Suarez Ban - A way round it ?
Discussion
Nimby said:
It used to say on the "suspended list" at thefa.com "suspended until the club have played x games". They've changed it recently.
But see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/to... or http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_54840... if you don't believe me.
Perhaps a slightly different affair to your common/garden suspension...But see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/to... or http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_54840... if you don't believe me.
Telegraph said:
Spurs claim that, as he served the first game suspension as a Newcastle player, the suspension continued to apply to Newcastle games and the Football Association was therefore satisfied when his former club visited West Bromwich Albion on the opening day of the Championship season on Saturday, that he has technically completed the ban.
...but I suppose you're right, this would be relevant to the Suarez case 
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/211820-s...
From another Liverpool player story
It seems that each FA notifies the next of outstanding suspensions.
From another Liverpool player story
It seems that each FA notifies the next of outstanding suspensions.
garyhun said:
As a complete independent (well, Watford supporter) I can honestly say two things:
1) Suarez is a complete t
t, and;
2) If I was a Liverpool supporter, I'd be both ashamed of him and supportive of the ban,
You can't, though, until you're actually in the position. you can say what you'd like to think you would do, is all.1) Suarez is a complete t
t, and;2) If I was a Liverpool supporter, I'd be both ashamed of him and supportive of the ban,
Surely in this case then you loan him out to a lower league team in the UK who will be playing play-off football at the end of this season? That uses up 2-3 extra games doesnt it? The lower leagues start the season earlier aswell dont they? So you can fairly easily knock 3-5 games off.
Like most I am uneasy with the ethics of such a thing, i.e. Suarez did wrong, deserves punishment and deserves extra punishment because he does have form. I do however, think that 10 games is taking the pish somewhat, so I have far less guilt with using a little bit of fun and games to bring the effective ban down to something reasonable. If the above was used and he ended up missing 6 games for Liverpool then I would personally consider that fair.
Like most I am uneasy with the ethics of such a thing, i.e. Suarez did wrong, deserves punishment and deserves extra punishment because he does have form. I do however, think that 10 games is taking the pish somewhat, so I have far less guilt with using a little bit of fun and games to bring the effective ban down to something reasonable. If the above was used and he ended up missing 6 games for Liverpool then I would personally consider that fair.
DJRC said:
Surely in this case then you loan him out to a lower league team in the UK who will be playing play-off football at the end of this season? That uses up 2-3 extra games doesnt it? The lower leagues start the season earlier aswell dont they? So you can fairly easily knock 3-5 games off.
Like most I am uneasy with the ethics of such a thing, i.e. Suarez did wrong, deserves punishment and deserves extra punishment because he does have form. I do however, think that 10 games is taking the pish somewhat, so I have far less guilt with using a little bit of fun and games to bring the effective ban down to something reasonable. If the above was used and he ended up missing 6 games for Liverpool then I would personally consider that fair.
I see it as playing the FA at their own game. They have decided that this ridiculous ban is within the rules, so if a loan of the kind you suggest is also within the rules they'd have to lump it. Sadly, it would probably just mean referees would be looking at Liverpool and especially LS even more closely then they are already.Like most I am uneasy with the ethics of such a thing, i.e. Suarez did wrong, deserves punishment and deserves extra punishment because he does have form. I do however, think that 10 games is taking the pish somewhat, so I have far less guilt with using a little bit of fun and games to bring the effective ban down to something reasonable. If the above was used and he ended up missing 6 games for Liverpool then I would personally consider that fair.
Pothole said:
garyhun said:
As a complete independent (well, Watford supporter) I can honestly say two things:
1) Suarez is a complete tt, and;
2) If I was a Liverpool supporter, I'd be both ashamed of him and supportive of the ban,
You can't, though, until you're actually in the position. you can say what you'd like to think you would do, is all.1) Suarez is a complete t
t, and;2) If I was a Liverpool supporter, I'd be both ashamed of him and supportive of the ban,
LaurasOtherHalf said:
the times is reporting today that he's considering a move to europe & that any club who bought him would be without his services until he has completed his ban, so i'd guess they believe hi ban will run for whoever he plays for rather than for which FA handed out the ban
Exactly - why don't we sell him for 6 matches to a Swedish team that pay over summer and then at the end of this season buy him back.Nimby said:
It used to say on the "suspended list" at thefa.com "suspended until the club have played x games".
Ahh - it still does at https://www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/link.aspx?_id=D6CA03...and expand the Premiere League section. Suarez is "Suspended from all first team football until the Club have completed 10 first team matches".
The Bassong situation showed that it means 10 Liverpool games even if he's he's transferred - he can't go until the window opens and will have started the suspension as a Liverpool player.
RobGT81 said:
What happens when he inevitably bites someone in Sweden and ends up getting banned from world football?
If banned from world football, he'd still be able to play in Liverpool, as many of the inhabitants (including the manager) seem to be living on another planet when it comes the this whole affair. 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
See, I get most of that except that previous for this type of incident in the Uk has already been set and we had the infamous quote of "it was just a nibble". Bugger all happened. You cant have it both ways morally, so common sense dictates you find yourself a middle ground. Im afraid Id be investigating the possibiliy of loaning to a lower league club as I stated before and bringing the ban down to something like 6 or 7 games for Liverpool and Id have no moral qualms over it. Engineering a different type of deal where he could serve his ban completely...that would be ethically too far for me. But then Im simple like that, I like the middle ground.No Cameron fan here but I totally agree with his comments as the father of a 7yr old footie fan, the example is shocking, pro footballers as a race set poor examples generally and to dispute that they have any effect on children is just nonsense. Kids and adolescents look up to these 'men' (for want of a better word) and copy what they do. Anyone who has watched youth/local football will agree. Or cleaned up the mess they leave behind after - pros throw their drinks bottles anywhere, don't they, so I'll do the same. Rodgers, Savage, Reina etc bleating about the harshness of the penalty are living in the same selfish dream world.
Einion Yrth said:
simoid said:
They're young men, and a few of them are rich beyond comprehension. Are they any worse, generally, than other young men?
I think not.
Not sure there's any room for rational, considered opinion devoid of media driven hypocritical bile on this thread mate.I think not.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff