Clearing Luis's name: time for the club and the fans to speak up

[piscinin]

Yeah, it's not worded as well as it should be.

 

What I'm trying to say is...

 

IF they believe Suarez is guilty (and they do), then the legal document to state their case isn't going to be a total shambles.

If someone's going to 'frame' you, the least they'll do is make a fair job of it!... that's what I'm trying to say. And in my opinion, they have done a fair job of it.

 

IF they'd gone with Suarez telling the truth and Evra lying, they would have made a document look as convincing for Suarez.

 

It's not a watertight document, but it never could be given the circumstances of the event, but it's convincing enough to need a significant level of new evidence to get it overturned. Pointing out a few holes in the document isn't going to be enough.

 

I know what you mean mate. You are spot on about the document. But the document isn't really the issue as most of us see it. The issue is the process that resulted in the document. From examining the document you can pretty much work out what the flaws in the process (and our attorney and our whole strategy) are.

[dave u]

I could pick ten pretty major holes in the document and the Evra's/the FA's case right now.

 

I see where the City fan (I assume?) is coming from, as he isn't aware of some of the things we are that were not included in the FA's document, in part due to our inept legal team.

 

What I'm saying is that I don't even think it's a good stitch up, I think it's a piss poor one thats massively flawed. Unfortunately our so called lawyer's performance allowed them to do it.

 

Lord Grabbiner or someone of his ilk would have fucking eaten that case alive. I don't care how much it would have cost, as it would have been a lot less than what the cost has been us to since the verdict (the loss of Suarez and the damage to our 'brand' etc).

[FanchesterCity]

I know what you mean mate. You are spot on about the document. But the document isn't really the issue as most of us see it. The issue is the process that resulted in the document. From examining the document you can pretty much work out what the flaws in the process (and our attorney and our whole strategy) are.

 

Oh yes, very much so.

 

To be critical of Liverpool's counsel though.... they've left a few too many doors open allowing the report to use them as arguments against.

 

Trouble here is, Dalglish and Comolli have done what most people would do... tried to get the facts written down as soon as possible, BUT not being legal experts made mistakes (perfectly normal). Those mistakes have been used against them. Can't blame D & C for that.

 

Not only that, but when their counsel (proper) finally get to grips with it, they've failed to spot them and/or correct them. You CAN blame the counsel for that.

 

By this stage, the 'truth' is already lost... and it's down to a battle of legal teams and Liverpool lost. People win and lose cases on the ability of their counsel. This case is no different. I'm not saying Liverpool could have won with better counsel, but I would suggest they could have done a bit better than they did.

 

Tragedy really, because the name of Evra or Suarez was are stake, and the knock on association with their club too. Still, the lawyers made a bit of money out of it.

[FanchesterCity]

Snap!

 

Just said the same more or less.

[dave u]

That post there is spot on. Their lawyers were better than our lawyers, and that helped the FA justify the verdict that they'd decided on the second they brought charges against Suarez.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

This has been a great read this thread, a lot of good view points, restores my faith in the FF, it's a shame such an unfortunate subject has been the cause.

[VladimirIlyich]

Franchester,you speak about 'new' evidence being needed but the evidence Liverpool have or had is good enough to provide a hell of a lot of doubt in the mind of neutrals except that i has been suppressed or avoided the press in general, so other supporters think we are supporting somebody who used racist language,we are not and there is evidence to support this and this evidence is why its never even been close to being a criminal case.

[Bogman]

pkelso Paul Kelso Breaking: CMS select committee to examine racism in football

pkelso Paul Kelso Committee urged to act following Suarez/Terry incidents by Steve Rotheram MP (Lab, Liverpool Walton), evidence session March 6. #LFC #CFC

 

pkelso Paul Kelso Understand Suarez, Evra and Dalglish could all be approached to appear before CMS select committee #LFC

[beejay]

pkelso Paul Kelso Breaking: CMS select committee to examine racism in football

pkelso Paul Kelso Committee urged to act following Suarez/Terry incidents by Steve Rotheram MP (Lab, Liverpool Walton), evidence session March 6. #LFC #CFC

 

pkelso Paul Kelso Understand Suarez, Evra and Dalglish could all be approached to appear before CMS select committee #LFC

 

Now that's an interesting development - and a real opportunity to re-open our case.

