What to do with suarez now

ynwa wrote:He in no way hurts the club image though. I'm not sure why people suggest he does.

The only imagine he hurts is his own.

Art Morte wrote:Of course it hurts the club's image if your employees do stupid stuff. We are supposed to hold certain values and if our players act against them it affects our contemporary image. Sunderland just faced a small shtstorm for appointing Di Canio with his questionable views, for example. While our problem with Suarez isn't too big in regards to the image of LFC, it still affects it.

ynwa wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Of course it hurts the club's image if your employees do stupid stuff. We are supposed to hold certain values and if our players act against them it affects our contemporary image. Sunderland just faced a small shtstorm for appointing Di Canio with his questionable views, for example. While our problem with Suarez isn't too big in regards to the image of LFC, it still affects it.

It doesn't though. Liverpool follows the FA's rules. Liverpool have fined him. Liverpool have came out saying we don't accept his behaviour. Liverpool will come out after the FA ban and punish him further. He's done something stupid but the media are making this a bigger issue than it is. There's no real negativity around Liverpool Football Club. The whole thing surrounds Luis Suarez.

Luis was wrong, but before we hound him out let's remember there have been other Liverpool legends who were not exactly saints

By Jamie Carragher

PUBLISHED: 18:01 EST, 23 April 2013 | UPDATED: 18:10 EST, 23 April 2013

Before you carry on reading, it is important to make this point: this is not me trying to defend the indefensible. This is an attempt to put some perspective on the Luis Suarez saga.

It was said in the aftermath of Sunday’s game against Chelsea, firstly by Graeme Souness as he began his analysis on Sky, that nobody is bigger than the club and that Liverpool should make Luis pay the heaviest penalty by getting rid of him.

Now I am not for one moment trying to sugar-coat the incident in which Luis bit Branislav Ivanovic. It was wrong on all levels. You simply don’t expect to see a grown man bite another grown man — that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school.

But the way things are now being pitched is that Liverpool have got to do something about the rotten apple in their midst.

It is as if Luis is the only player to have represented Liverpool who has ever been embroiled in controversy.

That simply isn’t the case.

We have had it many times before, as have every other club in the country. I know this as I was responsible for one incident in January 2002. I threw a coin into the crowd at Highbury during an FA Cup tie against Arsenal after one had initially been flung at me.

Souness, who was captain of Liverpool at the time, broke the jaw of Dinamo Bucharest’s Lica Movila during a European Cup semi-final in 1984 when he punched him in an off-the-ball incident.

It was a serious incident but it is one which fans and some of his old team-mates speak almost nostalgically about.

Robbie Fowler had his scrapes, too. There was outrage after he celebrated a goal against Everton in April 1999 by mimicking drug taking. A couple of months earlier he was hugely condemned when he taunted Graeme Le Saux with a homophobic gesture.

Jan Molby was sent to jail in October 1988 for three months for a drink-driving offence.

More recently, Steven Gerrard appeared in court charged with affray but was subsequently found not guilty.

Every one of the players I mention regretted what happened and Luis is the same. More importantly, the club stood by every one of them.

Luis is normally a bubbly lad around the training ground. He tends to mix mainly with the other South Americans in the group but he is well liked all around because he has a fantastic attitude to his job and just loves playing football.

In my time at Liverpool, very few players have possessed an appetite to win the same as mine but Luis has got it. He trains well every day. When we get a day off, he will come in to do extra work and there is nothing arrogant or flash about him. He slots into the group without problem.

Yesterday, however, it was clear that events had taken a toll.

Luis knows he has done something seriously wrong, letting himself down. He has been told that a repeat of such behaviour will not be tolerated and the club’s stance has been different from how it was following his altercation with Patrice Evra.

But, rather than hounding him out of the country, shouldn’t we be helping him?
We have a top psychologist in Steve Peters who comes to the club once a week and he could have as big a role as our manager, Brendan Rodgers, for Luis.

Ian Ayre has stated that the club are not looking to sell Luis. History shows that message has always been the same. What happened when Tony Adams was released from jail in February 1991 after serving a sentence for drink- driving?

He went back to captain Arsenal and won eight major honours. Look at Eric Cantona.

Less than eight months after returning from his eight-month ban for an assault on Crystal Palace fan Matthew Simmons, he had inspired Manchester United to the Double. It is selfish but clubs need their best players.

As Martin Samuel said in his column yesterday, perhaps if a player of lesser ability had been guilty of Luis’s offence, he would have been shown the door by now. Again, a precedent at Anfield has already been set.

