The Liverpool Thread

[kiam06]

Awful team, stadium falling apart, no money, Lost their image after the t shirt affair.

They are no threat anymore, Leeds utd waiting to happen( although it did happen last season but a dodgy court case saved them).

 

[RedLFCBlood]

Just to Clear something up Suarez did not say Negrito he admitted to saying "Porque Negro"

Now lets have a look at the innocent use of the Term "Negro" in Latin America.

Here is what was said in the FA report by their linguistic experts.

Heres what they said about Suarez's Version.

168. It is important to grasp that the word "negro" is ambiguous in all countries and regions of Latin America.

191. The question "Por qué, negro?" as transcribed in Mr Suarez's interview sounded right linguistically and culturally and is in line with the use set out by Mr Suarez when referring to Glen Johnson; Mr Suarez was also correct in highlighting that "negro demierda" would be a clear racial slur.

Here's what they said about Evra's version.

Assuming Mr Suarez responded with "Porque tu eres negro", this would be interpreted in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially offensive. When the noun is used in the way described by Mr Evra, it is not a friendly form of address, but is used in an insulting way: it is given as the rationale for an act of physical aggression (the foul), as if the person deserved such an attack since they are black. The term is not being used as in paragraphs 172 and 173 above, but in the sense of paragraph 171.

182. The experts considered it worth noting that the phrase "porque tu eres negro" struck both of them as slightly unusual. In this instance, a direct racial slur would more likely have been something like "porque eres un negro de mierda" [because you are a shitty black].

Now Evra's version does not appear to linguistically correct so make of that what you will.

Now lets go to point 271 of the FA report.

271. When, shortly after the match, he went to see the referee with the manager, Mr Evra complained that Mr Suarez had said "I don't talk to you because you niggers". Mr Evra told us that he believed, from the moment he heard Mr Suarez use the word “negro”, that this meant ******. The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called ******, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "niggers", it was not a word he liked to use. He added that maybe it was also because he was speaking in English, that "black" was the English word in his mind, and he felt he had done enough to complain by telling the referee that he had been called black.

Really ??

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMOWi3PRDJM&feature=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMOWi3PR ... re=related</a>

Forgive my Skepticism but Mr Evra seemed ok using the word "N*ggers" in that Video.

Now without highlighting a shit load of other inconsistenties and the fact that Denis Smith who professed to saving Alex Fergusons Job at United his Auto Biography. Who Coached Darren Ferguson at Wrexham and made him Club Captain and also attended his wedding chaired the FA hearing.

Now I'm not going to Make a defence as such for Suarez and Blame Evra for everything.

My Opinion on the matter is simple as in any argument in real life, both parties will exaggerate their versions of events and that's what I feel has happened.

I'd say Suarez's version is probably the most correct until he pinches Evra's skin, then Evra's is most probably correct following that.

No red tinted glasses just an honest opinion that both players were abusive to each other and Suarez probably did refer to Evra's skin colour as intimated by the pinch, I just don't believe Evra was the innocent party that he made out to be and I don't believe that Suarez said everything that Evra claims, but was also not as innocent as he made out.

 

[tomc]

So he called him a black pig then?

The cheeky little scouse monkey.

 

[moomba]

Re: Re: The Liverpool Thread

182. The experts considered it worth noting that the phrase "porque tu eres negro" struck both of them as slightly unusual. In this instance, a direct racial slur would more likely have been something like "porque eres un negro de mierda" [because you are a shitty black].

Now Evra's version does not appear to linguistically correct so make of that what you will

Why is it that whenever a scouser cites paragraph 182 they omit that explains that while it is not a common way of speaking in Uruguay it is used, and that Suarez confirmed in his interview that he did speak in that kind of way.

 

[Cellarite]

Just to Clear something up Suarez did not say Negrito he admitted to saying "Porque Negro"

Now lets have a look at the innocent use of the Term "Negro" in Latin America.

Here is what was said in the FA report by their linguistic experts.

Heres what they said about Suarez's Version.

168. It is important to grasp that the word "negro" is ambiguous in all countries and regions of Latin America.

191. The question "Por qué, negro?" as transcribed in Mr Suarez's interview sounded right linguistically and culturally and is in line with the use set out by Mr Suarez when referring to Glen Johnson; Mr Suarez was also correct in highlighting that "negro demierda" would be a clear racial slur.

Here's what they said about Evra's version.

Assuming Mr Suarez responded with "Porque tu eres negro", this would be interpreted in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially offensive. When the noun is used in the way described by Mr Evra, it is not a friendly form of address, but is used in an insulting way: it is given as the rationale for an act of physical aggression (the foul), as if the person deserved such an attack since they are black. The term is not being used as in paragraphs 172 and 173 above, but in the sense of paragraph 171.

182. The experts considered it worth noting that the phrase "porque tu eres negro" struck both of them as slightly unusual. In this instance, a direct racial slur would more likely have been something like "porque eres un negro de mierda" [because you are a shitty black].

Now Evra's version does not appear to linguistically correct so make of that what you will.

Now lets go to point 271 of the FA report.

