Suarez BITES again - ***Update: Luis Suarez banned from ALL football for 4 months***

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,465
Hove
Liverpool mongs claiming LFC are being punished by FIFA

.. No, your bell end player is being punished , Liverpool are just the knock on effect , it's your hero's fault and no one else's.

Does seem unfair. Why not ban him from internationals for 2 years or more or even from taking part in a future world cup? He seems to have gotten off lightly at international level compared to what he will serve domestically. I don't think FIFA have got the balance right on this one. In fact I think they're happy to protect their own product and shift the majority of the punishment onto another association.
 




symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
I think it is fair, they could have just applied it to internationals, but a four month ban from being anywhere near the vicinity of a football club will also mean banned from all training grounds, not forgetting the WC stadiums.
 


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
55,590
Burgess Hill
Does seem unfair. Why not ban him from internationals for 2 years or more or even from taking part in a future world cup? He seems to have gotten off lightly at international level compared to what he will serve domestically. I don't think FIFA have got the balance right on this one. In fact I think they're happy to protect their own product and shift the majority of the punishment onto another association.

This, although both would probably have made sense (4 year international ban to miss next World Cup ?)
 


Bladders

Twats everywhere
Jun 22, 2012
13,672
The Troubadour
Does seem unfair. Why not ban him from internationals for 2 years or more or even from taking part in a future world cup? He seems to have gotten off lightly at international level compared to what he will serve domestically. I don't think FIFA have got the balance right on this one. In fact I think they're happy to protect their own product and shift the majority of the punishment onto another association.

They backed him after the racism row, they backed him after the last biting episode , they made their bed.....
 


Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
58,792
hassocks
They backed him after the racism row, they backed him after the last biting episode , they made their bed.....

A club backing there best player? Isn't a shock.

They can sell him so if they don't like it they can get rid, if they couldn't I'd agree it wouldn't be fair
 




Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,526
The arse end of Hangleton
Does seem unfair. Why not ban him from internationals for 2 years or more or even from taking part in a future world cup? He seems to have gotten off lightly at international level compared to what he will serve domestically. I don't think FIFA have got the balance right on this one. In fact I think they're happy to protect their own product and shift the majority of the punishment onto another association.

Why ? It's the player being punished. What if he played for say Iran ? It would hardly be a punishment if he could still play premier league football and still collect his £xxx,000 a week and just miss a single Iranian international match.

Hopefully Liverpool won't be paying him.
 








Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,465
Hove
They backed him after the racism row, they backed him after the last biting episode , they made their bed.....

That wasn't my point. I'm not necessarily saying he shouldn't be punished domestically, I am saying the proportionality of the punishment between international and domestic football does not seem fair. A 9 game international ban does not equate to me to the same severity as his 4 month ban.

On that point though, does the 9 game international ban start after the 4 month ban? The 4 month ban is from all football I guess? ??? Maybe it is proportional....Oh I'll shut up now....
 




TomandJerry

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2013
12,323
Is that a fact ?

"However, Fifa clarified that Suarez’s ban from all “administrative” tasks related to football did not block any possible transfer from Liverpool during the period."

Surely administrative tasks include registering?
 






Bladders

Twats everywhere
Jun 22, 2012
13,672
The Troubadour
"However, Fifa clarified that Suarez’s ban from all “administrative” tasks related to football did not block any possible transfer from Liverpool during the period."

Surely administrative tasks include registering?

I do hope so.....and to think the scousers are in meltdown now, they'll go ballistic if he's out till January :lolol:
 


Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
58,792
hassocks
Why ? It's the player being punished. What if he played for say Iran ? It would hardly be a punishment if he could still play premier league football and still collect his £xxx,000 a week and just miss a single Iranian international match.

Hopefully Liverpool won't be paying him.

Max is two weeks.

I would hope FIFA would back Liverpool in any case of not paying him
 




bomber130

bomber130
Jun 10, 2011
1,908
All that needs to happen is for him to have all his teeth removed and if he tries to bite anyone again his defence will be "I was trying to suck him off".
 










Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
32,479
Brighton
Does seem unfair. Why not ban him from internationals for 2 years or more or even from taking part in a future world cup? He seems to have gotten off lightly at international level compared to what he will serve domestically. I don't think FIFA have got the balance right on this one. In fact I think they're happy to protect their own product and shift the majority of the punishment onto another association.

Can't agree. They took on the player fully aware of his history.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top