be surprised if we have that much bargaining power of specifying no English club. for me it will be a set value and to any CL club.
I don't remember him being backed by most regarding the handshake thing. And very few defended him over the bite, many wanted him sold.
Too ****ing true Tobes. He'll remain a **** for me, but I hope he continues to score goals like he did last season - if it's true of course
Not by everyone mate If he's banging them in for us he'll get my support on the pitch, as is the general feeling though think hes a twat for everything really, this latest episode of things just pushed it all too far Im sure hes a nice man (charity work etc) but hes took a big dump on our club but like i say, just to get us propelled up the table id rather he stays. #stupidfootballfan So anyway ..... Luis Suarez has suggested he may be willing to stay at Liverpool and end his dispute with the club. Suarez had claimed that he had an agreement that he would be allowed to leave Liverpool if they failed to qualify for the Champions League. Arsenal have made two bids for the striker, and in the meantime Liverpool boss Brendan Rodgers has ordered Suarez to train alone and only return after he has apologised to his team-mates. But his desire to leave now appears to have changed. Suarez is currently away with Uruguay for their friendly in Japan and he was quoted in Uruguayan newspaper El Observador as saying he is willing to remain at Anfield because of the supporters. "For now, owing to all the affection of the people, I would be staying," he said http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ints-he-may-stay-at-liverpool-because-of-fans --------------- Wonder what his relationship will be with other players though? Im sure it would be fine. Gerrards already said his piece on wanting Suarez to stay
He was backed a hell of a lot on the handshake thing with many claiming it was Evra that refused to shake. Fair enough if you think Evra pulled his hand away however, if it was me I would have made sure I grabbed his hand or made sure it was clear who did/didn't won't to do it. To me, it was 100% clear that Luis didn't want to, not sure Evra wanted to either but that's not the point.
He did mention the fans but what I mean is, did BR say he wouldn't play for the club again unless he apologises to the fans? Or was it that he wouldn't play again without an apology and he thinks Luis should apologise to the fans too? Subtle but there is a difference.
Also remember him being slated on here for his dive against Stoke (rightly so). But you may be right about the handshake.
Fine by me. As long as he apologises to the club he's disgraced and he gets a new clause that is a definitive release clause but not to English teams then great, a club that finished 7th in the league has kept one of the top 10 players in the world for another season.
“There needs to be an apology to his team-mates and to the club and once we get that commitment that he is ready then we will have the player we have always had,” Rodgers declared.
I think it depends on when or high you view the board. No matter what happens, there will always be differing opinions. Opposition fans will always pick up on the "negative" side of things (in our eyes) and we'll more than likely see the positives. Its exactly the the same with the Arsenal vs Liverpool stuff that has been happening. If it had been the opposite way around the same discussions would have taken place but by the opposite fans.
I guess it depends on your interpretation of 'the club' but IMO it could be done internally as it doesn't mention the fans. Edit: if he signs a new contract then I think he would apologise to the fans too anyway.
...and it'll probably come around the end of September / beginning of October, with the ink damp on a newly signed, fattened contract with a Real £75mil release clause.
Yeah and any more immature **** on the pitch he doesnt get paid while sitting out his ban and has to redecorate Anfield, help the elderly and pick litter up for the duration of the ban
Generalisation that doesn't remotely reflect the opinions from the vast majority of posters on this site over the last two years.... Unless you were actually asking the questions in which case: "We" didn't: we criticised the process and "evidence" used not whether we thought he did or did not. I'm assuming you meant that incident and not the biting who no one defended. Or the diving which is just silly as its endemic to the game and we only criticised the singling out not defending the act itself. "We" called what we saw. Some will, some won't we're not one giant "fan" we're millions.
