Liverpool

[ThunderPower_14]

I don't know why people feel sorry for Liverpool here.

 

Yes, they are getting punished for something one of their employees did while not working for them, but they own a player who the know is prone to a brainsnap. They know he's capable of this sort of thing but they keep him because he's such a good player. He's a constant gamble and they've lost this time.

[Zatman]

whats really pissing me off is people saying why are Liverpool being punished? They are not, Suarez is being punished and he just happens to be their player

[islingtonclaret]

Triple black armbands. One for each bite.

[GarethRDR]

Maybe opposition players should all be covered in a veneer of that nail-biting polish to help wean poor Luis off.

[Stevo985]

Liverpool fans are the worst.

 

I'm thrilled with the news of his ban. 

 

And I agree, he's gotten off lightly.

[Zatman]

Maybe opposition players should all be covered in a veneer of that nail-biting polish to help wean poor Luis off.

 

or maybe teams should just start  putting rat poison on the pitch

[GarethRDR]

Maybe, but that'd be a bit unfair on Răzvan.

[AshVilla]

The amusing thing is Suarez wanted out the end of last season because he wanted champions league football

 

Liverpool have it next season and unless they get out the group stages he might miss the majority of their games

 

Unlucky

[krisagg75]

i think he'll leave anyway and i think liverpool know this as well.it would be interesting to know if there is a release clause in his contract.i would bet there is.after last close season and the way he behaved last season it looks similar to the ronaldo position at man u.he gave them one more season then they let him go.the new contract was probably given so the club could get a good fee.with all his sponsors seemingly pulling out you have to think liverpools are edgy as well.has to be said though.quality player-1st class melon farmer.

Edited June 27, 2014 by krisagg75

[PaulC]

Considering the actual criminal offenses committed by some footballers, there has been a lot of hysteria in the media about Suarez.

Was his offence really worse than the drink driving offenses committed by Tony Adams, Brian Robson, Paul Gascoine and others, was it worse than the dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident by Lee Hughes, or the assaults committed by Jonathan Woodhead and Lee Bowyer, or the rape committed by Chad Evans? 
Indeed at one time it seemed that been banned for drink driving was an essential pre requisite for been captain of the England cricket and football teams, with Graham Gooch, Mike Gatting and Ian Botham been banned during their time as England captain. 
Whilst the 9 match international ban is fair, to ban him from club matches is unfairly penalising his main employers who are in no way responsible for his actions whilst he is working for the Uruguayan FA.

[Zatman]

Considering the actual criminal offenses committed by some footballers, there has been a lot of hysteria in the media about Suarez.

Was his offence really worse than the drink driving offenses committed by Tony Adams, Brian Robson, Paul Gascoine and others, was it worse than the dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident by Lee Hughes, or the assaults committed by Jonathan Woodhead and Lee Bowyer, or the rape committed by Chad Evans? 

Indeed at one time it seemed that been banned for drink driving was an essential pre requisite for been captain of the England cricket and football teams, with Graham Gooch, Mike Gatting and Ian Botham been banned during their time as England captain. 

Whilst the 9 match international ban is fair, to ban him from club matches is unfairly penalising his main employers who are in no way responsible for his actions whilst he is working for the Uruguayan FA.

 

surely the article loses credibility by getting at least 4 names wrong

[PaulC]

 

Considering the actual criminal offenses committed by some footballers, there has been a lot of hysteria in the media about Suarez.

Was his offence really worse than the drink driving offenses committed by Tony Adams, Brian Robson, Paul Gascoine and others, was it worse than the dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident by Lee Hughes, or the assaults committed by Jonathan Woodhead and Lee Bowyer, or the rape committed by Chad Evans? 

Indeed at one time it seemed that been banned for drink driving was an essential pre requisite for been captain of the England cricket and football teams, with Graham Gooch, Mike Gatting and Ian Botham been banned during their time as England captain. 

Whilst the 9 match international ban is fair, to ban him from club matches is unfairly penalising his main employers who are in no way responsible for his actions whilst he is working for the Uruguayan FA.

 

surely the article loses credibility by getting at least 4 names wrong

 

 

I could have corrected the names but it was a post on my cricket forum which i thought made a lot of sense. 

[Oaks]

Considering the actual criminal offenses committed by some footballers, there has been a lot of hysteria in the media about Suarez.Was his offence really worse than the drink driving offenses committed by Tony Adams, Brian Robson, Paul Gascoine and others, was it worse than the dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident by Lee Hughes, or the assaults committed by Jonathan Woodhead and Lee Bowyer, or the rape committed by Chad Evans? Indeed at one time it seemed that been banned for drink driving was an essential pre requisite for been captain of the England cricket and football teams, with Graham Gooch, Mike Gatting and Ian Botham been banned during their time as England captain. Whilst the 9 match international ban is fair, to ban him from club matches is unfairly penalising his main employers who are in no way responsible for his actions whilst he is working for the Uruguayan FA.

