labour front bencher Diane Abbott over her ‘whites divide and rule’ race gaffe, comparing it to Liverpool FC’s bungled handling of the race row involving Uruguayan player Luis Suarez.

 

More...

'I knew it was going to be a fight and I relish it': Miliband hits back against his critics

Mr Stringer, who backed David Miliband in the leadership contest, said: ‘I don’t think on issues such as race we should look as hypocritical or as incompetent as Liverpool FC has done in the Luis Suarez case. Ed has got to get a grip and turn it around before the May elections.’

 

 

 

Read more: Now Labour MPs call on hapless Ed Miliband to 'get a grip' | Mail Online

 

Upon hearing of the campaign to get Dalglish knighted, Stringer then wanted Ferguson to be made a Lord. Says everything you need to know about that prick. Obsessed.

[Byrnie]

France - Uruguay should be fun this year...

 

Manchester United’s Patrice Evra faces international backlash

Jan 8 2012 by CRouter CRouter, The People

 

Add a comment Recommend (16)

LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.

 

There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.

 

FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.

 

“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”

 

Manchester United’s Patrice Evra faces international backlash - Sport Confidential - Football - Sport - People.co.uk

[Whelan]

Mp Stringer Bellend

[goatboy59]

Di Canio's fighting spirit.

 

I wish I had a laugh left.

[TheDrowningMan]

France - Uruguay should be fun this year...

 

Manchester United’s Patrice Evra faces international backlash

Jan 8 2012 by CRouter CRouter, The People

 

Add a comment Recommend (16)

LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.

 

There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.

 

FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.

 

“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”

 

Manchester United’s Patrice Evra faces international backlash - Sport Confidential - Football - Sport - People.co.uk

 

I usually hate it when people are 'Uncle Tom'd, as Evra has been there, and think that obviously players need to be fully informed of how noxious some will regard certain terms, but that's a powerful a comment as to just how culturally disparate we are.

[Newport]

France - Uruguay should be fun this year...

 

Manchester United’s Patrice Evra faces international backlash

Jan 8 2012 by CRouter CRouter, The People

 

Add a comment Recommend (16)

LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.

 

There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.

 

FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.

 

“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”

 

Manchester United’s Patrice Evra faces international backlash - Sport Confidential - Football - Sport - People.co.uk

 

He probably won't play since it's all out in the open now. What a shame, should have kept it too himself until the game was played.

[VladimirIlyich]

France - Uruguay should be fun this year...

 

Manchester United’s Patrice Evra faces international backlash

Jan 8 2012 by CRouter CRouter, The People

 

Add a comment Recommend (16)

LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.

 

There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.

 

FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.

 

“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”

 

Manchester United’s Patrice Evra faces international backlash - Sport Confidential - Football - Sport - People.co.uk

 

This an interesting comment because it comes from an actual black player and teammate of Luis Suarez and one who thinks Suarez treatment is basically an insult against the nation of Uruguay.

 

At least we aren't the only ones who realise how botched the FA's whole handling of the case was.

[VladimirIlyich]

Paragraph 162 of the report delves into the daily uses of the phrase ‘negro’ in Latin America and makes it plain that it can be a term of affection or of degradation' date=' depending on the context of the situation. Suarez’s claims that his intentions during the exchange were mainly conciliatory are undermined by his admission that he said,[b'] “No hablo con los Negros”.[/b] The connotation of ‘negros’ here is immaterial: the fact that he declared that he didn’t speak to people of Evra’s skin colour is the crucial aspect. But the clipped language of the report cannot fully disguise the almost impossible messiness of the situation.

 

This is an extract from that Duggan piece. This is wrote under the guise of someone who has dissected and thoroughly read the Fa's report. What chance do we have really? I think it is time to ignore all the bullshit and get our heads down and hopefully this will blow over very soon. Though i doubt it.

 

'What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.'

 

Why let reliable and highly probable truth get in the way of a good story.

[Guest San Don]

 

Why let reliable and highly probable truth get in the way of a good story.

 

Doesnt seem to stop piara powar getting his shit out there!

[Philbert]

 

Very interesting this Zig.

 

It seems to fit in with the reason why Hernandez was stopped from giving evidence at the enquiry as he would have ended up supporting Suarez statement rather than Evra's.

 

And it was United's solicitor (Greaney) who made sure that his evidence was deemed inadmissible. Wonder why?

