Every single one of them who booed Evra was condoning racism on the football pitch as far as I am concerned.
Has to be the quote of the week there.
they are blind to the perception of the outside world, prefering to hide behing the victim role and not seeing how they are setting football back 30 years. Its very very sad.
having said that, maybe thats what they want , 30 years ago, they were something.
steady on Arab its only Tuesday.
You lot should start up the Liverpool Haters Club if you haven't already.
Then you can chat about Liverpool without boring the pants off everyone else.
comment by Bobby (U4765)
posted 4 seconds ago
You lot should start up the Liverpool Haters Club if you haven't already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have done that all on their own...
Hows those suarez shirt sales going in Africa. Selling by the crate load in Ghana I beleive...
Liverpool are only discussed when we talk about jokes in modern football. You know, 100m spent and sitting in 7th. Having a higher net spend than the champions and only showing a few domestic cups and a CL for it. That kind of laughter.
comment by Bobby (U4765)
posted 8 minutes ago
Then you can chat about Liverpool without boring the pants off everyone else.
...............
No one asked you to read any of it. You can always go back to watching Teletubbies.
comment by Bobby (U4765) posted 3 minutes ago
You lot should start up the Liverpool Haters Club if you haven't already.
---------------
I simply tried to make a point I thought was valid. I have made no comments about the booing of Evra whatsoever
If you want my thoughts on that
I do not believe they are condoning racism by booing Evra
Nor do I believe the booed him because the do not believe Evra
They booed because they REFUSE to believe Evra because he plays for United and the fact he accused Liverpool's current best player simply added to it.
Rational behavior should have dictated that Evra should never have been booed but this is Mancs and Scousers ffs.
I have no doubt if the situation was totally reversed, there would have been plenty of booing at OT too. It's the nature of Mancs and Scousers to jump on anything they can to have a go at each other, The topic will always be incidental to some.
No one asked you to read any of it. You can always go back to watching Teletubbies.
-----------
It interests me to see how the other half live.
In all honesty when Suarez came to us we knew he could be trouble. Evra also has a reputation so put the two of them together and it shouldn't be surprising that a 'situation' would occur.
Having said that, I am currently reading (again) the 115 document and quite honestly if you take the time to read every word, it's shocking some of the conclusions they come to - all partizanship aside.
At the moment I am up to 278 which sums up Mr Haughan's (LFC player liason officer) evidence. (Haughan from outside the refs room after the game heard fergie telling Marriner that Evra had just told him he had been called the n word 5 times by Suarez). The panel felt that although Mr Ferguson couldn't remember putting an exact number on it, the fact that Mr Haughan heard him say '5 times' when giving his statement to Marriner after the match it was taken as corroborating Evra's testimony.
Really!! Haughan only repeats what he heard fergie say and that amounts to adding weight to the fact that Evra was correct in saying the word was said 5 times:
277. In a supplemental statement, Sir Alex said that he thought he may have told the referee that Mr Evra had been called the word several times, but did not recall having said specifically that it was five times and thinks it unlikely he would have done so. Mr Evra did not mention in his evidence any specific number that he told Sir Alex at the time.
278. Nonetheless, Mr Haughan does remember Sir Alex saying five times. This is the sort of detail that Mr Haughan might remember given the unusual circumstances in which he overheard the complaint and the fact that Mr Haughan reported what he had heard to the Liverpool management. In our judgment, this lent some weight to the credibility of Mr
Evra's evidence that Mr Suarez used the word five times in the goalmouth."
That's just unbelievable!
UnitedRedMacca - I didn't mean to aim that at you, you come up with valid discussion points.
At the moment I am up to 278 which sums up Mr Haughan's (LFC player liason officer) evidence. (Haughan from outside the refs room after the game heard fergie telling Marriner that Evra had just told him he had been called the n word 5 times by Suarez). The panel felt that although Mr Ferguson couldn't remember putting an exact number on it, the fact that Mr Haughan heard him say '5 times' when giving his statement to Marriner after the match it was taken as corroborating Evra's testimony.
