WOOLS.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC"
- Thread starter davek
- Start date
- Status
M
Mvflusk
Guest
Bill Roache (Ken Barlow to you and me) has been tearing into LFC, Suarez and Dalglish on Twitter.
Absolutely astonishing scenes!
Absolutely astonishing scenes!
A
Antonio Barragan
Guest
Is that you?
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Discipli...Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx
I have read the Commissions findings from start to finish - a very thorough investigation it was too. My thoughts are:
1. The Commission rules on behalf of 2 parties - the FA & Suarez - this meant they were NOT THE FA sitting in judgement - it's important to make this distinction as Liverpool fans have been attacking the FA when in fact the FA had TO PROVE THEIR CASE to the Commission to establish LS's guilt.
2. Suarez ADMITS he says Negro (para 6) - which undermines the LFC case that says Evra is a liar.
3. The Commission do NOT find the FA's case 'in it's entirety'
4. The FA interview Evra - within 5 days- watch a video of events - the process is transparent.
5. Suarez was granted an extension to prepare his defence & further delays to allow him to train for his club. The Commission were extremely reasonable.
6. Burden of Proof fell to the FA to prove THEIR case - it was not for Suarez to satisfy the Commission he did not breach the Rules.
7. The vast majority of the detail is a normal semi-denial scenario (regarding the post match discussions in the refs room - trying to underplay the words used - "I only said this" etc. etc. I find this normal behaviour when people are not under oath to downplay what they said.. & for their teammates/boss to defend them.
8. The Commission have fully investigated whether Negro is specifically a (racial) insult (in some circumstances) - thorough & reasonable.
9. I have a scintilla of sympathy for Suarez's version in so much as he fouled Evra, Evra kicks off with an insult & yes, he does want to get on with the game, in a dismissive way I think he just said the first thing that comes into his head - why did you foul me (asked several times) & he can't think of anything better to say - so unwisely says "cos you are black" in a sort of 'oh go away' manner because, I think he hadn't initiated the insulting but had, unfortunately, chosen an ill thought out way to try to shut Evra up &/or wind him up (so this is the 'not a racist but used racist language' defence)
10. The Commission have gone out their way to establish whether "negro" can be inoffensive to be absolutely sure that the facts are established & what sort of intent was meant.
My liberal interpretation would be along the lines of:
Suarez said "Because you are black" in some way to terminate the conversation - in a dismissive, ill judged & inappropriate manner - in so much as he didn't initiate the conversation by, say, going up to Evra and kicking off. The reason the Commission HASN'T found this to be the case (or at least not entirely) is because Suarez didn't form a defence based on this "semi-admission" defence. He relied instead on the Commission not believing Evra & by more-or-less denying it or changing his story and by weaving a peculiar & inconsistent defence
LFC tried to argue that Evra had made it up (I can see the logical train of their argument, wanting to believe LS, wanting to doubt Evra etc.) - BUT a no brainer IF they cannot sustain it. They were bound to try and spin it in a different way but, having used the Evra is a liar defence instead of saying "He was wrong, stupid, he was trying to wind him up, and thoughtlessly went about it the wrong way. He accepts he was wrong & yes there should be some room for manoeuvre on interpretation"
So, at the end of the day we can see, after a thorough investigation, Suarez is guilty but Liverpool's line of defence has been foolish, ill-informed and unsustainable.
I have read the Commissions findings from start to finish - a very thorough investigation it was too. My thoughts are:
1. The Commission rules on behalf of 2 parties - the FA & Suarez - this meant they were NOT THE FA sitting in judgement - it's important to make this distinction as Liverpool fans have been attacking the FA when in fact the FA had TO PROVE THEIR CASE to the Commission to establish LS's guilt.
2. Suarez ADMITS he says Negro (para 6) - which undermines the LFC case that says Evra is a liar.
3. The Commission do NOT find the FA's case 'in it's entirety'
4. The FA interview Evra - within 5 days- watch a video of events - the process is transparent.
5. Suarez was granted an extension to prepare his defence & further delays to allow him to train for his club. The Commission were extremely reasonable.
6. Burden of Proof fell to the FA to prove THEIR case - it was not for Suarez to satisfy the Commission he did not breach the Rules.
7. The vast majority of the detail is a normal semi-denial scenario (regarding the post match discussions in the refs room - trying to underplay the words used - "I only said this" etc. etc. I find this normal behaviour when people are not under oath to downplay what they said.. & for their teammates/boss to defend them.
8. The Commission have fully investigated whether Negro is specifically a (racial) insult (in some circumstances) - thorough & reasonable.
9. I have a scintilla of sympathy for Suarez's version in so much as he fouled Evra, Evra kicks off with an insult & yes, he does want to get on with the game, in a dismissive way I think he just said the first thing that comes into his head - why did you foul me (asked several times) & he can't think of anything better to say - so unwisely says "cos you are black" in a sort of 'oh go away' manner because, I think he hadn't initiated the insulting but had, unfortunately, chosen an ill thought out way to try to shut Evra up &/or wind him up (so this is the 'not a racist but used racist language' defence)
10. The Commission have gone out their way to establish whether "negro" can be inoffensive to be absolutely sure that the facts are established & what sort of intent was meant.
My liberal interpretation would be along the lines of:
Suarez said "Because you are black" in some way to terminate the conversation - in a dismissive, ill judged & inappropriate manner - in so much as he didn't initiate the conversation by, say, going up to Evra and kicking off. The reason the Commission HASN'T found this to be the case (or at least not entirely) is because Suarez didn't form a defence based on this "semi-admission" defence. He relied instead on the Commission not believing Evra & by more-or-less denying it or changing his story and by weaving a peculiar & inconsistent defence
LFC tried to argue that Evra had made it up (I can see the logical train of their argument, wanting to believe LS, wanting to doubt Evra etc.) - BUT a no brainer IF they cannot sustain it. They were bound to try and spin it in a different way but, having used the Evra is a liar defence instead of saying "He was wrong, stupid, he was trying to wind him up, and thoughtlessly went about it the wrong way. He accepts he was wrong & yes there should be some room for manoeuvre on interpretation"
So, at the end of the day we can see, after a thorough investigation, Suarez is guilty but Liverpool's line of defence has been foolish, ill-informed and unsustainable.
Regarding the Bellamy one, racist no, Xenophobic yes, he should get a charge for it, but maybe not as severe as Suarez.
I quote from the FA (yeah I actually read this ****e when I can't sleep)
And according to kopite journos over twitter, Krul reported it to referee Lee Probert after the game.
I quote from the FA (yeah I actually read this ****e when I can't sleep)
And according to kopite journos over twitter, Krul reported it to referee Lee Probert after the game.
D
Deleted member 28206
Guest
Not really, that's related to skin colour, although unacceptable and rude, it's nothing like racial discrimination, or refusing to talk to someone and saying "it's because your black".
ScouseBlueBoy
Player Valuation: £15m
http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01/professor-in-hispanic-studies-dissects-the-fas-suarez-report/
This is the latest.
I spent the first 26 years of my life living in Old Swan. Due to many reasons I do not speak like the average ‘Swanite’. I have travelled and been fortunate to have had a ‘good education’ for what it’s worth.
So everything that has been reported that I have said is to be disbelieved because I say things in a way that a ‘Swanite’ would not.
Well, that’s the general gist of this article regarding the version of Spanish that is common in Uruguay.
Make of it what you will.
This is the latest.
I spent the first 26 years of my life living in Old Swan. Due to many reasons I do not speak like the average ‘Swanite’. I have travelled and been fortunate to have had a ‘good education’ for what it’s worth.
So everything that has been reported that I have said is to be disbelieved because I say things in a way that a ‘Swanite’ would not.
Well, that’s the general gist of this article regarding the version of Spanish that is common in Uruguay.
Make of it what you will.
OK one more EXTREMELY important point that hasn't been raised - and one which will elude almost all the RS (indeed most people)
I am copying what a very good friend has just written on the subject. Please bear in mind he is a senior business consultant as well as the fact that the brother he mentions is a QC. The nub of the matter is that not that LFC were wrong to defend the charge but that they almost certainly hired the wrong people - which is collaborated by the comment above about the Spanish expert & not addressing the matter properly in defending Suarez (which seems to elude the writer!)
First Christmas & New Year up in Liverpool for over 20 years. Cannot believe the reactions and attitudes of some of my extended family who are Shoite fans. I was catcalled and all sorts for thinking that what had happened was just. My cousin came out with some horrible stuff and I told him so... soured the visit I was making as we got into a barney.
Then I witnessed some RS fans at the hotel for the New Years Masquerade Ball who all were of the attitude that it "was one word against another"... its a cultural thing.... still gobsmacked...
Then I had a chat with my brother. He knows the Liverpool Law Firm (and the solicitor specifically) who support Liverpool in PR etc. He confirmed that the legal advice provided to KD and the Club BEFORE the Press Announcement and protest was to walk away and have nothing to do with it. It was in effect KD's decision to press on and support the player (blindly as it appeared at the time) - but revealingly trying to influcene Mr Marriner in the Referee's room after the match ("the lad has form for this type of thing before doesn't he?").
The Law firm therefore recognised the sticky wicket. It says a lot for the control of the issue (or summing up their arrogance) that they sent in a Solicitor who was used to looking at endorsement and image rights whilst the FA brought in a Criminal Justice QC (and a f*cking good one according to my brother)
Tonight I picked up the LFC Pravda (aka Liverpool echo) and cannot believe the "nay-saying". One item is an absolute classic calling the evidence "hearsay". Hearsay is actually when a third person relates conversations between two other protagonists. Applying this definition we can say that the following people were allowed to submit hearsay evidence.
Kenneth Dalglish
Daniel Commolli
Dirk Kuyt
Ryan Giggs
Now correct me if I am wrong there is a bias there IN FAVOUR of the defendant.
