Suarez - banned for 4 months (page 74)

[SebastianBlue]

Serious question:

Would any team holding his registration be allowed to register him for Champions League participation? Does "administration" not also indicate his name cannot even be included in a submitted squad?

Not sure if that is the case but I imagine the Guardian will be releasing a clarification of punishment article shortly.

 

[LeemoMCFC]

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.

Yeah not allowed to step foot in any stadium and banned from training with Liverpool.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Not even allowed to do keepie uppies in his back garden.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Can't even throw his jacket on the floor, in case he creates 'Goalposts.'

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Can't even throw his jacket on the floor, in case he creates 'Goalposts.'

Yep, and he's had his dubbin confiscated.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He's been expressly and explicitly banned from using the terms "over the moon", "in the hole" and "inverted winger".

 

[NeilYoungIsBack]

Shouldn't we be a bit more sympathetic and understanding ? A lot of people suffer from eating disorders these days.

 

[quiet_riot]

Shouldn't we be a bit more sympathetic and understanding ? A lot of people suffer from eating disorders these days.

It's not an eating disorder, he just eats dis-defender, then dat-defender...

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Shouldn't we be a bit more sympathetic and understanding ? A lot of people suffer from eating disorders these days.

eatin's not cheatin'

 

[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.

Or how about

vicarious

Or perhaps vermicious