nice boost for us. another thing for liverpool fans to be indignant about.
That's fantastic news. Liverpool have already released a statement saying they are shocked and disappointed. Shocked? Really?!
Hopefully we will play them within the first 6 games of next season as well.
Classless by LFC once again, shocked and surprised by severity of the ban. Just hold your hands up and take the punishment. Genuinely an awful club these days.
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
Well its a pretty unique thing he did (in English football, apart from Defoe has it happened before?) and pretty disgusting as well.
Also to compare it with the racism ban is to think that there is a set rule for length of bans, well not in cases that go to a tribunal. Also I remember that some thought that the ban he got last time was too short. So i dont think you can compare one with the other.
Also he's a scumbag and deserves everything that gets thrown at him.
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Anything less than the ban he got in Holland would have shown the FA up, wouldn't surprise me if that had a part in the length of the ban.
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
The guy would have been sacked about 5 times over if he wasn't a footballer.
I was comparing because I think you have to. What would I rather see abolished from the game racism or a biting? I think Racism (if not both). The point here is, if we give 10 match ban to Suarez then a 4 match ban for a player calling a player an (insert racist unpleasantry), you can clearly see that there is a preferance agenda. Nothing against the FA etc just that I want to see consistency rather a than a few old charlatans pretending that they want rid of these things and just stuck in a rut allowing it to happen with barely any accountability. Defoe didn't get 10 games did he? Regardless if we try to keep these incidents separate you will always get comparsions just like politics and thats human nature. As for the set rules, there should and have to be, otherwise its open to prejudice. Even if the guy is a scumbag and deserves this (which he does) there should be criteria befalling judgements which spread equally across the board fitting the crime just like our justice system.
Quote from: God The Mechanic on April 24, 2013, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
The guy would have been sacked about 5 times over if he wasn't a footballer.
Exactly! (Say in a kids Liverpool accent)..
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
That's not an argument that Suarez's punishment doesn't fit the crime--a repeat biter, and known diver & cheater who previously received a 7 GAME BAN for biting and an 8 game ban for racial comments. It's argument that Racists should receive a more just punishment.
Looks like he's a race baiter and a wanna be zombie. He got off light.
Quote from: LordNelson on April 24, 2013, 04:23:17 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
That's not an argument that Suarez's punishment doesn't fit the crime--a repeat biter, and known diver & cheater who previously received a 7 GAME BAN. It's argument that Racists should receive a more just punishment.
That was my point Lord Nelson. Fair bans for all. No preferences for offence. If we want it out of the game, act seriously about it.
I am not sure that 10 matches is enough for assault.
Suarez ban for racial abuse - 7 games + 1 game ban for directing the finger to us
Joey Barton 11 game ban for - Punching, Headbutting and Kicking
Suarez ban 10 games - for biting
can anyone tell me where the consistency is, i'm not defending suarez but how can someone who racially abuses someone only get 7 game ban whereas if he bites someone he gets a 10 match ban, excluding all the stuff Joey Barton did on the final day of the season.
football has long since lost it's moral compass. money will over-ride everything.
Quote from: DiegoFulham on April 24, 2013, 04:36:31 PM
Suarez ban for racial abuse - 7 games + 1 game ban for directing the finger to us
Joey Barton 11 game ban for - Punching, Headbutting and Kicking
Suarez ban 10 games - for biting
can anyone tell me where the consistency is, i'm not defending suarez but how can someone who racially abuses someone only get 7 game ban whereas if he bites someone he gets a 10 match ban, excluding all the stuff Joey Barton did on the final day of the season.
I sympathise with the view here, and those that went before in this thread, but who does a ban really hurt?
The player? Perhaps if he doesn't get paid, though, after his club provided a paltry fine I would guess to fail to pay him might be seen as taking two bites of the same cherry.
The Club? Perhaps more likely, depending on the usefulness of the player (if this was Spearing in comnparison, then the impact would be less)
The Fans? Just as likely, as they go to see their team do well and the start players perform.
Overall, I would prefer, not only for the player to be sanctioned, but it should also equate to a points loss for the club, as that is all they worry about, because position = money, and money is what football is all about these days.