271. When, shortly after the match, he went to see the referee with the manager, Mr Evra complained that Mr Suarez had said "I don't talk to you because you niggers". Mr Evra told us that he believed, from the moment he heard Mr Suarez use the word “negro”, that this meant ******. The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called ******, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "niggers", it was not a word he liked to use. He added that maybe it was also because he was speaking in English, that "black" was the English word in his mind, and he felt he had done enough to complain by telling the referee that he had been called black.

Really ??

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMOWi3PRDJM&feature=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMOWi3PR ... re=related</a>

Forgive my Skepticism but Mr Evra seemed ok using the word "N*ggers" in that Video.

Now without highlighting a shit load of other inconsistenties and the fact that Denis Smith who professed to saving Alex Fergusons Job at United his Auto Biography. Who Coached Darren Ferguson at Wrexham and made him Club Captain and also attended his wedding chaired the FA hearing.

Now I'm not going to Make a defence as such for Suarez and Blame Evra for everything.

My Opinion on the matter is simple as in any argument in real life, both parties will exaggerate their versions of events and that's what I feel has happened.

I'd say Suarez's version is probably the most correct until he pinches Evra's skin, then Evra's is most probably correct following that.

No red tinted glasses just an honest opinion that both players were abusive to each other and Suarez probably did refer to Evra's skin colour as intimated by the pinch, I just don't believe Evra was the innocent party that he made out to be and I don't believe that Suarez said everything that Evra claims, but was also not as innocent as he made out.

you can quote all the flannel you want but need to clear up a few things for us.

1) why use a term of endearment 10 times?
2) why would you use a term of endearment to an opponent during an argument?
3) do you honestly believe that suarez was using a word that has double meaning (ie a friendly term sometimes / an insult in some cases) in a friendly way to a player he was in action against in your most hostile match of the season?
4) do you think that your club, it's employees and it's supporters are clinging to the one snippet of informative, cutural information for dear life because you all know that if you admit it's bollocks then the entire house of cards comes tumbling down?
5) do you believe that the nation are daft enough to believe this cock and bull story?

 

[bluemoondays]

Just to Clear something up Suarez did not say Negrito he admitted to saying "Porque Negro"

No red tinted glasses just an honest opinion that both players were abusive to each other and Suarez probably did refer to Evra's skin colour as intimated by the pinch, I just don't believe Evra was the innocent party that he made out to be and I don't believe that Suarez said everything that Evra claims, but was also not as innocent as he made out.

you can quote all the flannel you want but need to clear up a few things for us.

1) why use a term of endearment 10 times?
2) why would you use a term of endearment to an opponent during an argument?
3) do you honestly believe that suarez was using a word that has double meaning (ie a friendly term sometimes / an insult in some cases) in a friendly way to a player he was in action against in your most hostile match of the season?
4) do you think that your club, it's employees and it's supporters are clinging to the one snippet of informative, cutural information for dear life because you all know that if you admit it's bollocks then the entire house of cards comes tumbling down?
5) do you believe that the nation are daft enough to believe this cock and bull story?

^^This, Liverpool and the rage is a highly charged, aggressive game against two teams who practically detest each other. Do you really believe he was calling him "mate" all game instead of the other use of the word.

I see loads of people talking about how deluded Liverpool fans are but for them to even believe for 10 seconds this invented excuse is true, takes delusion even further than King Canute thinking he just had to wave his hand for the tide to stop.

The enquiry also made some comments in legal terms that were the equivalent of "Suarez is a lying shitbag who if he told me the sky was blue I'd go out and check".

 

[spurspinter1]

Agree with most of whats been said.

I live in Liverpool and it's strange talking to the fans, none of them seem to realise how shocked/disappointed/worried the rest of the footballing world has been with how Liverpool have acted...

 

[RedLFCBlood]

you can quote all the flannel you want but need to clear up a few things for us.

Ok I will try.

1) why use a term of endearment 10 times?

It never happened at all, read the the FA report not once does the findings say he called him it ten times.

Evra stated he called it him ten times on Canal+ but dismissed is a figure of speech in the hearing.

2) why would you use a term of endearment to an opponent during an argument?

Who said it was a term of endearment ?

Again read the FA report "Negro" in Latin America is just the word for black, it could be black hair, black box, black car etc etc.

3) do you honestly believe that suarez was using a word that has double meaning (ie a friendly term sometimes / an insult in some cases) in a friendly way to a player he was in action against in your most hostile match of the season?

I believe Evra started a conversation in Hispanic native Spain that he admitted himself that he only had a lose grasp off and then tried to translate it into a Hispanic native to Latin America (Similar language with many differences) and failed miserably, hence his insistence that he had been called N*gger until the hearing.

Now if you read my previous post you will see that I've admitted Suarez probably did refer to Evra's skin, but that both players probably exaggerated what happened.

4) do you think that your club, it's employees and it's supporters are clinging to the one snippet of informative, cutural information for dear life because you all know that if you admit it's bollocks then the entire house of cards comes tumbling down?

No I think the supporters and the club believe Suarez's version of events, I mean lets be honest why did Suarez admit anything ?

He could have just said, I said nothing prove it.

Lets be honest here the FA Reoprt is "Farcical" if you read it properley its full of glaring inconsistencies.