 

Or shoot ourselves in the foot and make it even worse...

[piscinin]

Well if there is one group who have a bigger gripe with the FA than us it's the politicos. This could be exactly the kind of payback they deserve. Alas, I have no faith in our ability not o shoot ourselves in the foot.

 

BTW Do these select committees just follow the headlines around like yapping dogs nowadays?

[xerxes]

BTW Do these select committees just follow the headlines around like yapping dogs nowadays?

Ouch!

[TheHitman]

Very interesting development when you consider who has pushed for it. Now it may well be that he feels it would be hypocritical if he didn't. Accordingly we may well have had dialogue with him.

 

 

Committee urged to act following Suarez/Terry incidents by Steve Rotheram MP (Lab, Liverpool Walton), evidence session March 6. #LFC #CFC

 

I fancy seeing some of those FA gangsters being questioned for once.

[xerxes]

pkelso Paul Kelso Breaking: CMS select committee to examine racism in football

pkelso Paul Kelso Committee urged to act following Suarez/Terry incidents by Steve Rotheram MP (Lab, Liverpool Walton), evidence session March 6. #LFC #CFC

 

pkelso Paul Kelso Understand Suarez, Evra and Dalglish could all be approached to appear before CMS select committee #LFC

 

This has the potential to go badly for us, with very little upside.

[Delmar]

This has the potential to go badly for us, with very little upside.

 

On the contrary, here is a chance of discussing the real circumstances without being the one bringing it up. I assume anyone testifying is allowed legal counsel with him? If not, at least they can be properly prepared this time.

 

And also, questions can be planted if we have connections...

[LFC64]

I agree with Anubis that the taboo of discussing racism is counter-productive and self defeating and we are right to challenge guilt by innuendo.

 

I disagree with Major Tom that things cannot get worse. The Cup game coincides with the Terry trial. Racism will be on the front pages again. Pro Saurez chants and anti-Evra chantsmay be reported as pro racist. The chances of individual spectator verbal or physical misbehaviour are very high ( if people can get excited about an Oldham player in a cup stroll.........).The chances of an on field bust up are also very high if Evra plays – and it won’t be the Man U players who are blamed.

 

I cannot remember an English club game with more combustible ingredients – ever.

 

Thank heavens we can count on the media to be responsible by concentrating on the football and not the side issues

[xerxes]

On the contrary, here is a chance of discussing the real circumstances without being the one bringing it up. I assume anyone testifying is allowed legal counsel with him? If not, at least they can be properly prepared this time.

 

And also, questions can be planted if we have connections...

 

Obviously, it all depends what the terms of reference are.

 

For Luis, with a guilty verdict against his name, and the risk of incriminating himself in a criminal charge there is nothing to gain, and everything to lose.He would be well advised to stay clear.

 

For LFC, bound by the terms of the Tribunal, it's a lose lose. we can't say anything more about the case. Any positive points we raise could be countered by "well what about the Suarez case".

 

We agreed to the FA rules, so we can hardly complain retrospectively agaisnt those.

 

Quietly gaining a consensus amongst the FA movers and shakers for racism allegations to be dealt with by the Police, and not the FA, and then seeking to change the rules, is our best medium term move.

 

Another show trial? No thanks.

[Whelan]

As I said earlier, if you get the opportunity to hit them, hit them hard!

 

This could be it. If nothing more, make the case for a flawed system of governance by the FA, emphasize their lack of due process (is that right?). Get the new (surely) legal team involved and get Kenny, Comoli and Suarez drilled to perfection and take the opportunity.

 

Oh, and that was a great post by FarchesterCity! And he mentioned something I haven't even noticed i.e. the document is there to make the FA's case for their decision, not as a record of the process.

[DaveT]

The problem you have (ironically) is of prejudice...

 

1) Suarez, generally speaking is perceived to be an irritating type of player. This works against him in ANY incident (same for Bellamy / Barton etc). It's unfair, but it's a reality.

 

2) Racism is a serious 'taboo' and whilst it exists on the terraces of every club, and almost certainly on the pitch too, it's simply something everybody panics about when mentioned. Folks scared about what words are acceptable (coloured vs black etc), and the whole situation's a nightmare. The FA get super sensitive, the press jump on it, the fans jump on it.

