Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know we've moved on but in light of the non-decision from FIFA (no way!?) I suspect a further delay then an appeal by the Uruguayans that will mean Suarez can play until Uruguay are knocked out then a small ban (meaning he'll miss a few unimportant games) and poor Luis saying he needs a multi-multi-million pound transfer as the incident has meant he will be persecuted in England.


Job done.

I do wonder whether they're looking for better footage, because none that I have seen would be conclusive. Don't get me wrong, we all know what happened, but if he says "proove it" then they need a shot from the opposite side of all the ones I've seen, showing him actually getting his teeth stuck in.


I suspect you're right that he'll say he can't possibly carry on in England now, and I hope Liverpool get a bloody good fee for him! ...



...



... and don't use it like Spurs used their Bale money!

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do wonder whether they're looking for better

> footage, because none that I have seen would be

> conclusive. Don't get me wrong, we all know what

> happened, but if he says "proove it" then they

> need a shot from the opposite side of all the ones

> I've seen, showing him actually getting his teeth

> stuck in.

>


I think the pics of the guys shoulder with the puncture marks are helpful to the evidence against LS.

So his country who were responsible for him at the time, lose him for one match (they won't get pst their next match I don't think), and Liverpool lose him until the end of October.


If I say that seems a bit unfair to me am I playing the victim?


Just to be veeeeeery clear for SJ & Co, I don't think FIFA have done this to pick on Liverpool FC. But I think that they have failed to consider his club who managed to manage him well all last season, whilst barely punishing his country who have not only supported him (like LFC did) but have actively tried to lie his way out of it.


Long international ban would have been fairer IMO. And not that anyone of you will believe me, but I'd say that if it wasn't a Liverpool player to.


This is the first time they've banned from all footy for something other than drugs. It sets a precedent.

I think Liverpool fans should focus their ire in Suarez


After the second bite and 10 match ban and all the support from the club there must have been awareness that another incident wouldn't just be another 10 match ban.


He's the culprit in all of this. FIFA had to act so quickly to remove any ambiguity when Uruguay still in middle of World Cup.


Club. Country. Doesn't matter to him. He could do the same anywhere now as he has proven.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think Liverpool fans should focus their ire in Suarez


I basically agree with that. Although I still think that this is not as serious as some other stuff that goes on... nevertheless he brought it on himself.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So his country who were responsible for him at the

> time, lose him for one match (they won't get pst

> their next match I don't think), and Liverpool

> lose him until the end of October.


As I read it, he's also suspended for nine international matches, so Uruguay will lose him for quite a while. Nowhere near long enough ? he should have been banned from all football for a year and made to accept treatment for his 'issues'. But then I guess the lawyers would be all over it like vultures.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think Liverpool fans should focus their ire in

> Suarez



Do you honestly think any Liverpool fan is not angry at him and doesn't think he's a complete tool?



> Club. Country. Doesn't matter to him. He could do

> the same anywhere now as he has proven.



You're probably right, it makes no difference to him.


BUT


This is my issue


When banned for Liverpool for something he did in a Liverpool shirt, he was free to represent his country. Why should Liverpool suffer for something he did on international duty? That is not me playing victim Liverpool, that is me thinking this seems genuinely unfair.

Liverpool ban was second offence


This time is third offence


Not hard to see the thinking behind it


Anyway instead of asking why he is banned from club duty, ask why the club don't ban him anyway. Honestly if he was an arsenal Player I would be embarrassed and would want Wenger to just get rid. I wouldn't want him wearing arsenal colours again

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • And from what I remember, she eventually cut the tea shop for a similar  reason to chandelier.  Chariot style buggies
    • Oh yes, it could have been about there, I can't remember exactly. At one point there seemed to be a load of pizza places opening on NCR. I vaguely remember the one we used to use was put out of business by another one which opened. Wasn't Grace and Favour's food offering more of a tea shop at the back of the actual shop? If memory serves the owner, whose name escapes me now, was one of the earliest people I know to move to Hastings. Which must now be crammed with South East Londoners 🤣
    • That Neal Street veggie cafe was great. Food For Thought ❤️
    • Hi Dogkennelhillbilly, You won't be aware that i proposed infill sites for housing in East Dulwich - the garages on Bassano Street and Henslowe that respectively became 1-4 Dill Terrace family houses and the 78, 80, 80A Henslowe Street family houses. These were council owned garages and it was frustrating how slow the council was to go from my idea to completion (roughly eight years). East Dulwich has some other vacant WW2 bomb sites I'm guessing that the private land owners have been sitting on.Owe for a land tax for vacant land.  WRT to the builders yard by East dulwich station. Southwark Council has an agreed policy the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum. But the approved scheme is 9 storeys of student accommodation. Very hard to put this genie back in the bottle. The council has recently publicly stated lower ratios of social housing will be required. I will be amazed if the developer doesn't submit another application now they have the 9 storeys approved but with significantly less social housing. The less social housing the higher the land values. The higher the land values the less social housing viability reports state are possible.  If we really want to increase home supply - Southwark have over 6,000 empty homes. Vancouver charges a low % of the value of empty homes and rapidly eased this problem. Parts of Wales have introduced under Article 4 planning permission is required for second homes seeing within 12 months a dramatic decrease in property prices. Southwark Council have Article 4 requirements - why not add this one? It takes National political will to solve this AND regional and local authorities such as the second home council tax premium and these being used promptly. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...