Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:07 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

So you reckon he's morally not done anything wrong with what he said. Fine, why can't he acknowledge that the word could be misinterpreted as a racial insult as I posted above? "I didn't mean it racially and apologise if it's taken that way". etc etc?

Suarez has said he's sorry for anybody that was offended by the word, but he maintained that he never meant it in an offensive sense. He hasn't apologised to Evra because he feels Evra has lied/exaggerated.

People saying it could all have been dealt with if Suarez/Liverpool made an early apology, but I don't think it could have. Evra put in a complaint and the FA have their way of doing things, I don't think an open apology for any mistakes would have been accepted, especially on a case like racism and especially when you consider the level of racism in Evra's complaint.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:30 pm  

If LFC truly believed in Suarez's innocence then they would have fought the verdict and taken it to an appeal.

Instead they accepted the verdict but bitched and moaned about practically everything since.

Of course, this makes sense to LFC, because there's a conspiracy against them which has meant that the whole process was set up against them and there's no way they can fight it.

I supported Suarez until reading the report of the tribunal. You just cannot support Suarez after that. I'm not totally convinced about what went on. I think two opponents talking smack to each other in a penalty area, using a second language of one of the people, it's fraught with difficulty to judge what's gone on. But on reading the report Evra's version of events seems consistent with the video footage they have, Suarez's really wasn't.

I just think that if Liverpool wanted to dispute the verdict they damn well should have appealed. It just doesn't make sense that they feel that an injustice has taken place, but they'll accept the verdict, then insist on his innocence. My view is that they know he did it, they know he'll be found guilty again, so they are simply going to leave it at the one hearing and chip away at that verdict with their whining.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:09 pm  

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:22 pm  

flipper wrote:

Given his relationship with Anton Ferdinand and Evra, and seeing Saurez refuse to shake Evra's hand, he may have a problem with people who use racist language against his friends and family #justathought

so its ok for mancs not to shake hands, but not LFC players. just want to clarify.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:28 pm  

Ian 77 Redux wrote: Someone was arrested at Anfield the other week you idiot. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... nited.html did i say they werent, i said CONVICTED. i ll spell it slowly so you can understand the difference. C O N V I C T E D. i also said previous seasons. you really must learn to read. at least half term is only a week i believe. maybe ask teacher for extra reading lessons when you get back to school, you really should have advanced from janet and john by now.

Ian 77 Redux wrote: Someone was arrested at Anfield the other week you idiot. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... nited.html did i say they werent, i said CONVICTED. i ll spell it slowly so you can understand the difference. C O N V I C T E D. i also said previous seasons. you really must learn to read. at least half term is only a week i believe. maybe ask teacher for extra reading lessons when you get back to school, you really should have advanced from janet and john by now.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:43 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If LFC truly believed in Suarez's innocence then they would have fought the verdict and taken it to an appeal.

I think you have to have a look at what the grounds for appeal are/were. I'd have to find the piece again if you were interested, but I'm fairly sure the grounds for appeal were very small and limited, almost pointless.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:51 pm  

J.T wrote:

This sums it up for me. Had this been done straight away the issue would have been done with in a matter of days.

No, I don't think it would mate. The media would have kept it going no matter what. They started this whole Scouse v Manc crap forty years ago in the first place. Of course all the yokels from one horse pits all over the country with no connection to either city and who never or hardly ever went to Anfield or OT felt the need to join in in the last twenty five years or so. This is just the latest chapter.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:00 pm  

CORNISH wrote:

did i say they werent, i said CONVICTED. i ll spell it slowly so you can understand the difference.
C O N V I C T E D.


i also said previous seasons. you really must learn to read. at least half term is only a week i believe. maybe ask teacher for extra reading lessons when you get back to school, you really should have advanced from janet and john by now.

You wrote this

'BIG FAT ZERO arrests at anfield previously.'

You really are thick.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:13 pm  

CORNISH wrote:

so its ok for mancs not to shake hands, but not LFC players. just want to clarify.

just to clarify, if your brother had been a victim of racist abuse, and your mate had been a victim of racist abuse, and you'd just seen your mate handshake's refused by the person found to have racially abused them, what would you do?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:21 pm  

Ian 77 Redux wrote:

You wrote this

'BIG FAT ZERO arrests at anfield previously.'

You really are thick.

correct.
and i am thick!!!!