Suarez Bites Again

Man there goes our chances of doing anything next season. Ffs he'll miss 6 games next season at the start. That's already more than 1/5th of the league over.

Time for Andy Carroll to step up

10 games if harsh. 5-7 game ban would have been more apprioprite IMO

FA will somehow fit in Pool v United game and United v Pool game in the first 6 matches next season.

Suarez is cool, but honestly sometimes he's very stupid.

And i also believe that 10 days ban is way to much.

Well, he already got a 7 match ban for biting in the Netherlands, IIRC. If he shows that he hasn't learned from that, he needs a longer ban as repeat offender.

I would also like to say shame on Liverpool for donating the fine to a Hillsborough charity and trying to use that as a means to lessen the impact of Suarez's act. Yes, that is exactly what they did if it hasn't occurred to you.

Blue Barrett wrote:I would also like to say shame on Liverpool for donating the fine to a Hillsborough charity and trying to use that as a means to lessen the impact of Suarez's act. Yes, that is exactly what they did if it hasn't occurred to you.

congratulations everybody, we've officially seen the most absurd reason to criticize liverpool. it took a long time and a lot of effort on everybody's part, but we finally made it!!!

stevieg8 wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:I would also like to say shame on Liverpool for donating the fine to a Hillsborough charity and trying to use that as a means to lessen the impact of Suarez's act. Yes, that is exactly what they did if it hasn't occurred to you.

congratulations everybody, we've officially seen the most absurd reason to criticize liverpool. it took a long time and a lot of effort on everybody's part, but we finally made it!!!

Make of it what you will, you still didn't point out any reason why I'm wrong.

I thought the exact same thing as Barrett when I heard he had asked for his fine to be donated

Lex wrote:I thought the exact same thing as Barrett when I heard he had asked for his fined to be donated

Same

"They made him donate to charity, that must be fake and is therefore terrible. How dare they contribute that money to a legitimate cause."

I really have to explain this?

charity donation would also be tax deductible more than likely

stevieg8 wrote:"They made him donate to charity, that must be fake and is therefore terrible. How dare they contribute that money to a legitimate cause."

I really have to explain this?

They donated the money to charity to make us all say "oh well he was wrong but he's apologised and oh look he donated the money to a charity. All is well and all is forgiven"


Surely even somewhere behind your bias, you know its very fishy to donate it to a charity.

This season MLS are requiring that all player wage fines go to charity. Is that "fishy"?

It's merely ensuring that even when a player does something wrong something decent comes out of it. Nothing to do with the player or the incident, it's all about the money going to a good cause. Maybe if YOU GOT PAST YOUR BIAS you'd be able to recognize that the motivation behind the donation of fined wages matters less than the fact that they're managing to achieve some decency out of an otherwise nasty incident.

Rather than attacking the club for taking this action, you could put that faux outrage toward a more reasonable case such as why other clubs haven't/don't do the same, why the FA doesn't do so, etc etc.

Wait...you mean in Europe when a player is fined it doesn't always go to charity??

IIRC pretty much all fines in U.S sports go to charity, except I think NFL which puts them in a fun for concussion research or something

Swanhends wrote:Wait...you mean in Europe when a player is fined it doesn't always go to charity??

IIRC pretty much all fines in U.S sports go to charity, except I think NFL which puts them in a fun for concussion research or something

No, in Europe fined wages do not go to charity, because to do so means that there is obviously an agenda. And, since Suarez has done so, it is obviously a disgusting act in general to support charities in England. Expect the PM to come out in the next few days expressing his distress at the situation and urging the Parliament to ban charities on general principles.

Tbf to Barrett, a spokeswoman for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign was hardly pleased to accept the donation.

Even went as far as saying they are being exploited.

So Barrett isn't the only one who feels that way.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Tbf to Barrett, a spokeswoman for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign was hardly pleased to accept the donation.

Even went as far as saying they are being exploited.

So Barrett isn't the only one who feels that way.

Her opinions weren't echoed by the actual charity that accepted the donation though, so please don't mis-characterize the situation.,

Fair enough, she shouldn't speak on behalf of the charity then if its not something they feel.

RedOranje wrote:

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Tbf to Barrett, a spokeswoman for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign was hardly pleased to accept the donation.

Even went as far as saying they are being exploited.

So Barrett isn't the only one who feels that way.

Her opinions weren't echoed by the actual charity that accepted the donation though, so please don't mis-characterize the situation.,

I thought the entire point of a spokesperson was to speak on an organizations behalf?

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Fair enough, she shouldn't speak on behalf of the charity then if its not something they feel.

She spoke of her feelings, not the charity's; much as how journo's on twitter specify that the views espoused there are "their own" and "do not reflect" the feelings or opinions of the paper/news agency they work for.

I'm not getting into the debate of why the money was donated. But at the end of the day the charity got some money and the end product is good.

RedOranje wrote:This season MLS are requiring that all player wage fines go to charity. Is that "fishy"?

