Rorschach
Sonny Walters
He's missing the point really. And Jordinho is right, take your medicine and shut up for a change.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Victimpool FC - Klopp leaving, grown men crying
- Thread starter southstand1882
- Start date
He's missing the point really. And Jordinho is right, take your medicine and shut up for a change.
Some valid points here, imv
Pepe Reina hits out at 'absurd' 10-game ban for Liverpool's Luis Suarez
Last Updated: April 25, 2013 3:01pm
An FA disciplinary committee ruled on Wednesday that the striker's bite on Branislav Ivanovic warranted a punishment far more severe than the automatic three-match suspension for violent conduct.
But Reina believes Suarez, who has until noon on Friday to appeal against the additional seven-match ban, has been singled out because of his nationality and past misdemeanours.
"I consider myself a friend of Luis," Reina told Spanish radio station Cadena Cope.
"People in England are treating him different because he is Uruguayan; because he has had a previous episode like this.
"He knows perfectly well that what he did was wrong but a 10-game ban seems to me absurd, out of proportion and unfair. It seems that the people making the decisions have got it in for Luis a little bit.
"He knows perfectly well that what he did was wrong but a 10-game ban seems to me absurd, out of proportion and unfair. It seems that the people making the decisions have got it in for Luis a little bit."
Pepe Reina
"I know Luis and I know that he is the complete opposite (off the pitch): he is a magnificent person and great team-mate. But because of the way he plays, he is aggressive and very competitive, he plays like a street player and sometimes the way he is gets him into trouble.
"There is a lot of hypocrisy. Some players are treated differently to others. In the racism cases: the one with proof got a four-game ban and Luis got eight matches."
Asked if he felt there was xenophobia in England, he added: "No, but there is hypocrisy - a different measure is used."
Suarez was banned for seven games in 2010 when he bit an opponent while playing for Ajax.
He received an eight-game suspension last season after he was found guilty of abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra. Chelsea's John Terry was later banned for four games after an FA independent panel found him guilty of racially abusing QPR's Anton Ferdinand.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...bsurd-10-game-ban-for-Liverpool-s-Luis-Suarez
Pepe Reina hits out at 'absurd' 10-game ban for Liverpool's Luis Suarez
Last Updated: April 25, 2013 3:01pm
An FA disciplinary committee ruled on Wednesday that the striker's bite on Branislav Ivanovic warranted a punishment far more severe than the automatic three-match suspension for violent conduct.
But Reina believes Suarez, who has until noon on Friday to appeal against the additional seven-match ban, has been singled out because of his nationality and past misdemeanours.
"I consider myself a friend of Luis," Reina told Spanish radio station Cadena Cope.
"People in England are treating him different because he is Uruguayan; because he has had a previous episode like this.
"He knows perfectly well that what he did was wrong but a 10-game ban seems to me absurd, out of proportion and unfair. It seems that the people making the decisions have got it in for Luis a little bit.
"He knows perfectly well that what he did was wrong but a 10-game ban seems to me absurd, out of proportion and unfair. It seems that the people making the decisions have got it in for Luis a little bit."
Pepe Reina
"I know Luis and I know that he is the complete opposite (off the pitch): he is a magnificent person and great team-mate. But because of the way he plays, he is aggressive and very competitive, he plays like a street player and sometimes the way he is gets him into trouble.
"There is a lot of hypocrisy. Some players are treated differently to others. In the racism cases: the one with proof got a four-game ban and Luis got eight matches."
Asked if he felt there was xenophobia in England, he added: "No, but there is hypocrisy - a different measure is used."
Suarez was banned for seven games in 2010 when he bit an opponent while playing for Ajax.
He received an eight-game suspension last season after he was found guilty of abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra. Chelsea's John Terry was later banned for four games after an FA independent panel found him guilty of racially abusing QPR's Anton Ferdinand.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...bsurd-10-game-ban-for-Liverpool-s-Luis-Suarez
What total flimflam, his nationality doesn’t come into it and yes the fact he has previous probably did sway the decision against him, plus the video evidence.
