Luis Suárez

[Tribute]

Rodgers isn't a big enough name to be able to do that. Very few managers would get away with it.

Mourinho, Pep and Rafa is the onky three I think would be able to do it and get away with it.

Rafa did it once, his so called rant.

We aren't exactly good at PR either so we would most probably mess it up.

...would love Rodgers to give Fergie the Michael Caine line from Get Carter...
"You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job. Now behave yourself."

[kev776]

Rear Admiral de broe Tetherington, the Queen's private secretary has refused to confirm that Her Majesty also recommended a life ban and is unhappy with only 10 games. She blamed the breakdown of moral standards in the 21st Century.

The Uruguayan Ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office for an explanation. Diplomatic relations between the two countries are balanced on a knife edge.

[Pablo]

Can you provide an example because I don't recall it happening, to anyone, ever.

In 2007 when he assaulted Ousmane Dabo in training the FA banned him for 6 matches, plus 6 additional games were added (suspended) for his previous behaviour.

You're right though, it's not quite the same, and there is not bigger thug in the game these days than Joey Barton so to treat him the same (well arguably worse) is extremely unfair.

[Tribute]

And I'm astounded we still have the same lawyer as with the racism case. Pretty piss poor

...probably signed by Comolli on a huge retainer and 5 year contract...

[Shaggy]

Joey Barton was given that ban for the offences committed on that occasion, not for previous.

I don't think Barton has ever had previous factored into any punishment. No-one has.

[Pablo]

Joey Barton was given that ban for the offences committed on that occasion, not for previous.

Not his meltdown at City on the last game of last season. His meltdown in training when he attacked his own player in 2007.

Although in theory if they were using the "past behaviour" angle they should have added even more on that occasion too.

Again though I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just speculating that's the excuse the FA might try to use.

[Tribute]

We should have taken the racism case up higher too. Was total bollocks that. 8 game ban on word of one person against another.

...if Suarez hadn't admitted it, he would have got less of a ban

[Maxiedge]

Why? That's illogical. Did you forget he bit someone? That's a disgusting thing to do. Did you also forget all the problems he's caused us with that disgusting act.

He's let us down. That's undeniable IMO. I still love him, but I love him a little less for that.

Because he's shown the FA up for the numpties that they are.

I still don't think the majority of people 'understand' him yet. I used to hate him last season (true story) but now I've grown to embrace him because, at the core of it all, he loves the club and plays with his heart on his sleeve.

Ok, so he's harshly out for our first 6 games start of next season but we can substitute this for the fact that he never gets injured. Never. Even though he plays the game on the egde. It's madness.

[Pablo]

I don't think Barton has ever had previous factored into any punishment. No-one has.

The incident I mentioned above was referred to by Gordon Taylor on TalkSport this morning.

[fah-q]

What really pisses me off is that you don't have the option to clear your own name in this. If they convict you, you can appeal but they will ban you for longer. How is that allowed to happen in a democratic lawful society?

If you are found guilty in a criminal court, you can appeal (if there's evidence) and if unsuccessful they don't add a bit more onto your sentence, do they? It's part of a fair legal process.

Also does the statement from the FA not prejudice the independent panel?

[Sarb]

...if Suarez hadn't admitted it, he would have got less of a ban

..he admitted to using a word in his native language that has a totally different meaning. Terry lied initially and said he never used it, then weeks later said he did. So being honest gets 8 games, lying gets less. The amount of conjecture and BS in the Suarez findings on that were ridiculous.

And I don't remember anything in the Terry verdict threatening him with suspension if ever found guilty of racism again, like it was with Luis.

FA are a bunch of xenophobes. They will laugh if Suarez leaves this Summer. Guaranteed

[Pablo]

Because he's shown the FA up for the numpties that they are.

I still don't think the majority of people 'understand' him yet. I used to hate him last season (true story) but now I've grown to embrace him because, at the core of it all, he loves the club and plays with his heart on his sleeve.

Ok, so he's harshly out for our first 6 games start of next season but we can substitute this for the fact that he never gets injured. Never. Even though he plays the game on the egde. It's madness.

If he'd shown them up by some clever rouse I'd be all for loving him more. But showing them up by biting a fellow professional, unprovoked, and leaving himself open to a 10 game ban. Nah, that doesn't make me love him more. His behaviour was unacceptable and disgusting so I love him a little less.

[Sarb]

What really pisses me off is that you don't have the option to clear your own name in this. If they convict you, you can appeal but they will ban you for longer. How is that allowed to happen in a democratic lawful society?

If you are found guilty in a criminal court, you can appeal (if there's evidence) and if unsuccessful they don't add a bit more onto your sentence, do they? It's part of a fair legal process.

Also does the statement from the FA not prejudice the independent panel?

When the FA pick the panel and one of the 3 members is a member of the FA Comission, how on earth is it an independent panel?

[Arn]

...would love Rodgers to give Fergie the Michael Caine line from Get Carter...
"You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job. Now behave yourself."

Can you see Rodgers standing up against Fergie?

I don't.

I don't call him chicken or something like that. He is simply not a big enough name. Not his fault. He is simply a rookie in the game.

[Pablo]

What really pisses me off is that you don't have the option to clear your own name in this. If they convict you, you can appeal but they will ban you for longer. How is that allowed to happen in a democratic lawful society?

If you are found guilty in a criminal court, you can appeal (if there's evidence) and if unsuccessful they don't add a bit more onto your sentence, do they? It's part of a fair legal process.

Also does the statement from the FA not prejudice the independent panel?

All very good points. They are a law onto themselves and answerable to no one and it couldn't possibly be more wrong.