The Football Thread - Season 2012/2013

[mindcrime]

a non sponser saying they wouldn't ever sponser liverpool

How would we know this....they're not likely to make it public.

 

[joescrivens]

How would we know this....they're not likely to make it public.

I have no idea it was just an example. Do you have anything? even a single piece of evidence that is measurable that shows an effect of this so called damage?

if there is so much of it then it should be easy to show surely?

 

[mindcrime]

I have no idea it was just an example. Do you have anything? even a single piece of evidence that is measurable that shows an effect of this so called damage?

if there is so much of it then it should be easy to show surely?

You seem to want an answer with regards to monetary damage...at the moment there doesn't appear to be any, and as I don't work for the club I don't have access to records.

But with respect to the image and reputation of Liverpool, this is tarnished and may well have a lasting effect when it comes to sponsors, signing players etc etc. To deny the image of LFC is tarnished is blinkered, IMO.

 

[joescrivens]

But with respect to the image and reputation of Liverpool, this is tarnished and may well have a lasting effect when it comes to sponsors, signing players etc etc. To deny the image of LFC is tarnished is blinkered, IMO.

I'm not denying. I'm asking people to provide evidence for it. Rather than just sucking up what someone wants to write on a blog or a forum, I'd rather see actual evidence

It doesn't have to be monetary - the point about signing players - that will do. Is there any evidence that Liverpool didn't sign some players due to the damage to their reputation? because the signing of sturridge and coutinho would seem to suggest otherwise

But I would genuinely listen to any evidence at all that shows an ACTUAL damaging effect to the club. You've still yet to provide any - but if it is so obvious there should be loads surely?

 

[dinners]

Just reads like more overreaction.

Can someone actually point me to this so called damage? What actual mesaurable damage has there been from last years racism incident?

Have liverpool lost sponsers?
Have they lost season tickets?
Has their annual turnover of merchandise dropped?
Tv deals - have they dropped?
Shirt sales - have they dropped?
Suarez value - has this dropped below what liverpool paid for him?

Where is this damage? What form does it take and exactly how has it affected the club in a way that is measurable? Not just someone saying "its affected the reputation etc"

Where is the damage and how has it actually affected anything?

and I'm not saying there is none - i don't know so I want to know what it is since I keep reading about it

That's a tough question to answer Joe.

All I can say from a personal point of view is that I have very little respect for Liverpool Football Club any longer. Not because of numpty Suarez but the way they handle themselves and the way they point to everybody but themselves. I know that has no impact on their finances and you probably couldn't care less what a United fan thinks but I used to have a lot of respect for your club. I know this is a view shared by a lot of football fans nowerdays so it's a safe bet to say it's probably a view shared by a lot of potential partners.

Standard Chartered (£20million a year to Liverpool) hit the roof when they saw how Liverpool dealt with the Suarez / Evra thing. They famously slaughtered LFC at their 2012 AGM and made a massive point of going public with criticism of the club. The owners met with them and put the old broom through Anfield soon after.

Adidas have taken the step of condemning Luis Suárez this week, who has a boot deal with the company. "Adidas takes this type of incident very seriously and does not condone Luis Suárez's behaviour," it said.

Adidas are no longer Liverpool's kit supplier after they suddenly severed ties in 2012. They claimed it was due to Liverpool no longer being a European force but much has been written about other reasons.

All the ££ things you mentioned will have gone up - as they have with most premier league teams.

Knowing how you operate - we'll be heading for pedantic street LOL because of your question. It's impossible to know what deals do or don't happen (or have been missed) in the world of sponsorship due to attraction or dissociation because neither club or sponsor (to be) would mention it.

 

[joescrivens]

That's a tough question to answer Joe.

All I can say from a personal point of view is that I have very little respect for Liverpool Football Club any longer. Not because of numpty Suarez but the way they handle themselves and the way they point to everybody but themselves. I know that has no impact on their finances and you probably couldn't care less what a United fan thinks but I used to have a lot of respect for your club. I know this is a view shared by a lot of football fans nowerdays so it's a safe bet to say it's probably a view shared by a lot of potential partners.

other football fans respect for the club has zero effect on the club for good or bad so I fail to see how that is a damage.

