• 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.

Suarez opens his mouth again

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
There wasn't any evidence apart from Evra's allegations which the FA Committee decided to believe.
 
Molbystwin said:
You with your sneaky agenda Rosco.....
Click to expand...

He's been going on about it for months, of course he's got an agenda. You with your smarmy, smart arsed posts. Thankfully I generally take no notice, because it's usually a load of obnoxious shite.
 
Rosco said:
Mark, we apparently lost a stadium rights deal over him. When we're again on the brink of a stadium rights deal the one incident that tarnished the clubs reputation worldwide is in the media again. Its of absolutely no benefit to the club and will change nothing with regard to Suarez's reputation.

Lets stop the bollox about there bring no evidence and him being innocent. Ched Evans was found guilty of rape with almost the exact same level of evidence that Suarez was. Its strange that nobody protests his innocence

To be as clear as I can I don't really give a fuck about any one individual in the club, the club itself is what matters.
Click to expand...

I know you feel that way Ross, you remind us about it everytime you slag off someone who cost more than £2m, is on more than 10k a week and is a bit popular. We get it. You don't like good players.
 
Portly said:
There wasn't any evidence apart from Evra's allegations which the FA Committee decided to believe.
Click to expand...

Along with Suarezs partial admission, Comolli and Kuyt. Tv evidence.

In Ched Evans case there was a partial admission, a victims statement and TV evidence.

If United players had been witnesses against Evans I suspect you would be protesting his,innocence too.
 
Rosco said:
Along with Suarezs partial admission, Comolli and Kuyt. Tv evidence.

In Ched Evans case there was a partial admission, a victims statement and TV evidence.

If United players had been witnesses against Evans I suspect you would be protesting his,innocence too.
Click to expand...

Yes, Luis Suarez is a rapist and a racist.
 
Russia defender Roman Sharonov called Uruguay’s Luis Suarez “a woman” after the Liverpool forward hit him during a friendly, Sharonov has said.

Suarez scored Uruguay’s goal as the South American champions ground out a 1-1 friendly draw with Russia in Moscow on Friday, with Zenit St. Petersburg striker Alexander Kerzhakov grabbing Russia’s equalizer.

“We didn't clash, he just hit me on the sly. I told him he was a woman. In English, naturally,” Sharonov said after the match.


Sharonov, 35, was a surprise pick for Russia’s Euro 2012 squad, largely because he had not played for Russia for eight years before the Uruguay friendly.

The surprise recall gives Sharonov the chance to end his career on a high note, he said.

“This is my last chance to go the Euros. After all, I’m not a young player, and even young players rarely manage to go.”

“That’s why I’ve tried to play as well as I possibly can.”
Click to expand...
 
Mark, we apparently lost a stadium rights deal over him. When we're again on the brink of a stadium rights deal the one incident that tarnished the clubs reputation worldwide is in the media again. Its of absolutely no benefit to the club and will change nothing with regard to Suarez's reputation.
Basically if sponsors were put off by the incident,
Click to expand...

Please tell us your source Ross
 
Along with Suarezs partial admission, Comolli and Kuyt. Tv evidence.

In Ched Evans case there was a partial admission, a victims statement and TV evidence.

If United players had been witnesses against Evans I suspect you would be protesting his,innocence too
Click to expand...

What on earth are you blathering on about - Evras' evidence wasnt corroborated by any of his teamates despite a teammate - Spanish as well - being within 4 foot of the alleged incident. In a proper court of law ( in England that is ), where evidence isn't withheld from the defence until 24 hours before a hearing and the defendant is afforded the same rights as the plaintiff, this case would never have been pursued.
 
It was cooroborated by Suarez, Comolli and Kuyt.

But lets not actually get into a proper analysis of it,.lets just adopt the victim complex instead. It suits.
 
mark1975 said:
He's been going on about it for months, of course he's got an agenda. You with your smarmy, smart arsed posts. Thankfully I generally take no notice, because it's usually a load of obnoxious shite.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to let that past Mark sorry, it is out of order.

For the record during the thread it's been me and occasionally Rosco pointing out that it was a silly and potentially damaging interview, for saying that Rosco gets accused of having an agenda.... why would he have one Mark exactly? and what would it be?

I do not want Luis Suarez gone. I do not enjoy the fact that he put his foot in it last october during the incident, again when he refused to shake hands or yesterday when he dragged it up again in pretty inflammatory answers which once again gave the press the chance to fang on to him and the club.

I do not think he is a racist and never have done.
I do not think the FA's treatment of him was fair.
I accept that loyalty to him will arise from him being our best player and due the injustice done upon him.