Comparing what punishment is metered out for what offence, biting vs racism, is a little unfair on the surface, because the injury and victim affect needs to be taken into account, and, without demeaning the importance of getting racism out of all sports, I would rather be upset by being racially abused than be unable to play due to an physical injury suffered due to an assault. Just mho.
Quote from: DiegoFulham on April 24, 2013, 04:36:31 PM
Suarez ban for racial abuse - 7 games + 1 game ban for directing the finger to us
Joey Barton 11 game ban for - Punching, Headbutting and Kicking
Suarez ban 10 games - for biting
can anyone tell me where the consistency is, i'm not defending suarez but how can someone who racially abuses someone only get 7 game ban whereas if he bites someone he gets a 10 match ban, excluding all the stuff Joey Barton did on the final day of the season.
I think going forward you will see a lot stiffer bans for racial abuse if it happens again and is proven that is
Liverpool will appeal though, so he'll definitely play the next game. Hopefully the appeal process won't take long and he'll be banned for our game.
Pleased to see the FA have some b***s, hopefully they won't reduce it on appeal.
Deciding which of two offences is "worse" is purely subjective, whether it's in football or in real life. Is being mugged "worse" in itself than being burgled? - there is no objective way to decide.
So the only consistency you can hope for is in how you treat the same offence, and how you increase the penalty for repeat offenders. Suarez was banned for seven matches the last time he did this. Now he's got a ten-match ban, for a repeat offence. Sounds pretty consistent to me.
Having thought about it again I realize my earlier comment about him playing this weekend is wrong. He will definitely serve at least 3 games suspension. Phew.
This is well worth a read:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305346.0 (http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305346.0)
one big thing that I've seen reported today is that this ban has also taken into account his previous offences. Not wishing today the FA too much because of their previous errors, but there where in a very difficult position when handing out this ban. It was always going to be compared with Suarez's previous ban for racism and his previous ban for biting in Holland. To be honest I think they've made pretty much the right decision, theres no way they could give him less than 7 games and I feel the 8 game ban for racism was too short anyway.
Quote from: The Moose on April 24, 2013, 06:21:53 PM
This is well worth a read:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305346.0 (http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305346.0)
Quite amusing is the number of correspondents who think that he should leave the country and play somewhere else, as if that would really upset everbody. (They also overlook the fact that whever he went he would still have to serve the suspension.)
Where would he go? Gnaway?
Quote from: cmg on April 24, 2013, 06:35:34 PM
Quote from: The Moose on April 24, 2013, 06:21:53 PM
This is well worth a read:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305346.0 (http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305346.0)
Quite amusing is the number of correspondents who think that he should leave the country and play somewhere else, as if that would really upset everbody. (They also overlook the fact that whever he went he would still have to serve the suspension.)
Where would he go? Gnaway?
or Dentmark
Chewnisia?
(Sorry, I just can't help it)
Put it this way: at least he sticks to biting upper body. God forbid he takes the title of "bite your legs" from Norman Hunter.
He could sign for Borussia Munch-engladbach
He'd want to go to a club playing Chompions League football next season.
Quote from: The Moose on April 24, 2013, 06:21:53 PM
This is well worth a read:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305346.0 (http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305346.0)
The sense of self-importance on that thread is unreal. LFC have gone from a well respected club to the gutter.
10 game ban and he deserves every one of them. Looking at the video above, it is a disgrace that he has not been given a red card this season. The lad has talent but he also has serious, serious problems. He would be a risky purchase for any team in Europe aiming to win a title or challenge for the CL. As we have seen, he can lose the plot at any stage in a game. He could end up costing you a league title or CL place.
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
You are a black person or person of doubful parentage - a childish and spiteful remark in these political correct times.
I have mistimed my tackle and could and may have caused injury - is something in the game that happens.
I am sorry to have bitten you like a three year old petulant child - is just not on, in any walk of life. For me he is lucky to still have a chance to play again. In any job such behaviour would be instant dismisal. Why are people thinking a verbal insult is worse than somebody biting you?
Quote from: Lighthouse on April 24, 2013, 10:36:00 PM
You are a black person or person of doubful parentage - a childish and spiteful remark in these political correct times.
