Suarez - banned for 4 months (page 74)

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

He's a nasty fcucker but I'd bite Liverpool's hands off to sign him at what should be a knocked down price.

Louis has to be the most entertaining player in the Premier League
- that dive in front of Save our Davey in the Merseyside derby.
- his services to candle sales on Merseyside this week.
- checking to see if he had damaged his team after biting Chielini and
- not forgetting to mention a lot of memorable goals.

They could let him go on a free, I wouldn't want the cnut anywhere near our club. Thankfully I reckon the owners, as well as Txiki and Ferran, would feel the same way, not to mention the majority of supporters.

Exactly how I feel. I'd need a week of hand jobs from Susan Boyle before I even considered it.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

When Liverpool signed Suarez they knew following the biting incident in Holland he was damaged goods, Ajax contacted numerous clubs trying to sell him and midway through his suspension Liverpool signed him.

Next follows the Evra incident again there is no doubt that Liverpool have a player that will cause problems, is damaged goods. But what do Liverpool do? Do they think we have a problem? No they quite simply cant recognise where the problem lies.

Lets not forget the handball at the last WC or the handball goals and the dives.

So on to the biting of Ivanovic. Surely the alarm bells were ringing. Oh no they yet again support the player.

On then to the Italy game and what do they say about not being able to teach a old dog new tricks?

From day one Liverpool knew the man was trouble they had every chance to get rid last year but decided not to.

When I hear people say its unfair on Liverpool I cant help but smile. They knew what they were getting into they took the decision to carry on employing him and now will not be able to pick him instead they will have to play someone in his place. Hardly the end of the world and yes I get it he is a top player but there lack of decisive action, similar to how Ajax reacted, has come home to roost. So yes they do have to share some of the responsibility for their employees actions.

I read elsewhere someone making the point about duty of care and in view of his past actions and the likelihood that this will happen again that Liverpool , should he stay, could well be exposed in terms of a claim of veracious liability .

Or even 'voracious' liability.

 

[Deleted member 58678]

How funny would it be if Uruguay appealed against the ban without talking with the dippers, fifa say get fucked and increase his ban to 6 months.

fuck me I'd be pissing myself all summer

Now that would be funny!

 

[terraloon]

When Liverpool signed Suarez they knew following the biting incident in Holland he was damaged goods, Ajax contacted numerous clubs trying to sell him and midway through his suspension Liverpool signed him.

Next follows the Evra incident again there is no doubt that Liverpool have a player that will cause problems, is damaged goods. But what do Liverpool do? Do they think we have a problem? No they quite simply cant recognise where the problem lies.

Lets not forget the handball at the last WC or the handball goals and the dives.

So on to the biting of Ivanovic. Surely the alarm bells were ringing. Oh no they yet again support the player.

On then to the Italy game and what do they say about not being able to teach a old dog new tricks?

From day one Liverpool knew the man was trouble they had every chance to get rid last year but decided not to.

When I hear people say its unfair on Liverpool I cant help but smile. They knew what they were getting into they took the decision to carry on employing him and now will not be able to pick him instead they will have to play someone in his place. Hardly the end of the world and yes I get it he is a top player but there lack of decisive action, similar to how Ajax reacted, has come home to roost. So yes they do have to share some of the responsibility for their employees actions.

I read elsewhere someone making the point about duty of care and in view of his past actions and the likelihood that this will happen again that Liverpool , should he stay, could well be exposed in terms of a claim of veracious liability .

Or even 'voracious' liability.

Or how about

vicarious

 

[stony]

They could let him go on a free, I wouldn't want the cnut anywhere near our club. Thankfully I reckon the owners, as well as Txiki and Ferran, would feel the same way, not to mention the majority of supporters.

Exactly how I feel. I'd need a week of hand jobs from Susan Boyle before I even considered it.

Well you wouldn't it going anywhere near her mouth.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

When Liverpool signed Suarez they knew following the biting incident in Holland he was damaged goods, Ajax contacted numerous clubs trying to sell him and midway through his suspension Liverpool signed him.

Next follows the Evra incident again there is no doubt that Liverpool have a player that will cause problems, is damaged goods. But what do Liverpool do? Do they think we have a problem? No they quite simply cant recognise where the problem lies.

Lets not forget the handball at the last WC or the handball goals and the dives.

So on to the biting of Ivanovic. Surely the alarm bells were ringing. Oh no they yet again support the player.

On then to the Italy game and what do they say about not being able to teach a old dog new tricks?

From day one Liverpool knew the man was trouble they had every chance to get rid last year but decided not to.

When I hear people say its unfair on Liverpool I cant help but smile. They knew what they were getting into they took the decision to carry on employing him and now will not be able to pick him instead they will have to play someone in his place. Hardly the end of the world and yes I get it he is a top player but there lack of decisive action, similar to how Ajax reacted, has come home to roost. So yes they do have to share some of the responsibility for their employees actions.

I read elsewhere someone making the point about duty of care and in view of his past actions and the likelihood that this will happen again that Liverpool , should he stay, could well be exposed in terms of a claim of veracious liability .

Or even 'voracious' liability.

Or how about

vicarious

Or vicious

 

[Hoghead]

Thing is its not really 4 months is it. From July to august he wouldn't have any games to play anyway (depending on how far Uruguay get) so it's more like 2 months anyway.

Didn't he get 10 games last time he did it in the prem? So it's effectively a game less for doing it yet again? Surely they should have taken previous instances it's happened and threw the book at him? I could understand the 9 International Games and 4 months if it was something someone with no previous had done (or had not done it before), but the third time? How it is punishment? There saying Liverpool will pay him £3 million whilst he's away from the stadium, I'd fine him for not turning up (even though he can't) every week, no way would I pay him the £3 mil. Can see him going Spain on the cheap, £30mil or so.

(Assumed four-month period runs 26 Jun-26 Oct)
16 August - Liverpool v Southampton
23 August - Man City v Liverpool
30 August - Tottenham v Liverpool
13 September - Liverpool v Aston Villa
16/17 September - Champions League group match
20 September - West Ham v Liverpool
23/24 September - Capital One Cup third round match
27 September - Liverpool v Everton
30 September/1 October - Champions League group match
4 October - Liverpool v West Brom
18 October - QPR v Liverpool
21/22 October - Champions League group match
25 October - Liverpool v Hull
Plus World Cup which they'll probably get kicked out of by Columbia.

But doesn,t his ban also include training with Liverpool as well so that means he may not be match fit or ready to play in the team when the ban ends - you could add another 4 weeks to these dates.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

They could let him go on a free, I wouldn't want the cnut anywhere near our club. Thankfully I reckon the owners, as well as Txiki and Ferran, would feel the same way, not to mention the majority of supporters.

Exactly how I feel. I'd need a week of hand jobs from Susan Boyle before I even considered it.

I reckon it's the leave 10 minutes early crowd who wouldn't have Suarez in our squad! The evil tw*t. Could turn us into a force in Europe.

It would have to be a deal in bite sized chunks / pay as he plays.

 

[mancitymick]

Re: Suarez

Superb footballer, but one I never want to see wearing a City shirt.

In a nutshell

 

[Ducado]

RAWK is funny, although the Stasi trained Mods have allowed some descenting voices to be heard