As for "potential partners" unless you can show evidence it;s just opinion and hearsay

Standard Chartered (£20million a year to Liverpool) hit the roof when they saw how Liverpool dealt with the Suarez / Evra thing. They famously slaughtered LFC at their 2012 AGM and made a massive point of going public with criticism of the club. The owners met with them and put the old broom through Anfield soon after.

Standard Chartered are still their sponsor are they not? Did they drop any of the sponsorship after the racism incident? If not - have they shown any effect of damage?

Adidas have taken the step of condemning Luis Suárez this week, who has a boot deal with the company. "Adidas takes this type of incident very seriously and does not condone Luis Suárez's behaviour," it said.

Its too early to tell if this incident has damaged liverpool -perhaps adidas will pull their boot deal? if so does that damage the club any or does it just damage Luis Suarez?

They also said "We will be reminding him of the standards we expect from our players. Luis has admitted his actions were unacceptable and we support the way Liverpool are planning to handle the situation"

would seem like thats an endorsement of the club and their actions so far

Adidas are no longer Liverpool's kit supplier having suddenly severing ties in 2012. They claimed it was due to Liverpool no longer being a European force but much has been written about other reasons.

Just hearsay then, no evidence. Would seem strange that adidas would pull sponsorship of the club due to the incident but still have a boot deal with the player who caused the incident - wouldn't you agree?

 

[redhed17]

As an actual Liverpool fan from Liverpool I think I have more authority than most other 'reds' on here to offer an opinion My opinion of the whole incident is, meh. The boy was a douche and he's paying the consequences. Whatever the manager is saying to the press is of no importance to me whatsoever as managers come and go. Not even arsed who the manager is. Also, anything Jamie Carragher says is surely not supposed to be taken seriously right?

As another Liverpool fan, who also happens to be from Liverpool, but doesn't feel has any more authority than Joe Smo from Guadalupe, I do care about the opinions of those involved. I want the people who are employed by the club I support to have the same, or similar outlook on life and similar moral code. If something happens like the Suarez incident, then I feel let down by the player. How other members of club react tells me about their character's too. And overall when something like this happens, I feel let down. Hopefully not by too many of the Liverpool staff.

Only in recent years have Liverpool managers tended to come and go. Liverpool managers in the past have stayed at the club for many years, and so there was an affinity and bond between the managers, the players and the supporters. Epitomised most of all by Shankly and Dalglish. It was Benitez's name being sung by the Liverpool supporters more than Rodgers on Sunday. There have been so many managerial changes recently, that managers will have to prove themselves more to the fans, rather that getting the instant backing they received in the past imho.

Be in no doubt, players like Suarez, Bellamy, and Diouf etc damage Liverpool by their actions. There may not be something financial that you can point to, but reputation is a fragile thing, it takes time to build, but can be quickly ruined. Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in the world, so when things happen, positive, and negative, they are seen and heard around the world. As in most things though, bad news spreads the farthest, and his heard by the most people.

 

[dinners]

Oh go on then Joe - I'll agree

I'm sure Liverpool FC will be striving to replicate the last couple of years as a future business plan.

 

[new2me]

Have the reasons been published for public consumption?
I see they're letting suarez make the decision on whether to appeal himself.

 

[dinners]

Have the reasons been published for public consumption?
I see they're letting suarez make the decision on whether to appeal himself.

LFC were supposed to have it by 6:00pm on Thursday but I've not looked to see if it's gone 'public' yet.

Common sense says LFC would have waited till they actually had the paper to hand before passing comment on the QC's decision but (after a good start) once again, all and sundry at the club were voicing their opinion without knowing what they were responding too LOL

It will interesting to see just how the QC came to the 10 game conclusion because only then can anybody really form an opinion (myself included) as to whether the punishment is harsh or not.

As for LFC letting Suarez decide whether to appeal. I've no idea if that's genuine but there's miles in that one.

 

[dinners]

As another Liverpool fan, who also happens to be from Liverpool, but doesn't feel has any more authority than Joe Smo from Guadalupe, I do care about the opinions of those involved. I want the people who are employed by the club I support to have the same, or similar outlook on life and similar moral code. If something happens like the Suarez incident, then I feel let down by the player. How other members of club react tells me about their character's too. And overall when something like this happens, I feel let down. Hopefully not by too many of the Liverpool staff.

That would be my own personal feeling too.

There seems to be a divide amongst Liverpool supporters over this. Some feel they, and the club have been let down whilst others will circle the waggons regardless.

It's true of football fans in general, not just Liverpool fans. It just so happens that Suarez and Liverpool's subsequent actions have caused the spotlight to fall on Liverpool twice in recent years.

 

[redhed17]

I found this article here interesting about how the 'independent' panel was influenced by the FA before they even convened. The FA said that Suarez will 'serve more than a 3 match ban', so straight off that precludes the option to give him less than a 4 match ban. You're independent, but you have to ban him for more than 3 games. Surely that isn't independent. :shrug:

Rodgers said maybe a 12 game ban was justified, but with 6 game initial ban and a 6 game suspended sentence dependent on future conduct, which seemed a very good idea to help with his future behaviour and aid in rehabilitation. That sounds more than reasonable to me. :shrug:

Like I have said, Suarez deserved a long ban, but the way things have been handled needs to be looked into, and how independent the panel actually were. :shrug:

 

[redhed17]

On a lighter note, well done to Chel$ki for not giving up against Basel.

 

[dinners]

Ahead of the 2nd leg of the Champions League semis (obviously advantage Germany) what are people's views on the strengths of the various leagues ?

I'm thinking mainly Germany, England and Spain but anything goes.

There's certainly been a resurgence from our German friends and opinion seems divided as to whether the mighty Barca are a spent force or simply having a blip ?

We mock the Spanish league for being Madrid v Barca (much like Celtic v Rangers) and claim the Premier League to be the 'best league in the world' yet it's been City v United again.

Bayern are miles ahead of Dortmund and milking their players whilst Dortmund are miles ahead of 3rd.

Chelsea are Champions of Europe but haven't challenged for their domestic title.

Real and Barca 'cream' TV whilst we have a more democratic set up.

There's no right or wrong answer - I just thought it would be a nice change of discussion.

 

[dinners]

I found this article

I think the FA were wrong (see I'm not biassed) to go public about how they felt it should be more than a 3 game ban before putting the case to the Football Association's 'independent' panel.

Like you I refer to them as 'independent'.

Yes it's FA represented however it is chaired by the Queens Council (an independent QC) who ultimately has the job of deciding the punishment.

Whilst I've given Suarez stick for his actions and (perhaps even more so) Liverpool FC for subsequently doing the whole victim thing again - I've never given an opinion on whether or not I think 10 games is harsh or not because like LFC (aherm) I'm unable to respond to the report detailing the QC's reasoning for the length of ban handed out..

Rogers said he felt they "were judging the man (Suarez) and not the act" or something like that.

God knows who lets employees speak out at LFC without the right advice but that is exactly what happens.

Like any court case - whislt a jury or investigation can't refer to 'previous' to influence the guilty / not guilty verdict - the person (in this case the QC) will take previous actions into account when deciding on the punishment or in this case the length of the ban.

Hopefully the QC's reasons will be visible to us all tomorrow - after which a more reasoned opinion on the verdict can be given.

 

[joescrivens]

Oh go on then Joe - I'll agree

I'm sure Liverpool FC will be striving to replicate the last couple of years as a future business plan.

You're missing my point.

I'm trying to show that people are putting way too much weight on how these incidents actually affect anything. Dramatising it and making it seem much more important than it is.

Stuff happens and then things move on, the way you guys talk and the media it's the club has been ruined forever!

It's not that big a deal

 

[new2me]

I'm trying to show that people are putting way too much weight on how these incidents actually affect anything. Dramatising it and making it seem much more important than it is.

No you're not - you are not producing any figures to counteract anyones claims, simply saying you disagree and want proof (proof that isn't available).
Besides, what's wrong with dramatising the situation? It was only a bite (assault), not as if he'd walked out of a press conference It's part of the fun of football.

 

[irelanst]

The FA said that Suarez will 'serve more than a 3 match ban', so straight off that precludes the option to give him less than a 4 match ban. You're independent, but you have to ban him for more than 3 games. Surely that isn't independent

It is a part of the FA process that they have to notify the player that they believe that the incident is worthy of a ban over and above the standard punishment.

