• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Keep Suarez?

Sell?

  • YES

    Votes: 19 12.3%
  • NO

    Votes: 135 87.7%

  • Total voters
    154
Well actually no, there was a single judge 1992 decision by Mr Justice Rose, not LJ. It's highly persuasive but not binding on hierarchically similar or superior courts. I agree with you that the odds are stacked against any remedy afforded by the civil courts though. All moot anyway, with Suarez's decision...

Thanks for correcting.

I don't agree it's moot though. If I didn't already know how stupid Ian Ayre is, I could well imagine that the club wanted to emphasize it was Suarez alone who chose not to appeal so as to leave the club free to bring their own action against the FA. Of course, Ian Ayre is in fact stupid and I don't for one second think the club is that clever.
 
Was i the only one who didnt read Fergys comments as anything but a gloat? weird.... I'll have to read it again.

Fair fucks to Mancini thought.
 
Dalglish:

The issue is clearly in the length of the player’s ban and the fact that the FA’s disciplinary system is a horrible mess.

Let’s start with the fact that the FA said before they had appointed the so-called ‘independent’ regulatory commission that Suarez deserved more than the normal three-game ban.

Well, by saying that, they prejudiced the findings of the commission before it has even begun.

They appointed the people to sit on it and they have told them they are there to give him more than three games.

So those three people know they have to give the player more than three games just to justify their existence.

How ‘independent’ does that make the three-man commission?

I wish the FA would just stop playing with words. Because this panel wasn’t truly independent and to say it was is blatantly misleading.

The FA chooses who sits on it to begin with. Does that make it ‘independent’?

And who sits on it? An ex-player, an FA council member and a lawyer already known to the FA.

So there’s an FA council member on an ‘independent’ FA commission. That’s convenient.

And there’s an ex-player, who would probably like to do more work for the FA. That’s convenient, too.

Are they paid, by the way? Are they paid by the FA? Do they do it for free? I don’t know the answer to those questions but I’d like to know.

The point is that the structure of an FA disciplinary procedure like this is inherently unfair.

If you commit a crime in this country, you get the right for your case to be heard by a jury that has no affiliation or responsibility to the people prosecuting you.

That’s not how the FA works it. In fact, their disciplinary system has now become so confused and riddled with anomalies that it is farcical.

They hide behind excuses about the referee saw it or didn’t see it, punished it or didn’t punish it.

So Jermain Defoe bites Javier Mascherano on the arm and gets a yellow card. Nothing more.
Suarez bites Ivanovic and gets 10 games. Why? Because the referee didn’t see it.


He still spoke to him about something and looked like he was warning him but he didn’t see it.
For the benefit of football in this country, there has got to be greater clarification of the rules and more balance in the way offenders are judged.

The most important thing is not the length of the sentence but how they reach it and that information needs to be made public at the time the punishment is announced. That would have alleviated much of the unnecessary discussion about the ban handed down to Suarez.

The FA has been in need of widespread reform for a long time. The need is getting more and more pressing.

These regulatory commissions have to be independent in more than just name.


Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/kenny-dalglish-luis-suarez-ban-1855378#ixzz2ReiDG5jc
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
 
Innit. The whole of football seems to think the same - there were comments of this kind even from Moyes last year over the Evra stitch-up.
 
Note that the newly-appointed Chairman of the Premier League is Manchester United fan Anthony Fry. So with the appointment of United fan Greg Dyke as Chairman of the FA, Fergie now would appear to control both the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the FA and the Chairman of the Premier League! You have to admire his political cunning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22311418

"Fans will no doubt focus on his Manchester United affiliations - especially at a time when the Football Association has just appointed Greg Dyke - also a United fan - as their chairman.
With former Manchester United chief executive David Gill expected to become English football's representative on Uefa's executive committee in the summer, some may be suspicious of an Old Trafford carve up at the top of the English game.
Of far greater significance is Fry's relationship with the league's chief executive, Richard Scudamore. For the last 14 years he has been the driving force behind the league's expansion and success and he is unlikely to relinquish his role as the competition's mouthpiece and figurehead."
 
Thing is, for all the points made about the FA's inconsistency, lack of transparency and over-reliance on it's public image etc; who can change it?

As far as I'm aware it sets it's own rules as to how to govern in England and has no regulator. Maybe public pressure might lead to it's management committee initiating some better practice but I wouldn't hold my breath.

And seriously, which Football club is going to challenge it in law and on what basis?
 
I'm not in the slightest bit arsed if the FA is run by mancs as long as it is well run. If as a Liverpool fan i was on the FA's board i would be fair as possible regardless of which club was involved. I love LFC but that doesn't mean i think all mancs are cunts.
 
And seriously, which Football club is going to challenge it in law and on what basis?