[xerxes]

That prick mccormick, our 'legal representative' at the commission exceeded his remit, imo, if he went out of his way to thank them. That was clearly not what LFC would have instructed him to do. He was on board to present the facts and represent the club & Suarez not 'offer' his thanks to the commission!

 

These things get used against you and lo, so it is! The little shit thanked the commission and that's now interpreted as us being happy with the commission's set up etc.

 

Hopefully, that prick will never work on LFC's behalf ever again and after his woeful presentation, no other club will touch him with a barge pole either.

 

I agree.The legal side has been a shambles from start to finish.

 

Our Club solicitors must be fuming.

 

Our failure to lock down the legals from day one cost us dear.By presenting the wrong arguuments McCormick, lost us the case.

 

Our failure to challenge the make of the tribunal gave early warning as to our lackadaisical approach.

 

Issuing a statement that first said we were shocked and surprised at the verdict- and then another statement which said, "oh all right then" was humiliating.

 

It makes you realise what a class act Broughton was.

[MLB]

I agree that the legal side was badly handled, but honestly, I think the FA were so determined to stitch us up that they would have found some way of making their case watertight. They had already decided what the outcome was going to be - the reason it took so long as because they were looking at every legal angle and making sure that there was no loopholes for us to exploit by manipulating the evidence.

[dave u]

I agree MLB, I just don't like how easy we made it for them. Honestly, half of this forum could have put a better case together than that fucking chump.

[gumps]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

I've said before that LFC went into this process like a lamb to the slaughter. The majority of those on this forum were probably going along the same lines, ie, this was a bullshit case, one mans word against another.

 

The FA and Mancs ,nudge nudge wink wink, knew what was going to happen.

 

Our honesty (in retrospect naivety) cost us this case.

 

Valuable lessons learned. In future, keep quiet and lawyer up. Let the prosecution prove their case.

[Guest San Don]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

I've said before that LFC went into this process like a lamb to the slaughter. The majority of those on this forum were probably going along the same lines, ie, this was a bullshit case, one mans word against another.

 

The FA and Mancs ,nudge nudge wink wink, knew what was going to happen.

 

Our honesty (in retrospect naivety) cost us this case.

 

Valuable lessons learned. In future, keep quiet and lawyer up. Let the prosecution prove their case.

 

I agree but to be honest, we werent privy to what the club's behind the scenes actions or statements direct to the fa were despite what xerxes likes to portray.

 

But we did try and co operate fully from the off as a form of damage limitation. Equally, in a parallel universe (if they exist!) we could have gone about it a different way and still lost because of the fa's agenda.

 

Everyone knows the fa's commission's report is full of holes yet they still found Suarez guilty. In a court of law, this wouldnt have got past the first day and would have been chucked out by a beak.

 

What pisses me off is the people who use hindsight and say 'see, told ya!' yet were not privy to the club's workings, calling all and sundry (and still do) in the face of a blatantly jury rigged commission.

 

The 'zero tolerance' here was the 'B' all of the charge and findings, It doesnt so much matter what we had done we'd still have had Suarez suspended.

[Torvald Utne]

Woah woah woah, that piece from the Irish times saying Suarez admitted to saying “No hablo con los Negros”, is that true? I thought the only thing he said was "pour que negro?"

[Barnesey]

I am led to believe our defence was much more robust than it appears but the fa decided not to refer to all of it in their document. This includes reference to the language Suarez is likely to have used.

 

Because of the PR disaster any appeal stood little chance of success and other avenues to support luis may now be sought

[beejay]

I am led to believe our defence was much more robust than it appears but the fa decided not to refer to all of it in their document. This includes reference to the language Suarez is likely to have used.

 

Because of the PR disaster any appeal stood little chance of success and other avenues to support luis may now be sought

 

What exactly does that mean?

[Barnesey]

My guess is a friendly journo given a run at the truth, prob after the Terry case has been heard

[xerxes]

I am led to believe our defence was much more robust than it appears but the fa decided not to refer to all of it in their document. This includes reference to the language Suarez is likely to have used.

 

Because of the PR disaster any appeal stood little chance of success and other avenues to support luis may now be sought

 

There are so many lind alleys here it can be difficult to focus. The core of this is that Luis and Comolli admitted to Luis using language which made reference to Evra's colour - case closed, charge proven.

 

We should have argued that in heated exchanges ( which Evra admits) from both sides Luis used language which he didnt intend to be racist. One issue, and very difficult to prove whatever measure you are using.

 

Instead we chose to argue that he was being affectionate ( which no-one believed, unsurprisngly), that then scuppered his second line of defence. The tribunal thinks, "if we dont believe the first statement, the second one is likely to be untrue too." Bad move. Bad tactics.

 

I agree that the PR debacle made an appeal unwise. But it is difficult to see how, after a verdict has been accepted, unappealed, what "other avenues" there are.

 

Tom Werner is a world authority on sports media and PR. He knows that there can quickly become a point in a news story when the story becomes the story, not how it started and the rights and wrongs thereof. That is what we are still getting to grips with (although to be fair the Club Statement on Friday night was spot on).

[Fallen Angel]

I did not want to start a new thread for this but it is somehow related. Late in December I wrote to the FA and asked the, simply, why Suarez was banned for 1 game for making an obscene gesture whilst both Rooney and Cole were not even charged for essentially the same offence. The reply I got today makes interesting reading, especially regarding Rooney which I have highlighted below:

 

Thank you for contacting The Football Association.

 

Supporters often compare incidents with others and ask why the same actions are not taken? Each case is judged on its own merits and therefore cannot be compared. The same criteria is applied in each alleged case and judged on the available evidence. With player gesture towards the crowd, there is a potential of incitement and as such there is a responsibility of all participants to refrain from inflammatory actions which could lead to crowd problems. Taking all this into consideration, the Football Association deemed that the behaviour of the player in question was not deemed to have been a breach of conduct.

 

The Luis Suarez charge is similar to the punishment handed to Stephen Carr who received a one match ban and fine for a similar incident following Birmingham’s match against Aston Villa at Villa Park last season. The Football Association takes its disciplinary procedures very seriously and judges each investigation on its merits. The same criteria is applied in each alleged case and judged on the available evidence.

 

The Wayne Rooney incident was investigated and television footage was obtained and the Match officials consulted. The evidence was clear that the player had not made an offensive gesture to Chelsea supporters but had in fact made a gesture of “keep your eyes open” to an assistant referee.

 

The Ashley Cole allegation was also fully investigated and following further investigation and correspondence, The FA was satisfied that there was insufficient evidence and no further action was taken.

 

On what planet does putting two fingers up to the crowd equate to a gesture to keep your eyes open to the ref? The latter surely would involve raising two fingers to the eyes not the chest?

 

The FA are making this up as they go along...

[Barzini]

The Wayne Rooney incident was investigated and television footage was obtained and the Match officials consulted. The evidence was clear that the player had not made an offensive gesture to Chelsea supporters but had in fact made a gesture of “keep your eyes open” to an assistant referee.

 

 

Clearly.

 

We should have stated that Suarez was just checking a small cut on his middle finger.

[gumps]

I agree but to be honest, we werent privy to what the club's behind the scenes actions or statements direct to the fa were despite what xerxes likes to portray.

 

 

My guess is a friendly journo given a run at the truth, prob after the Terry case has been heard

 

 

Basis of a good book maybe?

 

"An Epic Stitch-Up"

 

I wondered why Brian Reade has been so quiet on this issue.

[xerxes]

The FA are making this up as they go along...

 

Your entire post raised some interesting questions.

 

San Don has rightly made the point that zero tolerance/strict liability can cause as many problems by its inflexibility as it solves with its simplicity. So once you do provide leeway for circumstances and interpretation in any system you have to accept that some you win, some you lose. You support the process and accept that the benefits are greater than the downsides.

 

I agree with you that broad consultation and agreement on offences, and punishment, would do the FA a lot of favours. Taking your shirt of to celebrate a goal should not be a “points” offence, for instance, and I think that we all agree that the FA should not be hearing Race allegations which have a criminal dimension.

 

Any organisation with a rulebook that is over a century old will be stuck in its ways, and slow to change. It is also hamstrung by the fact that the same rulebook tries to cover Sunday league games as well as Liverpool v Man utd. Our main problem at the moment is total inexperience in the corridors of power at Board level at both the FA, and UEFA. In the past John Smith and Peter Robinson ( and even Rick Parry) were well known and respected established players who knew how to influence and get things done- all that is gone. When FSG went for a “placeman” in Ayre, they eschewed the benefits of the knowledge and experience of a Dein/Barwick/Kenyon.

 

As a Club we need to get back into being in a position of influence where it counts.

[Gym Beglin]

BBC Sport - Michael Ball fined for homophobic Twitter comment

 

Set of cunts.