The Football Thread - Season 2012/2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
Byker28i said:
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.
Click to expand...

If we're playing that game then Luiz should probably have walked for a studs up challenge earlier in the game, if recent standards are to be enforced ;)
 
Suarez thought violent conduct was only a three game ban set by FIFA........who advised him?

It is about time Liverpool got some new solicitors methinks!
 
TriggerHappy said:
If we're playing that game then Luiz should probably have walked for a studs up challenge earlier in the game, if recent standards are to be enforced ;)
Click to expand...

Yup, that was definitely a bit of pay back for an incident a few minutes earlier
 
Suarez 'did not grasp gravity of offence'?

So not only is he a dirty cheat, he's also extremely stupid?!

Going well for him, isn't it? :lol:
 
Simmotino said:
Suarez 'did not grasp gravity of offence'?

So not only is he a dirty cheat, he's also extremely stupid?!

Going well for him, isn't it? :lol:
Click to expand...

What is the gravity of his offence?

Why is biting worse than a headbutt, punch or stamping on a shin that could end a players career it even racially abusing someone?

If the ban didn't take into account any previous run ins like everyone here suggested then why is a bite worse than all of the above?
 
Byker28i said:
Just for Joe, as he struggles to see why other teams fans don't like Suarez

[youtube]97C7oA1Sy50[/youtube]
Click to expand...

I'm on holiday in the south west so for have the connection to view this. Will take a look when I come back next week. But just wates to say I do know why people don't like Suarez. I just love that they don't and enjoy how much he riles them all.
 
Two crucial promotion games tomorrow - Hull promoted if they win, and whoever wins out of Brentford and Doncaster goes up to the Championship - surely the game of the weekend. For those supporters here of the 'big teams' I doubt there is a better feeling than going up - only Man City fans can probably tell us, or slightly older Blackburn fans.

And a special mention to one of my favourite QPR players of recent times, Gareth Ainsworth, who plays hid last game for Wycombe tomorrow - going to be full-time manager now - good luck Gareth.
 
joescrivens said:
What is the gravity of his offence?

Why is biting worse than a headbutt, punch or stamping on a shin that could end a players career it even racially abusing someone?

If the ban didn't take into account any previous run ins like everyone here suggested then why is a bite worse than all of the above?
Click to expand...

Cantona got a huge ban for drop kicking a member of the crowd. Zidanes headbutt? Didn't someone get a lengthy ban for drugs? Joey Barton? There's always been large penalties for what has been perceived as a serious offence, it's just that LFC and fans don't think it was a serious offence, even though the FA has done its best to describe why they feel it was.

The gravity of the offence, in the eyes of the FA, has been spelt out in minute detail.

Joe, the video shows Suarez consistent and deliberate stamping on players, or the deliberate eye gouging on Scott Parker. I thought you might find it interesting seeing as you keep bringing up deliberate stamping with possible career ending injuries.
 
joescrivens said:
I'm on holiday in the south west so for have the connection to view this. Will take a look when I come back next week. But just wates to say I do know why people don't like Suarez. I just love that they don't and enjoy how much he riles them all.
Click to expand...

Just as well we're getting equal satisfaction from the extent to which this decision has riled LFC fans.

I've been reading recent exchanges in this thread with a huge smile on my face from thinking how easily avoidable all this controversy would be if he just hadn't bitten someone. I mean really, who over the age of about 5 actually bites someone? On a football pitch with 10s of thousands of onlookers, dozens of stills and video cameras, and now an audience of probably hundreds of millions around the world. It's such a pathetic situation to have arisen from the most childish of temper tantrums or animalistic of urges.

If anything I think we should be thanking Suarez for being one of the greatest accidental entertainers in the sport. PR disasters chase him more closely than his own shadow :lol:
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/arsenal-vs-manchester-united-van-1855695

Wenger likened Van Persie’s desire for titles to a woman fearing time was running out on her chances of motherhood and admits the Dutchman felt he had a better chance of winning trophies at Manchester United.

“He had arrived at the age of 29 and thought, ‘can we win the championship here or do I have more chances to win it somewhere else’?” said Wenger, ahead of Sunday's reunion with Van Persie as new champions United visit the Emirates.

“There’s a kind of timescale - like for a woman who has no baby at 39. She starts to think I have not much time left now.”
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
dinners said:
This one made me chuckle.

You know how some teams stick stars above their crest to signify league titles, cup wins, world cups etc.....

Scroll down to Manchester City.....

[/QUOTE] Someone is trolling surely, but I love it :clap:
Click to expand...
 
redddraggon said:
Have you ever played "football" sport at a decent level? Biting is weird. (Punching, headbutting, stamping is excessive etc, but it's part of the game IMO).
Click to expand...

I agree it's weird.

Is is being "weird" enough justification to warrant a longer ban than racially abusing someone of headbutting them?
 
Mods: Joe is on holiday, yet is still on here repeating what he's been saying all week. Can you not complete his 'holiday' experience and give us a break too ;) :thumbs:
 
A) that's because nobody can answer it
B) plenty of others are repeating what they've been saying all week too. Don't single me out.
C) I'm not in holiday yet :-) still in transit
E) what happened to D?
D) oh there it is
 
Joe, I've not followed the whole Suarez debate on here, but if your question is how will this impact Liverpool financially, the answer is likely to be found in league position.

