Liverpool FC Forum

Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:35 pm wrote:
Did the police really say there was no physical evidence of a bite ? Can you show me where they said that please.

So can you tell me why the club then accepted the charges if youre saying that Suarez didnt actually bite him ?

Why with lawyers etc they didnt press ahead with a case to deny it all - you seem pretty confident he only "licked" him and didnt actually bite him.

Maybe the evidence is not being released to the public

Suarez has admitted it ffs you cant get anymore conclusive than that

You said the police said there was no evidence - can you show me where you got that information from[/quote]

from the telegraph.

"Merseyside Police can confirm that, following an incident at the Liverpool v Chelsea game yesterday, officers have spoken to Branislav Ivanovic in person," a statement from Merseyside Police read.
"He had no apparent physical injuries and did not wish to make a complaint.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... d-ban.html

from the F.A Statement after todays verdict.

"The Uruguay international was charged this week following a clash with Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic during Sunday's 2-2 Barclays Premier League draw at Anfield in which Suarez appeared to bite the arm of the Serbia centre-back".
http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news ... h-ban.html

the police has said there was no injury and the F.A say he appeared to bite him. the referee's attention was drawn to the incident seconds after and yet he made no note of seeing bitemarks. if he did he would have given a straight red to suarez but he didnt.
in fairness to friend he obviously didnt see the attempt at a bite and seen as there was no evidence on ivanovich he brushed it off.

the club has accepted a charge of violent conduct and rightly so. show me where they accepted a charge of a bite ? somebody from the club or even suarez's admission that he actually did bite ivanovich or even ivanovichs statement saying that luis had actually bitten him?
if he did bite him do you not think he would have made a statement to both the police and F.A.? i probably would have and i know you would of so why did'nt ivanovich?. cmon surely he would have at least taken a picture of the injury received while it was fresh?

Definition of bite
verb (past bit /bɪt/; past participle bitten /ˈbɪt(ə)n/)
[with object]
1use the teeth to cut into (something):
the woman’s arm was bitten off by an alligator
[no object]:
Rosa bit into a cream cake
use the teeth in order to inflict injury on:
she had bitten, scratched, and kicked her assailant
(of a snake, insect, or spider) wound with fangs, pincers, or a sting:
while on holiday she was bitten by an adder
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... ite?q=bite

show me where the evidence of any thing like those definition's happened to ivanovich ? the difference is benny i know our player attempted to bite him where as you fully believe he did to the point that you could probably actually see the flesh leaving his arm by now.
unless you can produce evidence that an actual bite took place dont bother taking offence when someone refers to the attempted biting incident as being licked.

Although 10 matches is a joke Suarez did give the fa every opportunity to make an example of him again. If you are not English don't f.uck with the fa the message is out there.

10 matches was fairly predictable.

What I object to is Liverpool will pay him 1 million quid wages whilst he sits in the stands due to his own ill-discipline.

tonyeh » Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:44 pm wrote:

devaney » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:06 pm wrote:

tonyeh » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:33 pm wrote:Suarez has admitted to biting Ivanovic.

There is no gray area here.

He's got his virdict and it's one that's clearly taking into account his past nonsense.

gray area - I think that should be grey - and you call Luis an ejit 

"Gray and grey are different spellings of the same word, and both are used throughout the English-speaking world. But gray is more common in American English, while grey is more common in all the other main varieties of English. In the U.K., for instance, grey appears about twenty times for every instance of gray. In the U.S. the ratio is reversed."

http://grammarist.com/spelling/gray-grey/

Just because we have American owners it doesn't mean we have to adopt their incorrect spelling of our language !! 

If Suarez would have meant it he could have taken the flesh off down to the bone
He was playing with him...

Reg » Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:03 am wrote:10 matches was fairly predictable.

What I object to is Liverpool will pay him 1 million quid wages whilst he sits in the stands due to his own ill-discipline.

Not sure how that works contractually in Luis's case. Acts of crass stupidity may result in forfeiture of wages

Reg » Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:03 am wrote:10 matches was fairly predictable.

What I object to is Liverpool will pay him 1 million quid wages whilst he sits in the stands due to his own ill-discipline.

And our performances and results suffer also.

We could see him leave now.

devaney » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:07 am wrote:

Reg » Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:03 am wrote:10 matches was fairly predictable.

What I object to is Liverpool will pay him 1 million quid wages whilst he sits in the stands due to his own ill-discipline.

Not sure how that works contractually in Luis's case. Acts of crass stupidity may result in forfeiture of wages

The club have already disciplined him with a fine.

They're capped at 2 weeks and he wanted to give that to the H96 so no compensation for the club regardless.

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:08 am wrote:

Reg » Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:03 am wrote:10 matches was fairly predictable.

What I object to is Liverpool will pay him 1 million quid wages whilst he sits in the stands due to his own ill-discipline.

And our performances and results suffer also.

We could see him leave now.

And obviously you didnt see this coming?
Youre "5 or 6 games ban" would have been adequate to punish him, but make him want to stay?

Reg » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:18 am wrote:They're capped at 2 weeks and he wanted to give that to the H96 so no compensation for the club regardless.

The club was always go to suffer from the incident.

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:20 am wrote:

Reg » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:18 am wrote:They're capped at 2 weeks and he wanted to give that to the H96 so no compensation for the club regardless.

The club was always go to suffer from the incident.

And invariably it is we who will suffer, like I told you...

Thommo's perm » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:23 am wrote:

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:20 am wrote:

Reg » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:18 am wrote:They're capped at 2 weeks and he wanted to give that to the H96 so no compensation for the club regardless.

The club was always go to suffer from the incident.

And invariably it is we who will suffer, like I told you...

And like I told you the blame is with one person

Yes Suarez was guilty, he did not deny it so that's that.

Stupidity? No it's actually very cleaver of him. Imagine if I'm the agent of Suarez and my brother has agreed to managed another club next season and i would like to help my brother to get Suarez to play for him. But the player is contracted to his club and the club won't sell, not unless his new club would like to break the bank to sign him. So since I'm obviously very smart, I would urge the player to forced his current club's hand by making it unattatinable for the player to remain at the club and driving down his market value at the same time.

So the biting begins...he full expected the lengthy ban and I would expect him to be in Bayern's shirt in the next season for something around £30m. For all his trouble Suarez can expect a hefty sign-on bonus or a bumper pay rise.

I know that cause that's what I would do. There are no more passion...football is all business nowadays!

Santa » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:47 am wrote:Yes Suarez was guilty, he did not deny it so that's that.

Stupidity? No it's actually very cleaver of him. Imagine if I'm the agent of Suarez and my brother has agreed to managed another club next season and i would like to help my brother to get Suarez to play for him. But the player is contracted to his club and the club won't sell, not unless his new club would like to break the bank to sign him. So since I'm obviously very smart, I would urge the player to forced his current club's hand by making it unattatinable for the player to remain at the club and driving down his market value at the same time.

So the biting begins...he full expected the lengthy ban and I would expect him to be in Bayern's shirt in the next season for something around £30m. For all his trouble Suarez can expect a hefty sign-on bonus or a bumper pay rise.

I know that cause that's what I would do. There are no more passion...football is all business nowadays!

i read it somewhere the 10 games ban will applies world wide. no sure how this works but if it is a world wide ban i dont think bayern will want him.