One nutter stands with another ...
Yeah. And the president of Uruguay sounds as mad as the rest of them. It gives me a whole new sense of respect for Wales.
Bite, Nibble, Munch and Chomp
- Thread starter Red Astaire
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Yeah. And the president of Uruguay sounds as mad as the rest of them. It gives me a whole new sense of respect for Wales.
Cheers. So somewhere in the same ball park. It's a little more "normal" to do it in rugby, and rugby tends to be known for being pretty fair.
Given that, I'm not sure how we can really can complain.
R
RedZeppelin III
Guest
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica
interesting character in fairness .
I'd put it a little differently, in that I don't think Uruguay can really complain. LFC's position is rather different IMHO.
Another point to notice is that in rugby the incidents are sometimes more severe, resulting in severance of fingertips, earlobes etc.
I know, I meant in terms of punishment from FIFA.
Who seem to be pretty relaxed these days with violent conduct punishment.
Wales have not won 2 World Cups though.
Indeed. I'm hoping this opens that whole can of worms all over them.
But that's done in the context of arguing about the fairness (or unfairness to Liverpool as a a club) of the FIFA worldwide ban, not to excuse his actions (which are downright idiotic and deplorable).
You can take the 'cunt has let us down' bit as a given, we don't have to constantly reinforce that in every post. I'd rather focus on the complete inconsistency of FIFA punishments (35k fine to the Croatia FA for repeated racism at Intls) that can be reasoned and appealed.
Well, I take your point, but you've manipulated it a bit. He's been suspended for a certain period. So the comparisons with being banned from 'ever' doing something again are not very helpful. FIFA is basically the government of the football world. It can stop a player from doing anything anywhere in its own little world just like a nation state's government can imprison someone for a certain period of time. The question for each is how fair was the judgement, not that the sanction cannot be made. Yes, a four month ban 'interferes with his right to earn a living'. So does a sentence for Andy Coulson. And as I said yesterday, a common or garden tabloid hack spent eight months in prison for biting someone. So it's not a wildly implausible reaction by FIFA at all. But, yes, I agree with you that one can point to FIFA's inconsistencies in the past, and the judgement here can certainly be queried, but the 'lifetime' stuff only muddles things here. (And Tyson couldn't be banned from all boxing because there is more than one boxing authority; it wasn't down exclusively to his human rights as an economic agent.)
He is the most infamous player not the most marketable.
You are acting the tit if you're aiming insults at posters based on a misreading of their argument (if they've already taken care to explain their context).
Yes, you had a previous slant on things when he bit Ivanovic and had good reasons to. To be clear though, I think the FIFA ban (and lets face it, FIFA are a corrupt shambles to the bone) in this instance is inconsistent with a raft of other 'punishments' they've handed out of late. It also unfairly punishes Liverpool FC. Like I said in an earlier post, throw the book at him with regards all Intl matches, fines etc, but this is a tournament over which we as a club have no influence.
I dunno, the punishment is against the player, it just happens to affect the teams he plays for too. He chose to sign a player that's capable of biting someone. Just like an employer loses out if one of their employees gets sent to jail.
We can probably sue him all right, but we can't really complain about the decision of the disciplinary body.
That's about right. The only part I'm unsure about - and where we may be able to challenge - is whether the disciplinary body's sanctions have gone beyond the scope of their coverage. I read the FIFA Disciplinary Code (2011 - latest one I think), and I'm unsure that the scope extends beyond (a) games under FIFA's direct jurisdiction and (b) games not under anyone's jurisdiction (I suppose that's charity games, testimonial games, etc.). Does that include domestic games under country FA jurisdiction? I'm not really sure - it's not clear to me, and I suppose that's where we might be able to contest. Here's the scope of the application of the Disciplinary Code:
2 Scope of application: substantive law
This code applies to every match and competition organised by FIFA. Beyond this scope, it also applies if a match official is harmed and, more generally, if the statutory objectives of FIFA are breached, especially with regard to forgery, corruption and doping. It also applies to any breach of FIFA regulations that does not fall under the jurisdiction of any other body.
The tricky statement is the "general breach clause" as it seems all-encompassing though I'm not sure what FIFA's statutory objectives are.
Now, I'm talking about contesting not because we want to defend Suarez - he deserves all the shit he gets - but because we want to defend the club's interests. Whether he can play club games has to have some impact on his price in the event that we want to dump him. If the legal suits look at the rules and decide that we've no case to fight, then it's too bad.
Beat me to it. Agree entirely. Get top quality advice - I'd hope we seek it from Lord Grabiner or someone at that level - and abide by it.
That will be one match ban. I would prefer him breaking someone's legs. especially Man Utd or Chelsea or City or Arsenal or Everton players.
They can stick their poker up their hoop
I'd lay heavy odds Standard Chartered have had plenty to say behind the scenes too.
One going around Uruguay
[One does wonder how Pepe wasn't given a long ban considering his infractions ... ]
[One does wonder how Pepe wasn't given a long ban considering his infractions ... ]
Retweeted by Danny Neale
Panache71⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ @johndoogue 27m
Brilliant#lfc pic.twitter.com/lo3tjtztbE
Kildare
Panache71⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Brilliant
Kildare
I'm a bit sceptical about LFC's legal remedies. The English courts have a policy whereby they treat the decisions of sporting disciplinary bodies as having legal authority. They will not allow appeals against such decisions to be heard in a proper court. That's why the club was powerless to do anything about the "racism" ban which wouldn't have lasted five minutes when the searchlight of the Law was shone on it.
Maybe FIFA could be taken to court in Switzerland?
He should be banned for the same amount of time as any other player caught over violent conduct by video evidence. I think the rest of the World Cup would have been fine. Sadly his previous misdemeanors have come back to haunt him. If thsi was the first time he'd done it it would probably been a 4 or five match ban. Banning him from playing for us is a cunt's trick. I imagine FSG's lawyers are all over this.
That's not the way I remember it, Ports. As I recall it, the reason we couldn't take the Evra decision to court was that the FA's rules, which we had (presumably knowingly) signed up to, precluded our doing so. In this case I'd be interested to get proper advice on whether, in making their ban cover what Suarez would otherwise be doing in this country, FIFA thereby brought their decision within the jurisdiction of the English courts. As you suggest, the CAS in Switzerland may also be a possibility. Either way, we should absolutely be guided by what our advice says.
The FA basically said in the report that, should we appeal, the ban would be for longer.
Yes but that was an appeal to the FA, not an appeal to Law. An appeal to the FA would obviously have been useless as it would have been heard by the same vindictive people who issued the ban in the first place.
Similar threads
