Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:30 am  

Measured, reasoned, an all-round cracking couple of posts WFIII.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:17 am  

WFIII, I'm not trying to score points with oppo fans. If I wanted to score points, I could easily copy and paste the majority of stuff I've read on Twitter which is mostly dismissive of these 'findings', but why would I do that when I've not read the full thing myself? That's a mistake a lot of a people seem to be making at the moment. People are reading reports on either argument and making their own conclusions, without actually reading the findings. Take these two for example: http://thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Suarez-Wh ... 73471.html http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/l ... wDDM_ObFko They go completely against what's been said on here by (I think it's only Ian & LGJM who've actually said something noteworthy) Ian, but looking at the daily post piece and the length of it, it seems to be a short article intended to 'stoke the fire' more than inform or reason any sort of argument. I'm personally trying to read as much into it as possible, I've absolutely no problems holding my hands up and admitting previous arguments were wrong, I don't care about such minor things like that, but I'm not going to hold my hand up for the sake of holding it up, that would just be like dismissing Ian's view based on the two links above. I've read about half of the 'findings' tonight, what I find most 'odd' is that what Suarez 'probably' said only received eight matches. I said at the very start of it, if it was proved he'd just gone "n***er" ten times over or whatever, he'd probably do well to play before the end of the season, so eight games is actually quite a light punishment considering it's 'probably' true what he said. I've not got to the explanation of the ban or whatever, so maybe that will shed some light as to how they came up with eight games.

WFIII, I'm not trying to score points with oppo fans. If I wanted to score points, I could easily copy and paste the majority of stuff I've read on Twitter which is mostly dismissive of these 'findings', but why would I do that when I've not read the full thing myself? That's a mistake a lot of a people seem to be making at the moment. People are reading reports on either argument and making their own conclusions, without actually reading the findings. Take these two for example: http://thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Suarez-Wh ... 73471.html http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/l ... wDDM_ObFko They go completely against what's been said on here by (I think it's only Ian & LGJM who've actually said something noteworthy) Ian, but looking at the daily post piece and the length of it, it seems to be a short article intended to 'stoke the fire' more than inform or reason any sort of argument. I'm personally trying to read as much into it as possible, I've absolutely no problems holding my hands up and admitting previous arguments were wrong, I don't care about such minor things like that, but I'm not going to hold my hand up for the sake of holding it up, that would just be like dismissing Ian's view based on the two links above. I've read about half of the 'findings' tonight, what I find most 'odd' is that what Suarez 'probably' said only received eight matches. I said at the very start of it, if it was proved he'd just gone "n***er" ten times over or whatever, he'd probably do well to play before the end of the season, so eight games is actually quite a light punishment considering it's 'probably' true what he said. I've not got to the explanation of the ban or whatever, so maybe that will shed some light as to how they came up with eight games.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:28 am  

Thoughts are with the families of the sixty-six who went to watch a game of football and never came home. Tragic.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:11 am  

Roddy B wrote:

WFIII, I'm not trying to score points with oppo fans.

I didn't say you were mate, I meant it regarding myself in that just because I do not like Suarez, I'm not doing to to score points. It's just my own personal opinion. I have friends that worship the ground he walks on, and that he can do no wrong. Sometimes it's very hard to reason with them because they have blind loyalty to the guy.

I've actually had my support of LFC called into question by some people solely because I've not been backing Suarez and towing the "oh no, he's completely innocent" line.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:52 am  

Roddy B wrote: WFIII, I'm not trying to score points with oppo fans. If I wanted to score points, I could easily copy and paste the majority of stuff I've read on Twitter which is mostly dismissive of these 'findings', but why would I do that when I've not read the full thing myself? That's a mistake a lot of a people seem to be making at the moment. People are reading reports on either argument and making their own conclusions, without actually reading the findings. Take these two for example: http://thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Suarez-Wh ... 73471.html http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/l ... wDDM_ObFko They go completely against what's been said on here by (I think it's only Ian & LGJM who've actually said something noteworthy) Ian, but looking at the daily post piece and the length of it, it seems to be a short article intended to 'stoke the fire' more than inform or reason any sort of argument. I'm personally trying to read as much into it as possible, I've absolutely no problems holding my hands up and admitting previous arguments were wrong, I don't care about such minor things like that, but I'm not going to hold my hand up for the sake of holding it up, that would just be like dismissing Ian's view based on the two links above. I've read about half of the 'findings' tonight, what I find most 'odd' is that what Suarez 'probably' said only received eight matches. I said at the very start of it, if it was proved he'd just gone "n***er" ten times over or whatever, he'd probably do well to play before the end of the season, so eight games is actually quite a light punishment considering it's 'probably' true what he said. I've not got to the explanation of the ban or whatever, so maybe that will shed some light as to how they came up with eight games. Apparently the FA suggested to the panel that the starting point for a ban for abusive language should be 2 matches. That was doubled to 4 because it was racially aggravated. That was doubled to 8 because the panel accepted that Suarez used the term several times. I still think that if, once Suarez had admitted to using the term, he and LFC had publicly apologised to Evra he would only have received 2-4 matches. There doesnt seem much independent evidence that he used the phrase several times. The FA would have have jumped at the chance to resolve the issue without a full blown enquiry and would probably have given him more credit for "cultural differences" than the panel did.