 

3) The ULTIMATE fact is... two players exchanged words and we don't know what was said. There's disagreement between the two accounts and most independent / neutral fans see that for what it is... one guy's word against another. Pure and simple.

 

4) The report (yes I've read it) then attempts to say "OK, it's one guy vs another, so lets look at the circumstantial evidence and the likely probabilities'. They make a fair case for Suarez's guilt. I know this will upset many of you, but you mustn't see it as a jibe... it's not. It's simply saying they make a fair case for it. What would you expect from a document detailing WHY they found him guilty? it's not going to be a flimsy case that is easily broken. Yes you CAN make a case for it being wrong, but the document itself does what it set out to do (rightly or wrongly) - it makes a decent case.

 

This is all that the watching world really have to go on, and have basically made their minds up on and settled on.

The ONLY way Liverpool can challenge it now is to come up with serious new evidence. Arguing on the already known and assumed elements isn't going to help.

 

Is it an injustice? I don't know - it could well be.

 

If you've been stitched up, you've been stitched up fairly well. That doesn't change the fact that to prove innocence you'll need to perform a minor miracle.

 

Sometimes, I suppose you just have to say "we've been shafted" (if that's what you believe) and move on. It's not nice, it's not fair, but you have to.

 

Imagine you've been burgled. It's an AWFUL feeling, it truly hurts and it's wrong, but deep down you know you'll not get your stuff back. You move on, and eventually the bitter taste in your mouth fades. You never forget, but you do come out the other side.

 

It's a much better option than spending the rest of your days trying to figure out who did it and why etc.

 

I hope the above is taken in a good spirit and NOT seen as 'Liverpool are wrong'. I don't who was telling the truth. I'm not judging on the case... merely commenting on what I believe to be the reality of the aftermath.

 

Appreciate your contribution, mate. Just wish some of the hysterical media had been as balanced.

 

Several good points, and I agree that the document was always going to be as comprehensive as they could make it. In fact the 5 days of deliberations and the weighty tome that followed only served to confirm the perception of many of us that the objective of the panel was to find and present enough 'evidence' to support a verdict and punishment which had long since been decided upon.

I disagree with your comments in two significant respects. Two players exchanged words, and we'll never know for sure exactly what was said. This exchange involved both players swapping abusive/racist/ethnic language. Evra's own testimony confirms him to be guilty of using abusive language towards Suarez, including threatening to punch him, on his own admission. Yet Evra gets away scot free, Suarez gets the book thrown at him. That's a large part of why I feel a strong sense of injustice. Not to mention the fact that Evra started this whole exchange out of some bizarre sense of grievance over an innocuous incident.

I also disagree with you that the panel made a good job of making a decent case. Some of the posts on this forum have completely ripped it to shreds - from their warped view that the fuse for the whole thing was a 'deliberate kick ' by Suarez on Evra's knee (anyone who's seen the Kop clip of the incident will know what I mean) through to their twisted conclusions about the use of Montivideo vs Madrid Spanish and lots of spin in between.

[Delmar]

Obviously, it all depends what the terms of reference are.

 

For Luis, with a guilty verdict against his name, and the risk of incriminating himself in a criminal charge there is nothing to gain, and everything to lose.He would be well advised to stay clear.

 

For LFC, bound by the terms of the Tribunal, it's a lose lose. we can't say anything more about the case. Any positive points we raise could be countered by "well what about the Suarez case".

 

We agreed to the FA rules, so we can hardly complain retrospectively agaisnt those.

 

Quietly gaining a consensus amongst the FA movers and shakers for racism allegations to be dealt with by the Police, and not the FA, and then seeking to change the rules, is our best medium term move.

 

Another show trial? No thanks.

 

Suarez only needs to repeat what he has said, stick to his story, and bring his own ethnic background and upbringing, including the way he speaks, to this thing, an excellent witness, if framed right.

 

The club should not be bound at all regarding what they can say. If they are, this is a perfect opportunity to repeat, over and over again, that "sorry, we would love to comment, but cannot say anything, the FA 471/473 procedure says so". Just talk about the procedure, give examples of the Suarez case.

