There is no way that Liverpool would deliberately end Suarez's contract other than for something really bad that happened and was dealt with in the courts. Whether the idea that the owners might sell if they got the right price (over £50m to judge from the Torres price) is less clear - I think they might use the image of the club argument to cash in.
As to whether he should be allowed to play for Liverpool by the FA or FIFA then of course the answer is yes. The FA should impose a ten match ban now (Ajax seven plus three on totting up). And warn him that a third proven bite would double the ten.
mark malin - 11 years ago
lets just add the phantom bite to the phantom goal in keeping with the traditions
Lea - 11 years ago
Suarez should have been red-carded immediately, especially given his history. His equaliser in the final second (who was counting before the whistle blew?) should be 'disallowed', because Suarez should not still have been in play, he should have been in the dressing room in disgrace. Boxers expect to be punched in their sport. Footballers do not expect to be bitten in their's. The whole thing has become a farce and a travesty.
Martin - 11 years ago
I am with you Tom on this! I am sure it should be discussed at the next shareholders AGM, and a greater involvement with team selection too! Haha! It's a football match! Haha!
ramster - 11 years ago
Yeah sure Tom. Let's blame the bankers for this, why don't we ?
David - 11 years ago
No, I think he's a disgrace to the club. He's the most unsportsmanlike player I've ever seen.
John Williams - 11 years ago
Jermaine Defoe bit Mashcerano and Martin Jol thought it was simple funny.
What is the reaction of Standard Chartered Bank, major sponsors of Liverpool FC, given the airing throughout the world, especially in Asia, of this match? Does Standard Chartered have written into its sponsorship contracts sanctions for employees where it questions their professional behaviour? If not, why not?
There is no way that Liverpool would deliberately end Suarez's contract other than for something really bad that happened and was dealt with in the courts. Whether the idea that the owners might sell if they got the right price (over £50m to judge from the Torres price) is less clear - I think they might use the image of the club argument to cash in.
As to whether he should be allowed to play for Liverpool by the FA or FIFA then of course the answer is yes. The FA should impose a ten match ban now (Ajax seven plus three on totting up). And warn him that a third proven bite would double the ten.
lets just add the phantom bite to the phantom goal in keeping with the traditions
Suarez should have been red-carded immediately, especially given his history. His equaliser in the final second (who was counting before the whistle blew?) should be 'disallowed', because Suarez should not still have been in play, he should have been in the dressing room in disgrace. Boxers expect to be punched in their sport. Footballers do not expect to be bitten in their's. The whole thing has become a farce and a travesty.
I am with you Tom on this! I am sure it should be discussed at the next shareholders AGM, and a greater involvement with team selection too! Haha! It's a football match! Haha!
Yeah sure Tom. Let's blame the bankers for this, why don't we ?
No, I think he's a disgrace to the club. He's the most unsportsmanlike player I've ever seen.
Jermaine Defoe bit Mashcerano and Martin Jol thought it was simple funny.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/oct/23/newsstory.sport1
What is the reaction of Standard Chartered Bank, major sponsors of Liverpool FC, given the airing throughout the world, especially in Asia, of this match? Does Standard Chartered have written into its sponsorship contracts sanctions for employees where it questions their professional behaviour? If not, why not?