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.

 

[RedLFCBlood]

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.

Read what I've said mate. I've admitted Suarez probably did say something racial, hence the nip of the skin, that only gives the assumption he was reffering to skin, no one not even the best lawyers in the land can argue that.

Now I've noticed you said both Comolli and Kuyt said that they Said Suarez said "Because you are black".

This was explained by the linguistice experts by them not being fully aware of what Suarez said to them and thus to tried to make sense of it when translating.

Much like Evra when he admitted he translated his version of events incorrectly.

 

[moomba]

Re: Re: The Liverpool Thread

This was explained by the linguistice experts by them not being fully aware of what Suarez said to them and thus to tried to make sense of it when translating.

Which section of the report was that?

Quite the co-incidence that two people, one in Spanish, one Dutch both mis translated exactly the same way.

Inconsistencies IIRC that were never adequately explained according to the report.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Read what I've said mate. I've admitted Suarez probably did say something racial, hence the nip of the skin, that only gives the assumption he was reffering to skin, no one not even the best lawyers in the land can argue that.

Now I've noticed you said both Comolli and Kuyt said that they Said Suarez said "Because you are black".

This was explained by the linguistice experts by them not being fully aware of what Suarez said to them and thus to tried to make sense of it when translating.

Much like Evra when he admitted he translated his version of events incorrectly.

The nip of the skin was held to have no significance in the report iirc. I have to admit that as I read through the early parts of it my first thought was that Suarez had indeed been harshly treated but the more I read the more it became clear he wasn't telling the truth.

The FA used the same burden of proof as would be used in a civil matter, i.e. "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

But what really pissed people off, which you don't seem to recognise, is the LFC reaction with the aggressive defence in their statmeents and the tee-shirts. As happened with us in the Garry Cook saga, it often not the original act that causes the problem but the follow-up or excuses. More often than not it's better to fess up and act contrite. The appropriate reaction would have been to say "Sorry, I did say something in the heat of the moment and didn't realise until afterwards that it could have been misinterpreted. I apologise to Mr Evra and want to assure people that it won't happen again now I am aware of the sensitivity around perceived racist remarks in this country."

It's interesting that your former press officer Paul Tyrrell (who was ours for a numer of years) left your club a little while ago. He and I had a few run-ins over the years and he could be quite aggressive in the way he approached things but he would probably have handled this better.

 

[lloydie]

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 ?

Oh come on, you surely can't be obtuse enough to think that Evra's use of the word "******" in a Gangsta pastiche type of way equates with an acceptance of the derogatory use of the word by a "non-brother"?

I refer you to Chris Rock, who will no doubt be appearing in a court near you on a charge of using inflammatory racist language.......

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iau-e6HfOg0[/youtube]


Oh and Stevie Starfish is innocent too, pfft

 

[RedLFCBlood]

Oh come on, you surely can't be obtuse enough to think that Evra's use of the word "******" in a Gangsta pastiche type of way equates with an acceptance of the derogatory use of the word by a "non-brother"?

I didn't say that did I ?

I said Mr Evra himself said that he did not like saying the word.

That video suggests he has no problem saying it.

Bearing in mind all he had to say is ref, Suarez has just called me a N*gger.

But he never, then he lied to the FA about his dislike for saying the word.

As I've stated Suarez is not a picture of innocence himself. but then again neither is Mr Evra.

 

[berger10]

They have always behaved like they had a victim complex, but Dalglish has managed to amplify it ten fold

The scousers have become cringeworthy and are more like the rags than they realise.

And just for reference, for any reading Liverpool fans, I'm not a "munich bastard", my gran wasn't murdered by Harold Shipman and most City fans don't give a shit that you "won it five times".

I was hugely disappointed with most of the scousers I came across on Wednesday and know for a fact my scouse mates would be embarrassed by the behaviour of an unusual amount of knuckle draggers. I also can't understand why chants usually reserved for the rags have been aimed at us in the last two games. History is something only the scousers and the scum get heated about, it means not a jot to us, considering most were happy when you got one over on the rags (not that it's happened much in my lifetime)

You keep singing about the past lads, I've seen enough this season to predict it's all you will have to sing about for a while, actually, a generation. A six man defence, 3 man midfield and a big dopey twat upfront masquerading as a footballer...very ambitious.

Still, you've got your "istry" I suppose!

 

[The Future's Blue]

Oh come on, you surely can't be obtuse enough to think that Evra's use of the word "******" in a Gangsta pastiche type of way equates with an acceptance of the derogatory use of the word by a "non-brother"?

I didn't say that did I ?

I said Mr Evra himself said that he did not like saying the word.

That video suggests he has no problem saying it.

Bearing in mind all he had to say is ref, Suarez has just called me a N*gger.

But he never, then he lied to the FA about his dislike for saying the word.

As I've stated Suarez is not a picture of innocence himself. but then again neither is Mr Evra.

Look mate, you can reason it away as much as you want but you'll find you're not going to get to much backing from anyone else who cares about football. We're City fans who at 1st glance wanted to believe it was all bullshit so we could have a real pop at Evra and United but most now understand that we cannot (even though we'll give it him anyway) as the evidence is just so damning.

To make matters worse your club perpetuated Saurez' actions by taking highly inappropriate action leaving every other club looking on in absolute shock and disgust.

If you cannot take that on board mate, then I don't know, you may as well keep it to RAWK and keep the delusion alive.

 

[samharris]

Whats Hispanic for " fuck off you wanker" and why didnt suarez choose this to say ??. Instead he brought skin colour into it.

 

[Cellarite]

Let's face it, Liverpool have shown their true colours lately. A club that will defend a racist, a fanbase encouraged by the event to edge a little further over the line and a manager who let's the nation think ill of the club by bickering at every given opportunity.

This is true, I'm taking my 10 year old lad to the second leg. My idea was to wear my sky blue City jacket. Me and the lad discussed taking a City scarf to the Hillsborough memorial outside Anfield. I've got a Liverpool supporting mate in Bootle who I hope to meet for a pint before the game. He told me in no uncertain terms last week to wear no colours on the way to the ground. I said surely I'd be alright with a scouser and a child. He assures me I wouldn't. He went as far as to say I would be more of a target because I'd be on my own. I was truly shocked. Can you imagine a scarf wearing Liverpool fan with a child being attacked on Grey Mare Lane?

There is a large section of Liverpool's support who revel in the club's noteriety. They are becoming a nasty club but are still portrayed as the greatest fans known to man because they sing and wave flags and scarves when the teams come out. Some of the behaviour of Liverpool fans over the last few years has been truly disgraceful.

 

[moomba]

Re: Re: The Liverpool Thread

Oh come on, you surely can't be obtuse enough to think that Evra's use of the word "******" in a Gangsta pastiche type of way equates with an acceptance of the derogatory use of the word by a "non-brother"?

I didn't say that did I ?

I said Mr Evra himself said that he did not like saying the word.

That video suggests he has no problem saying it.

Bearing in mind all he had to say is ref, Suarez has just called me a N*gger.

But he never, then he lied to the FA about his dislike for saying the word.

As I've stated Suarez is not a picture of innocence himself. but then again neither is Mr Evra.

That video was taken years ago.

Totally unreasonable to say with any certainty that saying a word once in a totally different context in totally different times means that you must like the word forever after.

The standards of proof that scousers expect everyone else to adhere to seem to fall by the wayside when it suits their argument.