|
I am amazed that Liverpool are "Shocked and Amazed" at the 10 match ban given to one of their football kickers. Surely they should be shocked and amazed at the fact that the event ever happened. I understand that the player has previously served a 7 or 8 match ban for a similar offence. 10 days seems light to me, in the circumstances. What would a member of the public get for biting a stranger in the street?
|
>>I am amazed that Liverpool are "Shocked and Amazed"
Assuming that they actually said that, rather than a newspaper using a phantom quote, what would you expect them to say?
From a Point of view that wants to try to be middle of the road between supporting their player, supporting the authorities, not condoning the action etc. etc. A fine line.
|
|
The exact quote, from the Beeb said "Both the Club and the player are shocked and disappointed by the severity of today's independent regulatory commission decision" Are these actions actually supportable? Are Liverpool trying to make out that this was acceptable behaviour? 10 match ban, for an offence which previously earned him a 7 game ban seems light - he will still be on his full salary presumably?
|
>>The exact quote, from the Beeb said "Both the Club and the player are shocked and disappointed by the severity of today's independent regulatory commission decision"
That would be a direct quote of what the BBC wrote, we do not know what the Club said, exactly how they phrased it or what they meant.
However, that to one side and assuming that it is either accurate or close enough, I repeat - what would you have expected them to say?
The player is purportedly valued at £40m. Would you slag off a £40m asset and risk demotivating or devaluing him?
The FA is annoyed. Would you slag them off by saying that the punishment is ridiculous.
Some of your supporters are annoyed with the player, and think he's disrespecting their club (as if). So would you risk defending him?
Some of the supporters are annoyed by the FA and think its all an injustice. So would you risk saying the player deserved it?
Or would you just keep right away from any potential argument about the offence and simply be "shocked and disappointed" by the severity of the decision thus avoiding saying that there should have been no penalty.
Liverpool FC as a company don't give a flap one way or another, they're a business, so they will just do the best they can to protect their revenue stream and their asset.
|
>> The player is purportedly valued at £40m. Would you slag off a £40m asset and
>> risk demotivating or devaluing him?
>>
Lets think about this another way.
If an aircraft was designed and built, then it was discovered that it had a design fault, and kept crashing, would it be allowed to keep flying, just because it cost a lot of money?
Of course not.
It would be grounded, redesigned, modified, or scrapped.
That player, if he did that in a pub, would probably be charged for ABH, or maybe GBH.
Because he did in on a football pitch, he basically gets away with it.
And people wonder why I dislike football.
|
>>It would be grounded, redesigned, modified, or scrapped.
But if possible, with no comeback, it would be sold on. But it would be worth less the more you slag it off.
And in anyway, the analogy isn't a very good one.
It is similar to a work environment. If you think an employee is going to leave to go to another dealership, and you'll get a bung for it. Why would you cause him difficulty?
Especially if causing him difficulty meant he became resentful, messed up chunks of your business before he left, and then slagged you off to every other salesman in town who might have been considering working for you.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 24 Apr 13 at 21:28
|
>> >> The player is purportedly valued at £40m. Would you slag off a £40m asset
>> and
>> >> risk demotivating or devaluing him?
>> >>
>>
>> Lets think about this another way.
>> If an aircraft was designed and built, then it was discovered that it had a
>> design fault, and kept crashing, would it be allowed to keep flying, just because it
>> cost a lot of money?
Lets not because that a really ridiculous analogy, one player biting another does not result int he death of hundreds of people.
And there is no charge of GBH or ABH because there is no assault, the "bitten" one declined to press charges.
|
>>And there is no charge of GBH or ABH because there is no assault, the "bitten" one declined to press charges.
I don't think that is strictly necessary. Evidence is the issue, shirley?
|
>> >>And there is no charge of GBH or ABH because there is no assault, the
>> "bitten" one declined to press charges.
>>
>> I don't think that is strictly necessary. Evidence is the issue, shirley?
Evidence is only required if there is a complainant in this case. Clearly if he dies of aids or blood loss then it changes.
|
|
Even their supporters club are saying STFU in effect. Do LFC think dey have special dispensation?
|
>>10 days seems light to me, in the circumstances>>
10 match ban...:-) Thoroughly deserves it although, initially, I felt that having already been fined by the club, the double figure number of matches ban might be too harsh a double punishment. Then I thought again and decided he really needs such treatment.
|
Liverpool themselves were left shocked by the decision, which sees Suarez banned for two games more than he received after being found guilty of racially abusing Patrice Evra in 2011.
The club's managing director Ian Ayre said: 'Both the club and player are shocked and disappointed at the severity of today's Independent Regulatory Commission decision.
'We await the written reasons tomorrow before making any further comment.'
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2313963/Luis-Suarez-banned-10-games-bite-Chelseas-Branislav-Ivanovic.html#ixzz2RPotsPMj
Liverpool - home of a management in denial.
|
A big fuss over a trivial incident. Saurez didn't even break the other players skin, what he did was just childish and probably deserved a three match ban at the most. There are potential career ending tackles flying in every week in pro football and the perpetrators don't get anywhere near a ten game penalty, let alone fined by their own club.
If you or I did that at work we would of course be sacked - we would be sacked because our value to our employer is zero, they would simply replace us next day and carry on as they were. As Mark has already pointed out, Saurez has a transfer value of around 40 million, possibly more. At a conservative estimate he is probably worth around nine points a season to Liverpool in a league where every finishing position is worth £700,000. And Liverpool are carrying crippling debts many million deep.
