You never know, he might appeal and then FIFA do the right thing and double the ban
They're going to appeal.
Sauce?
Poll: Suarez has to be banned for a year at least
- Thread starter Frankiemac
- Start date
You never know, he might appeal and then FIFA do the right thing and double the ban
Sauce?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Because they wanted to ban him for the WC and for roughly 10 league games, hence they picked 4 months. There isn't much choice, say we're banning you for X number of games, Liverpool or Uruguay could potentially schedule a dozen friendlies, two a day against random teams playing youth players which Suarez would be banned from participating in.
Fore the record he can't play in friendlies or behind close door friendlies. Cantona played in a friendly that wasn't called that on a training pitch but because it involved another team they got in trouble for it.
The closest he can come to match training is if they play a 11 vs 11 full match against the reserves/youth team.
So if they'd gone 10 match international/10 match league, they could effectively sneak out of it. By putting a time frame they cap off a certain amount of known competitive games.
Well I was hoping they would. I thought they might not be that stupid, but then what do Uruguay have to lose? They either win and get him back or lose and don't have him for the next two International competitions that he wouldn't have been in anyway, plus some others.
It's Liverpool and any prospective new owners that will be impacted by the appeal, not Uruguay.
It's Liverpool and any prospective new owners that will be impacted by the appeal, not Uruguay.
Thought he wasn't allowed to train either
So that's 9 competitive word cup international games for Uruguay to be served this world cup and then during qualifiers. Plus 4 months from any football activity including administrative, that surely rules out any sale then as he will not be allowed to sign for a new club.
Yeah, that's how it read to me. Though I'm not sure how you stop that.
It doesn't stop transfers.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,151
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
dont forget he done it 3x now
I would have thought a transfer would be classed as administrative.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Please oh please oh please increase it. Realistically they should, after none of his incidents has his behaviour changed, increasing bans hasn't turned him into a remorseful player and he utterly denied he did it despite clear as day proof.
Appealing it once again suggests they believe he's done nothing wrong, if he won't learn from a ban, increase it and for me appealing against it suggests he still can't see that he did something wrong that deserves the ban... what option does that leave, increase it till he sees he did something wrong and thinks about changing his behaviour?
He gets a lenient ban(only a little IMHO) and still appeals it, will he literally never learn?
I think people aren't quite seeing how harsh it is, adding domestic ban to international is a HUGE step rarely if ever taken, and lets be honest, WC games trump domestic games, it's a rare occasion and they are through to the knock out stages with some(even if not a large) chance to win it. I would say easily that 1 WC game is at least equivalent to two league games. So he's got what for me is effectively a 20 league game ban, which is a good step up. 7 first ban, 10 second, 20(effectively, 9 league + up to 4 heavily weighted WC games and I presume a couple more internationals somewhere near beginning of season) isn't terrible, and FIFA made a HUGE statement making it any football and not just international i think people are overlooking that.
The next one, if there is one should be monumental and all encompassing, 6months(in season) to a year range.
Appealing it once again suggests they believe he's done nothing wrong, if he won't learn from a ban, increase it and for me appealing against it suggests he still can't see that he did something wrong that deserves the ban... what option does that leave, increase it till he sees he did something wrong and thinks about changing his behaviour?
He gets a lenient ban(only a little IMHO) and still appeals it, will he literally never learn?
I think people aren't quite seeing how harsh it is, adding domestic ban to international is a HUGE step rarely if ever taken, and lets be honest, WC games trump domestic games, it's a rare occasion and they are through to the knock out stages with some(even if not a large) chance to win it. I would say easily that 1 WC game is at least equivalent to two league games. So he's got what for me is effectively a 20 league game ban, which is a good step up. 7 first ban, 10 second, 20(effectively, 9 league + up to 4 heavily weighted WC games and I presume a couple more internationals somewhere near beginning of season) isn't terrible, and FIFA made a HUGE statement making it any football and not just international i think people are overlooking that.
The next one, if there is one should be monumental and all encompassing, 6months(in season) to a year range.
Last edited:
Me too, and a few others here, but it's already been confirmed the other way.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I would suggest that is incredibly unlikely, not impossible but frankly Suarez could buy a patch of land, or buy a training pitch off LFC, the team could "hang out" round at Suarez's "pad" and have a kick about..... 5 hours a day for 6 weeks
Realistically I would think it's purely competitive/friendly matches, not training.
Liverpool can't/won't sack him same way Newcastle didn't sack Barton and Ajax didn't sack Suarez the first time. He's a valuable asset, even if his value has dropped from say 80mil to 40mil, or even if it was 5mil... why throw away that 5mil. There will always be some idiot club willing to buy a complete idiot. Look at Barton, Marlon..... can remember his first name but not his surname, I think he was fired, then someone else picked him up on a free. Unless Suarez actually got a say 1 year full on ban, or maybe 2 years, they wouldn't sack him I wouldn't think.
Last edited:
I didn't realised it had been confirmed, shame really.