 

surely the article loses credibility by getting at least 4 names wrong

 

I could have corrected the names but it was a post on my cricket forum which i thought made a lot of sense.

Are you saying there wasn't a hysteria around the offences? Some of them revived major jail sentences. We are talking about someone who's committed a crime on a football pitch and is shocking for the sport on its biggest stage. Idon't think the law needs to get involved, but he should have a longer ban from the game for his third offence. He clearly hasn't learned.

[PaulC]

No I think theres a case that the ban should not apply to the Premier League as Liverpool can't be held resposnsible for a player when he's playing for his country. Liverpool may be able to overturn that particualarly part of the ban if they take this to court

[Oaks]

No I think theres a case that the ban should not apply to the Premier League as Liverpool can't be held resposnsible for a player when he's playing for his country. Liverpool may be able to overturn that particualarly part of the ban if they take this to court

Why not if he failed a drug test for international duty he serves a ban for the club too. It's clear the two previous cases which were in club football can be taken into consideration. It's his third time...each time it should be a higher punishment.

[pete101]

they are clearly not feeding the players off the pitch

 

http://youtu.be/6yMZkFvlfkA

 

surely if action is not taken against this assault against the pitch , then they can not keep suarez 4 month ban in place 

[PaulC]

Lallana a good signing for them or a tad overpriced at 25 mil. 

[LondonLax]

I don't know why people feel sorry for Liverpool here.

 

Yes, they are getting punished for something one of their employees did while not working for them, but they own a player who the know is prone to a brainsnap. They know he's capable of this sort of thing but they keep him because he's such a good player. He's a constant gamble and they've lost this time.

 

I also think it's unfair on Liverpool, bloody hilarious though but unfair. 

 

Liverpool could justifiably say that they knew Suarez was volatile but after his last incident they had tailored his man management to get the best out of him whilst cutting out the controversy. They send him off to play with Uruguay who don't know how to handle him and he snaps again. 

 

If one of our players does something crazy and reckless whilst on international duty we would all be livid on here if the player was banned from Aston Villa matches, it is hypocritical to think it is justified to apply to Liverpool just because we all hate Liverpool.

 

That tribalism is a lazy way of thinking. 

Edited June 27, 2014 by LondonLax

[LondonLax]

 

Personally, I don't like how Liverpool are being punished for something Suarez did on the international break. It's not like Rodgers had any control over the situation and now will lose his best player for a long period. I thought Suarez should had just been banned from international football till after the copa in 2016.

 

 

Yeah, lets not punish anybody for anything in case it messes with their day job.  My cousin should have tried that argument when he got nicked for speeding and lost his licence. Why should the company he works for have to suffer because he acted like a dickhead? 

 

 

No, in that example the consequences of breaking the law are well known. Suarez hasn't broken any laws, the police have not been involved. He broke FIFA regulations and the punishment for that has always been suspension from the team you were representing when you committed the offence.

 

FIFA have just made this punishment up on the fly because they don't like controversy at their show piece tournament. A lengthy ban from playing for Uruguay would have been appropriate, missing the rest of the world cup and the qualification for the next one. 

[ThunderPower_14]

 

I don't know why people feel sorry for Liverpool here.

 

Yes, they are getting punished for something one of their employees did while not working for them, but they own a player who the know is prone to a brainsnap. They know he's capable of this sort of thing but they keep him because he's such a good player. He's a constant gamble and they've lost this time.

 

I also think it's unfair on Liverpool, bloody hilarious though but unfair. 

 

Liverpool could justifiably say that they knew Suarez was volatile but after his last incident they had tailored his man management to get the best out of him whilst cutting out the controversy. They send him off to play with Uruguay who don't know how to handle him and he snaps again. 

 

If one of our players does something crazy and reckless whilst on international duty we would all be livid on here if the player was banned from Aston Villa matches, it is hypocritical to think it is justified to apply to Liverpool just because we all hate Liverpool.

 

That tribalism is a lazy way of thinking. 

 

 

I think the big difference is that if an Aston Villa player bit someone during a world cup game, we'd be livid with him.

 

If Benteke had never gotten injured, had finished the season with a flurry of goals and single handedly kept us comfortably mid table, then started the world cup in style before biting an opponent in his 3rd game and getting suspended for 4 months, i'd probably punch a hole in the wall.

 

But not because I felt like Aston Villa were being unfairly treated or because it was bullshit that our most important player is getting suspended for Villa games despite us having nothing to do with his indiscretion.

 

I'd be livid because the player is a **** moron and has hurt the club and his teammates with a moronic act. I'd be livid because this has probably hurt his future transfer value. I'd be livid because it might mean we don't achieve what we want to achieve next season.