martin samuel, matt lipton,dave maddock

[fowler9]

haha brilliant, the fact that they are rarely in the press with regards to LFC at all nothing to do with it then you fucking prick

[navbasi]

The Mirror really are going to town on us aren't they. Shame they probably won't let Brain Reade have a say about it as I'm sure he'd be more balanced that the other cunts.

Is it true that Liverpool have told The Mirror that they are not welcome at Anfield after their "Racist" back page? I hope so and it might explain why they so many column inches seem to be dedicated to making us look like cunts.

[navbasi]

haha brilliant, the fact that they are rarely in the press with regards to LFC at all nothing to do with it then you fucking prick

 

I read the headline and then gave up.

[xerxes]

Professional wordsmith with decades of experience can't work out the difference between principal and principle.

 

Well spotted.

 

Most articles I have read on this affair have been well balanced, with fair points counter balanced by absurd ones.Bascombes was no exception.

 

There are legitimate questions to ask about FSG's role in this, but any attempt to suggest that the way that they have handled this indicates a lack of interest in LFC is unsubstantiated.

 

FSG employ Ian Ayre to run LFC for them.We have no idea of the extent to which FSG were relying upon Ayre, and the extent to which FSG were guiding him. I suspect they were in the hands of Ayre, but that's a guess.

[ngogswilly]

Oh look Maddock's at it again :whatever:

 

Why Liverpool owners' silence during racism row suggests they might not be here for the long haul

 

By David Maddock

 

Published 15:24 05/01/12

 

 

So many questions, so few answers. The Suarez affair - or debacle, to apply a more appropriate description - has raised such serious issues, yet few people seem prepared to address them.

 

Chief amongst those avoiding their responsibilities during the months of raging controversy, have been the owners of Liverpool Football Club, and in particular, their chairman Tom Werner and principle owner, John Henry.

 

Between them, the pair have ultimate management responsibility for one of the highest profile, biggest reaching multi-national corporate businesses across the globe. Let us get this straight, Liverpool FC is not a corner shop. It is no longer a business restricted to customers who live within walking distance of L4, as much as I would personally still love to subscribe to that romantic notion.

 

Liverpool are up there alongside Coca Cola, Apple Inc and the BBC when it comes to their name, brand awareness and global reach, and I can guarantee the executives of not one of those corporations would have allowed a situation to have developed over several agonising months that can have so damaged the integrity of their business.

 

Lord Ouseley, the highly respected former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, perhaps put it most succinctly this week when he suggested Liverpool as a global business have failed spectacularly in their duty to their worldwide stakeholders.

 

"In any other sector, if someone makes a claim of racially motivated or abusive behaviour (against an employee of your organisation), an employer has to investigate if they are competent because this may be damaging to the business," he wrote.

 

Quite clearly, the owners of Liverpool have failed in their duty to properly investigate such a serious claim against their organisation, and more pertinently, have failed to offer the moral leadership the position of their company as a world renowned leader demands. As Lord Ouseley added:

 

Surely the new owners, with their experiences of equality and inclusion in the US, can see how their brand is being devalued, and if they sanction this sort of lack of professionalism and moral leadership, we may as well pack up and go home and forget about anti-racism.

 

Would Apple Inc have left themselves open to such claims, or the BBC? Of course not. And let me add this question: would the Boston Red Sox? I don't believe they would. Yet the owners of that American sports franchise Werner and Henry have hidden behind a ridiculous notion of team spirit and closing ranks that seems only to apply to football, to justify their appalling lack of judgement in this case.

 

And let us get this straight, it is an appalling lack of judgement. Liverpool defended Suarez vehemently - and repeatedly, aggressively, almost dementedly, attacked Patrice Evra and the FA to the extent of entering slanderous territory because they believed his use of the word "negro" was not offensive in any way. The repeated incendiary statements released in the name of their owners were appalling, but justified apparently, because their man was innocent.

 

Their explanation was that in South America, it can be used as a term of endearment, which is in fact true. South Americans can use the term in a friendly way when referring to people with black hair and dark skin, as the entire Argentina squad did when they sent a message of support to their team-mate Fernando Cacero, when they were pictured in front of a banner reading 'Vamos Negro'�.

 

However, it is also true that in South America to refer to a person of African descent using the same term can still be considered racist. Very racist. South Americans with any sensitivity are aware that to use the phrase towards a person of African descent can be highly inadvisable, and should be avoided.

 

And Werner and Henry, being liberal Americans in touch with the subtleties of racial issues within sport - as their positions at the Red Sox demand - will be aware of that.

 

Werner works in the TV and film industries and is based in California, where there are sizable South American and African-American communities. I would ask him this question: in California, if a South American referred to an African-American as 'negro' during a heated exchange, would he consider it offensive?

 

And I would ask him a further question: if one of his American companies had an employee accused of a serious offence that involved alleged racist taunts, would he allow his company to pursue the individual who made the accusation - and who has potentially been gravely insulted with a vehemence bordering on the slanderous?

 

As I said at the start of this column, many questions have been raised, and so few answers have been given, due in part to the refusal of Liverpool Football Club's American owners to open any sort of dialogue with their stakeholders through the media.

 

Liverpool have been damaged globally. Two of the most senior figures at the club in England dismissed this suggestion when I made it this week, but it is true. In Europe outside the Spanish-speaking companies, and in the rest of the world outside the Spanish-speaking countries, there is a newly-formed suspicion of the football club.

 

In Asia, in Africa, where allegiances are not so tribal as they are in the north of England, many fans are openly questioning their support of the club, and that is damaging to the core business.

 

Which leads us to one final question of Messers Henry and Werner. How serious is their stewardship of Liverpool Football Club?

 

When they arrived as the saviours of Anfield, following the disastrous regime of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, they made no bones about their intentions. They switched continents, and sports, they admitted, not because of their allegiance to Liverpool or football, but because they saw the bigger picture of a global franchise, with a name that is one of the biggest and most respected within its field or any other. They wanted to maintain that name and image, and develop it sensitively and carefully to put the club in the position its history and gravitas deserved.

 

Yet their conduct over the past few months, in preaching to the converted and playing to the gallery of insular fans (and in employing people with a similar approach), does not speak of a commitment to developing the Liverpool brand in a wider context, and making the club a truly great global business.

 

In allowing this mess to develop, in putting back the cause of anti-racism so violently and in firmly anchoring Liverpool Football Club in prehistoric practices that have no place in 21st century business, are they really committed to developing the club as they suggested in the long term, to rival the likes of Coca Cola or Apple Inc?

 

Or did they spot a short term business opportunity to buy cheaply and sell swiftly, making a quick buck? It may seem a harsh judgement, but their behaviour and subsequent silence only lends credence to such a theory.

 

Holy fuck. This article misses so many points its almost a work of art.

 

Chief amongst them his assertion that we are up in arms only about the word "Negro". Its not just that at all, the club has made it quite clear our major qualms are with how the investigaton was carried out, mainly how Evra who lied through his teeth about the major details of what went, was taken at face value and lest not forget how obviously biased the whole preoceedings were.

 

Evra gets walked through the video beforehand whilst Suarez doesn't see it til the day of the trial. Give me a fucking break, hes basically downright lieing there when he says all were pissed off about is the word "Negro". He knows thats not true.

 

I think the real angle behind this though is obvious, hes goading the Americans. The jist of it reads "If you don't do something drastic to prove to the world you're not all racists at Liverpool then you're not serious about running the club".

Which to me can me only 1 thing, get rid of Suarez.

My retort, Fuck off you absolute cunt.

[Guest San Don]

Well spotted.

 

Most articles I have read on this affair have been well balanced, with fair points counter balanced by absurd ones.Bascombes was no exception.

 

There are legitimate questions to ask about FSG's role in this, but any attempt to suggest that the way that they have handled this indicates a lack of interest in LFC is unsubstantiated.

 

FSG employ Ian Ayre to run LFC for them.We have no idea of the extent to which FSG were relying upon Ayre, and the extent to which FSG were guiding him. I suspect they were in the hands of Ayre, but that's a guess.

 

You are seriously taking the piss with that sentence.

[Delmar]

You are seriously taking the piss with that sentence.

 

Well, there have been 2-3 balanced ones, maybe he has only read them. One has to take a man for his word, that's what this case is all about after all.

[navbasi]

Well, there have been 2-3 balanced ones, maybe he has only read them. One has to take a man for his word, that's what this case is all about after all.

 

Henry Winter wrote one during the trial and Chris Bascombe's effort today, I can't think of any others at all.

[Jack the Sipper]

OllieHoltMirror Oliver Holt

@ @distinguishthis I think that as soon as it was admitted that Suarez had used the word 'negro' at least once, the rest was just details

 

'Just details'...yeah, like whether or not Evra was fibbing when he accused Suarez of repeatedly racially abusing him.

 

He makes the same point thoughout his tweets -that, because Suarez admitted calling Evra 'negro' once (leaving aside the context) we really don't need to concern ourselves as to whether or not Evra's allegations are true.

 

And to think there's Liverpool fans arguing that the media have been fair over this.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Jack the Sipper

[Guest San Don]

Well, there have been 2-3 balanced ones, maybe he has only read them. One has to take a man for his word, that's what this case is all about after all.

 

I dont recollect seeing many balanced ones prior to, during or after the verdict. TB's article merely sets out why LFC feel aggrieved about the verdict, bascombe likewise.

 

At best, I think only dominic king can be described as offering a balanced opinion.

 

I dont think 'many' as quoted holds up to scrutiny by that particular poster (but nothing unusual there).

[Whelan]

@OllieHoltMirror

Oliver Holt Is calling someone a 'black c....' racist? Spoke to a black player today who said racism is words like 'c..n', n-word, 'w..' etc. Don't know'

 

Details, the rest is just details!

[longballs]

Yea, Whelan, I love how titter can come back and bite these twats. I retweeted that from the horrible Oliver Holt earlier. Oh how his stance has changed since November

 

Oliver Holt @OllieHoltMirror 14 Nov

 

Is calling someone a 'black c....' racist? Spoke to a black player today who said racism is words like 'c..n', n-word, 'w..' etc. Don't know

[Delmar]

I dont recollect seeing many balanced ones prior to, during or after the verdict. TB's article merely sets out why LFC feel aggrieved about the verdict, bascombe likewise.

 

At best, I think only dominic king can be described as offering a balanced opinion.

 

I dont think 'many' as quoted holds up to scrutiny by that particular poster (but nothing unusual there).

 

What is the level of proof required, probable or beyond reasonable doubt... Anyway, I was not being exactly serious. This has generally been reported in a biased manner, with an agenda in mind. Nothing even approaching "balanced".

[Anubis]

Re : Maddock's article - I believe I pointed out earlier in proceedings that once they were satisfied they'd made us 'apologise', getting rid of Suarez would be the next item on their agenda. We shouldn't have given an inch.

[Guest San Don]

What is the level of proof required, probable or beyond reasonable doubt... Anyway, I was not being exactly serious. This has generally been reported in a biased manner, with an agenda in mind. Nothing even approaching "balanced".

 

The commission stated since it was not a court case (which again, destroys that xerxes statement that no legal case could now be pursued since Suarez had been found 'guilty'), balance of probability could be used.

 

However, they then went on to say where the charges were serious as in this case (their words), the evidence required to substantiate the charges needed to be more robust.

 

having then set the level of evidence required to be more robust than just balance of probability, they then just decided on balance itself!

[Philbert]

Should someone make a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission?

[Philbert]

If the media is urging us to accept the FA's report in full, why won't THEY accept its finding that Suarez is not racist? Can someone put that to Holt and co?

[Indian Red]

Davey, davey, davey you little tit. I dont know anybody back home who`d be questioning their support of LFC. I`d think the same is true for most of Asia and Africa. And anyone that is questioning their support of LFC, we are better off without tits like that in the first place.

[MLB]

If the club has banned The Mirror from the ground or whatever then they were bound to go to town on us as they have nothing to lose now and they might think they can sell a few more copies by stirring up controversy. It will only backfire badly on them in the long term though once the entire red half of Merseyside (and hopefully all reds throughout the country) stop buying their shitty paper.

[MLB]

Also, Maddock really is a horrible, snidey little shit. He's not even a half decent football writer either, just a third rate hack at a third rate paper.

[xerxes]

You are seriously taking the piss with that sentence.

By only quoting the first half, you missed the irony of the second.

[xerxes]

The commission stated since it was not a court case (which again, destroys that xerxes statement that no legal case could now be pursued since Suarez had been found 'guilty'), balance of probability could be used.

You have memorably previously stated that you are no lawyer.

 

I have expressed the view that Luis has insufficient grounds to mount a succesful defamation action against Evra. I am confident that no such action will materialise.I was right about the appeal, you were wrong.Let's see how round two shapes up.

 

We agree that the FA should not be in the business of dealing with matters which may be subject to criminal action.

[Kevin D]

Don't fucking read it. It's not hard. You know it's fiction anyway. It's in the english press after all.

 

I agree and I don't.

 

That said, this has left the footballing arena and entered that of general news, it is unavoidable. I was out 7 or 8 times over the Christmas period and must have spent an hour discussing it each time. One thing that stunned me was that elementary facts just haven't been reported - nobody seemed to know the conversation had happened in a different language, for fucks sake. The misinformation(I haven't read any of it, but I know what they're like) that Samuel and co have put into the public arena fully justifies the condemnation they're receiving here and, presumably, on twitter.

[chorlton]

The press coverage today really annoyed me.

 

It's no longer suarez, the past 2 days it's been kenny and the club, now it's at the owners and trying to claim some international ill feeling toward the club and that the owners will have to act, and that kenny's put them in this position.

 

Not that this is agenda driven now...

[Guest San Don]

By only quoting the first half, you missed the irony of the second.

 

Au contraire mon ami, au contraire.