I have mistimed my tackle and could and may have caused injury - is something in the game that happens.
I am sorry to have bitten you like a three year old petulant child - is just not on, in any walk of life. For me he is lucky to still have a chance to play again. In any job such behaviour would be instant dismisal. Why are people thinking a verbal insult is worse than somebody biting you?
Because it is convenient to their cause if not the reality of the situation. As the appropriately named Logicalman stated far more eloquently than I, sticks and stones will break my bones but words will only hurt my feelings. Unless they incite the use of sticks and stones.
Anyone else see this? Words fail me. Suarez thinks he is the victim, incredible!
Personally, I believe he is using this ban to engineer a move away from LFC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/24/luis-suarez-liverpool-considering-future-ban?CMP=twt_gu (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/24/luis-suarez-liverpool-considering-future-ban?CMP=twt_gu)
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
Quote from: God The Mechanic on April 24, 2013, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
The guy would have been sacked about 5 times over if he wasn't a footballer.
Spot on. If I'd done that at work I'd be out the door without any chance of an appeal.
Not enough in my opinion. The blokes a disgrace to football. Admittedly he's an awesome talent but his head ain't right. Seeing as his ban extends to the first six games of next season ( barring a successful appeal ), why the hell would a world renowned club like Liverpool want to keep hold of a liability like him? Reading and listening to Liverpool supporters on television / radio makes you wonder what world they live in. Guy on Sky goes as far as saying its a witch hunt. Is he for real? Suarez has had this coming for as long as he's been playing in the premiership. Diving ( Stoke at home) his classy one fingered salute to us last season, the Evra affair plus other misdemeanours all tot up in the final analysis. Says it all when the FA offer anger management lessons. Had Berbatov ( or any other Fulham player ) tried to take a chunk out of someone's arm, I'd want him out of my club as soon as possible. Liverpool fans should be thankful that the board haven't told him that he has no future at the club.
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
I agree with HD: biting represents an immediate and real health threat. There are diseases out there for which there are still no cures. We can't have players biting one another. Period.
As to racism, almost every time I've been to a match I've heard some quite unkind things shouted about certain players. Hurtful things. It's odd how we demand a complete absence of racism or ethnic/national taunting for players while tolerating wretched excess of the same from those in the stands. I know, that doesn't excuse it when players--role models--spout off such dreck. But there's a history of 'in the moment' taunting and swearing in professional sports by athletes that doesn't equate in my book at least with such speech in other settings. The line drawing by the powers that be gets rather sanctimonious. John Terry can whisper to an opponent that he slept with his girlfriend or even wife just to distract him, throw him off his game. But when he's kicked in the back of the calf, he can't ever make a reference in anger to his opponent's skin color, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. Nope. You can say all kinds of vile and hurtful things, but you have to avoid the short list. We all agree racism is horrible. But I've said things to my wife after hitting my thumb with a hammer I would have never said once the pain passed. There has to be some forbearance in sports in the heat of it. Taunting from the bench? Of course not. Taunting on the pitch? Of course not.
I honestly think Suarez has played his last game in a Liverpool shirt. He'll be wanting Champions League football next season.
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
Wow.
With all that previous he reallt can't be let off with anything less than a ten week ban.
I hope the matter is decided in the next couple of weeks and that he misses the match against us.
If he were to play I can imagine us all giving him loads of stick and him then silencing us with a couple of goals. That would be hard to take.
Some Liverpool fans are suggesting they loan him out o a club that plays during the summer so he serves the ban over there. Would be hilarious if they could, but I can't imagine it would really be worth all the hassle and reputation damage that would come with it.
Quote from: God The Mechanic on April 25, 2013, 01:32:36 PM
Some Liverpool fans are suggesting they loan him out o a club that plays during the summer so he serves the ban over there. Would be hilarious if they could, but I can't imagine it would really be worth all the hassle and reputation damage that would come with it.
Would be worth it if he suffered a serious injury (cruciate maybe, a broken leg is a bit harsh!) and missed the whole of next season. Now that would really get under the scouters skin.
Liverpool have gone even further down the credibility list in my eyes after this. He bit someone, not even for the first time AND after he received 8 games for another offence amongst other stupid things he's done over here. YET they believe he is hard done too. They never are the ones at fault, always the victims.
Essentially I'ts is assault and if I walked down the road with a previous conviction and bit someone I'd expect a lengthier sentence than the first time I did it or another offense. Can't stand that ridiculous club.
Patrice Evra
Patrice Evra Mocks Luis Suarez By Biting Fake Arm 22/04/2013 [HD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7bu9m1sh0#ws)
I'm really missing ole Finnster right now. I know he would be enjoying this to no end!! 9739.gif
Quote from: LordNelson on April 25, 2013, 06:08:38 PM
I'm really missing ole Finnster right now. I know he would be enjoying this to no end!! 9739.gif
Amen to that. I'm not sure if he hated scousers before the Falkland's but there certainly was no love lost since. I just miss the guy.
Not to many have been over to the "not good enough to be over here board" to note their respects of late. 063.gif
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 25, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
Wow.
Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.
Sturridges shocking cowardly challenge on Bertrand should provoke similar anger in my opinion...I like Jamie Carragher but had he condemned that incident in his recent comments on the suarez issue they would be viewed in a more positive way.
coyw
Cringeworthy comments from Brendan Rogers.
For any of you who are not native to the UK then I would like to assure you that Suarez behaviour is not typical of this country - people do bite each other, racially abuse their colleagues and insult their paying customers.
This somehow makes me doubt that he has "worked tirelessly to fit in".
From the BBC...
"The boy has worked tirelessly to fit in to the life in this country," said Rodgers. "He has made a mistake and has got a sanction we don't believe fits what he did.
"He loves this country and loves being here. It's arguable he won't have a better season but he has still had that scrutiny and criticism.
"It was too severe for what he's done and that will make you think. At the moment there's shock and anger but when he is a bit more reflective, a sense of reality will set in. He knows the support he will get here, from the management, from the players and the fans, and that will always make him think differently. At this moment he will feel low because of the sanction that's been put on his action.
"Having spoken a lot to him, he is visibly very disappointed. I look in his face and for the first time I can see a genuine guy who is disappointed. It will take time for him to reflect and understand why others have never been punished.
"For us it is a case of supporting him. He is still very much part of our family and very much part of our future. He is very important for us going forward in order to succeed."
When asked what length of ban he was hoping for, Rodgers replied: "I knew it was maybe going to be three games.
"It could have been 12 with six suspended. That shows and tells the player it's unacceptable what he did and everyone knows that but you have to put the carrot in front of the player to help him improve his behaviour and help with the rehabilitation and this has only been punishment.
"There's been no thought of rehabilitation unless something dramatic comes up in the report that tells me otherwise. It's a straight 10 games."
Quote from: Jimpav on April 25, 2013, 10:42:32 PM
Cringeworthy comments from Brendan Rogers.
"I look in his face and for the first time I can see a genuine guy who is disappointed."
Brendan Rodgers having trouble with his adjectives. Only a Martian could describe a player who is constantly cheating, fouling, faking, diving, niggling, nipping and biting as "genuine".
I assume he will still be getting paid by the club while he is banned, so off you go to Uruquay and enjoy yourself lad, see you next season.
Games missed at this stage of the season are a welcome rest, and the players just want to pack their suitcases and fly off to the sunshine and sand.
Should have been sentenced to remain in his football kit and paraded around Stamford Bridge in a dog collar and doglead for the next ten games, custard pies and bad tomatoes issued free at the turnstiles for the 40,000 supporters.
Anything else is just a holiday for him.
He's a wonderful footballer, but a nasty little human being.
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 25, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
Wow.
Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.
It's a pedantic argument. Period.
Quote from: licker on April 26, 2013, 08:22:17 AM
I assume he will still be getting paid by the club while he is banned, so off you go to Uruquay and enjoy yourself lad, see you next season.
Games missed at this stage of the season are a welcome rest, and the players just want to pack their suitcases and fly off to the sunshine and sand.
Should have been sentenced to remain in his football kit and paraded around Stamford Bridge in a dog collar and doglead for the next ten games, custard pies and bad tomatoes issued free at the turnstiles for the 40,000 supporters.
Anything else is just a holiday for him.
He's a wonderful footballer, but a nasty little human being.
