Liverpool FC Forum

supersub » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:52 am wrote:[quote="[url=http://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1203579#p1203579]Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:49 am[/urlMaybe some people need to decide if they are Liverpool fans or Luis Suarez fans

you clearly are neither[/quote]

Because I agree that Suarez deserves to get banned that means I'm not a Liverpool fan

Funny as feck how blinkered people are.

supersub » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:45 am wrote:I don't think Benny will be happy until Suarez is driven from the club with "only me" and heimdall waving gleefully behind him......

Gotta love your tribal/Koza Nostra mentality ,Suarez is one of us so fck everyone right? Fck the FA ,Fck Rodgers ,Fck the Owner and Fck his teammates. The ONLY and ONLY reason you stand behind a player which has been banned for 18!!!! matches is because he scored that many of goals ,if it was Borini or Downing or whoever you lot would probably flush him down the toilets.

So I tell you that ,Fck the FA for their double standards and Bias BUT Fck Suarez for being a Dick and an Idiot and hurting the team.
You people vest to much energy in a ***** which could be gone in a year or two. He isn't Gerrard ,nor Carra ,Nor Reina. He isn't an LFC symbol.

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:38 am wrote:

Thommo's perm » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:36 am wrote:

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:33 am wrote:So what do you suggest instead of banning him ?

You're a bit of a gobby ***** when it comes to other people's opinions but so far you are too busy slagging others for theirs without actually stating yours or coming up with an alternative

Read back through my posts knobby.
We all know what you wanted, and you got it so be happy

I have read back through and you haven't suggested anything - just slated other people's opinion

Unless you can point me to where you stated what should happen ?

This is the last time I will coverse with you. From now on if you say something ridiculous I will just point out how thick you are and move on
Firstly, I said "positive intervention" By this I mean I knew he would get a ban, but I hoped it would be alongside some sort of treatment which would look at his obvious anger issues. This would be done to improve his behaviour and benefit him and us. Just banning him hasnt worked, as I have told you many, many times.
Secondly, it is not your opinion, it is your belief. Opinions can change once people see the facts and acknowledge they might have misunderstood and could have got it wrong. This wont happen with you because you are too small minded, stubborn and mentally challenged to have the capacity to do this. Once your convinced of something there is no going back
Thirdly, you wanted him banned and you got your wish. Anything over the statutory 3 match ban was a bonus so you must be creaming in your jeggings
Lastly, you say no-one is bigger than the club. I actually agree with you on this but not for the same reasons. If Suarez was a big time, posing, selfish, self serving pr'ick who didnt give a fu'ck about the team or the club you would be right. But of course youre not because he is none of them. He is a troubled, passionate, quick tempered foreigner who needs support rather than the punishment you wish upon him. He is distraught and possibly considering leaving the club and the country he and his family call home, but you dont give a sh'it as long as hes banned for almost a third of the season. No as a deterrent, not as something to learn from. Just to prove hes to blame, and all because you believe in punishment, full stop. Not because it works, but because it is correct
Now that will have to be it from me Im afraid, as youve bored me sh'itless (more so than usual) and I give up trying to educate you
Thanks

Educate me ? For you to educate me would require you to be able to know what you're talking about. It's quite clear that you don't so it would be a flawed education from you.

At the end of the day people are entitled to have a differing opinion than the person stood next to you - you fail to accept others have one that differs from yours.

When that first whistle blows in each game I scream my heart out for the 11 players on the pitch regardless of what has happened and every player gets my support. But I also know the difference between what is right and what is wrong - I'm entitled to voice my concerns without being insulted and I'm entitled to voice my opinion in subject matters that concern our club - it's a shame people like you don't realise that.