Really!! Haughan only repeats what he heard fergie say and that amounts to adding weight to the fact that Evra was correct in saying the word was said 5 times:
-----------------
No, I don't believe that is was it means
Doesn't it just means that he is corrobarating Evra's testimony, not corrobarating the fact that it actually happened
----------------------------
278. Nonetheless, Mr Haughan does remember Sir Alex saying five times. This is the sort of detail that Mr Haughan might remember given the unusual circumstances in which he overheard the complaint and the fact that Mr Haughan reported what he had heard to the Liverpool management. In our judgment, this lent some weight to the credibility of Mr
Evra's evidence that Mr Suarez used the word five times in the goalmouth."
-----------------------
That though is baffling unless I have read it incorrectly.
It says that Mr Haughton's evidence of hearing SAF say Evra told him 5 times actually corroberates Evra's testimony that it was used 5 times despite previously saying Evra didn't quote a number in his evidence
Someone correct me please as it doesn't make sense to me
"Doesn't it just means that he is corrobarating Evra's testimony,"
That was my point. Haughan merely repeats what he heard fergie say, how can that amount to him personally corroborating what Evra said? Imagine it's you and you overhear Gerrard say 'that Evra kicked me 5 times today'. You report what you heard Gerrard say and in so doing your statement (just of what you overheard) is taken in support of Evra having kicked Gerrard 5 times.
URM - I agree with your summation - it doesn't make sense. They've taken an overheard conversation to add weight to the fact ti happened. That's what I mean about some of the 'findings' - I really am baffled.
A bit further on - Marriner's report stated that Comolli told him he 'speaks fluent Spanish' - Comolli denies saying this, he says that he said ' I speak Spanish' - the panel belive because Marriner wrote that 'Comolli speaks fluent Spanish' then they accept what he wrote and not Comolli's word that he speaks Spanish albeit not fluently!! So it was judged that Comolli was unreliable because Marriner had written down 'fluent'
287. Mr Comollidenied in evidence that he had told Mr Marriner that he spoke fluent Spanish, telling us
instead that he simply told Mr Marriner that he spoke Spanish. We accept Mr Marriner's evidence that Mr Comolli told him that he spoke fluent Spanish.
It apears that everyone must have been lying apart from those associated with LFC.
Imagine that..
VC - I think a man knows whether or not he speaks fluent Spanish. To believe the ref rather than the man himself is incredible. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the report everyone thinks - this is the bit where they make their conclusion (having studied Suarez playing career with no trouble ever involving black players)
342. We asked ourselves whether a player with this background would make the comments that Mr Evra alleged. We took all these points fully on board and thought long and hard about them before finding the Charge proved.
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 9 minutes ago
VC - I think a man knows whether or not he speaks fluent Spanish. To believe the ref rather than the man himself is incredible.
....................
Surely, they are believing the refs version of what Comolli told him. Not the fluency of his Spanish.
I think you can agree here that this whole saga has not been the greatest peice of PR from LFC.
I have always maintained that Suarez lied to Kenny after the match, and Kenny chose defend him anyway.
This could have all been sorted with a very early appology.
342. We asked ourselves whether a player with this background would make the comments that Mr Evra alleged. We took all these points fully on board and thought long and hard about them before finding the Charge proved.
------------------
I understand why there would be frustration with the FA. They baffle everyone at times
Rooney and McCarthey getting away with foul play as an example and more recently Lescott and Van Persie, yet Balotelli get's done.
But I still canoot get around the fact that, was all this really necessary when the man admitted to using the term?
We can go around in circles all day long on the fact it only means black but for me, I still say that is wrong as I have previously explained.
The FA may have actd like a set of prats but in my opinion, Liverpool FC have probably acted not much better
Like VC siad, this could have been sorted with a quick apology from Suarez saying he did not realise the word was taboo on these shores
Many wouldn;t have believed him that he wasn't trying to wind him up anyway but this would never have become so controversial.