Totally agree mate, and good to see you back here.
How are things and how is life treating you? Expecting 3 points this weekend, eh? LOL
Don't be a stranger, eh.
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 25, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
Wow.
Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.
It's a pedantic argument. Period.
I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.
Quote from: BarryP on April 26, 2013, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 25, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
Wow.
Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.
It's a pedantic argument. Period.
I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.
Good for you. I don't. I think it takes away the whole perspective of the argument over the inconsistency of the FA. To say bites are worse than racism because we apply 'perspective' because one can spread diseases is very pedantic in my eyes. I might rephrase 'worse than' by saying is in comparsion but what's the point, I might get a scratch at my next game and get a blood transferable disease to pass away. Kick scratches out of football immediately!!! We can all be pedantic.
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: BarryP on April 26, 2013, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 25, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
Wow.
Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.
It's a pedantic argument. Period.
I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.
Good for you. I don't. I think it takes away the whole perspective of the argument over the inconsistency of the FA. To say bites are worse than racism because we apply 'perspective' because one can spread diseases is very pedantic in my eyes. I might rephrase 'worse than' by saying is in comparsion but what's the point, I might get a scratch at my next game and get a blood transferable disease to pass away. Kick scratches out of football immediately!!! We can all be pedantic.
If you tell me the scratch was premeditated and intentiontal I will tell you it deserves a longer ban than something that happened accidently in the flow of the match. This is not pedantic in my eyes and elevates a physical assault above the level of a verbal assault. I will draw that distinction every time.
Quote from: BarryP on April 26, 2013, 03:12:31 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: BarryP on April 26, 2013, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 25, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
Wow.
Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.
It's a pedantic argument. Period.
I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.
Good for you. I don't. I think it takes away the whole perspective of the argument over the inconsistency of the FA. To say bites are worse than racism because we apply 'perspective' because one can spread diseases is very pedantic in my eyes. I might rephrase 'worse than' by saying is in comparsion but what's the point, I might get a scratch at my next game and get a blood transferable disease to pass away. Kick scratches out of football immediately!!! We can all be pedantic.
If you tell me the scratch was premeditated and intentiontal I will tell you it deserves a longer ban than something that happened accidently in the flow of the match. This is not pedantic in my eyes and elevates a physical assault above the level of a verbal assault. I will draw that distinction every time.
Thankfully the only people who tend to agree with you are the FA. I think it's generally accepted that Racism is rife and needs immediate attention over biting/scratching/intentionally hurting someone bearing in mind its a physical game and the sporatic nature in which these events occur (like biting, headbutting and punching.)
Anyone who thinks this is about the transmission of diseases is living on a different planet. The issue is that unprovoked biting is, for whatever reasons, seen as socially unacceptable more than dangerous (does this really need to be pointed out?). The bite itself posed very little threat to Ivanovic, the issue is what does it say about the person who bit him, and what other things that person might do with or without provocation. Yes, precautions should be taken as a matter of course, but as FFC1987 says, it's just pedantic to suggest that that is the issue here. If anything, suggesting disease is the issue lessens the offense because a) he apparently didn't break the skin and b) he probably doesn't have any serious disease and therefore knew he wouldn't pass anything on to the person he was biting. So from the point of view that Suarez should be punished for risking Ivanovic's health, there really seems little reason to punish him at all.
Brendan Rodgers has been brainwashed.
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 03:17:19 PM
Quote from: BarryP on April 26, 2013, 03:12:31 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: BarryP on April 26, 2013, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 25, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
Wow.
Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.
It's a pedantic argument. Period.
I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.
Good for you. I don't. I think it takes away the whole perspective of the argument over the inconsistency of the FA. To say bites are worse than racism because we apply 'perspective' because one can spread diseases is very pedantic in my eyes. I might rephrase 'worse than' by saying is in comparsion but what's the point, I might get a scratch at my next game and get a blood transferable disease to pass away. Kick scratches out of football immediately!!! We can all be pedantic.
If you tell me the scratch was premeditated and intentiontal I will tell you it deserves a longer ban than something that happened accidently in the flow of the match. This is not pedantic in my eyes and elevates a physical assault above the level of a verbal assault. I will draw that distinction every time.