I believe that the English Courts operate under some kind of understanding that they don't ever get involved in the proceedings of sporting disciplinary bodies. This suits them because they have enough ordinary crime to deal with, without interfering in cases of footballers biting other footballers. It also suits the disciplinary bodies because it gives them carte blanche to dispense their version of justice without fear of anybody having recourse the the legal system.
 
I'm not in the slightest bit arsed if the FA is run by mancs as long as it is well run. If as a Liverpool fan i was on the FA's board i would be fair as possible regardless of which club was involved. I love LFC but that doesn't mean i think all mancs are cunts.

The problem is not that they are Mancs, but they are subject to manipulation by Ferguson.
 
That horrible weasel Jeff Stelling and his fellow nutters on Sky are currently going crazy over Suarez's 'appalling' character. A real savaging of the player, Rodgers,Ayre and the club as a whole, and Thommo is babbling away like a loon to sound more critical than the rest. Amazingly out of step with the overall mood of the moment and they seem oblivious about it. In stark contrast the Beeb currently has Fowler on taking sense.
 
There's still a fair few on talkshite saying the 10 game was fair & even not enough.

I think there's a lot more who think it's harsh than I expected, but it's not across the board.

No doubt those wheezing obese windbags on Sunday supplement will be making him out to be Satan incarnate.
 
Stelling really hates Suarez. There wasn't even a willingness from him or his clapped out mates to consider any other views, it was just relentless ranting about this devil incarnate. Laughably horrible even by their standards. Thommo even suggested 10 games might not have been enough!
 
I never realised Stelling had such a punchable face until today. He looks almost like Rosco's avatar.

At least the alco made the case as to why we should and would try to keep Suarez.
 
‘It was impossible to say what Luis did was right,' Cavani told The People. 'But if it was another player would it have got the same reaction?

‘He is a really good guy, a really good family man, but he admits he does things on the field he sometimes regrets.

‘He has apologised but it seems like people in England want to make a problem for Luis because it is Luis.

‘He has told me many times how happy he is at Liverpool, how he appreciates all the support he has had off them, and how he wants to see out his contract there.

‘If he keeps on getting treated the way he is then the Premier League will lose their best player.'
 
"Ibrahimovic has said that Juventus is a big club and that he was pleased with the Bianconeri's [Juventus] flattery," Conte said.

"It's a big compliment from a big player. There are many others who think along the same lines and if you were to ask Suarez or any other big player they'd say the same thing.

"It is evident to everybody that we're doing some good work here."

Conte refused to speak further about transfers though, and added that it was difficult to attract the world's best players to the Serie A due to financial constraints.

"I won't speak about the transfer market, I have too much respect for my players," he said.

"Serie A is a difficult league to win unlike many foreign championships, even though there are fewer big players here than there were in the past.

"It is inevitable that the best players will go where they get the most money, and no team in Italy can afford to pay eight, nine or 10 million euros a year to one player."
 
The Mirror ran with a story today that it was Torres that was key in calming the situation down from Chelsea's side. If true, cheers to Torres!
 
The Mirror also said Borini did his celebration to mock Suarez.

Lipton is one clueless journo
 
Has this been touched upon, then sorry for double posting *looks at Modo*

According to a Danish commentator yesterday Ivanovic intentionally squeezed Suarez' broken finger leading up to the biting incident. No excuses of course, as he obviously should've tried and break his leg instead and then get only a four match ban.
 
Has this been touched upon, then sorry for double posting *looks at Modo*

According to a Danish commentator yesterday Ivanovic intentionally squeezed Suarez' broken finger leading up to the biting incident. No excuses of course, as he obviously should've tried and break his leg instead and then get only a four match ban.

Des Lynam wrote an article that was posted earlier in the thread that made the claim that there was handbags in the tunnel at half time.

But lets face it, if that did happen, it might explain what Suarez did but it doesn't excuse it. Irregardless (see what I did there??) of what actually happened, we're better off letting this lie. Saying anything else will let the morons (and Ross) have another excuse to try and have a field day on the troll bridge.
 
Des Lynam wrote an article that was posted earlier in the thread that made the claim that there was handbags in the tunnel at half time.

But lets face it, if that did happen, it might explain what Suarez did but it doesn't excuse it. Irregardless (see what I did there??) of what actually happened, we're better off letting this lie. Saying anything else will let the morons (and Ross) have another excuse to try and have a field day on the troll bridge.
Ha!
 
Des Lynam wrote an article that was posted earlier in the thread that made the claim that there was handbags in the tunnel at half time.

But lets face it, if that did happen, it might explain what Suarez did but it doesn't excuse it. Irregardless (see what I did there??) of what actually happened, we're better off letting this lie. Saying anything else will let the morons (and Ross) have another excuse to try and have a field day on the troll bridge.

Ha!

(Sorry, couldn't resist ;))
 
Back
Top Bottom