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:53 am wrote:

supersub » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:52 am wrote:[quote="[url=http://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1203579#p1203579]Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:49 am[/urlMaybe some people need to decide if they are Liverpool fans or Luis Suarez fans

you clearly are neither

Because I agree that Suarez deserves to get banned that means I'm not a Liverpool fan

Funny as feck how blinkered people are.[/quote]


as usual you forget to read through the previous posts...I have always agreed a ban was necessary in line with defoe.......you just want to oust Suarez from the club...over the last 2 seasons you have made it very clear.....no need for blinkers ;

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:46 am wrote:

supersub » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:43 am wrote:I would have suggested the customary 3 game ban , defoe default case, and then a hearty welcome back given to him by a capacity crowd at Anfield for the final game against QPR....give the lad your support

Suarez gets our support - shame he keeps putting on the line with his actions

3 games was never going to given when for his last incident of this nature he was given 7 games.

thats got nothing to do with it, the F.A cant take what happened in holland into consideration.
what i want to know is why did defoe only get a yellow card for something that warrants a 10 match ban?
all that stuff about defoe couldnt be done because the ref saw the incident and dealt with it on the pitch is rubbish, the ref saw thatchers forearm smash on mendez and booked him but after the game the F.A over ruled the ref and gave thatcher a 8 match ban.
now if biting is seen as worthy as a 10 game ban (2 more than thatchers forearm smash) why didnt the F.A over rule the ref in the defoe`s/mascherano incident?

supersub » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:37 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:53 am wrote:

supersub » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:52 am wrote:[quote="[url=http://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1203579#p1203579]Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:49 am[/urlMaybe some people need to decide if they are Liverpool fans or Luis Suarez fans

you clearly are neither

Because I agree that Suarez deserves to get banned that means I'm not a Liverpool fan

Funny as feck how blinkered people are.

as usual you forget to read through the previous posts...I have always agreed a ban was necessary in line with defoe.......you just want to oust Suarez from the club...over the last 2 seasons you have made it very clear.....no need for blinkers ;[/quote]

I haven't made anything clear about ousting anyone from the club

I want to see Liverpool players to act in a manner that befits our club great club

I want Suarez on the pitch doing what he does best - not sat up in the stands watching whilst he earns the vast amount of money we pay him.

only me » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:09 pm wrote:

supersub » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:45 am wrote:I don't think Benny will be happy until Suarez is driven from the club with "only me" and heimdall waving gleefully behind him......

Gotta love your tribal/Koza Nostra mentality ,Suarez is one of us so fck everyone right? Fck the FA ,Fck Rodgers ,Fck the Owner and Fck his teammates. The ONLY and ONLY reason you stand behind a player which has been banned for 18!!!! matches is because he scored that many of goals ,if it was Borini or Downing or whoever you lot would probably flush him down the toilets.

So I tell you that ,Fck the FA for their double standards and Bias BUT Fck Suarez for being a Dick and an Idiot and hurting the team.
You people vest to much energy in a ***** which could be gone in a year or two. He isn't Gerrard ,nor Carra ,Nor Reina. He isn't an LFC symbol.

I would flush any player down the toilet...why pick on Borini or Downing...and why do you say Fk Rodgers, Fk the owner, Fk his teamates
I would stand behind any player that I feel has been unfairly punished...it has no bearing on goals scored...and I am in little doubt that Suarez will be gone this summer, much to your delight and many millions of opposing supporters of LFC.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:38 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:46 am wrote:

supersub » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:43 am wrote:I would have suggested the customary 3 game ban , defoe default case, and then a hearty welcome back given to him by a capacity crowd at Anfield for the final game against QPR....give the lad your support

Suarez gets our support - shame he keeps putting on the line with his actions

3 games was never going to given when for his last incident of this nature he was given 7 games.

thats got nothing to do with it, the F.A cant take what happened in holland into consideration.
what i want to know is why did defoe only get a yellow card for something that warrants a 10 match ban?
all that stuff about defoe couldnt be done because the ref saw the incident and dealt with it on the pitch is rubbish, the ref saw thatchers forearm smash on mendez and booked him but after the game the F.A over ruled the ref and gave thatcher a 8 match ban.
now if biting is seen as worthy as a 10 game ban (2 more than thatchers forearm smash) why didnt the F.A over rule the ref in the defoe`s/mascherano incident?

Why can't the FA take into account what the Dutch FA did ?

Defoe only got a yellow because the ref fecked up with the decision on the field and then the FA didn't adjust it afterwards . If the ref had booked Suarez for the incident then they would have left it at that.

The FA intervened on the Thatcher incident because they deemed it serious enough - for me Thatcher should have been banned for at least 6 months.

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:52 am

Why can't the FA take into account what the Dutch FA did ?

Defoe only got a yellow because the ref fecked up with the decision on the field and then the FA didn't adjust it afterwards . If the ref had booked Suarez for the incident then they would have left it at that.

