Suarez ban draws further comments

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
luvgonzo said:
Here we go then the outraged are here in force. Does this really matter that much to other fans? ****ing funny.
Click to expand...

It's pathetic-all these people pretending they're shocked and disgusted when really they're rubbing their grubby little paws with glee.
 
Chelsea fan here (please don't shoot me down just for that).

I'm more angry that the act wasn't picked up during the game - if it had, he would definitiely (and rightly) been sent off and got a 3 match ban. The fact that he was still on the pitch, you guys had 11 men (instead of 10) and he scored the winner hurts me much more. All everyone is talking about is how long he should be suspended for, whether you should kick him out of the club or what method of execution is most appropriate. Chelsea were winning and might have got a needed 3 points. Yes, you were on the ascendency at that moment in the game, but we might have been able to hang on to all 3 points with one of your key players gone - this may prove very costly at the end of the season.

In terms of whether 10 games is right, too much, not enough blah, blah, blah - it's one for the FA to call. We've had our fair share of "inappropriate" incidents at Chelsea, which the whole world and their cousins are happy to comment on, so it's sort of expected that Liverpool are getting flack from everyone. Inconsistency at the FA is the issue.

For me, 10 games for the deed seems right. It was a despicable act that should be punished severely (and he's done it before). Should other people have had longer or more severe punishments for some of the things they have done....absolutely.
 
crocarno said:
Chelsea fan here (please don't shoot me down just for that).

I'm more angry that the act wasn't picked up during the game - if it had, he would definitiely (and rightly) been sent off and got a 3 match ban. The fact that he was still on the pitch, you guys had 11 men (instead of 10) and he scored the winner hurts me much more. All everyone is talking about is how long he should be suspended for, whether you should kick him out of the club or what method of execution is most appropriate. Chelsea were winning and might have got a needed 3 points. Yes, you were on the ascendency at that moment in the game, but we might have been able to hang on to all 3 points with one of your key players gone - this may prove very costly at the end of the season.

In terms of whether 10 games is right, too much, not enough blah, blah, blah - it's one for the FA to call. We've had our fair share of "inappropriate" incidents at Chelsea, which the whole world and their cousins are happy to comment on, so it's sort of expected that Liverpool are getting flack from everyone. Inconsistency at the FA is the issue.

For me, 10 games for the deed seems right. It was a despicable act that should be punished severely (and he's done it before). Should other people have had longer or more severe punishments for some of the things they have done....absolutely.
Click to expand...

Fair enough mate some on here may agree with you. For me a statement from the FA that said 10 match ban and that will be the norm for this offence from here on in. Have to take that on the chin then.

Nice to see a normal post from someone with an opinion that doesn't have to rant about it all.
 
luvgonzo - cheers. That's the problem with faceless communication. People come out with such high levels of crap that they wouldn't dare say to people in the real world. If I don't feel I could justify my comments face to face in a pub or chatting with my folks, then there's some real growing up to do.
 
JumboWhiffy said:
If, for example, i do a crime and get 6 months in prison, get let out then do the same thing again, I'd expect a heavier sentence! You'd think he would have learnt his lesson!!
Click to expand...

Show your reasoning on why Paul Scholes didn't serve a ban of several years for his umpteenth dirty and cynical foul.
 
Cameron had nothing to loss: Sees a story that is filling every paper & news station and will do for a week, so his name is now in all those stories.

Not likely to lose votes he already doesn't have in Liverpool because of it and possibly gains a few more votes from xenophobic daily mail readers.

He gets to spout more of his family values ****e while ignoring the fact that unlike many of his Tory boys Suarez goes home to his wife & kids every night not home to a mistress or rent boy. And I'm fairly sure Suarez hasn't cost the lives of any British citizens for show lately.

But by all means the clean as snow politicians keep sending people with good family values like Giggs and Saville up to the Queen for honours in our name....

Seriously folks, you say we are the kings of "outrage" !!

We'll know when its hit its zenith when someone compares Suarez directly with Hitler.
 
astroturfnaut said:
I don't know why the Suarez thread was closed
Click to expand...

Might have had something to do with the vast amount of vile comments that had been posted <whistle>


Seems that a few aggressive posters are out in force already so let's see how this one now goes <laugh>
 
JumboWhiffy said:
If, for example, i do a crime and get 6 months in prison, get let out then do the same thing again, I'd expect a heavier sentence! You'd think he would have learnt his lesson!
By the way, i have absolutely nothing against Suarez or Liverpool! Not really had any opinion on his past deeds! It could have been any player on any other team, I would have the same opinion! I'm just suprised about people saying that the 10 match ban is too harsh hence why i had the urge to give my opinion, thats all!

oh! and im not suggesting suarez has hiv.......im suggesting ANYBODY could have hiv, or hepititis etc!
Click to expand...

I agree he should have longer based on previous incidents, but they can't use it. In fact, they came out and practically cried as they said they couldn't look at the history in Holland as it is in a different league, so the ten game ban is based solely on the fact he bit Ivanovic, not taking into account previous incidents. So, if someone got six matches, and now they gave Suarez ten, it is extremely inconsistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back