 

Sure, we have agreed to the rules and the procedure specific to this case, however not even you can agree that it was carried out correctly. The club does not, based on what they have said, and as Whelan pointed out as well, this should be all about the flawed procedure. This would be an excellent opportunity to show how Suarez was cynically used by the FA, all enabled by the "471/473 procedure" and the gagging orders if you do not agree with the decision.

 

A show trial is exactly what we should want. This time framed differently, with the FA on the dock. And I have no doubt that the politicians would not mind giving a little slap on the face of the press, if there's a chance.

[ngogswilly]

I could pick ten pretty major holes in the document and the Evra's/the FA's case right now.

 

I see where the City fan (I assume?) is coming from, as he isn't aware of some of the things we are that were not included in the FA's document, in part due to our inept legal team.

 

What I'm saying is that I don't even think it's a good stitch up, I think it's a piss poor one thats massively flawed. Unfortunately our so called lawyer's performance allowed them to do it.

 

Lord Grabbiner or someone of his ilk would have fucking eaten that case alive. I don't care how much it would have cost, as it would have been a lot less than what the cost has been us to since the verdict (the loss of Suarez and the damage to our 'brand' etc).

 

Yeah. I think what FanchesterCity is saying there is reasonable and fair. Can't argue with most of it.

 

But like you say, anyone whos read that document biased or unbiased can see major holes in their logic. What makes it even more ridiculous is as the City fan says it was written to back up their judgement and you can see that clearly in the way its presented.

 

Essentially the argument seems to be from many people, "Well they were always going to do that etc..."

 

But thats just insane, utterly insane to think we should just accept a clearly biased document because they have to make it that way to suit their argument. I know its only the FA but if society in general starts to accept reasoning like that we may aswell all pack up and move to North Korea.

[aws]

I've got a funny feeling we'd be the accused in any show trial.

[ngogswilly]

Obviously, it all depends what the terms of reference are.

 

For Luis, with a guilty verdict against his name, and the risk of incriminating himself in a criminal charge there is nothing to gain, and everything to lose.He would be well advised to stay clear.

 

For LFC, bound by the terms of the Tribunal, it's a lose lose. we can't say anything more about the case. Any positive points we raise could be countered by "well what about the Suarez case".

 

We agreed to the FA rules, so we can hardly complain retrospectively agaisnt those.

 

Quietly gaining a consensus amongst the FA movers and shakers for racism allegations to be dealt with by the Police, and not the FA, and then seeking to change the rules, is our best medium term move.

 

Another show trial? No thanks.

 

Xerses, if our ultimate aim after all of this would be to simply change the rules for what happens after alledged racism incidents it'd be a bit pointless. Its unlikely to happen to us again. It may happen to someone else so us lobbying there might help them.

 

But at this point theres 2 more important issues at stake at the present moment.

 

The reputation of the club and the reputation of Luis Suarez. Maybe thats a bit selfish but thats the way I see it.

[xerxes]

As I said earlier, if you get the opportunity to hit them, hit them hard!

 

This could be it. If nothing more, make the case for a flawed system of governance by the FA, emphasize their lack of due process (is that right?). Get the new (surely) legal team involved and get Kenny, Comoli and Suarez drilled to perfection and take the opportunity.

 

 

I think this would be disastrous, Whelan.

 

We signed up to the FA governance , process and rules, and it is within our power to initiate change. The Commons Committee have no such powers. Wrong forum and platform.

 

Kenny, Comolli and Luis’ statements are on the record. No-one wants to go there again.

 

The Terry Trial is still to come. A talking shop which features the FA declaring its anti-racist stance regarding Blatter/foreign FA’s, sundry “Kick it Out” reps, Garth Crooks and Jason Roberts is an ambush we can well do without.

[Delmar]

I've got a funny feeling we'd be the accused in any show trial.

 

That could easily be the starting point. It most certainly is the situation now. But they are talking about March here, not today. With some rather interesting matches to play in between, the Terry case to come, and so on.

 

The accused can always become the accuser, if represented well. In any case, if we approach any future issue with the same kind of professionalism and diligence as the Suarez case, we might as well pack it in.

[MLB]

That post there is spot on. Their lawyers were better than our lawyers, and that helped the FA justify the verdict that they'd decided on the second they brought charges against Suarez.

 

 

Yeah, that's pretty much it.