The FA intervened on the Thatcher incident because they deemed it serious enough - for me Thatcher should have been banned for at least 6 months.

the F.A  panel said they can only take into account what happens in this country (within the juristiction of the F.A.)
re defoe why didnt the F.A adjust it afterwards? if it was serious enough to warrant a 10 game ban why didnt they act?
the answer is because it`s not worth a 10 game ban.
thatcher gets 8 matches for sending mendez to hospital having seizures but luis gets 10 games for something defoe got booked for and the F.A didnt bother to overturn?
roy keane only got 8 for ending haalands career and saying he meant to do him in his book!
it`s a f##king joke

Well I'm not sure what they were expected to do with Keane as he had retired as a player.

I agree that the 8 game for Thatcher wasnt enough and it was wrong for Defoe to get away with it.

The FA have set the line now.

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:03 pm wrote:Well I'm not sure what they were expected to do with Keane as he had retired as a player.

I agree that the 8 game for Thatcher wasnt enough and it was wrong for Defoe to get away with it.

The FA have set the line now.

rubbish, the F.A have over reacted more like, and keane was still playing for united when he was banned, he got an initial 3 game ban for the straight red in 2001 and 5 games a year later when his book came out. imagine that had been luis who ended a players career and said the tackle was premeditated? he`d be lucky if he was ever allowed to play again.
10 matches for an incident where ivanovic didnt even need on the field treatment is ludicrous. they call the trainers on these days if they break an eyelash.
luis should have got the 3 game ban that comes with violent conduct just like fellaini only got 3 matches for losing his rag (and the plot) and throwing the head in on shawcross 3 times, i wouldnt say what luis did was worse than that.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:17 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:03 pm wrote:Well I'm not sure what they were expected to do with Keane as he had retired as a player.

I agree that the 8 game for Thatcher wasnt enough and it was wrong for Defoe to get away with it.

The FA have set the line now.

rubbish, the F.A have over reacted more like, and keane was still playing for united when he was banned, he got an initial 3 game ban for the straight red in 2001 and 5 games a year later when his book came out. imagine that had been luis who ended a players career and said the tackle was premeditated? he`d be lucky if he was ever allowed to play again.
10 matches for an incident where ivanovic didnt even need on the field treatment is ludicrous. they call the trainers on these days if they break an eyelash.
luis should have got the 3 game ban that comes with violent conduct just like fellaini only got 3 matches for losing his rag (and the plot) and throwing the head in on shawcross 3 times, i wouldnt say what luis did was worse than that.

Look Suarez bit someone - thats not a natural occurence on a football field - yes other instances in football should have been punished more etc but that still doesnt take away what he did. The ten matches is over the top - i believed a 5 or 6 game was enough. But now we have to suck it up and move on and for Suarez to learn from this.

Suarez will be gone in the close season, guaranteed.
Guardiola likes him; Bayern want him; they're German champions, in the Champions League, and in dire need of a decent striker...
Mark my words...

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 pm wrote:

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:17 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:03 pm wrote:Well I'm not sure what they were expected to do with Keane as he had retired as a player.

I agree that the 8 game for Thatcher wasnt enough and it was wrong for Defoe to get away with it.

The FA have set the line now.

rubbish, the F.A have over reacted more like, and keane was still playing for united when he was banned, he got an initial 3 game ban for the straight red in 2001 and 5 games a year later when his book came out. imagine that had been luis who ended a players career and said the tackle was premeditated? he`d be lucky if he was ever allowed to play again.
10 matches for an incident where ivanovic didnt even need on the field treatment is ludicrous. they call the trainers on these days if they break an eyelash.
luis should have got the 3 game ban that comes with violent conduct just like fellaini only got 3 matches for losing his rag (and the plot) and throwing the head in on shawcross 3 times, i wouldnt say what luis did was worse than that.

Look Suarez bit someone - thats not a natural occurence on a football field - yes other instances in football should have been punished more etc but that still doesnt take away what he did. The ten matches is over the top - i believed a 5 or 6 game was enough. But now we have to suck it up and move on and for Suarez to learn from this.

move on? move out more like.
there is no impartiality in football, everyone supports a team so they have an agenda. most of this mock outrage is from fans of other clubs who would love nothing more than to see us lose our best player. the f##king bluenoses are over the moon, they think he`s gone, i tend to agree with them.