The Liverpool Thread

[dinotheprehistoricgeordie]

Come off it, we didn't sack a player who was in prison for months for assault.

 

And some on here went on to idolise him.

 

No different.

Agree.

However, I didn't see many who at the time supported him. Time heals all wounds and that, but to come out with the kind of support Suarez is getting is downright disgusting.

 

Hmmm. I think the Andy Carroll example is more apt.

 

A lot of people on here were all too happy to vilify Steven Taylor at the time of the Carroll v. Taylor fight. Fans are willing to forgive a lot of off field behavior if they player is performing. Carroll was scoring goals and Taylor was (generally) considered shit.

 

Agree with this, fans will forgive a lot if the player is in form. Deson't matter which club it is.

[GeordieDazzler]

From the excellent Early Doors (ED) Blog on Eurosport...

 

Liverpool adding to tribal idiocy

 

Early Doors had its Christmas party last night. It was suggested that, in order to avoid a hungover scribble, it just publish a one word edition today: 'Suarez!'

 

The argument being that anything more is superfluous. Let's just reflect on the magnitude of the story, the repercussions and the reaction. Wow. Amazing.

 

Sadly, ED's Grinch-like boss did not sign off the one-word blog. Can't imagine why not.

 

So here is ED's two cents.

 

You would hope that in a case of this seriousness, football would not simply split down club lines.

 

You would hope that observers would put their allegiances to one side and take an objective look at a case that goes beyond sport.

 

You would hope, but you would obviously end up crushingly disappointed.

 

The news story on this site has over 1,000 comments; nearly all of them partisan, plenty of them offensive, too many of them referring disgracefully to those two bywords for tragedy: Hillsborough and Munich.

 

Frankly, it's a complete, sorry mess.

 

Sometimes you feel things are too important to let football fans anywhere near them, and this case has seen them at their most idiotically tribal.

 

With that in mind, it is thoroughly depressing to see Liverpool FC get in on the act with its incredible reaction to the news Luis Suarez has been banned for eight matches after being found guilty (pending appeal - ED is going to be using those words a lot this morning) of racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra.

 

Liverpool's statement last night was truly extraordinary in both its tone and content, taking furious shots at Evra and the FA.

 

Their man has been found guilty of a very serious offence, so they might just want to wind their necks in a little bit.

 

Support Suarez, by all means. Appeal, as you have a right to do. But show some restraint and some dignity. Act in a manner befitting a club of Liverpool's stature.

 

As the statement itself pointed out, Liverpool have done more than their share to combat injustice and discrimination.

 

That is why it is so uncomfortable to see them in such a frenzy, and to see Kenny Dalglish use the phrase forever associated with the club in his message of support: 'Let's not let him walk alone.'

 

Liverpool should think very carefully before attempting to turn Suarez into a great, modern-day martyr.

 

They might want to say: "Much as we love Luis, and much as he's our best player, and much as his offence came against our most hated rivals, the FA thinks he has committed a very serious breach of discipline and we should probably reflect that."

 

There is so much in Liverpool's statement that can be picked apart, but ED will focus on just a few bits:

 

"It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible - certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations."

This is a disgrace. The mention of "prior unfounded accusations" refers to two other cases in which claims of racial abuse against Evra have been made.

 

To paraphrase - Evra plays the race card.

 

The thing is, on neither occasion did Evra make the accusation. In 2006, a deaf fan claimed to lip-read abuse of Evra by Steve Finnan, and in 2008 United coaches Mike Phelan and Richard Hartis said they heard a Chelsea groundsman insult Evra.

 

Neither claim was proven. And neither claim was made by Evra. This point is outlined in this excellent blog post (yes, it's a United blog, but it makes a very good point).

 

For Liverpool to themselves make a false claim about Evra is lamentable.

 

"It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said 'I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist'. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist."

 

It is not key. It is irrelevant.

 

Being a racist and committing a racist act are not the same thing.

 

When Ron Atkinson made his disgusting remarks about Marcel Desailly, a large number of his former players came out and said Atkinson was not a racist.

 

Did any of these people say that he should not be punished? Of course not.

 

Nobody said: "It is accepted that Ron is not a racist, therefore he cannot be guilty."

 

People are nuanced, inconsistent, unpredictable. It is perfectly possible to commit an isolated racist act in an otherwise tolerant life.

 

"Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black."

 

Really? 'Some of my best grandparents are black'?

 

"It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. "

 

"We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. "

 

Utterly depressing remarks, which try to make the case about Liverpool versus Manchester United (and the FA), when it should be a serious examination of what one man said to another man.

 

"Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult."

 

To his credit? Maybe he genuinely didn't hear the insult. And Liverpool's wording suggests that he did hear the insult, but decided to say otherwise. If that were indeed the case, then ED is not sure how lying to an FA enquiry is to anybody's credit.

 

- - -

 

This is a difficult, unprecedented case that needs to be looked at carefully and sensitively.

 

The argument centred less around what Suarez said as what he meant, and that is a thorny issue of deep cultural nuances.

 

It would seem the FA have decided that, though 'Negrito' might be a term of utmost endearment in Uruguay, they cannot allow any language with racial connotations.

 

ED sees their point, though it can also accept the argument that the punishment is heavy-handed.

 

Maybe the FA's process was flawed, though it is hard to see anything for all the mud-slinging.

 

Frankly, ED doesn't know exactly what happened in that goalmouth, and it doesn't know what the appropriate sanction should be for a player found guilty.

 

Looking at the reaction of Liverpool, the media and the fans, ED is virtually alone in this uncertainty.

 

But that's football, where everybody knows everything all the time, even when they actually know nothing.

.

 

[johnnypd]

I sit next to a Uraguayan at work who's astonished it's an issue in the slightest, the culture and usage of the terminology there is completely different. Had a pretty interesting chat with him but he's a Suarez fanboy and blatantly loves a cheeky bit of racism so it was a bit one sided. There's a Tim Vickery piece on the BBC sport that starts off by giving an extremely good insight into the culture of the words, I've linked below.

 

That's the other side of the coin: beyond what the words Suarez used may mean, there's the question of what's racist, which is *very* dependent on culture. What would be perceived in hyper-sensitive Britain as racist would not be in other cultures less sensitive to racism. And then there's the differing sensitivity to perceived racism against different races: in the UK, people are very sensitive to racism against blacks but not against, say, Albanians because there are a lot of blacks but few Albanians. A few weeks ago, an extremely liberal, pro-immigrant German lass who spends all her time helping kids from immigrant families, who would never dream of saying anything anti-Turkish, told me that "laying an Obama in the White House" is slang for having a shit (there are very few black people in Germany, and most racism is directed against Turks, Arabs and East Europeans).

 

-------------------

 

With regards to the FA's ruling: it's a complete cop-out. They've found him guilty of indecent/abusive behaviour and punished him for racism. An 8 match ban is ridiculous for what they've found him guilty of. FFS, Rooney got a 2-game ban for running up to the TV camera and shouting "fuck off" into it. They should have either given him a punishment typical of the violation they found him guilty of or had the balls to label him a racist along with clearly you've-been-found-guilty-of-racism ban they handed him.

 

Whilst I agree with the first half of your post that's not necessarily the point. It may well be inoffensive in his culture but there are ramifications beyond that - he's been in Europe for some time by now and as such must realise that it's extremely offensive to refer to people in such a manner. He's not a complete idiot, surely he knew what he was doing and as such theoretically it could still be construed as racist?

 

I'm just theorising mind, don't know the ins and outs of the case.

 

Plus it's funny as fuck he's been banned for 8 games.

 

Or maybe not. It seems bizarre that this could have been the first time he'd said such things in four years. Also, seeing as there were no other witnesses, why did Suarez freely admit he'd said "negrito"? If he had believed it was racist, surely he'd have just denied it. More likely, he wasn't aware of how hypersensitive the UK is to perceived racism.

 

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse. If Suarez doesn't understand that the UK is different from Uruguay then that's either his fault or the fault of Liverpool FC.

 

Well Said.

 

If you go on holiday and do something culturally offensive when there, then it's your own fault and no-one else.

 

especially considering he went on to say it 10 more times after knowing how much it offended Evra. the way the scousers have carried on its as if Suarez was some idiot fresh off the boat going up to every stranger whether black, white or chinese with open arms saying "¡hola negrito!" in a good natured manner. he knew perfectly well what he was doing and its came back to bite him on the arse.

[Wilson]

canny article from ED

[johnnypd]

"It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible - certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations."

 

This is a disgrace. The mention of "prior unfounded accusations" refers to two other cases in which claims of racial abuse against Evra have been made.

 

To paraphrase - Evra plays the race card.

