Liverpool FC Forum

Can someone shed some lights for me...do we still need to pay a player his FULL weekly salary when he go out and get himself suspended for a number of games?

Suarez isn't going to play another game until November so the cost of keeping him till the next transfer window might be a lot lesser than it seems...anyone any idea?

Why wouldn't we pay him his full salary

And we have already punished him for the incident

I ask if someone can clarify for me....not replying my query with another question. This cause of his 10 games ban are as a results of the players irrational act so why would any club/business pay his employee full salary when he is under suspension?

And how did the club punished him? did we fine him a certain amount or something?  The FA banning him is not a punishment to him...it punishes the club who are denied his services.

I'm just asking for clarification as I do not have any clue about this

Santa » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:47 pm wrote:Can someone shed some lights for me...do we still need to pay a player his FULL weekly salary when he go out and get himself suspended for a number of games?

Suarez isn't going to play another game until November so the cost of keeping him till the next transfer window might be a lot lesser than it seems...anyone any idea?

i think he was already dealt with over the suspension months ago so i doubt we can reverse that and hit him with a further punishment. his salary only tops the 100k on performance so i hope he is only getting the basic during all this and the maximum fine we can give for his latest outburst.
only problem with keeping him till the next window is that his value will have dropped a bit and there is no guarantee he wont just go through the motions in november either.
i read that in tevez's situation he was suspended for 2 weeks without pay but was paid in full when he was put on gardening leave by mansour so maybe a few weeks is the limit 

The club fined him the maximum amount of wages they could when the incident occurred

Clubs can't stop paying players because they are banned. He is only banned from playing games not from training etc or fulfilling other duties for the club. If he was suspended by the club for any reason then we could fine him again the maximum. Stopping paying players because they are banned for matches would never be allowed to happen

Thanks Red...I'm not referring to any retrospective punishment...just curious about what can be done when a player go out of his way to deliberately get himself suspended

Thanks Benny for clarifying...I understand there is a FA's guideline for maximum fine by a club...just wondered about Suarez's rather unique biting incident. I have no doubt the club will issue another fine for his refusal to play and insubordination.

Suarez tendering his transfer request is not an issue as Arsenal might have already covered that with a hefty sign-on bonus. Rumours going around that Arsenal is preparing a £51M bid...that should soften the blow as each side will get out of the bad deal without losing face although I would rather not accept any deal from Arsenal after their £1 insult but the club might want to move on and leave the circus behind  .

Did Suarez refuse to play ? Nothing has been clarified on the situation yet but seen a few mention it yet. Not sure what else they can fine him for.

red till i die!! » Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:56 pm wrote:
selling him to arsenal would be a disaster for us mate, the season is never won in the first 6 games and despite us believing his next misdemeanor is on the horizon it wont come this year. he will knuckle down for them and play like he did for us.
city or the chavs would be acceptable if we are to sell to a prem team but no way arsenal.

Imagine selling him to Arsenal then we go and purchase 3 quality signings and get CL next season whilst Arsenal miss out.[/quote]

What is this, signs of positivity, we could actually acheive something, from benny, surely not. 

Selling to Arsenal would strengthen them and weaken us, not just becuase Suarez is a hell of a player but also physcologically. It must not happen.[/quote]

It all depends on how we use the money - Suarez could possibly play like he did for us in his first season or not fit in at Arsenal whilst we use the money and purchase some quality players to improve our overall squad. The problem is I don't trust the club to bring in the right quality.

Suarez has been asking to leave all summer long and it was always going to get messy - he can't play for the club so we take the money and spend it wisely. We are in a no win situation right now - if other clubs aren't going to bid for him ( and it appears that way ) and Suarez still insists he wants to leave via a transfer request etc then what is the suggestion - no point having players at the club that clearly don't want to be at the club ( we saw that with Torres ) . Just like with Torres - if Arsenal start talking £50mil then we accept it IMO[/quote]

I'd let him rot in the reserves/bench until January, either he starts behaving like an adult, apologises and decides we aren't so bad or we sell him on, I think the CL clubs would be clammering for him then, might even get £55 million.

Santa » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:43 pm wrote:I would rather not accept any deal from Arsenal after their £1 insult but the club might want to move on and leave the circus behind  .

I dont see how that was an insult. I'd prefer that we dont sell to Arsenal as we should not strengthen our rivals for top 4. If anything it was we that looked like a joke because of the comments from Henry after that bid.

And the longer we "let him rot" the lower his value gets and it doesn't help us one single bit.

We can't afford to let an asset as valuable in money terms as Suarez "rot on the bench"

heimdall » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:46 pm wrote:I'd let him rot in the reserves/bench until January, either he starts behaving like an adult, apologises and decides we aren't so bad or we sell him on, I think the CL clubs would be clammering for him then, might even get £55 million.

You think we get more for him if we let him rot in the reserves and collect his paycheck?

mart » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:47 pm wrote:

Santa » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:43 pm wrote:I would rather not accept any deal from Arsenal after their £1 insult but the club might want to move on and leave the circus behind  .

I dont see how that was an insult. I'd prefer that we dont sell to Arsenal as we should not strengthen our rivals for top 4. If anything it was we that looked like a joke because of the comments from Henry after that bid.

Yes the comment was very childish and ill advised - communication in the media isn't the owners greatest style.

One thing I don't understand though is all this talk about the "club" supporting Suarez during the Evra incident - Kenny supported Suarez during that incident whilst the owners were silent and washed their hands until the sponsors complained then they said something and it wasnt full support of Suarez - the owners and their lawyers hung both Suarez and Kenny out to dry.

We purchased a problem player and he's caused us problems.

Be amazed if he doesn't leave and just finding a deal that is acceptable to club and player.

No doubt ringing round European clubs as we speak trying to sniff out interest even if it involves
a a player exchange, anything to get him out at this point.

I don't see him at another English club unless the bid is astronomical.

mart » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:47 pm wrote:I dont see how that was an insult.

You might not think so, but I do...it will just be like if Barca were to come back and offered £17M plus a pack of crisp for Agger. It was not about the £40M...it was the £1 that was insulting, and the club sees it that way too.

Santa » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:59 pm wrote:

mart » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:47 pm wrote:I dont see how that was an insult.

You might not think so, but I do...it will just be like if Barca were to come back and offered £17M plus a pack of crisp for Agger. It was not about the £40M...it was the £1 that was insulting, and the club sees it that way too.

The £1 was to ensure the fee went above the rumoured clause in the contract.