"Where the Charge is not accompanied by an offer of the standard punishment, the Charge will state that The FA claims that the standard punishment would be clearly insufficient, and the basis for that claim."

 

[dinners]

No you're not - you are not producing any figures to counteract anyones claims, simply saying you disagree and want proof (proof that isn't available).

Exactly.

Deflection - It's the oldest and easiest trick in the book when debating.

Ask for specifics (proof) and then shift the focus of your argument onto those - despite having no proof to contrary.

When the questions were asked - I knew fine well what would follow which is why I made a point of saying......

That's a tough question to answer Joe.

Knowing how you operate - we'll be heading for pedantic street LOL

but the reply came back all the same

 

[joescrivens]

No you're not - you are not producing any figures to counteract anyones claims, simply saying you disagree and want proof (proof that isn't available).
Besides, what's wrong with dramatising the situation? It was only a bite (assault), not as if he'd walked out of a press conference It's part of the fun of football.

Actually the fact there's no evidence of any damages proves my point.

By all means keep making a drama of it all but you may instead want to enjoy the fact your club was given the trophy this week. Seems to be the last thing on man united's fans minds which says a lot about them.

 

[joescrivens]

Exactly.

Deflection - It's the oldest and easiest trick in the book when debating.

Ask for specifics (proof) and then shift the focus of your argument onto those - despite having no proof to contrary.

When the questions were asked - I knew fine well what would follow which is why I made a point of saying......



but the reply came back all the same

The fact is I have proof of no damage

No loss of sponsors
No loss of earnings
No loss of fan base
No loss of tv deals
Players still being signed by the club
Team mates not in uproar about their player
Etc etc

The fact you have not shown any evidence for any damage shows what a drama you are all making of it.

But it's ok, carry on it makes amusing reading especially in the week you were handed your trophy. You'd rather spend time discussing another club and making a drama. All the more amusing for me though

 

[new2me]

Actually the fact there's no evidence of any damages proves my point.

That's not proof at all

By all means keep making a drama of it all but you may instead want to enjoy the fact your club was given the trophy this week. Seems to be the last thing on man united's fans minds which says a lot about them.

That one again, already!?!? No drama, it's fun. There's possibly 12 months to celebrate being champions again ... suarez might well be forgotten before the start of the next season

 

[dinners]

Actually the fact there's no evidence of any damages proves my point.

Actually, it doesn't.

Prove to me that Liverpool couldn't have secured better or additional sponsorship deals post 2012.

I'll then pick holes in your lack of proof.

By all means keep making a drama of it all but you may instead want to enjoy the fact your club was given the trophy this week. Seems to be the last thing on man united's fans minds which says a lot about them.

I've been enjoying it for days and will continue to do so

I went as far as adding a '20' avatar to commemorate the occasion but it would be a little tactless to bang on about it in this thread.

I'm sure you would do the same.

 

[new2me]

Apologies to the rest of the real football fans in this thread who are tired of us arrogant United fans banging on about the 20th title, but for the benefit of Joe, here's an apt tune for you

[YOUTUBE]YC8FET-EGVM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[joescrivens]

That's not proof at all

Yes it is

Actually, it doesn't.

Yes it does



We could go back and forth like this for hours. But lets just agree to disagree. Im off to cornwall today so have things to pack!

That's the best thing about this thread on here. We can have debates and wind ups and banter and nobody takes anything too seriously or gets upset.

Meanwhile I'll enjoy the drama and overreaction continuing and you guys enjoy the demise of Liverpool. Maybe it won't even be around in 3 weeks time !

 

[modchild]

My 6 year old lad watched that game and he is football mad, what do I do when he plays next time and bites someone ???

You'll probably give him a mild smack and that's it. No extras for the times in the past that he's been naughty and no pocket money fine for the equivalent time of a £300,000 fine. Lets be realistic about it.

I've no problem with Suarez receiving a ban, he deserves it, but why should he get a ban if Defoe didn't get a ban. Defoe had to move around 6 feet to get to Mascherano and it was straight in front of the ref. Martin Jol actually said he found it quite amusing, Brendan Rodgers or anyone at LFC haven't come out with a statement like that by a long way.