But 7 matches in Holland for the same thing wasn’t unfair?
There’s a difference between being “aggressive and competitive” and being downright dangerous in the tackle, punching and biting players
Typical Liverpool, always complaining about their treatment without seeing that its their treatment of others that gets them in trouble in the first place.
Wow the comments the players are making and the even the Manager, just wow.
It would be a very good idea if the owners of LFC put everyone at the club on temporary ban from talking to the press, the players especially as they are paid to play football not give opinions. Just shut up, let the dust settle and do what's required to prevent Liverpool from hitting the headlines in the wrong way again in the future.
It would be a very good idea if the owners of LFC put everyone at the club on temporary ban from talking to the press, the players especially as they are paid to play football not give opinions. Just shut up, let the dust settle and do what's required to prevent Liverpool from hitting the headlines in the wrong way again in the future.
inkpenspur
Allan Nielsen
'The vilification started within minutes of Luis Suarez sinking his teeth in Branislav Ivanovic’s arm. Forums and social media networks buzzed with anger, and by 7pm the villain of the peace was being hung out to dry by fans, incandescent with rage. The villain being Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers, who had the temerity to point out at a press conference that, no matter how good they are, “all players are replaceable”.
Later, Ian Ayre, the club’s Managing Director, would also feel the wrath of Scouse social media mob for his handling of the incident – though his competent performance, and action of getting Suarez to apologise within a couple of hours of the event, was in sharp contrast to the bungling that characterised the Evra affair.
Yet Suarez, whose moment of toddler-like madness started the storm, escaped the worst of the criticism. On Twitter and the forums – and it’s the forums that dictate what being a Liverpool fan is these days – some Reds criticised our mercurial Uruguayan, but others, many others, laughed it off, and directed their vitriol at the manager, Sky TV (and its “agenda”), Sky’s pundits, the press, the FA, Chelsea fans, Liverpool fans, Ivanovic. Everyone except the man who’d started the whole thing off with his bizarre impression of Rod Hull’s Emu.
To an extent, this is understandable: Suarez’s presence has far more of a bearing on Liverpool’s fortunes at the moment than Rodgers’ (or if he were to come back, Rafa Benitez’s) tactics. But this wasn’t really about matters on the field, this was about turning to what has become the default position in the red half of the Scouse nation over the last few years: anger.
Quite simply, Liverpool fans are seemingly in a perpetual state of annoyance. There was, in the not-too-distant past, a “Liverpool way” that was defined by a devotion to the men in red, a sportsmanship that involved applauding those who’d performed well against us and an ability laugh at both ourselves and those unlucky enough not to be Liverpool supporters.
And it wasn’t purely a myth, this Liverpool way – it was, bar the odd “welcoming committee” for away fans in the late-’70s to mid-’80s – real. Real enough that even today, one of the main accusations against Suarez is that he betrays it. Far from hating us, the individuals who make up the modern media grew up admiring Liverpool, supporting us in Europe as a surrogate for the poorly performing England team. We revelled in our status as carriers of the Scouse flame, an exotic strain of Britishness, part Beatles charm, part well-travelled merchant seaman. For the most part, others fans didn’t want to fight us when we came to town – they wanted to look at us, meet us, be us.
So what happened? When did we become so sensitive? When did jibes about the lack of employment opportunities really get to us? When Man United’s fans sing about us, why does it prompt pages of outrage on our club forums? Seriously, who cares? If you went to Anfield in the mid-’80s when we were at our peak, United got it in the neck every week. And not just about their lack of success on the pitch.
A Liverpool fan recently said to me that the club’s supporters had become “addicted to negativity”, and there’s something in that. When Liverpool’s Spirit of Shankly fans organisation formed to combat the cancer that was the leveraged ownership of George Gillett and Tom Hicks, its brilliant campaign helped end the Americans’ reign at Anfield, bringing Liverpool supporters together into a cohesive unit, making them realise just how powerful they could be. And that felt good.'