 

The thing is, on neither occasion did Evra make the accusation. In 2006, a deaf fan claimed to lip-read abuse of Evra by Steve Finnan, and in 2008 United coaches Mike Phelan and Richard Hartis said they heard a Chelsea groundsman insult Evra.

 

Neither claim was proven. And neither claim was made by Evra. This point is outlined in this excellent blog post (yes, it's a United blog, but it makes a very good point).

 

For Liverpool to themselves make a false claim about Evra is lamentable.

 

so in addition to the Suarez case the club are now making libellous comments. brilliant!

[Ash]

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5841/evrasuarez.png

 

http://i.cr3ation.co.uk/dl/s1/gif/8278.2n850dh.gif

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Liverpool are making themselves look like total dicks over this, aren't they? Surely they should be on the side of getting rid of racism and abuse in football, not blindly sticking up for Suarez.

[Tiresias]

http://www.surrealfootball.com/2011/12/21/luis-suarez-the-verdict/

 

This article sums it all up well

[Guest icemanblue]

Liverpool are making themselves look like total dicks over this, aren't they? Surely they should be on the side of getting rid of racism and abuse in football, not blindly sticking up for Suarez.

 

You'd know all about blindly sticking up for people, Ian! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Liverpool are making themselves look like total dicks over this, aren't they? Surely they should be on the side of getting rid of racism and abuse in football, not blindly sticking up for Suarez.

 

You'd know all about blindly sticking up for people, Ian! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

 

[leffe186]

http://www.surrealfootball.com/2011/12/21/luis-suarez-the-verdict/

 

This article sums it all up well

 

That's really, really good.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

OT: Did Diouf ever get a fine/ban for his various spitting incidents?

 

Just checked, 8 game ban for supposed racist remark and a 3 game ban for spitting in a players face?

[High Five o]

Glenn_Hysen Glenn Hysén

#unibet ambassador. President at Liverpool FC Swedish Supporters Branch

 

Glenn_Hysen Glenn Hysén

Hello King @kennethdalglish ! You should let @luis16suarez be captain today to show him your support. HNWA! Have it good. Glenn

 

 

[Guest Roger Kint]

OT: Did Diouf ever get a fine/ban for his various spitting incidents?

 

2 match ban for Celtic spitting while at Liverpool but i think it was Bolton themselves who banned him for the second one not an official one iirc

[midds]

CPS authorise Terry case.

 

He's in deep shit now.

[Guest icemanblue]

Is John Terry a racist yet?

[madras]

it's a situation which is becoming more and more common. clubs defending players when they should be kicking them out but being unwilling to do so as they are too much of a financial asset to do that to. no wonder many of them are spoilt bastards who feel they are untouchable.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

http://www.surrealfootball.com/2011/12/21/luis-suarez-the-verdict/

 

This article sums it all up well

 

That's really, really good.

 

Yeah, good read. It'll be interesting to see the full judgement when it comes out as well.

[GeordieDazzler]

Terry to be charged, well that's half the scousers argument against the Suarez ban null and void.

[johnnypd]

it's a situation which is becoming more and more common. clubs defending players when they should be kicking them out but being unwilling to do so as they are too much of a financial asset to do that to. no wonder many of them are spoilt bastards who feel they are untouchable.

 

which in turn makes them more likely to do things like this. vicious circle. i suppose in ashley's defence at least he tried to sack barton. liverpool have came out throwing wild accusations around refusing to consider that their man might be in the wrong.

[midds]

CPS authorise Terry case.

 

He's in deep s*** now.

 

What does that mean exactly?

 

The CPS are pushing on with a criminal charge. Due in W. London Mags. court on 1st Feb.

 

The CPS reckon they'll get a guilty verdict.

[Dave]

From the excellent Early Doors (ED) Blog on Eurosport...

 

Liverpool adding to tribal idiocy

 

Early Doors had its Christmas party last night. It was suggested that, in order to avoid a hungover scribble, it just publish a one word edition today: 'Suarez!'

 

The argument being that anything more is superfluous. Let's just reflect on the magnitude of the story, the repercussions and the reaction. Wow. Amazing.

 

Sadly, ED's Grinch-like boss did not sign off the one-word blog. Can't imagine why not.

 

So here is ED's two cents.

 

You would hope that in a case of this seriousness, football would not simply split down club lines.

 

You would hope that observers would put their allegiances to one side and take an objective look at a case that goes beyond sport.

 

You would hope, but you would obviously end up crushingly disappointed.

 

The news story on this site has over 1,000 comments; nearly all of them partisan, plenty of them offensive, too many of them referring disgracefully to those two bywords for tragedy: Hillsborough and Munich.

