Luis Suárez

[Norbs]

He's been incredibly disrespectful to a club that's showed him incredible loyalty by repeatedly flirting with any club that shows an interest in him. I don't see how anyone, even those that like to dig their head in the sand and deny it all (hello Nige ), could fail to see that.

Just another dickhead footballer I'm afraid.

The club stood by him because they had to and were protecting their investment in the process. We need to stop thinking the club did it for Luis.

[dizzycat]

He is off mate. The Echo have printed the full transcript of his radio interview yesterday. Doesn't make very good reading. Comes across a total bellend

I tend to agree, its pretty clear he wants out. He should man up put in a transfer request and deal with what happens then. He may be a bit thick and not think about what he's saying, but I'm pretty sure that his advisers aren't and should be moderating his behavior. I just hope that the club tell his agent the fee/terms they want to sanction the transfer and that it can be dealt with in a professional manner.

[Captain Stu]

the club stood by him because they had to and were protecting their investment in the process. We need to stop thinking the club did it for luis.

50/50.

[Arn]

The club stood by him because they had to and were protecting their investment in the process. We need to stop thinking the club did it for Luis.

We try our very best to protect our investments(players) but we are a bit **** doing it but we try our very best.

[Sarb]

The club stood by him because they had to and were protecting their investment in the process. We need to stop thinking the club did it for Luis.

The club did plenty for Luis and he received plenty of support off fans, managers and his fellow players which had f-all to do with the investment side of things.

[Imy]

He doesn't want to 'slap in' a transfer request as he'll lose some financial benefit.
By 'appearing' unhappy it forces the club to sell him and thus the buying club can drive down the price.

I wont be surprised if he's already agreed a move and he is the puppet/muppet, to the buying clubs puppet master.

[Sarb]

He doesn't want to 'slap in' a transfer request as he'll lose some financial benefit.
By 'appearing' unhappy it forces the club to sell him and thus the buying club can drive down the price.

I wont be surprised if he's already agreed a move and he is the puppet/muppet, to the buying clubs puppet master.

[Pablo]

The club stood by him because they had to and were protecting their investment in the process. We need to stop thinking the club did it for Luis.

I don't really agree, but to be honest the reason why is irrelevant, we supported him through thick and thin and that's all that matters really.

[Arn]

The club did plenty for Luis and he received plenty of support off fans, managers and his fellow players which had f-all to do with the investment side of things.

Two questions.

Do you think that Suarez wanted to appeal the 10 game ban?

What is the reason that we didn't appeal the 10 game ban?

I doubt myself that we didn't appeal it because we wanted to protect the player. I think that we didn't do it because we didn't want all the bad press in the media. Protect the club before protecting the player, as it should be.

I think that Suarez himself wanted to appeal the 10 game ban but the club stopped him doing it.

I think that the club have as a policy to protect the players as long as it don't hurt the image of the club. As it should be. It may piss of the players but they just have to accept it.

It may hurt the players image but that is less important than the image of the club.

I also think that Suarez wanted to go all the way in the Evra gate but the club stopped him doing it. It would have hurt the image of the club to much. The right decision.

[Fosterbloke]

If he stays we keep a world class player, if he leaves we get a **** load of money to strengthen the team.

[Sarb]

Two questions.

Do you think that Suarez wanted to appeal the 10 game ban?

What is the reason that we didn't appeal the 10 game ban?

I doubt myself that we didn't appeal it because we wanted to protect the player. I think that we didn't do it because we didn't want all the bad press in the media. Protect the club before protecting the player, as it should be.

I think that Suarez himself wanted to appeal the 10 game ban but the club stopped him doing it.

I think that the club have as a policy to protect the players as long as it don't hurt the image of the club. As it should be. It may piss of the players but they just have to accept it.

It may hurt the players image but that is less important than the image of the club.

I also think that Suarez wanted to go all the way in the Evra gate but the club stopped him doing it. It would have hurt the image of the club to much. The right decision.

Was it the image or was it the fact that the judgement and statements from the FA were so strong that they believed the 10 game ban would be increased. Pretty much similar with the bite incident. The FA don't really give much scope to appeal successfully anyway. And I'm pretty sure that most people said it was left to him to decide whether he wanted to appeal the biting incident.

The image of the club had already been tarnished anyway

[spider-neil]

if he leaves we get a **** load of money to strengthen the team.

Probably (likely) with very little time to spend it.

[Arn]

Was it the image or was it the fact that the judgement and statements from the FA were so strong that they believed the 10 game ban would be increased. Pretty much similar with the bite incident. The FA don't really give much scope to appeal successfully anyway. And I'm pretty sure that most people said it was left to him to decide whether he wanted to appeal the biting incident.

The image of the club had already been tarnished anyway

and why was it tarnished? IMO because we made a mess of it and not because of the incident itself in the Evra gate case.

The shirt supporting thing etc.

That time it wasn't the players fault that it hurt the image of the club.

When it comes down to the bite then I don't think it hurt the image of the club at all because we didn't appeal the 10 game ban.

[Sarb]

and why was it tarnished? IMO because we made a mess of it and not because of the incident itself in the Evra gate case.
The shirt supporting thing etc.

That time it wasn't the players fault that it hurt the image of the club.

When it comes down to the bite then I don't think it hurt the image of the club at all because we didn't appeal the 10 game ban.

Sorry Arn. Have to disagree. It's the racist incident that tarnished the club in my opinion.

All major incidents like that by whatever player affect the image of the club. I think it's wrong to conclude that just because we don't appeal something that it doesn't tarnish the image or the reputation of the club.

[Vermilion]

Sorry Arn. Have to disagree. It's the racist incident that tarnished the club in my opinion.

All major incidents like that by whatever player affect the image of the club. I think it's wrong to conclude that just because we don't appeal something that it doesn't tarnish the image or the reputation of the club.

While i agree with that, i think the way we handled it compounded the problem, and maybe even added fuel to the incidents exposure.

No one from the club, apart from Ayre, can be put forward to talk sense about such things, we don't seem to have enough influential people speaking on our behalf in general. imo