You can't re-try a player for past indiscretions. The punishment should fit the crime and the crime was 'violent conduct' which carries a 3 match ban or an extra match if you've been previously sent off in a season. Anything else is just a media hyped witch hunt.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Meanwhile I'll enjoy the drama and overreaction continuing and you guys enjoy the demise of Liverpool. Maybe it won't even be around in 3 weeks time !

So we agree that Liverpool are in demise and Suarez is partially responsible for that demise then?

 

[new2me]

Anything else is just a media hyped witch hunt.

We dont know what the other 7 games are for though. Anyway, i'll take a leaf out of Joe's book and say let's agree to disagree, as it could go back and forth forever (although he only says this when he is clearly wrong and cant get out of it ).

 

[joescrivens]

We dont know what the other 7 games are for though. Anyway, i'll take a leaf out of Joe's book and say let's agree to disagree, as it could go back and forth forever (although he only says this when he is clearly wrong and cant get out of it ).

What's all this?

Didn't you know I'm never wrong?

 

[modchild]

You cannot use the "so and so did this and only got that" argument, just as you shouldn't do that in legal cases - within the framework.

But they do often, it's called Legal Precedent' and it's been used in loads of cases in the past and will be used in the future.

 

[dinners]

I've no problem with Suarez receiving a ban, he deserves it, but why should he get a ban if Defoe didn't get a ban.

But they do often, it's called Legal Precedent' and it's been used in loads of cases in the past and will be used in the future.

"In relation to the query regarding Jermaine Defoe, the rules have been amended since this incident occurred and these rules have to be adhered to. Should any other player now conduct themselves in the same way, they will of course be dealt with in accordance with them"

John Stanley | Customer Relations
The Football Association

or....

 

[new2me]

There was a guy on the radio yesterday who sounded convinced that Defoe would simply get a yellow card again if he was to take another nibble at someone. Why people cant see that was a mistake and accept he was a lucky boy I will never know (well I do, but wont be so rude to express it here )

 

[tiler65]

But they do often, it's called Legal Precedent' and it's been used in loads of cases in the past and will be used in the future.

There is no 'legal precedent' in football. The FA board take EVERY case individually and it is only the punishment that can be swayed via a previous charge if there was a condition on that charge.

 

[Spuff]

But I would genuinely listen to any evidence at all that shows an ACTUAL damaging effect to the club. You've still yet to provide any - but if it is so obvious there should be loads surely?

As has already been mentioned this is a pretty poor but predictable attempt at deflection. It's ironic that someone that has as much experience as you of being banned still fails to grasp the negative impact it has on your reputation.

With regards to Suarez/Liverpool, the reputational damage becomes relevant to us "drama queens" when it starts to taint the Premier League and English football in general. That's why it's worthy of more serious debate rather than you "finding it funny" or an "overreaction".

But they do often, it's called Legal Precedent' and it's been used in loads of cases in the past and will be used in the future.

Precedent is used for (winning) legal argument but not generally for sentencing. Guidelines for the latter are set by the Sentencing Council.

 

[new2me]

So, suarez and hence liverpool are accepting the full ban. Bit of an anti climax really

 

[Byker28i]

So you saying that you dont know it but are assuming it due to the law of averages?

No - if you read what I wrote I said the the FA have previously increased the ban preiod when appeals have failed. It's designed to deter every decision being appealed. There's been a number of cases where the decision was dropped because of this and cases of the ban period being extended when the appeal failed. Ferdinand was the obvious example.

 

[Byker28i]

As for the loss of value to Liverpool, that's very difficult. Losing the player that's scored about half your goal tally this season will be very difficult, especially missing the first 6 games of next season. If you have a bad start to the season it could prove very costly.

 

[Byker28i]

On a lighter note, well done to Chel$ki for not giving up against Basel.

Dodgy penalty by the ref? Didn't look like one to me and even the player looked embarrassed. Mind you Chelski should have wrapped up the game before then and took their foot off the gas to let basel back in.

 

[dinners]

So, suarez and hence liverpool are accepting the full ban. Bit of an anti climax really

A bit like last time then ?

Manager and Players come out and publicly state how unfair it is etc - and then they don't appeal.

They are so badly run.

I suspect somebody from upstairs had to get involved again.

 

[Byker28i]

Just for Joe, as he struggles to see why other teams fans don't like Suarez

[youtube]97C7oA1Sy50[/youtube]