On the field, the Yanks’ disastrous tenure led to the downgrading of the team and eventually the sacking of Rafa Benitez, who spotted they were shysters from the off, and called them out on it. When he was sacked the fans protested once more, as was their right, and again made them feel part of something, a rarity in modern football.
Since then, we Liverpudlians have revelled in our anger, felt it out, got used to its power. When the Suarez/Evra affair took off we defended our man to the hilt, researching the street slang of Uruguay to – in our minds at least – prove his innocence, forgetting our reaction was based purely on the fact he played for Liverpool (the same, of course, could have been said about United).
Yet when Suarez then went on to embarrass the club’s greatest ever player, Kenny Dalglish, by refusing to shake Evra’s hand in the return match, we blamed Sky, Man United, anyone – except the player himself. “He’s like a Scouser,” we told ourselves. “He’s one of us,” – forgetting the long-lasting effect he had on a man who really did sacrifice everything for Liverpool FC.
We fumed and fumed, and even abused Liverpudlian journalists for expressing honestly-held opinions that didn’t follow the standard Kopite response. But when people who love the club are “c****”, what does that leave us to say about vermin like Kelvin McKenzie?
Since then we’ve fumed about the press conferences of Brendan Rodgers, the refereeing of Howard Webb, the supposed Manchester bias of the Football Association, the songs of Sunderland and Man United, and Evra’s joke with the plastic arm at Old Trafford when United won the league. When we got knocked out of the FA Cup there was a weird sense of satisfaction because it meant we weren’t following the now-hated “traditional” priorities. Scouse not English at the expense of everything else.
Supporting a football club is supposed to be fun. It gives a predominantly young audience the chance to travel, bond and witness moments of the highest drama in the flesh. But at the moment, following Liverpool feels like entering a perilous den of mistrust where the slightest word out of place can result in castigation.
Today, with a team that’s languishing just above mid-table, the voices demanding the removal of Brendan Rodgers are getting stronger, as Liverpudlians realise once again that they hold the career of another man in their hands. The fact that with our match day revenue dwarfed by that of the Top Four, there isn’t a manager alive who could make Liverpool a title-challenging force again is irrelevant. The knives are out. And to those who wield them, it feels good.
Shamelessly ripped-off from The Angry phalanx: Why Are Liverpool Fans Perpetually Annoyed?
by Anthony Teasedale
Later, Ian Ayre, the club’s Managing Director, would also feel the wrath of Scouse social media mob for his handling of the incident – though his competent performance, and action of getting Suarez to apologise within a couple of hours of the event, was in sharp contrast to the bungling that characterised the Evra affair.
Yet Suarez, whose moment of toddler-like madness started the storm, escaped the worst of the criticism. On Twitter and the forums – and it’s the forums that dictate what being a Liverpool fan is these days – some Reds criticised our mercurial Uruguayan, but others, many others, laughed it off, and directed their vitriol at the manager, Sky TV (and its “agenda”), Sky’s pundits, the press, the FA, Chelsea fans, Liverpool fans, Ivanovic. Everyone except the man who’d started the whole thing off with his bizarre impression of Rod Hull’s Emu.
To an extent, this is understandable: Suarez’s presence has far more of a bearing on Liverpool’s fortunes at the moment than Rodgers’ (or if he were to come back, Rafa Benitez’s) tactics. But this wasn’t really about matters on the field, this was about turning to what has become the default position in the red half of the Scouse nation over the last few years: anger.
Quite simply, Liverpool fans are seemingly in a perpetual state of annoyance. There was, in the not-too-distant past, a “Liverpool way” that was defined by a devotion to the men in red, a sportsmanship that involved applauding those who’d performed well against us and an ability laugh at both ourselves and those unlucky enough not to be Liverpool supporters.
And it wasn’t purely a myth, this Liverpool way – it was, bar the odd “welcoming committee” for away fans in the late-’70s to mid-’80s – real. Real enough that even today, one of the main accusations against Suarez is that he betrays it. Far from hating us, the individuals who make up the modern media grew up admiring Liverpool, supporting us in Europe as a surrogate for the poorly performing England team. We revelled in our status as carriers of the Scouse flame, an exotic strain of Britishness, part Beatles charm, part well-travelled merchant seaman. For the most part, others fans didn’t want to fight us when we came to town – they wanted to look at us, meet us, be us.
