You only highlighted one part and ignored the rest You're a good poster Jenners so I don't want to argue about it. All I'll say is I genuinely couldn't give a **** anymore.
Everyone bar the Liverpool fans has known Suarez is a **** for years. Many of the Liverpool fans are simply catching up.
I dont want to say i told you so but i told you so. Massive **** who has taken the piss out of liverpool for a long time. A very good season clouded most of your views and tribalism made you go to the ends of the earth in defending him. Just to reiterate, on many many occasions, myself and many others told you so.
A **** planning his exit for 2 years while causing loads of problems for liverpool and making fools out of you then and now. In hindsight he was just a massive toothed uttercunt who should have been roundhouse kicked weekly.
All clubs stick by their ****s though, especially if they're good ****s. Utd have more than most - Cantona, Rooney, Keane (at the time), Giggs. Pretty much like most businesses. If you employ someone and they turn out to be a ****, if that **** made you loads of money and bought you success - there is a good chance you'd stick with that ****.
The title is misleading... He never blamed the club in the article really, he just made the point that 'we' didn't know how to deal with it, which was a fair point. Not sure why this makes him a **** either??
Suarez is a great footballer but an absolute thunder ****. He'll disgrace himself at Barca in time, it's in him, he's rabid
He's 100% correct - he was f**ed by the FA because they couldn't get to Terry, and Liverpool just watched it happen, hired the wrong lawyers, and threw an ineffective hissy fit afterwards instead of actually fighting it in the CAS as they should have done; even though that would have been on a point of principle. Try and separate the issues of biting, if you can, and look at what happened: He was 'convicted' for calling Evra a 'negro' eight times in a crowded goalmouth with over twelve tv cameras pointing at them, simply and solely on the testimony of a witness who perjured himself not only in this case, but had previously be found to be a liar by the same FA that simply had to believe everything Evra said for the purposes of political expediency. We should be grateful that when Evra got together with the FA before the case and altered his evidence based upon Suarez's statement and the lack of VT evidence to support Evra's statement (something that would have led to instant dismissals and sanctions if the CPS had done that in a criminal case, by the way) he never changed his testimony to say that Luis pulled out a burning cross and attempted to lynch him from the crossbar - the FA panel would certainly have believed it had Luis not been able to prove otherwise. And that last bit, facetious as it is, is the key thing: the standard of evidence. Much utter guff has been written about the difference between reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities, and criminal and civil law. Well, here's the point for all those keyboard Rumpoles wittering on about balance of probabilities and civil law; this wasn't a matrimonial dispute or an argument about garden leylandii trees. Suarez was accused, Evra was the prosecution witness, the prosecution was also the body that appointed the judge and jury, under the relative quasi-legal standing of an employment/trade hearing Suarez SHOULD have had the presumption of innocence and the standard of evidence of 'reasonable belief' AND there should have been a right of appeal. And if any of you in your jobs are treated in this manner by your employer and you don't believe me I suggest you see an employment lawyer. In fact, for those of us who've actually read the full report (and not the self serving précis that the FA put out late on New Year's Eve for pissed up hacks to reach their premature conclusions ) the first ten pages of the FA panel says exactly all that; then promptly goes on to contradict practically all of it. However, in those first few pages we see Suarez's goose well and truly cooked: the Liverpool lawyers want the charge to be objective (i.e did Suarez INTEND offence), whilst the FA insisted it be subjective - did Evra feel offence. I hope even those dolts amongst you who still believe Suarez had a fear hearing don't think that this would have lasted longer than a snowball in Hell in a real, criminal court. But even if you now accept that, weighted court and evidence and all, how the hell do you move from there to an eight game ban? On what evidence, any at all, and considering what the FA themselves admitted should be the minimum levels of 'evidence', do you go from an admitted, unintended transgression of the FA's post-written laws ( four games AT MOST, based on the Terry case, less if you consider others who broke E3 (2) such as Ferdinand), to eight games for repeatedly saying it in a crowded goalbox. etc. And THAT, Luis is right to say, is what Liverpool should have damn well fought tooth and nail to establish - luis was an ignorant fool who said something he shouldn't have done and his, and our apology for THAT should have been loud and clear, but so should have been the voice that we didn't accept the process that said he stood there and rattled off, deliberately, the word negro (or another 'n' word, as evra wanted us to believe before the FA and he colluded to cook the evidence) continuously. There was just NO f**ing evidence for this, at whatever level you look at it. Anyway, Luis Suarez is a duplicitous, lying, win-at-all costs t**t, of that there is little doubt. So, undeniably, is Patrice Evra. The fact that Luis is as such does not exempt him from natural justice, any more than the fact that evra is a proven, multiple liar means he can be racially abused with impunity. Luis, even based on his own evidence, broke E3(2), even if the FA had to change the standard of verdict and rig the evidence after the event. So, without question, did evra. Liverpool s**t themselves when an self-righteous, pious press got what they wanted from a compliant FA and were petrified of the Mail, Guardian and Mirror's (amongst others) threat to 'toxify the brand worldwide' if the didn't kow tow to the verdict by going to the CAS, and instead made things incalculably worse with the t-shirt stunt. All-in-all, if the then FSG didn't realise what complete f**ing amateurs they were working with they learned then. So did a relieved FA, basking in an unfamiliar glow of being the media darling, but so, importantly, did Luis Suarez. As Peter Schmeical would testify, this would never have happened at a well run club with influence in the FA. Hung out to f**ing dry indeed.
100% agreed, and I didn't even read it (joke) Smart money is on whoever doesn't like the post attacking donga's character instead of debating the points he actually makes...
It will be interesting when, at some future time, somebody actually tells the truth about what went on in the FA before and during the tribunal. My gut feeling is that far more influence was used by United than has ever been spoken of in public. Now that both Gill and Ferguson is a sceptres of the past it will be interesting to see what is said about their roles in this affair. What other fans conveniently forget is that those Liverpool fans who are still angered about the 'verdict' are not attempting to defend what Suarez said. The anger lies directly on the unfairness of the procedure and hence the verdict that was arrived at. Suarez is a great but flawed footballer but he has paid the price for his outburst. He is therefore entitled to make his comments about the way the club and the lawyers handled his case. He is also entitled to highlight the injustice of the lack of any true examination of Evras role in the affair and the conduct of Manchester United's management. So the FA and Clarke Carlisle got their victory. In so doing they tarnished their own reputation for fairness and veracity. It may have pleased the over-excieted media but what has it actually achieved? Personally I don't think anything has changed.
âThe Liverpool fans and the city itself will both always be with me in my heart [but] I wonât miss the media.â - Suarez, October 2014 Let's be honest, the guy was hung, drawn and quartered before the FA hearing by the press and the made an 'example' out of Suarez. There's an identical case going to the FA now where Cameron Jerome has made an allegation against Giuseppe Bellusci.....I wonder if they'll come to the same conclusion without the necessary evidence. As a club, the lawyers screwed it up.
Our "i speak spanish" let me help ceo really f'd it.... had lfc simply said lets deal with this later to that ref the thing would've not gone the way it did. the ref's report hung suarez and gave all the evidence required.
That has nothing to do with the FA's agenda. All they want to to consolidate their own power and demonstrate their ability to take arbitrary uncontestable actions. The value to the FA is being able to put a bullet point in a powerpoint presentation that says their high-profile strong stance against Suarez negates any need for oversight or regulation on their behaviour, freeing them to continue employing proven racists and sexists as they wish.
