Luis Suarez.

cashman · 21-04-2013, 20:50

See hes finally tasted Champions League Success.

gpick24 · 21-04-2013, 21:17

I blame the nutritionists, they told him to eat more bran.

jaysay · 22-04-2013, 08:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpick24

I blame the nutritionists, they told him to eat more bran.

Not much bran in a Chelski shirt

gpick24 · 22-04-2013, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Not much bran in a Chelski shirt

There is when BRANislav Ivanovic is wearing it.

Barrie Yates · 23-04-2013, 22:57

It is obviously Jay that has triggered this onslaught - since he dropped the scousers from his list of supported teams, Cannibal could not contain his frustration.
I considered the request to donate his fine to the Hillsborough Families to be very a very cynical attempt to garner some support, which has apparently backfired and caused some embarrassment - the club should have banned him for a number of games just as United did with Cantona.
Liverpool used to have a reputation for being a hard club but they were respected in the days of Paisley et al - not any longer.
Let us hope that the FA resolve it quickly and then we can try and put it behind us.

Greeny · 24-04-2013, 15:43

Hope the other fella doesn't get rabies. 10 match ban for this disgusting act and rightly so.

cashman · 24-04-2013, 15:50

To me it should be a matter of perspective, The F.A. do sod all about very dangerous tackles which could end a players career,Suarez deserves a big ban no doubt, but end of the day a bite is more likely to hurt yeh, than end yer career, This just demonstrates again how useless the F.A. are.

Barrie Yates · 24-04-2013, 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

To me it should be a matter of perspective, The F.A. do sod all about very dangerous tackles which could end a players career,Suarez deserves a big ban no doubt, but end of the day a bite is more likely to hurt yeh, than end yer career, This just demonstrates again how useless the F.A. are.

The question of "intent to injure" must be taken into consideration. What Suarez did obviously falls into that category but who is to say that some of the tackles, even though they look horrific, were made with "intent to injure".
I see that the scousers are moaning again that this is too severe a punishment. Are the owners going to jump in again and tell the day by day management to shut up?
It will be interesting to see if they do appeal the length of the ban by midday Friday.
One thing that did amuse me about all this was when Cannibal suddenly started limping and clutching his stomach some time after the bite.

jaysay · 24-04-2013, 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

To me it should be a matter of perspective, The F.A. do sod all about very dangerous tackles which could end a players career,Suarez deserves a big ban no doubt, but end of the day a bite is more likely to hurt yeh, than end yer career, This just demonstrates again how useless the F.A. are.

Spot on cashy, punishment by headlines is the FAs stock answer, if it placates the southern press it's fine, Suarez needed punishing but along with that a promise to get him help which he quite honestly needs.

cashman · 24-04-2013, 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates

The question of "intent to injure" must be taken into consideration. What Suarez did obviously falls into that category but who is to say that some of the tackles, even though they look horrific, were made with "intent to injure".
I see that the scousers are moaning again that this is too severe a punishment. Are the owners going to jump in again and tell the day by day management to shut up?
It will be interesting to see if they do appeal the length of the ban by midday Friday.
One thing that did amuse me about all this was when Cannibal suddenly started limping and clutching his stomach some time after the bite.

Utter crap,whilst some tackles do fall into a "Grey Area" no doubt, some obviously don't, deliberately stamping on another player fer instance, I find it rather pathetic a united fan thinks this way, but its easy fer any sensible fan to see what i'm on about.

jaysay · 24-04-2013, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Utter crap,whilst some tackles do fall into a "Grey Area" no doubt, some obviously don't, deliberately stamping on another player fer instance, I find it rather pathetic a united fan thinks this way, but its easy fer any sensible fan to see what i'm on about.

You mean fans like you, that have actually been to a game cashy, not just watched "their" team pick trophies up from the comfort of their armchair

cashman · 24-04-2013, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

You mean fans like you, that have actually been to a game cashy, not just watched "their" team pick trophies up from the comfort of their armchair

Thing is jaysay, they think on the same lines as owd red nose!! If it suits united its right.

Me point was about perspectives n the F.A. What part of "Suarez deserves a big ban" they can't grasp,is completely beyond comprehension!! But then Fergy only sees what he wants to see also.

DtheP47 · 24-04-2013, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Utter crap,whilst some tackles do fall into a "Grey Area" no doubt, some obviously don't, deliberately stamping on another player fer instance, I find it rather pathetic a united fan thinks this way, but its easy fer any sensible fan to see what i'm on about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates

The question of "intent to injure" must be taken into consideration. What Suarez did obviously falls into that category but who is to say that some of the tackles, even though they look horrific, were made with "intent to injure".
I see that the scousers are moaning again

Who is to say Mr Yates? Maybe Roy Keane ref: his 1997 tackle on Alf-Inge Haaland?