The "hearsay" that they are referring to is the fact that Person One's reflection (evidence) and Person Two's evidence were markedly different. They are upset that one person's evidence was apparently seen to be believed above another. Well in legal terms "inconsistent" and "unreliable" evidence is the legal nicety of saying one player was lying in that he either provided false and changing testimony or told different versions of the events to others. That person has been found out.
This is as humiliating as it can get for a defendant/plaintiff case.
They should really now take the time to reflect. And accept that in this case at least they were premature in making the utterances they did.
I am copying what a very good friend has just written on the subject. Please bear in mind he is a senior business consultant as well as the fact that the brother he mentions is a QC. The nub of the matter is that not that LFC were wrong to defend the charge but that they almost certainly hired the wrong people - which is collaborated by the comment above about the Spanish expert & not addressing the matter properly in defending Suarez (which seems to elude the writer!)
First Christmas & New Year up in Liverpool for over 20 years. Cannot believe the reactions and attitudes of some of my extended family who are Shoite fans. I was catcalled and all sorts for thinking that what had happened was just. My cousin came out with some horrible stuff and I told him so... soured the visit I was making as we got into a barney.
Then I witnessed some RS fans at the hotel for the New Years Masquerade Ball who all were of the attitude that it "was one word against another"... its a cultural thing.... still gobsmacked...
Then I had a chat with my brother. He knows the Liverpool Law Firm (and the solicitor specifically) who support Liverpool in PR etc. He confirmed that the legal advice provided to KD and the Club BEFORE the Press Announcement and protest was to walk away and have nothing to do with it. It was in effect KD's decision to press on and support the player (blindly as it appeared at the time) - but revealingly trying to influcene Mr Marriner in the Referee's room after the match ("the lad has form for this type of thing before doesn't he?").
The Law firm therefore recognised the sticky wicket. It says a lot for the control of the issue (or summing up their arrogance) that they sent in a Solicitor who was used to looking at endorsement and image rights whilst the FA brought in a Criminal Justice QC (and a f*cking good one according to my brother)
Tonight I picked up the LFC Pravda (aka Liverpool echo) and cannot believe the "nay-saying". One item is an absolute classic calling the evidence "hearsay". Hearsay is actually when a third person relates conversations between two other protagonists. Applying this definition we can say that the following people were allowed to submit hearsay evidence.
Kenneth Dalglish
Daniel Commolli
Dirk Kuyt
Ryan Giggs
Now correct me if I am wrong there is a bias there IN FAVOUR of the defendant.
The "hearsay" that they are referring to is the fact that Person One's reflection (evidence) and Person Two's evidence were markedly different. They are upset that one person's evidence was apparently seen to be believed above another. Well in legal terms "inconsistent" and "unreliable" evidence is the legal nicety of saying one player was lying in that he either provided false and changing testimony or told different versions of the events to others. That person has been found out.
This is as humiliating as it can get for a defendant/plaintiff case.
They should really now take the time to reflect. And accept that in this case at least they were premature in making the utterances they did.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Agree 100%.
Pretty much the guts of this whole business right there in bold.
Honesty is the best policy. He transgressed the rules on what's acceptable and didn't put his hand up for it...rather, he, and his shit-heel club, tried to bury the reputation of another footballer and make this thing a libpoolfootballclub versus the World struggle.
They got found out though, and they now have to not only take the punishment meted out, but also take a huge slice of humble pie, apologise and enforce some internal punishment on Suarez. The whole game is looking at how they respond to this now.
pretty much confirms it for those of who thought it all stemed from Kenny having too much power in all of this, incredible behaviour from such a big company
Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian
The Unobstructed View
Throw them in the duck ponds in a sack ffs !!
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
This would explain the utter idiocy of them in concocting a defence (that Suarez called Evra a negro once, but it was done in a friendly way) that was demonstrably absurd in the circumstances and which almost certainly led to his conviction.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Pitchfork News update:
"Luis, you are feisty, cheeky, supremely talented and largely despised and misunderstood throughout the country. The English media are queuing up to attack you. Manchester United hate you and fear you. The Southern based authorities wnat to cut you adrift, they just wish you would go away. You are the victim of a grave injustice, delivered without any respect for evidence.
Do you realise how much of a poster boy for this City and this Football Club you are now?
God bless you lad. You'll never walk alone."
There's flesh and blood out there somwewhere typing this stuff out.
Frightening.
"Luis, you are feisty, cheeky, supremely talented and largely despised and misunderstood throughout the country. The English media are queuing up to attack you. Manchester United hate you and fear you. The Southern based authorities wnat to cut you adrift, they just wish you would go away. You are the victim of a grave injustice, delivered without any respect for evidence.
Do you realise how much of a poster boy for this City and this Football Club you are now?
God bless you lad. You'll never walk alone."
There's flesh and blood out there somwewhere typing this stuff out.
Frightening.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Even worse, some of them are allowed to vote......
- Status