During the Hillsborough memorial service in 2009, Charles Itandje and Damien Plessis were caught laughing and messing around. Itandje, a third-choice keeper with a terrible attitude, was banished immediately. Plessis, who was viewed as being a player of promise, was admonished but stayed.

Morally you could say such standards are wrong but it happens in any walk of life, not just football. If someone is exceptional at what they do, many people are prepared to put up with them regardless of the hassle they may cause.

People may say this is a Liverpool-biased opinion but I don’t want to see another world-class player leave the Barclays Premier League, like Xabi Alonso, Cristiano Ronaldo and Cesc Fabregas have.

We are talking about one of the top five players in world football here.

Finally, I would like to finish by putting forward a thought from a footballer’s perspective about the incident.

The bite was shocking, no question, and everyone who has seen it was amazed. Yet was it worse than a challenge that could end someone’s career?

I know what it is like to have your leg broken by a reckless tackle. Lucas Neill cost me six months of my career in September 2003 when he played for Blackburn. Would I have preferred to have been bitten? Absolutely.

I suspect that Branislav Ivanovic, who has conducted himself with great credit in the aftermath, would agree. You can get up and carry on after a skirmish. If someone shatters your leg, you wonder whether you will play again.

Kick wrote:Not everyone, but certain people would.

Also, What do you think a business is? Every clubs goal is to make money, or else there would be no one who wanted to buy football clubs.

Art Morte wrote:
Come on, if we fielded 11 Suarezes it would obviously have an impact on our club's image. Therefore fielding one has a small impact. It's not too bad yet, but it's not correct to claim that players' actions and their public images don't have any impact on their club's image.

paddy wrote:The funniest aspect of all of this was David Cameron coming out and talking about how poor a role model Suarez has been for his son.

Suarez is a class act on the pitch though. As far as I'm concerned he's worth the trouble he brings. He would start for any team in the world. The guy is one of the best players in the world. He'll serve his punishment and he'll be back. Time to let this story die

Why the FA panel bit off more than they could chew
27 Apr 2013 07:30

What Luis Suarez did when he bit Branislav Ivanovic was unacceptable. No one is disputing that.
As far as I am aware, no one at Liverpool Football Club is running away from their responsibilities over that.

The club has said that he was wrong. Luis, himself, has admitted that he was wrong, and they were both right and wise to accept the punishment yesterday.

The issue is clearly in the length of the player’s ban and the fact that the FA’s disciplinary system is a horrible mess.

Let’s start with the fact that the FA said before they had appointed the so-called ‘independent’ regulatory commission that Suarez deserved more than the normal three-game ban.

Well, by saying that, they prejudiced the findings of the commission before it has even begun.

They appointed the people to sit on it and they have told them they are there to give him more than three games.

So those three people know they have to give the player more than three games just to justify their existence.

How ‘independent’ does that make the three-man commission?

I wish the FA would just stop playing with words. Because this panel wasn’t truly independent and to say it was is blatantly misleading.

The FA chooses who sits on it to begin with. Does that make it ‘independent’?

And who sits on it? An ex-player, an FA council member and a lawyer already known to the FA.

So there’s an FA council member on an ‘independent’ FA commission. That’s convenient.

And there’s an ex-player, who would probably like to do more work for the FA. That’s convenient, too.

Are they paid, by the way? Are they paid by the FA? Do they do it for free? I don’t know the answer to those questions but I’d like to know.

The point is that the structure of an FA disciplinary procedure like this is inherently unfair.

If you commit a crime in this country, you get the right for your case to be heard by a jury that has no affiliation or responsibility to the people prosecuting you.

That’s not how the FA works it. In fact, their disciplinary system has now become so confused and riddled with anomalies that it is farcical.

They hide behind excuses about the referee saw it or didn’t see it, punished it or didn’t punish it.

So Jermain Defoe bites Javier Mascherano on the arm and gets a yellow card. Nothing more.

Suarez bites Ivanovic and gets 10 games. Why? Because the referee didn’t see it.

He still spoke to him about something and looked like he was warning him but he didn’t see it.

For the benefit of football in this country, there has got to be greater clarification of the rules and more balance in the way offenders are judged.

The most important thing is not the length of the sentence but how they reach it and that information needs to be made public at the time the punishment is announced.

That would have alleviated much of the unnecessary discussion about the ban handed down to Suarez.

The FA has been in need of widespread reform for a long time. The need is getting more and more pressing.

These regulatory commissions have to be independent in more than just name.

- Kenny Dalglish

mr-r34 wrote:so apparently he got booed when his name was read out at the pfa event. thos ensures the whole voting and event is a joke.