None of that says he wasn't guided to say that. I'm sure the statement was written by Liverpool officials.
Is this guy for real? So we should accept the word of Suarez as gospel truth?! To be fair his record is exemplary, no record of any misdemeanours or anything . Also as I have already pointed out, Liverpool already donate all of their club fines to the Hillsborough fund, Suarez would have known that, and a request wouldn't have been needed as it would have happened automatically...
It is true that all fines go to charity. Stevie Gee said so in his book - that's how I know. As I've said before, all players welcome the fines and the charity donations. Some have said this is for tax reasons and I can go along with that.
I think this is clearly a case of getting in as much mitigation in, as early as possible. In the, probably vain, hope of persuading the F.A. what a nice guy he really is, and that they should just look upon what he did as a momentary lapse.
Thing is Dogs get put down for biting people but that is a natural reaction from an animal. What does that say about Suarez, RIP Liverpool hiding behing the Hillsborough fund "Aww he is not a bad lad really"
How many posters on this Board would keep their job if they had bitten someone while on duty at work? Do you think it would matter to a reputable company if they were a 'valuable' employee.
Biting the arm of Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic is only the latest in a series of controversial losses of discipline throughout Luis Suarez's career. Uruguayan club Nacional's technical director Daniel Enriquez told the Sun in February 2012 that Suarez headbutted a referee while playing for them as a 15-year-old. "He was angry, stormed over to the referee and headbutted him. The referee had a broken nose and was bleeding like a cow," he said Bloody hell ONLY 15, this guy is never going to change.
Some more tasty Chav morsels Suarez missed... Ashley Sole Marko Marinade Victor Samoses Jon Dory Mikel Frank Lambpard Demba KeBab FerNando's Torres Juan Platter Paolo Ferare-steak Rosti Turnbull His favourite as we saw was Allbranislav Ivanovic
If the company had invested over £40mill in me I could probably get away with quite a lot. I disagree with the comparisons, ultimately the club have to act as a business and what's best for the business so even if they were planning on selling him they wouldn't admit that it's an option now. It's the fans that should turn on him, he's very lucky his bad behaviour hasn't cost them games in sendings off and they should be angry that he's become an embarrassment to their club. I think this is the first instance where it's really hit home for Liverpool fans though, before they've been his sworn protectors and indulged in his bad behaviour or given him more than the benefit of the doubt.
Suarez's ultimate bosses are American. So, you can bet that financial interests will be uppermost in their minds. Most of the U.S.investment banks I worked for, or knew about, would let you get away with biting the President on the arse so long as you were making them enough money!..
I forgot Sewerage took a bite out of a Serbian.I don't like Serbs,butchers of Kosovans and Bosnians etcTake another bite Sewerman!!!!!!
Even from a financial viewpoint an argument to keep him does not stand up. If Suarez' conduct means he is suspended for a significant part of the season again (this could mean they wave goodbye to Europa cup football for next term, depending on the length of the ban) then he is a liability. Also it further damages an already tarnished brand, one which the usual crop of new glory hunting fans is deserting (sorry Scousers, but you would criticise the Manchester clubs for this and I imagine your fanbase's average age is growing by the year.) This is especially pertinent when Suarez has done a lot of the tarnishing. I think he will be quietly sold in the summer.
Not according to Ian Ayre... http://www1.skysports.com/football/...s-Suarez-despite-attack-on-Branislav-Ivanovic
That's damage limitation PR. I doubt the powers that be across the pond have even seen the incident yet. If the club defend him to the hilt they are bound to incur the wrath of the FA. I can't see him getting less than a 6-8 game ban. They will not want to be seen as weaker than the Dutch FA who gave him seven, (which doesn't seem to have been enough, as he is still at it.) Starting next season without him, for maybe 4-5 games, instantly puts them on the back foot. The lack of any European football again means they will not be able to sign somebody of similar quality, so their options are somewhat limited. Ayre's statement is the equivalent of the players wearing T-shirts with Suarez name on them, an empty gesture that will be quietly forgotten in a "fee undisclosed" transfer in the summer. Suarez is a good footballer but he is a brand or PR managers nightmare and for better or worse, they are the sort of people who have a huge say in football these days. Also, the last thing you want to say, if you are selling something, is that you don't want it anymore. You talk up your need for it and say how indispensable it is to you. If you say it is no use to you, that will drive the price into the basement. He is a dead man walking.
Unfortunately, I don't think they'll have any trouble finding buyers if they do decide to sell. Despite all his baggage, he does score goals. As I said earlier, financial considerations will be uppermost in Henry's thoughts. Also, anger management sounds very American - I guess we'll have to wait and see.
They may well chose to sell him yet but my point was that they wouldn't sack him, which was what I meant. Chelsea just about got away with it with Mutu, who was then sued for his value after he joined Juventus on a free which nearly ruined him financially but with Suarez, they would never be able to get back anything like the £30-40mill they value him at if they sacked him and then sued him.
The reason clubs don't sack players these days is because they can hire lawyers every bit as skilled (expensive) as the club can. Point taken though, they will sell not sack.