So what happened? When did we become so sensitive? When did jibes about the lack of employment opportunities really get to us? When Man United’s fans sing about us, why does it prompt pages of outrage on our club forums? Seriously, who cares? If you went to Anfield in the mid-’80s when we were at our peak, United got it in the neck every week. And not just about their lack of success on the pitch.
A Liverpool fan recently said to me that the club’s supporters had become “addicted to negativity”, and there’s something in that. When Liverpool’s Spirit of Shankly fans organisation formed to combat the cancer that was the leveraged ownership of George Gillett and Tom Hicks, its brilliant campaign helped end the Americans’ reign at Anfield, bringing Liverpool supporters together into a cohesive unit, making them realise just how powerful they could be. And that felt good.'
On the field, the Yanks’ disastrous tenure led to the downgrading of the team and eventually the sacking of Rafa Benitez, who spotted they were shysters from the off, and called them out on it. When he was sacked the fans protested once more, as was their right, and again made them feel part of something, a rarity in modern football.
Since then, we Liverpudlians have revelled in our anger, felt it out, got used to its power. When the Suarez/Evra affair took off we defended our man to the hilt, researching the street slang of Uruguay to – in our minds at least – prove his innocence, forgetting our reaction was based purely on the fact he played for Liverpool (the same, of course, could have been said about United).
Yet when Suarez then went on to embarrass the club’s greatest ever player, Kenny Dalglish, by refusing to shake Evra’s hand in the return match, we blamed Sky, Man United, anyone – except the player himself. “He’s like a Scouser,” we told ourselves. “He’s one of us,” – forgetting the long-lasting effect he had on a man who really did sacrifice everything for Liverpool FC.
We fumed and fumed, and even abused Liverpudlian journalists for expressing honestly-held opinions that didn’t follow the standard Kopite response. But when people who love the club are “c****”, what does that leave us to say about vermin like Kelvin McKenzie?
Since then we’ve fumed about the press conferences of Brendan Rodgers, the refereeing of Howard Webb, the supposed Manchester bias of the Football Association, the songs of Sunderland and Man United, and Evra’s joke with the plastic arm at Old Trafford when United won the league. When we got knocked out of the FA Cup there was a weird sense of satisfaction because it meant we weren’t following the now-hated “traditional” priorities. Scouse not English at the expense of everything else.
Supporting a football club is supposed to be fun. It gives a predominantly young audience the chance to travel, bond and witness moments of the highest drama in the flesh. But at the moment, following Liverpool feels like entering a perilous den of mistrust where the slightest word out of place can result in castigation.
Today, with a team that’s languishing just above mid-table, the voices demanding the removal of Brendan Rodgers are getting stronger, as Liverpudlians realise once again that they hold the career of another man in their hands. The fact that with our match day revenue dwarfed by that of the Top Four, there isn’t a manager alive who could make Liverpool a title-challenging force again is irrelevant. The knives are out. And to those who wield them, it feels good.
Shamelessly ripped-off from The Angry phalanx: Why Are Liverpool Fans Perpetually Annoyed?
by Anthony Teasedale
clevelandspur
Pascal Chimbonda
Fa got this spot on for once imo. I can't believe some of you comparing this to bans given for bad tackles. Bad tackles happen it is part of the game, if it looks like there is intent to hurt someone then I absolutely agree then the ban should be much higher than 3 games depending on severity, however comparing it to this incident is ridiculous really.
There is perhaps nothing more unsporting then biting someone it should be dealt with as severely as possible it has no place in the game. The fact that it isn't as dangerous as a bad tackle is totally irrelevant. For example, if someone hauled off and punched someone in the face on the pitch that would be a lengthy ban. The effects of a punch most likely won't result in any major injuries certainly not what a bad tackle can do. Would a major ban then not be in order because the punch didn't severely injure the other player? That argument holds no water imo, punching, spitting, stamping etc.. should be dealt with as severely as possible because there is no place for it in football.