In we accept that he is a great player when sane, the team is likely to win or draw more matches with him in it that they otherwise draw or lose.

So being out for the first 6 games next season will likely cost you a league position, possibly a CL spot. That has a clear financial based on the way money is allocated by league position' and we all know about CL money. League position will have various knock on effects for additional revenue steams and signing players, which will vary dependant on the level of change, eg mid-table v champions league place.

Enjoy your holiday.
 
Al.

That's the most sensible post of the thread.

Thank you. I agree.

That's a sensible measure of the damage. Not the dramatisation offered in the media and has nothing to do with the way the club are handling their PR and responses to the ban but simply a direct effect of the ban.
 
Last edited:
If you actually read the article it clearly states that the stars on city's badge are not related to trophies!!

Also, since you last won the title you've brought in de gea, RVP, jones, kagawa, Powell and jones for just under 100 million.

What are your views on buying titles now?
 
pooley said:
What are your views on buying titles now?
Click to expand...

We might as well join the club :shrug:
Surely we cant allow Chelsea and City buy all the titles/trophies :thumbs:
 
Actually Mike, take a look at the figures for the last 2 years and by the way, we only bought Jones the once ;)

United payed out only 10 million more than city when you factor in outgoing players 75 to 65 ish
Chelsea, over 100
liverpool also about 75

so really, United havent really done anything near the scale of city in recent years :thumbs:

http://transferleague.co.uk/
 
joescrivens said:
I agree it's weird.

Is is being "weird" enough justification to warrant a longer ban than racially abusing someone of headbutting them?
Click to expand...

joescrivens said:
A) that's because nobody can answer it
Click to expand...

I think it's covered in the report.

I'm not opening the report again to get the actual wording but It said something along the lines of - unlike other types of violent conduct 'biting' has not really been a problem in football and they wanted to give a punishment severe enough to make sure it didn't become a problem in the future.
 
To be fair to United, they might have invested a bit but all of it is their own money that the club has generated for itself. It's not been flooded with the capital of some sugar daddy who has no connection to the club besides needing a play-thing to spend some of his vast wealth on.

I'd argue that City have by far the strongest squad in the league and have massively under-performed for the duration of the season. Similarly, Chelsea have the 2nd best squad in the league and haven't achieved anywhere near the results that the individual quality of their players - and the amount that's been invested in them - should have done
 
Doh! Actually the second jones was Ashley young!

And Jamie, look back in history if you want to see how united were rescued by a sugar daddy themselves, hence their 'rag' nickname. It's just that most reds fail to realise there was football before the premier league!

It's just hypocrisy when a lot of teams harp on about it. Most city fans (can't speak for Chelsea) don't like the way footballs money works these days despite the last couple of years success, but given that spending power how many clubs would honestly turn it down?
 
I wonder how that sugar daddy's investment compares to city's windfall (actually I don't, as i've looked it up and its a tiny fraction :D)

I'm sure most city fans dont care about the money, in fact when I hear so many saying that mancini is the best thing to ever happen to the club, it only proves that they dont even think about it. Makes me wonder if they knew the club existed before that, never mind the premiership ;)
 
new2me said:
We might as well join the club :shrug:
Click to expand...

Why, have Utd been doing all this on a shoestring for all these years! :eek: :thinking:

I mean, with almost £140m worth of players on the pitch last week, another £55m on the bench, and another £55m in the stands, that's some shoestring. ;) :lol:

That's about a quarter of a billion btw. ;)
 
Last edited:
The actual sugar daddy investment amount is irrelevant, it was actually more important for united as they would have gone bump while we would have just carried on being rubbish!

Take a look at our attendance figures in the third tier a few years back to realise we've always kept good attendances - and I fully appreciate the irony of someone posting while watching the match is on telly but I had a genuine reason which meant I couldn't go today!
 
redhed17 said:
Why, have Utd been doing all this on a shoestring for all these years! :eek: :thinking: :lol:
Click to expand...

In comparison to chelsea and city, yes ;)
And dont go saying the liverpool didn't spend a bob or two more than others in the 70's & 80s (as well as recent years for that matter) ;)
 
pooley said:
Take a look at our attendance figures in the third tier a few years back to realise we've always kept good attendances
Click to expand...
There's no disputing city's strong support over the years and i've met/heard plenty fans who denounce the money. But they welcome the success and accept the situation and plenty others' teams fans would too.
 
joescrivens said:
I agree it's weird.

Is is being "weird" enough justification to warrant a longer ban than racially abusing someone of headbutting them?
Click to expand...

It's not weird at all. The fa have completely explained their position. Its just you won't accept that they are wrong according to joe.
 
redhed17 said:
I mean, with almost £140m worth of players on the pitch last week, another £55m on the bench, and another £55m in the stands, that's some shoestring. ;) :lol:
Click to expand...
I thought you were referring to previous years being on a shoestring :p

United's current squad value is between city and chelsea.
If you go back a few years, city's would be much much less, but chelsea still up at United's level. However, a good chunk on United's would have been through players coming through the ranks. Prior to Abramovich, chelsea would have been much less than United's, but I'm sure there were a clump of other teams spending as much or more than we were, although maybe not as regularly :thumbs:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top