It's merely ensuring that even when a player does something wrong something decent comes out of it. Nothing to do with the player or the incident, it's all about the money going to a good cause. Maybe if YOU GOT PAST YOUR BIAS you'd be able to recognize that the motivation behind the donation of fined wages matters less than the fact that they're managing to achieve some decency out of an otherwise nasty incident.

Rather than attacking the club for taking this action, you could put that faux outrage toward a more reasonable case such as why other clubs haven't/don't do the same, why the FA doesn't do so, etc etc.

Completely different situation and does not apply to this at all. That is a rule being put in place by the footballing body. Don't know how you can bring that up.

And please spare me. I'm sure if Ian Ayre was asked he would probably say the same thing you're saying. The rest of us aren't that naive. I can imagine those in charge of that charity organisation would know they're being used as a "shock absorber" but of course they aren't going to say anything. They're using the money for a good cause afterall, so there would be no need.

We can as well donate money from police bail to charities, doesn't make the actual cause of the bail(in this case, fine) any more acceptable. Didn't work for them anyway, so I couldn't be bothered. Just pointing out the sneaky little thing Liverpool thought they'd done.

It was all an attempt at damage control. And how do you know other clubs don't donate their fines to charity btw? Because they don't announce that they did?

Blue Barrett wrote:

RedOranje wrote:This season MLS are requiring that all player wage fines go to charity. Is that "fishy"?

It's merely ensuring that even when a player does something wrong something decent comes out of it. Nothing to do with the player or the incident, it's all about the money going to a good cause. Maybe if YOU GOT PAST YOUR BIAS you'd be able to recognize that the motivation behind the donation of fined wages matters less than the fact that they're managing to achieve some decency out of an otherwise nasty incident.

Rather than attacking the club for taking this action, you could put that faux outrage toward a more reasonable case such as why other clubs haven't/don't do the same, why the FA doesn't do so, etc etc.

Completely different situation and does not apply to this at all. That is a rule being put in place by the footballing body. Don't know how you can bring that up.

And please spare me. I'm sure if Ian Ayre was asked he would probably say the same thing you're saying. The rest of us aren't that naive. I can imagine those in charge of that charity organisation would know they're being used as a "shock absorber" but of course they aren't going to say anything. They're using the money for a good cause afterall, so there would be no need.

We can as well donate money from police bail to charities, doesn't make the actual cause of the bail(in this case, fine) any more acceptable. Didn't work for them anyway, so I couldn't be bothered. Just pointing out the sneaky little thing Liverpool thought they'd done.

It was all an attempt at damage control. And how do you know other clubs don't donate their fines to charity btw? Because they don't announce that they did?

I brought up MLS because by your argument THAT would be a league-wide damage control measure... but then it's not Suarez so it's not worth criticism, is it? I also specifically suggested that other clubs/leagues should follow the examples set by both MLS and LFC... but that point seems to have escaped you in your rush to justify your fake outrage.

And you think clubs would donate WITHOUT making it known? Now who's being naive?

RedOranje wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:

RedOranje wrote:This season MLS are requiring that all player wage fines go to charity. Is that "fishy"?

It's merely ensuring that even when a player does something wrong something decent comes out of it. Nothing to do with the player or the incident, it's all about the money going to a good cause. Maybe if YOU GOT PAST YOUR BIAS you'd be able to recognize that the motivation behind the donation of fined wages matters less than the fact that they're managing to achieve some decency out of an otherwise nasty incident.

Rather than attacking the club for taking this action, you could put that faux outrage toward a more reasonable case such as why other clubs haven't/don't do the same, why the FA doesn't do so, etc etc.

Completely different situation and does not apply to this at all. That is a rule being put in place by the footballing body. Don't know how you can bring that up.

And please spare me. I'm sure if Ian Ayre was asked he would probably say the same thing you're saying. The rest of us aren't that naive. I can imagine those in charge of that charity organisation would know they're being used as a "shock absorber" but of course they aren't going to say anything. They're using the money for a good cause afterall, so there would be no need.

We can as well donate money from police bail to charities, doesn't make the actual cause of the bail(in this case, fine) any more acceptable. Didn't work for them anyway, so I couldn't be bothered. Just pointing out the sneaky little thing Liverpool thought they'd done.

It was all an attempt at damage control. And how do you know other clubs don't donate their fines to charity btw? Because they don't announce that they did?

I brought up MLS because by your argument THAT would be a league-wide damage control measure... but then it's not Suarez so it's not worth criticism, is it? I also specifically suggested that other clubs/leagues should follow the examples set by both MLS and LFC... but that point seems to have escaped you in your rush to justify your fake outrage.

And you think clubs would donate WITHOUT making it known? Now who's being naive?

Oh come off it mate. There's simply no correlation between both situations. On one hand you have a league rule put in place which all the clubs have to adhere, whether they want to or not. On the other hand you have a club donating to charity as a form of damage control to avoid a lengthy ban for their star player. Apples and oranges.

Yes, they would. I'm not saying the definitely do this as I don't know for sure, but you don't know that they wouldn't either. Especially fines that aren't announced to the public.