Roddy B wrote: WFIII, I'm not trying to score points with oppo fans. If I wanted to score points, I could easily copy and paste the majority of stuff I've read on Twitter which is mostly dismissive of these 'findings', but why would I do that when I've not read the full thing myself? That's a mistake a lot of a people seem to be making at the moment. People are reading reports on either argument and making their own conclusions, without actually reading the findings. Take these two for example: http://thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Suarez-Wh ... 73471.html http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/l ... wDDM_ObFko They go completely against what's been said on here by (I think it's only Ian & LGJM who've actually said something noteworthy) Ian, but looking at the daily post piece and the length of it, it seems to be a short article intended to 'stoke the fire' more than inform or reason any sort of argument. I'm personally trying to read as much into it as possible, I've absolutely no problems holding my hands up and admitting previous arguments were wrong, I don't care about such minor things like that, but I'm not going to hold my hand up for the sake of holding it up, that would just be like dismissing Ian's view based on the two links above. I've read about half of the 'findings' tonight, what I find most 'odd' is that what Suarez 'probably' said only received eight matches. I said at the very start of it, if it was proved he'd just gone "n***er" ten times over or whatever, he'd probably do well to play before the end of the season, so eight games is actually quite a light punishment considering it's 'probably' true what he said. I've not got to the explanation of the ban or whatever, so maybe that will shed some light as to how they came up with eight games. Apparently the FA suggested to the panel that the starting point for a ban for abusive language should be 2 matches. That was doubled to 4 because it was racially aggravated. That was doubled to 8 because the panel accepted that Suarez used the term several times. I still think that if, once Suarez had admitted to using the term, he and LFC had publicly apologised to Evra he would only have received 2-4 matches. There doesnt seem much independent evidence that he used the phrase several times. The FA would have have jumped at the chance to resolve the issue without a full blown enquiry and would probably have given him more credit for "cultural differences" than the panel did.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:24 am  

Cibaman wrote:

Apparently the FA suggested to the panel that the starting point for a ban for abusive language should be 2 matches. That was doubled to 4 because it was racially aggravated. That was doubled to 8 because the panel accepted that Suarez used the term several times.

I still think that if, once Suarez had admitted to using the term, he and LFC had publicly apologised to Evra he would only have received 2-4 matches. There doesnt seem much independent evidence that he used the phrase several times. The FA would have have jumped at the chance to resolve the issue without a full blown enquiry and would probably have given him more credit for "cultural differences" than the panel did.

In hindsight, that probably makes more sense. I think if you look at it from Liverpool's perspective, they've argued all along that Suarez used the term once in a non-racial way. So maybe they weren't satisfied with 'apologising then hoping for the best', maybe they wanted to completely clear his name as it isn't really the kind of thing you want sticking to a player or your club, although the club will probably now have a harder time clearing his name after this than they would have if they made an early public apology.

Think I was listening to a podcast/radio station where they were talking about this, I'm sure someone mentioned on there that Liverpool/Suarez weren't supposed to say anything on the matter whilst the investigation was going on, but then that wouldn't make sense because Suarez was interviewed in his native Uruguay, where he said "I only called him what his team mates call him".

: Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:34 am  

RIP Gary Ablett. Another taken so young. He was such a nice bloke, always had time for everyone.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:52 am  

Roddy B wrote:

I think if you look at it from Liverpool's perspective, they've argued all along that Suarez used the term once in a non-racial way. ".

Which is a lie.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:39 pm  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... gures.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... gures.html

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:29 pm  

ken barlow wades in viva ken barlow https://twitter.com/#!/Bill_Roache

ken barlow wades in viva ken barlow https://twitter.com/#!/Bill_Roache