Liverpool would be mad to sack him, I wouldn't sack him and neither would anyone else on here unless they were trying to commit business suicide. And before you jump on the obligatory knocking football bandwagon remember that Schumacker and Senna were not sacked for deliberately causing crashes that could not only have killed other drivers but also seriously endangered marshals and spectators.
|
I'm indifferent to footy and Suarez seems to be a thug who doesn't learn.
But the only thing that is shocking is that anybody is shocked that Liverpool are saying they are shocked and disappointed...as already pointed out, they have nothing to gain by heaping further disapprobation on their player, and a lot to lose by him having 10 games off.
And the police should have arrested him after the match. The 'bite' may not have been any more than a nasty suck but it was a very public assault and he should have been charged and dealt with in the same way as any thuggish fan is if they are caught.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 24 Apr 13 at 23:02
|
Wasn't it Ferguson who said that 80% of his squad would have been in jail by the age of 25 if they hadn't been able to play football.
My cousin is a professional football player, and he's a git. Personable enough, but a total thug.
As are all of his mates that I know.
I do not begrudge them the money and I would never stop them getting it. But I swear I do not understand why so many people are prepared to pay for season tickets, football strips, advertising, satellite subscriptions etc. etc.
The sport would improve if the revenue about halved. Especially since the salaries would squeeze more quickly than the infrastructure.
You can't blame the likes of Suarez. He's been allowed to get away with murder all his life so that one team or another will win a match. He has, and as an adult has probably never had, any concept that money is limited.
|
|
He obviously has a bit of a problem with controlling his anger but hey that's just the other side of his determination to win and what makes him truly great player. In his case you can't have one without the other. Well mannered and useless or a bit volatile and brilliant. I know what I would pay to see.
|
Rugby football rules allow for a 12 week ban for biting.
|
>> Rugby football rules allow for a 12 week ban for biting.
>>
yeah, its so common in Rugby Union they have specific rules about it.
|
|
the ban is not excessive. he has history for it, and the last time got him a seven game ban, so on a sliding scale of repeat offending sentencing 10 is appropriate and expected.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 25 Apr 13 at 08:44
|
This is also the player, remember, whose cynical handball cost Ghana a deserved place in a World Cup semifinal. (A rugby referee would have been able to award a try in a comparable situation; no idea why football can't allow the same.)
This case shows top-flight club football as utterly morally bankrupt. The whole game suffers because the indiscipline of top players filters down to park players who've seen it on the telly, and not just football but sport as a whole suffers. I'd expect to be fired if I'd bitten someone at work; yes, passions run higher in sporting situations but Suarez is clearly never going to learn, yet his club can see only the money he earns for it. Liverpool's craven spinelessness here is indefensible.
|
Mr Beest,
I agree with all that you wrote with one exception;
>>Liverpool's craven spinelessness here is indefensible.
They're not being spineless, they are managing their environment. But as you said, it is a morally bankrupt and badly behaved environment.
I still really enjoy MOTD on a Saturday night though.
|
|
Liverpool FC. Ashamed of nothing, offended by everything.
|
>>Liverpool FC. Ashamed of nothing, offended by everything.
Isn't that pretty much a UK problem these days?
|
|
Well, a UK problem might be going a bit far, but its certainly a more prominent attitude than it used to be. Especially the offended by everything bit.
|
I'm not one for red faces, Vić, but I think any entry on the once-great, now scab-picking victim-city of Liverpool is incomplete without one.
};---)
|
>> Liverpool FC. Ashamed of nothing, offended by everything.
Absolutley, Liverpool and its fans generates much higher levels of hypocrisy than any other football club. T
|
|
Agreed. One can watch the goals and interesting bits without having to see the diving, elbowing , spitting, jersey pulling, referee baiting, off the ball incidents and other unpleasant manifestations of the inappropriately styled "Beautiful Game"
|
The whole "ref intimidation" thing annoys me.
It would be simple to stop; The FA merely needs to announce that even speaking to the ref will get you a red card. Carnage for one weekend and then the problem has gone.
The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the FA wishes to have controversy and drama aimed at the referee.
Seems cynical to me, but I can't see another reason for it to be continuing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 25 Apr 13 at 15:39
|
>> Agreed. One can watch the goals and interesting bits without having to see the diving,
>> elbowing , spitting, jersey pulling, referee baiting, off the ball incidents and other unpleasant manifestations....
In Rugby Union. You also forgot to mention the eye gouging, the face stamping, the gonads grabbing and the cheating by the use of fake blood,
|
|
True but Rugby Union has no pretence of being a Beautiful Game, and rightly so.
|
Doesn't really matter whether it happens in rugby or not, it still certainly happens in football.
|
>> Doesn't really matter whether it happens in rugby or not, it still certainly happens in
>> football.
>>
Just killing the "rugby union is real sport compared to football " debate before it starts.
|
>>Just killing the "rugby union is real sport compared to football " debate before it starts.
Really? My mistake, I thought you were starting it.
|
|
So'k I know its hard for you to accept you are wrong. Still a little correction now and again can only make you a better human being.
|
>> a little correction now and again can only make you a better human being.
It didn't work on you Zero. Why should FMR be any different?
|
|
'preciate it Zero, I'll try harder.
|
>> 'preciate it Zero, I'll try harder.
Tsk. Catamite.
|
The Biter Banned - No FM2R