The FA said they would show a greater Burden of Prrof when making their decision.

There is no Burden of Proof.

There is no corroberating evidence for both players version of events.

Its just he said, she said, you word against mine.

The FA said that Evra was the better witness when telling his version of events, well I'm, not surprised given he was watching a video of the incident when recounting his version, a luxury that was not afforded to Suarez.

So Basically what happened was 3 Men heard the evidence and made a verdict that said Evra's version of events were Probably true.

Probably ???

Hold on, so does that mean Suarez's version of events could have Probably been true too ?

So that's why teh fans and club have stood by him, because its been jusdged that he Probably did do it, with no evidence to back it up, just the word of Patrice Evra, who discredits himself as a straight up by guy by lying about not liking to use the word N*gger, when he doesn't mind at all.

If he's lied about that, makes you wonder what else he's lied about no ?

5) do you believe that the nation are daft enough to believe this cock and bull story?

No I expect the nation to think for themselves look at the video's of the incident, read teh FA report, form your own opinion of what happened, instead of regurgetating the same old twoddle the ever so trusting media have spoon fed them.

The likes of Martin Lipton, Oliver Holt, Henry Winter refuse to look at the report again and do some blanced Journalism even though a PFAI Solicitor and a football Law Solicitor have picked the FA report to pieces.

But Like I've said I've gave a balanced view, I believe both players exaggerated their versions of events, which is not an unreasonable assumption as its a perfectlty normal human trait that when your bother, you will try and paint yourself in a better light.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

you can quote all the flannel you want but need to clear up a few things for us.

Ok I will try.

1) why use a term of endearment 10 times?

It never happened at all, read the the FA report not once does the findings say he called him it ten times.

Evra stated he called it him ten times on Canal+ but dismissed is a figure of speech in the hearing.

2) why would you use a term of endearment to an opponent during an argument?

Who said it was a term of endearment ?

Again read the FA report "Negro" in Latin America is just the word for black, it could be black hair, black box, black car etc etc.

3) do you honestly believe that suarez was using a word that has double meaning (ie a friendly term sometimes / an insult in some cases) in a friendly way to a player he was in action against in your most hostile match of the season?

I believe Evra started a conversation in Hispanic native Spain that he admitted himself that he only had a lose grasp off and then tried to translate it into a Hispanic native to Latin America (Similar language with many differences) and failed miserably, hence his insistence that he had been called N*gger until the hearing.

Now if you read my previous post you will see that I've admitted Suarez probably did refer to Evra's skin, but that both players probably exaggerated what happened.

4) do you think that your club, it's employees and it's supporters are clinging to the one snippet of informative, cutural information for dear life because you all know that if you admit it's bollocks then the entire house of cards comes tumbling down?

No I think the supporters and the club believe Suarez's version of events, I mean lets be honest why did Suarez admit anything ?

He could have just said, I said nothing prove it.

Lets be honest here the FA Reoprt is "Farcical" if you read it properley its full of glaring inconsistencies.

The FA said they would show a greater Burden of Prrof when making their decision.

There is no Burden of Proof.

There is no corroberating evidence for both players version of events.

Its just he said, she said, you word against mine.

The FA said that Evra was the better witness when telling his version of events, well I'm, not surprised given he was watching a video of the incident when recounting his version, a luxury that was not afforded to Suarez.

So Basically what happened was 3 Men heard the evidence and made a verdict that said Evra's version of events were Probably true.

Probably ???

Hold on, so does that mean Suarez's version of events could have Probably been true too ?

So that's why teh fans and club have stood by him, because its been jusdged that he Probably did do it, with no evidence to back it up, just the word of Patrice Evra, who discredits himself as a straight up by guy by lying about not liking to use the word N*gger, when he doesn't mind at all.

If he's lied about that, makes you wonder what else he's lied about no ?

5) do you believe that the nation are daft enough to believe this cock and bull story?

No I expect the nation to think for themselves look at the video's of the incident, read teh FA report, form your own opinion of what happened, instead of regurgetating the same old twoddle the ever so trusting media have spoon fed them.

The likes of Martin Lipton, Oliver Holt, Henry Winter refuse to look at the report again and do some blanced Journalism even though a PFAI Solicitor and a football Law Solicitor have picked the FA report to pieces.

But Like I've said I've gave a balanced view, I believe both players exaggerated their versions of events, which is not an unreasonable assumption as its a perfectlty normal human trait that when your bother, you will try and paint yourself in a better light.

the only thing i know is i wouldnt trust that slimy twat evra, he`s an evil bastard.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Just to Clear something up Suarez did not say Negrito he admitted to saying "Porque Negro"

Being very selective here my friend. That's what he eventually said but he originally told Comolli & Kuyt something else, which they both reported to the ref. This translated as "Because you are black", which was deemed to be a racial insult. The panel clearly indicated that Suarez had changed his story a number of times, when new evidence came up.

They were also convinced by video evidence that he did make the second remark, which he firmly denied.

Evra did say to the ref that he's been called "******" but from what I can recall from my reading of the report that word is very close to "negro" in French or Spanish so Evra misheard and he later admitted that.