Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:12 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Big world of difference between banning a customer and terminating an employee. You have rights, obligations and duties towards your employees in such situations. I daresay you could argue the same for the supporter but it's understandable if they choose a less flexible approach in this area.

True but you'd be OK sacking said employee for being found guilty of racially abusing someone in the way Suarez was. The only reason Suarez is being supported is because he's a good player and is a valuable asset. If Suarez was a crap youth team player they'd have terminated his contract weeks ago.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:17 pm  

Ian 77 Redux wrote:

True but you'd be OK sacking said employee for being found guilty of racially abusing someone in the way Suarez was. The only reason Suarez is being supported is because he's a good player and is a valuable asset. If Suarez was a crap youth team player they'd have terminated his contract weeks ago.

Or a reserve goalkeeper.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:52 pm  

Karlos13 wrote:

Suarez admitted using the word negro, yet Evra still told the FA panel that he thought Suarez isn't a racist (according to the LFC statment).

Yet Evra still gets abuse.

Admittance to a word doesn't translate to racism. The very same experts, who are heralded for saying Evra's version of events would be seen as racist in Suarez's native Uruguay, said Suarez's version of events wouldn't be found as racist, yet people choose to completely ignore that to support their own point. If you don't believe Suarez's version of events, that's fantastic for you, but I and a lot of other Liverpool fans don't believe Evra's. I couldn't give two hoots what the FA-appointed panel decided on, I've read more than enough to gather my own opinion and I'm fairly certain the case wouldn't have even gone to court if it was a 'real court', largely down to lack of evidence and witnesses. People ignore that, though, and continue to laud a disciplinary procedure that has a 99% guilty rate.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:58 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

No he's not Dan, you are mistakenly confused with why he was booed. 1) Liverpool fans think Evra started the confrontation, lied and Suarez has been found guilty of something he never would have in a normal court. 2) Evra was kissing the Manc badge in front of the Kop last game. 3) Evra was United's captain. 4) They think Evra received massively preferential treatment from the 'committee' during the hearing.

He was booed because Suarez was banned because he complained he was the victim of racism. Had the Evra/Suarez incident not have happened, would he have been booed so badly?

Roddy B wrote:

As I said, I think our fans could be seen as wrong to direct a lot of the anger towards Evra, but who else could they aim it at? How else do they show the FA they aren't happy? It's a bit like all these absolutely thick people who think Liverpool are supporting racism, but it was always Liverpool defending our player for something he continues to deny doing. Our fans are wound up with the FA more than Evra, but he was always going to be the target of the abuse as he's the one who accused Suarez. If Suarez was found innocent, Evra would have got abuse, if Suarez was found innocent, he'd have still been branded a racist by United fans and he'd be repeatedly booed during games. It's the way of football, fans will always do it.

So by booing Evra they were really trying to get at the FA, who didn't find Evra guilty anyway, bit of an indirect way of showing their contempt for the FA.

Roddy B wrote:

I've got a mate in prison for murder that he continues to deny, I defend him in every conversation I have about him, does that mean I condone murder?

If he's guilty, yes. Would you want a murderer on the streets?

I would back a mate the same way too but if they did do it I wouldn't entertain the idea of it while you don't know if he's guilty or not backing him is what everyone would do.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:11 pm  

Made me chuckle.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:13 pm  

Dan_FC wrote:

He was booed because Suarez was banned because he complained he was the victim of racism. Had the Evra/Suarez incident not have happened, would he have been booed so badly?

So by booing Evra they were really trying to get at the FA, who didn't find Evra guilty anyway, bit of an indirect way of showing their contempt for the FA.

If he's guilty, yes. Would you want a murderer on the streets?

I would back a mate the same way too but if they did do it I wouldn't entertain the idea of it while you don't know if he's guilty or not backing him is what everyone would do.

Dan, it's impossible to explain why 40,000 people booed. Most of them have their own individual opinion on the matter, so to say they were booing him for one reason, for me, isn't possible. 5000 of them could have been booing because they think he's a liar, another 10,000 because he apparently started the argument. You get my point, but for me they aren't booing him for being a victim, they're booing him because they feel he shouldn't be a 'victim'.

As for my mate, well, found guilty of joint enterprise, excuse of being blind dismissed because he apparently knew what the 'gang' were capable of due to a previous incident, despite witnesses proving he was never there for the previous incident. Not everything is black and white, my mate's case just so happened to be in the national media, which massively influenced the verdict, IMO.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:14 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

Or a reserve goalkeeper.

Quite. I don't blame Liverpool for that. Makes sense. Only reason Fergie didn't bomb out Rooney last season is because he is an important player and he had value. If Macheda tried that his feet wouldn't touch the floor. Same thing with city and Tevez.

Liverpool have made, and continue to make, a series of calamitous errors over this affair, led primarily by Dalglish. But they're not stupid. Supporting Suarez and looking for Justice (c) is about protecting an asset. Its sad that large sections of the crowd on Saturday obviously couldn't give a toss about whether Evra was racially abused but as Roddy B said....'Thats Football'.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:24 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

Dan, it's impossible to explain why 40,000 people booed. Most of them have their own individual opinion on the matter, so to say they were booing him for one reason, for me, isn't possible. 5000 of them could have been booing because they think he's a liar, another 10,000 because he apparently started the argument. You get my point, but for me they aren't booing him for being a victim, they're booing him because they feel he shouldn't be a 'victim'.

Most of them are probably booing because they're thick and seeing the person who put a complaint in about Suarez and now see him banned. I do get your point, of course it's impossible to know everyone was booing him but it's probably clear that he's the reason behind Suarez's ban that's why he is being booed. The whole thing has been handled appauling by the club in most people's opinion. The PR from the club has been awful, Dalglish's stance since it began has been laughable. What if the outcome of the investigation was right and this is the correct decision yet Evra, who could be a victim of racism, has been booed and abused (dope who was caught on camera) for being a victim. You wouldn't walk into court and boo someone accusing a person of a crime, don't do it on a football pitch. Some may feel he isn't a victim but he may well be. I think the point I'm trying to make is most of those fans couldn't care whether Evra was a victim or not, they're assuming he's lying, without knowing much of what happened, and made their own mind up.

Roddy B wrote:

As for my mate, well, found guilty of joint enterprise, excuse of being blind dismissed because he apparently knew what the 'gang' were capable of due to a previous incident, despite witnesses proving he was never there for the previous incident. Not everything is black and white, my mate's case just so happened to be in the national media, which massively influenced the verdict, IMO.

You're spot on not everything is black and white and if your mate is innocent of the crime I feel for him, I really do. There can be very very few things in life worse than spending a long prison sentence for something you haven't done. I can't place it in the media from what you've said but if what you say is true, and I believe it is, I do feel for him, that's sickening.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:25 pm  

Ian 77 Redux wrote:

Quite. I don't blame Liverpool for that. Makes sense. Only reason Fergie didn't bomb out Rooney last season is because he is an important player and he had value. If Macheda tried that his feet wouldn't touch the floor. Same thing with city and Tevez.

Liverpool have made, and continue to make, a series of calamitous errors over this affair, led primarily by Dalglish. But they're not stupid. Supporting Suarez and looking for Justice (c) is about protecting an asset. Its sad that large sections of the crowd on Saturday obviously couldn't give a toss about whether Evra was racially abused but as Roddy B said....'Thats Football'.

Great post.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:40 pm  

SkySportsNews: Sky Sources: Everton and Rangers agree fee for striker Nikica Jelavic.