Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:15 am  

Saddened! wrote:

WireFanatic III wrote:

Saddened! wrote:

Amazing that a team as totally hopeless as Everton is in the top half.

Yes it would be amazing, except for the fact that you are not in the top half, you are 11th.

Joint 10th with a game in hand is close enough.

You going to turn Spurs over at White Hart lane then?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:41 am  

good old patrice. credible witness that he is (ive copied and pasted from other sources) The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called ******, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "niggers", it was not a word he liked to use. oh really mr evra, whats this then........................? (below) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... utube.html (warning evra swearing and using the N word that he doesnt like to use) seems luis Suarez has been branded "probably" a racist on the word of a liar. see above statement by evra. credible and reliable witness??? of course he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Liverpool believe a commission that is appointed by the FA and decides on the "flexible civil standard of the balance of probability" for a charge as serious as racist abuse to be major weaknesses that need rectifying. Dalglish, speaking in the aftermath of the defeat at the Etihad Stadium to Manchester City on Tuesday, claimed: "There's a lot of things we'd like to say and a lot we could say but we would only get ourselves in trouble." He also referred to evidence submitted at the four-day hearing in December that was "not in the report and that's important for us". That is believed to refer to Liverpool's contention that Evra was guided through his witness statements by the FA while being allowed to watch footage of his confrontation with Suárez. The United defender did not, for example, recall being pinched by Suárez until after a review of the incident and that action formed a large part of the case against the Uruguayan.(that will be the bit where he made so much emphasis on it meaning the colour of his skin and he couldnt even remember it .if it wasnt so serious it would be laughable.......) The Liverpool striker's request to study the same footage while submitting his statement, his club alleges, was refused. Suárez was subsequently described as giving "unreliable" and "inconsistent" evidence by the commission while Evra changed his initial allegation of being labelled a "lovely" by Suárez 10 times, and was deemed a credible witness. everyone on here still believe that evra told the whole truth??

good old patrice. credible witness that he is (ive copied and pasted from other sources) The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called ******, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "niggers", it was not a word he liked to use. oh really mr evra, whats this then........................? (below) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... utube.html (warning evra swearing and using the N word that he doesnt like to use) seems luis Suarez has been branded "probably" a racist on the word of a liar. see above statement by evra. credible and reliable witness??? of course he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Liverpool believe a commission that is appointed by the FA and decides on the "flexible civil standard of the balance of probability" for a charge as serious as racist abuse to be major weaknesses that need rectifying. Dalglish, speaking in the aftermath of the defeat at the Etihad Stadium to Manchester City on Tuesday, claimed: "There's a lot of things we'd like to say and a lot we could say but we would only get ourselves in trouble." He also referred to evidence submitted at the four-day hearing in December that was "not in the report and that's important for us". That is believed to refer to Liverpool's contention that Evra was guided through his witness statements by the FA while being allowed to watch footage of his confrontation with Suárez. The United defender did not, for example, recall being pinched by Suárez until after a review of the incident and that action formed a large part of the case against the Uruguayan.(that will be the bit where he made so much emphasis on it meaning the colour of his skin and he couldnt even remember it .if it wasnt so serious it would be laughable.......) The Liverpool striker's request to study the same footage while submitting his statement, his club alleges, was refused. Suárez was subsequently described as giving "unreliable" and "inconsistent" evidence by the commission while Evra changed his initial allegation of being labelled a "lovely" by Suárez 10 times, and was deemed a credible witness. everyone on here still believe that evra told the whole truth??

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:53 am  

CORNISH wrote:

everyone on here still believe that evra told the whole truth??

Liverpool should have spent less time worrying about discrediting Evra and more time getting their testimonies right. Suárez, after being asked the same question six times in the hearing, was forced to admit it was not true that he had pinched Evra to defuse the row, as he had claimed in his witness statement. Peter McCormick, Suárez's representative, tried to explain this confusion, that cast further doubt on the credibility of the player's evidence, on "bad drafting".

Every bit as bad was the moment in the report when we learn that Damien Comolli, the club's director of football, and Dirk Kuyt, the Liverpool midfielder, changed their statements after realising that Suárez had given a different account to them. It is cringeworthy reading Kuyt's attempt to deal with this discrepancy in his witness statement. "I am aware that LS will state in evidence that what he actually said in response to the remark from PE was (translated into English) "Why, black?" or "Why, negro?" and I am perfectly happy to accept that this is what he said. I may have misunderstood what he was saying or perhaps sought to interpret what he was saying as what I thought LS might have said when, in fact, it was not what he said."

Yet according to Liverpool's statement before the Manchester City game, the mistakes have been made by the commission rather than the Anfield club or Suárez. If Liverpool truly believed that was the case they would have appealed. Instead they took the sensible decision before pressing the self-destruct button. Again.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:58 am  

CORNISH, the three man FA panel made their decision, and that's even better than fact for the RLFans massivo and the Daily Mirror. Let them have their day, monsieur, the fact Suarez mentioned any colour instantly means it's racism, regardless of any defence. *slots fingers in ears*

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:11 am  

Roddy B wrote:

the fact Suarez mentioned any colour instantly means it's racism, regardless of any defence. *slots fingers in ears*

Ultimately that's what it boils down to Rob, the fact that club officials and players changed their accounts to try and get him off is an unpleasant side line.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:34 am  

CORNISH wrote:

.


everyone on here still believe that evra told the whole truth??

I think that quite a few people, not just on here but generally, were quite willing to accept that the case against Suarez might not have been quite as bad as was made out. The accusation that Evra was racially abused several times didnt seem clear cut by any means.

But the flaws in Suarez's evidence were so bad, Liverpool's attempt to take the moral high ground was so ridiculous, it was not really surprising that the panel accepted Evra's evidence verbatim.

I believe that if it hadnt been for the t shirts, the lack of any acceptance that Evra had a right to be offended by the tem "negro" (even if it wasnt meant offensively) and the obnoxious statements, many neutrals and large sections of the media would probably have had some concerns with the outcome. But because of the way that LFC have handled this I think they, if not Suarez, got what they deserved.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:22 pm  

flipper wrote:

Roddy B wrote:

the fact Suarez mentioned any colour instantly means it's racism, regardless of any defence. *slots fingers in ears*

Ultimately that's what it boils down to Rob, the fact that club officials and players changed their accounts to try and get him off is an unpleasant side line.

Not quite a fact, but I guess that's just a 'figure of speech'.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:00 pm  

Will we see the same outcry? I doubt it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-1 ... TWEET55833

Will we see the same outcry? I doubt it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-1 ... TWEET55833

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:24 pm  

Catalancs wrote: Will we see the same outcry? I doubt it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-1 ... TWEET55833 Can you just imagine if it'd been Michael Gove, for instance, say any sentence starting ''Black people love to''. Ask that question in a week and most people won't even know she said it.

Catalancs wrote: Will we see the same outcry? I doubt it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-1 ... TWEET55833 Can you just imagine if it'd been Michael Gove, for instance, say any sentence starting ''Black people love to''. Ask that question in a week and most people won't even know she said it.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:33 pm  

Abbot lost any face years ago.