 

Frankly, it's a complete, sorry mess.

 

Sometimes you feel things are too important to let football fans anywhere near them, and this case has seen them at their most idiotically tribal.

 

With that in mind, it is thoroughly depressing to see Liverpool FC get in on the act with its incredible reaction to the news Luis Suarez has been banned for eight matches after being found guilty (pending appeal - ED is going to be using those words a lot this morning) of racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra.

 

Liverpool's statement last night was truly extraordinary in both its tone and content, taking furious shots at Evra and the FA.

 

Their man has been found guilty of a very serious offence, so they might just want to wind their necks in a little bit.

 

Support Suarez, by all means. Appeal, as you have a right to do. But show some restraint and some dignity. Act in a manner befitting a club of Liverpool's stature.

 

As the statement itself pointed out, Liverpool have done more than their share to combat injustice and discrimination.

 

That is why it is so uncomfortable to see them in such a frenzy, and to see Kenny Dalglish use the phrase forever associated with the club in his message of support: 'Let's not let him walk alone.'

 

Liverpool should think very carefully before attempting to turn Suarez into a great, modern-day martyr.

 

They might want to say: "Much as we love Luis, and much as he's our best player, and much as his offence came against our most hated rivals, the FA thinks he has committed a very serious breach of discipline and we should probably reflect that."

 

There is so much in Liverpool's statement that can be picked apart, but ED will focus on just a few bits:

 

"It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible - certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations."

This is a disgrace. The mention of "prior unfounded accusations" refers to two other cases in which claims of racial abuse against Evra have been made.

 

To paraphrase - Evra plays the race card.

 

The thing is, on neither occasion did Evra make the accusation. In 2006, a deaf fan claimed to lip-read abuse of Evra by Steve Finnan, and in 2008 United coaches Mike Phelan and Richard Hartis said they heard a Chelsea groundsman insult Evra.

 

Neither claim was proven. And neither claim was made by Evra. This point is outlined in this excellent blog post (yes, it's a United blog, but it makes a very good point).

 

For Liverpool to themselves make a false claim about Evra is lamentable.

 

"It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said 'I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist'. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist."

 

It is not key. It is irrelevant.

 

Being a racist and committing a racist act are not the same thing.

 

When Ron Atkinson made his disgusting remarks about Marcel Desailly, a large number of his former players came out and said Atkinson was not a racist.

 

Did any of these people say that he should not be punished? Of course not.

 

Nobody said: "It is accepted that Ron is not a racist, therefore he cannot be guilty."

 

People are nuanced, inconsistent, unpredictable. It is perfectly possible to commit an isolated racist act in an otherwise tolerant life.

 

"Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black."

 

Really? 'Some of my best grandparents are black'?

 

"It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. "

 

"We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. "

 

Utterly depressing remarks, which try to make the case about Liverpool versus Manchester United (and the FA), when it should be a serious examination of what one man said to another man.

 

"Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult."

 

To his credit? Maybe he genuinely didn't hear the insult. And Liverpool's wording suggests that he did hear the insult, but decided to say otherwise. If that were indeed the case, then ED is not sure how lying to an FA enquiry is to anybody's credit.

 

- - -

 

This is a difficult, unprecedented case that needs to be looked at carefully and sensitively.

 

The argument centred less around what Suarez said as what he meant, and that is a thorny issue of deep cultural nuances.

 

It would seem the FA have decided that, though 'Negrito' might be a term of utmost endearment in Uruguay, they cannot allow any language with racial connotations.

 

ED sees their point, though it can also accept the argument that the punishment is heavy-handed.

 

Maybe the FA's process was flawed, though it is hard to see anything for all the mud-slinging.

 

Frankly, ED doesn't know exactly what happened in that goalmouth, and it doesn't know what the appropriate sanction should be for a player found guilty.

 

Looking at the reaction of Liverpool, the media and the fans, ED is virtually alone in this uncertainty.

 

But that's football, where everybody knows everything all the time, even when they actually know nothing.

.

 

 

[Guest neesy111]

He should be banned for England now, as the FA banned Woodgate and Bowyer during their trial.

[Ishmael]

'Some of my best grandparents are black'

[Dave]

Have to admit it looks like I was wrong about the Terry incident. Definitely didn't look like the alleged remark to me, and I thought it was a storm in a teacup. If the CPS think they're got a chance at a conviction there must be something in it.