And we're trying to 'get on with it' but sad little people keep raising the issue on our behalf! Do you really expect to make rash comments and nothing be said in return? And as I have said to CPofL you're lot aren't whiter than white - People in glass houses and all that eh!
F.A. Hypocritical ****ers
- Thread starter Robby202
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
And we're trying to 'get on with it' but sad little people keep raising the issue on our behalf! Do you really expect to make rash comments and nothing be said in return? And as I have said to CPofL you're lot aren't whiter than white - People in glass houses and all that eh!
Fans will be fans mate, it's the football club I criticise and Chelsea have dealt with their racism issue in a more professional handled manner than Liverpool have.
Are you really stupid? The FA stated in their report that they did not believe that Suarez was a racist. Evra in his changeable submission stated the same thing. It's only very silly people like you who cannot see the difference.
Drogs,
Whilst I have no evidence other than experience of the power politics used by governing bodies, I am sure that Liverpool's statements were made in the light verbal codicils to the published reports. LFC made clear that they did not accept the conclusions but would abide by the decisions. Now why would they do that if they had not been lent on by the FA? After all the matter could easily have been referred to the courts.
Why is LFC deemed to have "handled the matter badly" because they spoke in defence of someone they considered wrongly accused and wrongly convicted?
Because the media didn't agree and we all know the media's agenda is what sticks. Don't blame the saps who believe everything they read in the paper
I know, I have stuck up for Liverpool on a number of occasions throughout this dave including the booing of Evra.
I'm just saying that Dalglish coming out and saying 'suarez shouldnt have been banned' and wearing t-shirts in
aid of his absence isn't very appropriate and that it didn't help their cause when it came to punishing him. Could've all been handled a bit better and would've recieved less criticism from other fans and press.
I agree with you for the most part but do you think it was appropriate for the team AND manager to wear t-shirts in support of the accused?
I am also criticising Dalglish in this in the way he has handled interviews, it attracts bad attention from other fans.
When you face not only the FA but also the full approbation of the media, you tend to adopt a trench mentality. The difference between Chelsea and LFC is that Chelsea had the matter taken out of their hands because of the police enquiry and the pending court case.
At the risk of repeating myself, why should the club be bullied by the press into accepting something that they consider wrong and unjust?
If you had a friend or family member who was convicted of a crime, but they protested their innocence and you believed them- would you support them in attempting to clear their name, or join the lynch mob baying for their blood?
True but I'm talking about small matters Liverpool could've done to prevent a lot of criticism, Chelsea players wanted to wear John Terry shirts but the club said no as it was deemed inappropriate (something I believe Liverpool should've done).
To be honest it's a little different from a family matter. Point is that he was convicted and we all think you should move on now. Kenny Dalglish wasn't at the incident, nor were any of you which is what I mean by disagreeing with what Kenny said, there was no need to say it now that Suarez has been punished.
Disapprobation, dave.
Sorry to be a pedant, but it does alter the sense of your post- which I otherwise agree with.
Not to mention Dalglish's sarcastic response to serious questions being asked about the whole affair in press conferences, the comments the Liverpool statement made about Evra, Dalglish making reference to corruption in the process etc. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from fans but coming out of the heirachy of one of the world biggest clubs given the seriousness of the issue at hand, was why Liverpool got slaughtered for the whole affair.
Fans are morons, we know that and will stick up for a player regardless of what they've done. Clubs have to act better than that.
But under FIFA statutes the only court that could have dealt with it was CAS. And CAS adopts the same basis of judgement as every other sporting authority - balance of probability. Therefore Liverpool couldn't have asked the court to use a higher basis of evidence, the only grounds would be to challenge the FA's decision to believe Evra's, Kuyt's, Commoli's and Dalglish's testimony over that of Suarez.
To do that would either require Suarez to make a more persuasive argument for his post match comments to Kuyt, Commoli and Dalglish having been lost in translation, or for Suarez to change his argument. As one of the main factors underlying his initial conviction was the fact that he had changed his testimony a couple of times, changing it again was unlikely to build a stronger case.
The only real conclusion is that Liverpool's lawyers looked at all the arguments they could make in appeal, and realised that all of them would weaken their case, and so were forced to accept the result rather than drag out the appeals process and have Suarez distracted for half the season, and then probably banned at the end of the process anyway.
You're just splitting hairs now. I used it as an example of the machinery of justice- the level of personal involvement is irrelevant to the principle.
Because an injustice occurred in the past doesn't stop it being an injustice and any attempt to correct it is valid.
I've said before that in footballing terms it's over and we should move on, but we're not being allowed to. Apparently it's ok for others to bring it up when they fancy having a go but if we defend ourselves then we're the ones who are guilty of perpetuating it.
This happened years ago. Journalists like to pick on the England national team. That is all they can think of for a story. They'll dig up any rubbish. Everybody has moved on from this. Pearce has done good things with the England U21's.
- Status