Footballers let us fans down sometimes with their stupidety. Rooney let us down swearing at the camaraman getting himself banned and Suarez let Liverpool fans down doing what he did.
They really do think they are miles above us at times
Anyway, Evra made a mistake on saturday that led to United getting dumped out the cup by their biggest rival.
Boo boys 1
Evra/United 0
Whether the boos were appropriate/misguided or whatever, they worked.....
Bye
Boo boys 1
Evra/United 0
---------------
Really?
Wasn't 2-1 then?
Boo boys 18
Manchester United 19
Loving the fresh new Mancunian perch.
I didn't want to come across as blindly defending Suarez - did he lie, did Evra lie - we'll never know. I'm intrigued by the lack of real evidence and the inconsisitencies in the report. Here's a howler "We found the "quacking" motion to be a puzzling gesture" - this was when Suarez apparently made the gesture to tell Evra to stop whinging. For a football panel to have no knowledge of the 'quacking' gesture is beyond belief.
Anyway gave me something to do today.
cheers lads.
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461) posted 2 minutes ago
I didn't want to come across as blindly defending Suarez - did he lie, did Evra lie - we'll never know. I'm intrigued by the lack of real evidence and the inconsisitencies in the report. Here's a howler "We found the "quacking" motion to be a puzzling gesture" - this was when Suarez apparently made the gesture to tell Evra to stop whinging. For a football panel to have no knowledge of the 'quacking' gesture is beyond belief.
Anyway gave me something to do today.
cheers lads.
------------------
No worries mate
One final question though mate
Did you boo
if so
Sign in if you want to comment
United allocation reduced!
Page 23 of 26
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26
posted on 31/1/12
Every single one of them who booed Evra was condoning racism on the football pitch as far as I am concerned.
Has to be the quote of the week there.
posted on 31/1/12
they are blind to the perception of the outside world, prefering to hide behing the victim role and not seeing how they are setting football back 30 years. Its very very sad.
posted on 31/1/12
having said that, maybe thats what they want , 30 years ago, they were something.
posted on 31/1/12
steady on Arab its only Tuesday.
posted on 31/1/12
You lot should start up the Liverpool Haters Club if you haven't already.
posted on 31/1/12
Then you can chat about Liverpool without boring the pants off everyone else.
posted on 31/1/12
comment by Bobby (U4765)
posted 4 seconds ago
You lot should start up the Liverpool Haters Club if you haven't already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have done that all on their own...
Hows those suarez shirt sales going in Africa. Selling by the crate load in Ghana I beleive...
posted on 31/1/12
Liverpool are only discussed when we talk about jokes in modern football. You know, 100m spent and sitting in 7th. Having a higher net spend than the champions and only showing a few domestic cups and a CL for it. That kind of laughter.
posted on 31/1/12
comment by Bobby (U4765)
posted 8 minutes ago
Then you can chat about Liverpool without boring the pants off everyone else.
...............
No one asked you to read any of it. You can always go back to watching Teletubbies.
posted on 31/1/12
comment by Bobby (U4765) posted 3 minutes ago
You lot should start up the Liverpool Haters Club if you haven't already.
---------------
I simply tried to make a point I thought was valid. I have made no comments about the booing of Evra whatsoever
If you want my thoughts on that
I do not believe they are condoning racism by booing Evra
Nor do I believe the booed him because the do not believe Evra
They booed because they REFUSE to believe Evra because he plays for United and the fact he accused Liverpool's current best player simply added to it.
Rational behavior should have dictated that Evra should never have been booed but this is Mancs and Scousers ffs.
I have no doubt if the situation was totally reversed, there would have been plenty of booing at OT too. It's the nature of Mancs and Scousers to jump on anything they can to have a go at each other, The topic will always be incidental to some.
posted on 31/1/12
No one asked you to read any of it. You can always go back to watching Teletubbies.
-----------
It interests me to see how the other half live.
posted on 31/1/12
In all honesty when Suarez came to us we knew he could be trouble. Evra also has a reputation so put the two of them together and it shouldn't be surprising that a 'situation' would occur.
Having said that, I am currently reading (again) the 115 document and quite honestly if you take the time to read every word, it's shocking some of the conclusions they come to - all partizanship aside.
At the moment I am up to 278 which sums up Mr Haughan's (LFC player liason officer) evidence. (Haughan from outside the refs room after the game heard fergie telling Marriner that Evra had just told him he had been called the n word 5 times by Suarez). The panel felt that although Mr Ferguson couldn't remember putting an exact number on it, the fact that Mr Haughan heard him say '5 times' when giving his statement to Marriner after the match it was taken as corroborating Evra's testimony.
Really!! Haughan only repeats what he heard fergie say and that amounts to adding weight to the fact that Evra was correct in saying the word was said 5 times:
277. In a supplemental statement, Sir Alex said that he thought he may have told the referee that Mr Evra had been called the word several times, but did not recall having said specifically that it was five times and thinks it unlikely he would have done so. Mr Evra did not mention in his evidence any specific number that he told Sir Alex at the time.
278. Nonetheless, Mr Haughan does remember Sir Alex saying five times. This is the sort of detail that Mr Haughan might remember given the unusual circumstances in which he overheard the complaint and the fact that Mr Haughan reported what he had heard to the Liverpool management. In our judgment, this lent some weight to the credibility of Mr
Evra's evidence that Mr Suarez used the word five times in the goalmouth."
That's just unbelievable!
posted on 31/1/12
UnitedRedMacca - I didn't mean to aim that at you, you come up with valid discussion points.
posted on 31/1/12
At the moment I am up to 278 which sums up Mr Haughan's (LFC player liason officer) evidence. (Haughan from outside the refs room after the game heard fergie telling Marriner that Evra had just told him he had been called the n word 5 times by Suarez). The panel felt that although Mr Ferguson couldn't remember putting an exact number on it, the fact that Mr Haughan heard him say '5 times' when giving his statement to Marriner after the match it was taken as corroborating Evra's testimony.
Really!! Haughan only repeats what he heard fergie say and that amounts to adding weight to the fact that Evra was correct in saying the word was said 5 times:
-----------------
No, I don't believe that is was it means
Doesn't it just means that he is corrobarating Evra's testimony, not corrobarating the fact that it actually happened
----------------------------
278. Nonetheless, Mr Haughan does remember Sir Alex saying five times. This is the sort of detail that Mr Haughan might remember given the unusual circumstances in which he overheard the complaint and the fact that Mr Haughan reported what he had heard to the Liverpool management. In our judgment, this lent some weight to the credibility of Mr
Evra's evidence that Mr Suarez used the word five times in the goalmouth."
-----------------------
That though is baffling unless I have read it incorrectly.
It says that Mr Haughton's evidence of hearing SAF say Evra told him 5 times actually corroberates Evra's testimony that it was used 5 times despite previously saying Evra didn't quote a number in his evidence
Someone correct me please as it doesn't make sense to me
posted on 31/1/12
"Doesn't it just means that he is corrobarating Evra's testimony,"
That was my point. Haughan merely repeats what he heard fergie say, how can that amount to him personally corroborating what Evra said? Imagine it's you and you overhear Gerrard say 'that Evra kicked me 5 times today'. You report what you heard Gerrard say and in so doing your statement (just of what you overheard) is taken in support of Evra having kicked Gerrard 5 times.
URM - I agree with your summation - it doesn't make sense. They've taken an overheard conversation to add weight to the fact ti happened. That's what I mean about some of the 'findings' - I really am baffled.
posted on 31/1/12
A bit further on - Marriner's report stated that Comolli told him he 'speaks fluent Spanish' - Comolli denies saying this, he says that he said ' I speak Spanish' - the panel belive because Marriner wrote that 'Comolli speaks fluent Spanish' then they accept what he wrote and not Comolli's word that he speaks Spanish albeit not fluently!! So it was judged that Comolli was unreliable because Marriner had written down 'fluent'
287. Mr Comollidenied in evidence that he had told Mr Marriner that he spoke fluent Spanish, telling us
instead that he simply told Mr Marriner that he spoke Spanish. We accept Mr Marriner's evidence that Mr Comolli told him that he spoke fluent Spanish.
posted on 31/1/12
It apears that everyone must have been lying apart from those associated with LFC.
Imagine that..
posted on 31/1/12
VC - I think a man knows whether or not he speaks fluent Spanish. To believe the ref rather than the man himself is incredible. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the report everyone thinks - this is the bit where they make their conclusion (having studied Suarez playing career with no trouble ever involving black players)
342. We asked ourselves whether a player with this background would make the comments that Mr Evra alleged. We took all these points fully on board and thought long and hard about them before finding the Charge proved.
posted on 31/1/12
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 9 minutes ago
VC - I think a man knows whether or not he speaks fluent Spanish. To believe the ref rather than the man himself is incredible.
....................
Surely, they are believing the refs version of what Comolli told him. Not the fluency of his Spanish.
I think you can agree here that this whole saga has not been the greatest peice of PR from LFC.
I have always maintained that Suarez lied to Kenny after the match, and Kenny chose defend him anyway.
This could have all been sorted with a very early appology.
posted on 31/1/12
342. We asked ourselves whether a player with this background would make the comments that Mr Evra alleged. We took all these points fully on board and thought long and hard about them before finding the Charge proved.
------------------
I understand why there would be frustration with the FA. They baffle everyone at times
Rooney and McCarthey getting away with foul play as an example and more recently Lescott and Van Persie, yet Balotelli get's done.
But I still canoot get around the fact that, was all this really necessary when the man admitted to using the term?
We can go around in circles all day long on the fact it only means black but for me, I still say that is wrong as I have previously explained.
The FA may have actd like a set of prats but in my opinion, Liverpool FC have probably acted not much better
Like VC siad, this could have been sorted with a quick apology from Suarez saying he did not realise the word was taboo on these shores
Many wouldn;t have believed him that he wasn't trying to wind him up anyway but this would never have become so controversial.
Footballers let us fans down sometimes with their stupidety. Rooney let us down swearing at the camaraman getting himself banned and Suarez let Liverpool fans down doing what he did.
They really do think they are miles above us at times
posted on 31/1/12
Anyway, Evra made a mistake on saturday that led to United getting dumped out the cup by their biggest rival.
Boo boys 1
Evra/United 0
Whether the boos were appropriate/misguided or whatever, they worked.....
Bye
posted on 31/1/12
Boo boys 1
Evra/United 0
---------------
Really?
Wasn't 2-1 then?
posted on 31/1/12
Boo boys 18
Manchester United 19
Loving the fresh new Mancunian perch.
posted on 31/1/12
I didn't want to come across as blindly defending Suarez - did he lie, did Evra lie - we'll never know. I'm intrigued by the lack of real evidence and the inconsisitencies in the report. Here's a howler "We found the "quacking" motion to be a puzzling gesture" - this was when Suarez apparently made the gesture to tell Evra to stop whinging. For a football panel to have no knowledge of the 'quacking' gesture is beyond belief.
Anyway gave me something to do today.
cheers lads.
posted on 31/1/12
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461) posted 2 minutes ago
I didn't want to come across as blindly defending Suarez - did he lie, did Evra lie - we'll never know. I'm intrigued by the lack of real evidence and the inconsisitencies in the report. Here's a howler "We found the "quacking" motion to be a puzzling gesture" - this was when Suarez apparently made the gesture to tell Evra to stop whinging. For a football panel to have no knowledge of the 'quacking' gesture is beyond belief.
Anyway gave me something to do today.
cheers lads.
------------------
No worries mate
One final question though mate
Did you boo
if so
Page 23 of 26
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26