Thankfully the only people who tend to agree with you are the FA. I think it's generally accepted that Racism is rife and needs immediate attention over biting/scratching/intentionally hurting someone bearing in mind its a physical game and the sporatic nature in which these events occur (like biting, headbutting and punching.)
I'm sure that there are other grown ups around who think so as well.
Quote from: HatterDon on April 26, 2013, 08:36:17 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 03:17:19 PM
Quote from: BarryP on April 26, 2013, 03:12:31 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: BarryP on April 26, 2013, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 25, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 25, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: HatterDon on April 24, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: beijing ben on April 24, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 24, 2013, 03:44:12 PM
I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.
You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..
Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.
I hope this is tongue in cheek.
It's not
Wow.
Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.
It's a pedantic argument. Period.
I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.
Good for you. I don't. I think it takes away the whole perspective of the argument over the inconsistency of the FA. To say bites are worse than racism because we apply 'perspective' because one can spread diseases is very pedantic in my eyes. I might rephrase 'worse than' by saying is in comparsion but what's the point, I might get a scratch at my next game and get a blood transferable disease to pass away. Kick scratches out of football immediately!!! We can all be pedantic.
If you tell me the scratch was premeditated and intentiontal I will tell you it deserves a longer ban than something that happened accidently in the flow of the match. This is not pedantic in my eyes and elevates a physical assault above the level of a verbal assault. I will draw that distinction every time.
Thankfully the only people who tend to agree with you are the FA. I think it's generally accepted that Racism is rife and needs immediate attention over biting/scratching/intentionally hurting someone bearing in mind its a physical game and the sporatic nature in which these events occur (like biting, headbutting and punching.)
I'm sure that there are other grown ups around who think so as well.
:plus one:
If your coming after me please use words instead of a physical assault. Us old fat guys can't fight as well as we use to but the brain still works. Well, sort of.
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 03:17:19 PM
Thankfully the only people who tend to agree with you are the FA. I think it's generally accepted that Racism is rife and needs immediate attention over biting/scratching/intentionally hurting someone bearing in mind its a physical game and the sporatic nature in which these events occur (like biting, headbutting and punching.)
.. Quite obviously you haven't read other posts on this thread that tend to agree with the FA as well, mine included (page 2), whereby I believe that a physical injury to myself that might cause me to miss playing is worse that being hurt by someone calling me a white honky, or other epithet of similar standing.
No one is disagreeing that biting is socially unacceptable as well as an unnecessary health hazard. It's despicable. Biting, spitting, and head butting. Yuck. Ivanovic should have punched him, hard. He clearly showed more restraint than I could have mustered.
Racism is also deplorable. And if anyone mistook my hasty earlier entry to suggest otherwise, then I apologize. It wasn't what I meant in the slightest. But we are all human, and we all engage in relative ranking or weighting of types of behaviour. Good, bad, the worst. Players have brought the prejudices they grew up with to the fields they play on in every sport. Catholics/Protestants/Jews/Muslims/Blacks/Homosexuals/[fill in the hated group of your choice here]. We hope for a better world, and we make strides every decade, but belief systems learned at an early age are hard to shake, especially when you've just had your ankle turned by someone who doesn't look like you, right after you've come back from three weeks of rehab. So you say something stupid, anything, lashing out in pain and anger. Now you've done it. I excuse that kind of heat-of-the-moment outburst among men on the field of battle. My God, have you ever heard what American football players say to one another at the scrimmage line before and after the ball is snapped?! Basketball players talk smack. Off the field or court, they go have dinner together. A lot of it is posturing and for effect; little, I think, is heart felt. But biting? Not done. Just not done. Now we can get into a big discussion about the difficulty between determining types of racial comments on the pitch by and between players. There will certainly be those who will argue that it is NEVER appropriate under any circumstances to call attention to differences in appearance, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so on. That it is always presumptively hurtful and demeaning. There are those who will say, 'nonsense, get a life, real racism (or whatever) is like pornography--you can't always defined it, but you know it when you see it.' Maybe that takes some hair splitting, but I know it when I see it or hear it. But biting is always just biting. Now I stand ready for your collective abuse.
Good post FF.
Quote from: Logicalman on April 27, 2013, 01:12:36 AM
Quote from: FFC1987 on April 26, 2013, 03:17:19 PM
Thankfully the only people who tend to agree with you are the FA. I think it's generally accepted that Racism is rife and needs immediate attention over biting/scratching/intentionally hurting someone bearing in mind its a physical game and the sporatic nature in which these events occur (like biting, headbutting and punching.)
.. Quite obviously you haven't read other posts on this thread that tend to agree with the FA as well, mine included (page 2), whereby I believe that a physical injury to myself that might cause me to miss playing is worse that being hurt by someone calling me a white honky, or other epithet of similar standing.
You'd have a very valid point here which I ha e openly agreed with you on, rash intentional Career threatening challenges but unfortunately we are talking about what can only be described as a nibble with NO effect to Ivanovic. Was it wrong? Yes. Should a fine with this behaviour be this strong? Yes. Should acts of racism be dealt with in a similar fashion? Almost definitely. My argument was, has the FA shown consistently? Answer is No. And to state a health risk on such an occasion is without doubt pedantic. I read your previous post of course however like others in this debate I chose to ignore because it was either clutching at straws (blood transferable) or irrelevant ( in your case stating an action of career threatening behaviour be more concerning than social racism) being non applicable in an instance where really, it will NEVER cause serious injury. Ban a scratches out of football.
I am very, very worried about the Liverpool game after what they did to Newcastle yesterday.
I don't even recognize Newcastle any more. I thought Pardew was the real deal, too. Maybe I was fooled. They were awful at all positions. Liverpool wont' repeat that performance against better teams, and Fulham is playing far better than Newcastle.
Quote from: Matt Inglis on April 28, 2013, 11:04:59 PM
I am very, very worried about the Liverpool game after what they did to Newcastle yesterday.
they were aided by some incredibly poor newcastle defending.
Quote from: Forever Fulham on April 29, 2013, 06:13:25 AM
I don't even recognize Newcastle any more. I thought Pardew was the real deal, too. Maybe I was fooled. They were awful at all positions. Liverpool wont' repeat that performance against better teams, and Fulham is playing far better than Newcastle.
Well Pardew just needed to be that real deal until the 8 year contract ink was dry. Now it'll cost Ashley a whole bunch of spondoolies to buy his contract out. Smart move by Pardew, unfortunately he will now be stuck with the Toon army as they systematically rip him a new one weekly, unless he improves.
Quote from: Logicalman on April 30, 2013, 12:36:15 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on April 29, 2013, 06:13:25 AM
I don't even recognize Newcastle any more. I thought Pardew was the real deal, too. Maybe I was fooled. They were awful at all positions. Liverpool wont' repeat that performance against better teams, and Fulham is playing far better than Newcastle.
:yay:Well Pardew just needed to be that real deal until the 8 year contract ink was dry. Now it'll cost Ashley a whole bunch of spondoolies to buy his contract out. Smart move by Pardew, unfortunately he will now be stuck with the Toon army as they systematically rip him a new one weekly, unless he improves.
Apparently Pardew's compensation wouldn't be as extortionate as everyone imagines. Can't remember the payoff fee quoted, but I'll have another look.
Quote from: EJL on April 30, 2013, 12:43:07 AM
Quote from: Logicalman on April 30, 2013, 12:36:15 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on April 29, 2013, 06:13:25 AM
I don't even recognize Newcastle any more. I thought Pardew was the real deal, too. Maybe I was fooled. They were awful at all positions. Liverpool wont' repeat that performance against better teams, and Fulham is playing far better than Newcastle.
:yay:Well Pardew just needed to be that real deal until the 8 year contract ink was dry. Now it'll cost Ashley a whole bunch of spondoolies to buy his contract out. Smart move by Pardew, unfortunately he will now be stuck with the Toon army as they systematically rip him a new one weekly, unless he improves.
Apparently Pardew's compensation wouldn't be as extortionate as everyone imagines. Can't remember the payoff fee quoted, but I'll have another look.
I read that the maximum payout he can receive is two years salary and his salary is low in terms of market price so if anything it was a shrewd business decision by Ashley.
what's the odds on him going to gnawrich