As for Suarez of course the FA has in for this man, who doesn't? He brings this all on himself. All you have to do is watch this **** play any Saturday afternoon and you can see why. Not one match goes by where he isn't baiting opponets or referees with his behavior I would think the bans should continue to rise until he is either out of football or learns to behave properly.
The thing getting swept under the rug in this is after he bit Ivanovic he went down himself and acted like he got hit he was clearly trying to cheat a penalty and get Ivanovic to retaliate. I don't think this was a "moment of madness" at all. I think he knew exactly what he was doing just the cameras didn't let him get away with it.
There is perhaps nothing more unsporting then biting someone it should be dealt with as severely as possible it has no place in the game. The fact that it isn't as dangerous as a bad tackle is totally irrelevant. For example, if someone hauled off and punched someone in the face on the pitch that would be a lengthy ban. The effects of a punch most likely won't result in any major injuries certainly not what a bad tackle can do. Would a major ban then not be in order because the punch didn't severely injure the other player? That argument holds no water imo, punching, spitting, stamping etc.. should be dealt with as severely as possible because there is no place for it in football.
As for Suarez of course the FA has in for this man, who doesn't? He brings this all on himself. All you have to do is watch this **** play any Saturday afternoon and you can see why. Not one match goes by where he isn't baiting opponets or referees with his behavior I would think the bans should continue to rise until he is either out of football or learns to behave properly.
The thing getting swept under the rug in this is after he bit Ivanovic he went down himself and acted like he got hit he was clearly trying to cheat a penalty and get Ivanovic to retaliate. I don't think this was a "moment of madness" at all. I think he knew exactly what he was doing just the cameras didn't let him get away with it.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Players are pampered prima donnas. Clubs are worried about upsetting the most coveted players for fear that they will up and leave.
Liverpool are doing exactly what they did last time and what Chelsea did with Terry. The messages of support ar just trying to heal the hurt to a damaged but inflated ego.
It would not surprise me though if Suarez and his agent were trying to fan the flames so that they can engineer a big money move out of Liverpool without alienating the fans.
Liverpool are doing exactly what they did last time and what Chelsea did with Terry. The messages of support ar just trying to heal the hurt to a damaged but inflated ego.
It would not surprise me though if Suarez and his agent were trying to fan the flames so that they can engineer a big money move out of Liverpool without alienating the fans.
Lily White
Clive Wilson
The FA didn't do anything about Defoe because the ref saw it and gave him a yellow. The rules state that if the ref sees the incident then the FA are unable to take retrospective action. If the ref hadn't of seen the incident then Defoe would have recieved a ban. Defoe would have probably received a shorter ban because he hasn't got a long history of being in trouble with the FA.
I think the comments are deliberate. Liverpoo came out with comments initially saying that what he did was wrong etc just to try to ptotect their image/brand.
Now the players are coming out in support of Suarez to try to make him feel loved and not to move in the summer. It does seem too stage-managed to be a coincidence
And to make him stay
milo
Jack L. Jones
Absolutely. I agree with you that it is stage managed too.
clevelandspur
Pascal Chimbonda
Looking at RAWK is hilarious. They have zero accountability for this. It is all a conspiracy to keep them down haha.
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
Just seen Brad Friedel on CNN football club talking about Suarez. The question was put to him regarding the ban, basically are the FA saying biting is worse than racism? His response: "No that is not what they are saying. The reason this fine is so big is because its clearly a discipline issue with Suarez. I'm not surprised the ban is 10 games."
He also went on to say they should keep him.
Raph Honigstein was on the show too. He said you can't say Suarez isn't that type of player as is often the excuse that is trotted out, he clearly is that type of player.
He also went on to say they should keep him.
Raph Honigstein was on the show too. He said you can't say Suarez isn't that type of player as is often the excuse that is trotted out, he clearly is that type of player.
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
Liverpool have got to be bigger than just 1 player. They clearly don't give a damn about their reputation anymore.