Suarez - banned for 4 months (page 74)

[IH8MUFC]

I think to punish Liverpool is wrong,he should have been banned from international football(not inc friendlies) for say 20 games ie this World Cup and South American Championship.

Would be gutted if it happened to a City player.

Well they have to punish Suarez who is a Liverpool player. It's not like victimpool didn't know what he was like.

 

[Tbilisi]

I think to punish Liverpool is wrong,he should have been banned from international football(not inc friendlies) for say 20 games ie this World Cup and South American Championship.

Would be gutted if it happened to a City player.

Well they have to punish Suarez who is a Liverpool player. It's not like victimpool didn't know what he was like.

I know but he was playing for his country...like I say would be gutted if it was one of ours.

Glad hes missing for the game at City but back for the other title contenders though!

 

[Bozzie]

I think to punish Liverpool is wrong,he should have been banned from international football(not inc friendlies) for say 20 games ie this World Cup and South American Championship.

Would be gutted if it happened to a City player.

Except that Liverpool, as a club, haven't been punished. They haven't been prevented from playing in any competitions, deducted points or any other form of direct sanctions. Quite correctly it is Suarez who has been banned, yes that indirectly impacts on Liverpool because he is unable to play for them but that is entirely the responsibility of Suarez. If FIFA had imposed a ban that only applied to international matches and Suarez had been able to play and train on a daily basis with Liverpool then you could argue that it would be Uruguay who were being punished and not Suarez as the affect on him would have been minimal.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I think to punish Liverpool is wrong,he should have been banned from international football(not inc friendlies) for say 20 games ie this World Cup and South American Championship.

Would be gutted if it happened to a City player.

Except that Liverpool, as a club, haven't been punished. They haven't been prevented from playing in any competitions, deducted points or any other form of direct sanctions. Quite correctly it is Suarez who has been banned, yes that indirectly impacts on Liverpool because he is unable to play for them but that is entirely the responsibility of Suarez. If FIFA had imposed a ban that only applied to international matches and Suarez had been able to play and train on a daily basis with Liverpool then you could argue that it would be Uruguay who were being punished and not Suarez as the affect on him would have been minimal.

Exactly this .
Suarez is ( apparently ) a mature adult and must take responsibility for his own actions AND the effects his actions have on others , be it his employers , family , whatever.
As with every event in life - there are consequences and reactions for every action .

 

[FanchesterCity]

I think to punish Liverpool is wrong,he should have been banned from international football(not inc friendlies) for say 20 games ie this World Cup and South American Championship.

Would be gutted if it happened to a City player.

Well they have to punish Suarez who is a Liverpool player. It's not like victimpool didn't know what he was like.

I know but he was playing for his country...like I say would be gutted if it was one of ours.

Glad hes missing for the game at City but back for the other title contenders though!

Mixed feelings on that. In a sense, you're right, Liverpool suffer because of HIS antics, but at the same time, it's not out of the blue and they've chosen to keep him, and thus suffer the potential consequences.

City did the same with Tevez, Balo and Bellamy. We knew what we were buying into and took the risk, and generally it paid off for us, but we paid a price too. They all had different issues - from off field issues (Tevez) to on field issues (Balo) to changing room unrest (Bellamy).

If you hire a drinker for a job, and he goes out on the lash on Sunday night, then can't make it into work on Monday because of his out of work antics, then you knew the potential consequences / impact when you hired him. The same is true of Liverpool.

And if they didn't know the full extent when they bought him, they CERTAINLY did after a couple of seasons. They stuck by him, and fair play to them for making that choice. But they can't have all the benefits of his brilliant playing ability but suffer none of the ill effects of his temperament. C'est la vie.

I'd have a lot more sympathy if a club didn't know about a player's temperament. Liverpool did, just as we did with our butters.

 

[BlueNod864]

No sympathy for Liverpool at all, they had the chance to sell the, two time biting, racist, Suarez for v good money. They took the gamble not to. It nearly paid off, and but for a Gerrard slip prob would have done. Unfortunately for them the gamble not so sell has backfired big style now.

 

[FanchesterCity]

No sympathy for Liverpool at all, they had the chance to sell the, two time biting, racist, Suarez for v good money. They took the gamble not to. It nearly paid off, and but for a Gerrard slip prob would have done. Unfortunately for them the gamble not so sell has backfired big style now.

I don;t think it's fully backfired yet. It's a couple of months for him out. It's a hit, but not a massive hit on Liverpool. But he's running out of lives. If his hair trigger goes off one more time they might be stuck with him being banned for a full season and a plummeting price on his head.

How far to Liverpool want to push their luck? Only they can say... but I agree with everything else said. They've willingly chosen to take the gamble.

 

[BigOscar]

If he bottled someone on his holidays and got put in jail for 4 months, would the dippers be claiming he should be let out on Saturdays to play for them, as to not punish Liverpool? I find it bizarre that people think he shouldn't miss Liverpool games

 

[Tbilisi]

No sympathy for Liverpool at all, they had the chance to sell the, two time biting, racist, Suarez for v good money. They took the gamble not to. It nearly paid off, and but for a Gerrard slip prob would have done. Unfortunately for them the gamble not so sell has backfired big style now.

I don;t think it's fully backfired yet. It's a couple of months for him out. It's a hit, but not a massive hit on Liverpool. But he's running out of lives. If his hair trigger goes off one more time they might be stuck with him being banned for a full season and a plummeting price on his head.

How far to Liverpool want to push their luck? Only they can say... but I agree with everything else said. They've willingly chosen to take the gamble.

Some good points well made but I would haved loved to have seen some of the posts on here if it had happened to a City player.

 

[FanchesterCity]

No sympathy for Liverpool at all, they had the chance to sell the, two time biting, racist, Suarez for v good money. They took the gamble not to. It nearly paid off, and but for a Gerrard slip prob would have done. Unfortunately for them the gamble not so sell has backfired big style now.

I don;t think it's fully backfired yet. It's a couple of months for him out. It's a hit, but not a massive hit on Liverpool. But he's running out of lives. If his hair trigger goes off one more time they might be stuck with him being banned for a full season and a plummeting price on his head.

How far to Liverpool want to push their luck? Only they can say... but I agree with everything else said. They've willingly chosen to take the gamble.

Some good points well made but I would haved loved to have seen some of the posts on here if it had happened to a City player.

you'd get a similar response to many Liverpool fans - trying to defend the indefensible. City fans are just as biased. Plenty tried to defend Joey Barton's antics, but in the end, most had to concede he had to go.

Of course, there's some rational Liverpool fans and City fans too.