However this does not mean therefore that he should be allowed to drag us through the mud again IMO.
It is just a stupid thing to do and will not help him personally or the club generally. I find it amazing that people cannot or will not see that, to me it reeks of indulgence not loyalty.

I do strongly believe it was a bad interview and basically unecessary and in order to have this opinion its meant that Ive been on the end of a fair few snide digs, not so much attacking my argument but instead my character in some way. Before being called obnoxious and a smarmy smart arse I was attacking Luis just in order to be cool, or due to lack of understanding or indeed because I have some poor grasp on reality. I think the strongest thing I said in return was I do not agree at all you are wrong.

If Mark you wish to believe that I hold this opinion due to some innate desire to be obnoxious or with some kind of agenda then, at the risk of being considered smarmy again you are being ridiculous.
 
tony said:
What on earth are you blathering on about - Evras' evidence wasnt corroborated by any of his teamates despite a teammate - Spanish as well - being within 4 foot of the alleged incident. In a proper court of law ( in England that is ), where evidence isn't withheld from the defence until 24 hours before a hearing and the defendant is afforded the same rights as the plaintiff, this case would never have been pursued.
Click to expand...

Rosco is a lawyer.....i'm sure he knows the difference between the two cases to really be using one as a justification for the other.

Or may be he really is that thick, and i'm just giving him too much credit...
 
It was cooroborated by Suarez, Comolli and Kuyt.

But lets not actually get into a proper analysis of it,.lets just adopt the victim complex instead. It suits.
Click to expand...

Come on Ross,

you are being disingenuous again, as you well know it was the lack of coroboration by a Frenchman and Dutchman of Suarez' s statement that was used to justify the fa's ruling a matter of semantics in spanish as well as a pinch - if you can't see that he was victimised and the whole thing was a witchhunt I really despair.

ps where is you source that sc were in the frame for the naming rights?
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
Yeah. I spent the cash on a tin of Cafe Creme instead.
Click to expand...


cafe creme? arent they like walnut whips? or are they them little cigars you can get...

Living out here in Spain you forget all kinds of shit.

Can you still buy that Oragina drink? you have to shake it to wake the taste ... genius advertising in a way... to make an inherent weakness in your product a selling point.

I should defo rest a bit more before i head out again later.
 
cobrastatus said:
Yeah, I think Rosco and Molby are coming at this from a more utilitarian perspective (I'm just daring dantes to respond to this, I know, goddamn it), and in that vein, I think it's fine. How likely is Suarez to be absolved if he brings this up again? How likely are the FA to rescind the charges? How likely is it that his public image will miraculously be amended? Or is it more likely that he drags our name AND his through the mud as the media orgasmically and wrongfully condemns him for being a racist, yet again? He's in a lose-lose situation here. Just say I've never been a racist, next question.
Click to expand...

The thing about that utilitarian perspective is you need to prove the outcomes that will occur. What Rosco and Molby are getting upset over is just speculative bullshit that exists only in their own minds. How do either of them know this interview is doing anyone any harm? Prove it. Because to expect Suarez to concede a fundamental right of his to defend his name against false allegations, then you need to prove to him that it is for the greater good. A vague guess at it having some potentially negative implications is not good enough.

Oh there's a chance that if I don't rape you Kelly Brook, then someone else much worse than me will rape you because of your assets. So you know, for the greater good and everything, I think you should let me rape you, then in future you will be more careful and therefore avoid being raped by that hypothetical worse person I mentioned. So Kelly Brook's right to not be raped is dismissed by a logical and coherent utilitarian argument. Just to be clear, I actually mean Rosco and Molby are the rapists here trying to make excuses to not afford Luis Suarez rights which they take for granted themselves.
 
dantes said:
The thing about that utilitarian perspective is you need to prove the outcomes that will occur. What Rosco and Molby are getting upset over is just speculative bullshit that exists only in their own minds. How do either of them know this interview is doing anyone any harm? Prove it. Because to expect Suarez to concede a fundamental right of his to defend his name against false allegations, then you need to prove to him that it is for the greater good. A vague guess at it having some potentially negative implications is not good enough.

Oh there's a chance that if I don't rape you Kelly Brook, then someone else much worse than me will rape you because of your assets. So you know, for the greater good and everything, I think you should let me rape you, then in future you will be more careful and therefore avoid being raped by that hypothetical worse person I mentioned. So Kelly Brook's right to not be raped is dismissed by a logical and coherent utilitarian argument. Just to be clear, I actually mean Rosco and Molby are the rapists here trying to make excuses to not afford Luis Suarez rights which they take for granted themselves.
Click to expand...


I didnt know i was a rapist before but if i was i suppose Kelly Brook would be a fine victim....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom