Winning the Champions League in his first season meant he had the luxury of time. It wasn't that he lost the fans, it was that he lost the loyalty of his players and that he was constantly complaining about not having good enough players. To his credit he was working under trying circumstances with stingy owners. In the end though he was given 5 years, a fair amount of time given that Houllier before him was given 6. I don't think fans will ever turn on Kenny. We may at some point concede that he hasn't what it takes but we will never ever vilify him. We just aren't like that. We live in the past remember (sarcastic remark aimed at our rivals), and we will always remember his deeds for us as a player and as a manager in the 80's. It's what sets us apart, that a player or manager isn't only as good as his last game. Any of your friends talk about Gary Neville anymore? I hope Carra won't be a thing of the past when he retires.

Sometimes you have to take gambles and Carroll is still very much a gamble. Successful businessmen like John Henry are where they are because they are decisive and they act quickly. You do need to take risks, but calculated ones and given the amount we received for Torres, Carroll was a risk we could and still can afford. By acting swiftly Henry has proven to us fans that he meant what he said when he claimed he would spend if it was worth spending, unlike our previous owners. He has my respect so far as I'm sure he has the respect of many other fans. He doesn't say much but when he does, he acts. A far cry from the two cowboys who were extremely liberal with claims of a new stadium with a new Kop, big name players and so on. There is little point in regretting what has been, and worrying about what will be. What's matters is what we do now that we are where we currently are? Hindsight is always 20/20.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Nov 11 2011, 09:23 AM

Yes I know Mata has settled now but if you read what I said, I was referring to when we had to decide upon either him or Downing. I also said hindsight is 20/20 in its easy to say now that we should have gone for Mata since he's been playing so well. Fact is no one could guarantee this back before Chelsea signed him.

There is no guarantee that British players will adapt to the team but as in the case above, you are using hindsight. If I were to ask you to place a bet on either a Spaniard or a Brit settling to not only the football, but the culture and way of life in England, who would you have placed your money on?

I'm a fan of Torres and he did play well but don't forget he was sulking each time he was on the pitch for about half a season. Also, he left just weeks after pledging his loyalty to us. Loyalty may be a rare commodity these days but I'd expect Liverpool players to at least be honest. Sorry, I just don't agree that we should consider resigning Torres unlike Xabi who was clear on wanting to leave and explained why he wanted to leave without belittling us in the process.

This. Few note how high taxes are on players in England. It's easy to forget that like us, players are human and they need to be treated as such. Rafa lost the dressing room because he was detached and worked the lads like they were machines. I think it's natural for anyone to find it hard to adapt to other cultures and not miss their own. Know anyone working in say Dubai? I do and most want to come back eventually. Like it or not, managing a player isn't just about telling him where to run on the pitch. Why was Xabi pissed off when Rafa would not allow him to join the squad for an overseas game after first going home to witness the birth of his first child? If Titi Camara elected not to play the day after his father passed, should we say he was giving an excuse? I guess you're more adaptable than most people because when I was overseas studying, I wanted to come back at each given opportunity as much as I liked where I was.

Of course African players have no complaints. Who won't want to leave a world of hunger and poverty? It isn't all about choosing between the sun or gloomy weather. Players like Michael Essien leave their homes, make it big and return to give back to their communities. It's the same in South American countries like Argentina where poverty and corruption is high, and inflation is through the roof. Look beyond the weather.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Nov 11 2011, 09:43 PM

That may be true but my example of South America is parallel with your example of Africa and why players who come from there don't complain. I'm saying they have similar reasons in that they are moving away from a harsh environment into a comparative life of luxury. It's different if you are moving between say England and Spain. In terms of football I think it's becoming easier for South American players to settle compared to when the likes of Juninho played for Middlesborough simply because of the increasing number of foreign coaches and managers.

Hers my take on cheating. These days players are motivated to do whatever they can to win. Clubs offer bonuses for winning, scoring goals, appearances and so on. I also agree that you can't call Suarez a cheat for stopping the ball on the line if you applaud Solksjaer for what he did and I'm sure some of you do for some bizzare reason. Please don't be hypocritical here. I'm sure many of our rivals would love to call Suarez a cheat for he does go down easy but ask yourself this, is it not the same with your players? Stop focusing on instances where your players are on the attack. Have you not seen your defenders go down after being brushed from behind by a player applying pressure on him? How's this not the same?

So now, does going down under a little contact constitute cheating or does going down under no contact warrant that label? They can't both be the same.

For the record, I miss the days when players would do all they can to stay on their feet. Football was a little more honest back then. One thing I admired about Gary Lineker was his reluctance to go down. He'd do all he could to stay on his feet but footballers these days don't. If you want to call someone like Suarez a cheat so be it but don't ignore the times your players go down easily. Defenders do it all the time when pressured from behind in their own box. They go down and immediately clutch the ball coercing the ref to award a foul. Is this not true?

Thanks buddy

Thanks for the wishes guys

Actually I think Torres was exemplarary when he first signed for us. Don't recall him going down easy because i stood up and took notice that he took to the physical side of the Premiership like a duck takes to water. I didn't think he was as strong as he was. In fact he was so strong and industrious, I remember him taking the ball off the likes of big centre backs like Bikey, Vidic, Terry and some other mugs.

In a subsequent game against Chelsea, JT tried intimidating Torres again but the Spanisrd stood his ground, not backing up an inch. Instead he looked right back at Terry. Wonder if they're best buds now.

---

Added on November 14, 2011, 9:49 amThanks but I think you're giving me too much credit here. All I want is to emulate those at the Kop week in, week out.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Nov 14 2011, 09:49 AM

Earlier in his Chelsea career, he went down a little too easy for my taste and he would be writhing in agony most of the time. I remember a commentator going on about how maybe he has a low threshold for pain. It got so bad that even the Stamford Bridge faithful would boo him. Gotta give credit where it's sue though, he cleaned up his act and won the fans over again, I just hope Suarez does the same and stops remonstrating so much as well. Even I get annoyed by his antics.

Thanks bud.

Seems to be it's becoming a little pedantic now.

Let's look at the situation as a whole. Evra claims the Andre Marriner knows what Suarez said and that the Uruguayan said it 10 times. Obviously it wasn't as clear cut or Suarez would have been sent off and had action taken against him much earlier. He obviously said something however or this case would have been swept under the rug so what did he say? The "N" word? If he did, I find it hard to believe that he would not have been immediately sent off. I also don't think it's a term of endearment in any country for that matter so if he did say it, he is clearly wrong but did he?

If he did use any other term, it's tit for tat. There isn't a rule book with specific words that can't be used so unless they develop one, it's going to be subjective.

If he did use the "n" word, punish him. If not, then one has to question if Mr. Evra is being a tad bit sensitive as Mr. Marriner doesn't seem to think much of what was said.

Ah a good time to start the Skrtel jokes all over. Similar to the Chuck Norris ones. Here are some to get the ball rolling. Multiple sources :-

1) Skrtel isn't afraid of the dark... the dark is afraid of him
2) Martin Skrtel doesn't daydream. He's too busy giving other people nightmares.
3) In an average living room there are 1,242 objects Martin Skrtel could use to kill you, including the room itself
4) Martin Skrtel can beat Rafa Nadal on clay
5) Martin Skrtel haunts Freddy Krueger's nightmares.
6) God said "let there be light." Martin Skrtel said "say please"
7) Chuck Norris rang Martin Skrtel and asked for his jokes back.
Martin Skrtel said no…
8) Martin Skrtel played Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun and won
9) Martin Skrtel once crashed his car at 100 mph. The airbag didn't dare to come out
10)Martin Skrtel had a meal when in Jakarta. He didn't like, so he spat it out. That piece is now called Australia ( darn Brits)
11) Actually Martin Skrtel died some years ago but the death is too afraid to tell him
12) Martin Skrtel does not turn on the light, he turns off the dark
13) Aliens do exist. They're just waiting for Martin Skrtel to die before they attack

Glad you brought this up. I myself am wondering why you lost see it fit to say something about us everyday without provocation when we aren't considered worthy rivals?

Now let me look into this article.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/sports/2011-1...nt_14111071.htm?

So the FA has decided to charge Suarez over an alleged racial comment and Suarez is still pleading "not guilty". If indeed he did use the term, "Negrito", as alleged by Evra, then he is guilty regardless of how acceptable it is in South America. This is after all England, where anti-racism sentiments are strong. Forget the allegations (I like how often this word is used a lot in this case) that his manc buddies call him the same name. It's a case of "only my friends can call me that". It is true however that the term, "Negrito" is indeed a term of endearment in South America.



However Suarez should be sensitive to the fact that those from other continents may take offence to it. If he did utter the word, I think it was more out of naivety than hostility but should be fined nonetheless for when in someone else's house, we should respect their rules. I can understand him not wanting to please guilty though especially if he didn't mean it as an insult. It's what I would do and if anyone here tells me they'll plead guilty to a crime they didn't intend to commit, then you're a bigger man than me. This is all assuming the allegations turn out to be true.

Wonder what the outcome of Terry's case will be now given that there is alleged (here's that word again) video evidence of him uttering a racist word.

To anyone who thinks these cases are that straightforward, not bothering to do research of reading before commenting, it's why there are people with different intelligence levels around.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Nov 17 2011, 12:15 PM

Bringing up the Giggs or Rooney debacles doesn't mean it's ok for any of our players to commit similar heinous acts. It does however lend credit to the fact that there are so many hypocrites out there who are so willing to air someone else's dirty laundry without first cleaning up their own house. I don't care why Giggs did what he did, maybe he slipped and fell into her ***** or maybe they really are in love, I could care less. His personal life is his. All I know is I've always looked up to him as a model pro and that incident has kind of tarnished his image because I do not think you can accidentally do what he did. That being said, this is a separate issue and nothing to do with Suarez. All I ask is for people not to be hypocrites and if they have lost respect for Suarez, you have to have lost respect for Giggs as well.

Worse case, Suarez said what he said but I really doubt it was with malicious intent. He's played in Holland for years and there are a lot of dark skinned players and people there. If he was racist, it would have surfaced earlier although I'm sure there are those who will fail to comprehend logic like this. Like I said, he was naive but an example needs to be made and unfortunately for Suarez, it looks like he's on display. I believe they'll prove that he's guilty of saying it, but I doubt they'll prove he meant is as an insult and not as other South Americans mean it.

My guess is that he did use the word, "Negrito" and he will be found guilty of it and punished. What doesn't go on record is that he didn't mean it maliciously and it is a more than acceptable term is his part of the world. You may be able to carry handguns in Texas but do it on KL and you'll get thrown in the slammer.

Right and those giving the verdict are mind readers.

Since juries and judged don't mid read, you base it on priors and he has none despite having playing in Holland for 5 years where if I recall there are a fair amount of dark skinned people who are either native to the country or surrounding countries like Surinam, and getting involved in charity work supporting solidarity, and fighting social inequality during the 2010 World Cup.

Do you disagree that it is used as a term of endearment in South America?

Ah but I may be biased of course so why don't you provide counter evidence?

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Nov 17 2011, 03:13 PM

True but where is the evidence of the crime then? It can't be a case of your word against mine no? In the absence of proof, then priors are considered. Else why would they call character witnesses in when a person can change?

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Nov 17 2011, 03:24 PM

Unlike in some courtrooms where a person is assumed guilty until he can be proven innocent, I believe in the opposite. Suarez may be proven guilty of uttering the word, "Negrito" and he may be banned a few games for it.

As for intent, he is innocent until proven guilty, no? Or do you all have a different belief system? The same one adopted by our courts in the prosecution of opposition members. How can we prove intent? I'm not genius but to me, it comes back to your prior convictions (or absence of them) and behaviour and as I have stated earlier, there are no priors to support his intent was malicious, in fact I've just stated evidence supporting quite the opposite. Well if you do believe that a person is guilty until proven innocent, then we really have nothing further to discuss. So you can ask me how I know to which I don't but let me ask you this is return. How do you know otherwise? Any prior offences to support your case?

No doubt some braniac will interject soon by going, "ah he said it so he's racist la" without giving it a single though whether through choice or merely absent of the ability to do so.

Which scenario was hypothetical? The one where I indicated he's been playing in a league for years with no previous racially motivated allegations made against him, or the one where he did charity work for equality whilst in South Africa?

---

Added on November 17, 2011, 3:50 pmSo you believe he's innocent then? You have to have an opinion no?

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Nov 17 2011, 03:50 PM

No, let me do the work, I insist.

1. Suarez alleged to have made racist remark (negrito)
2. I think he did say it and therefore, should be punished (my opinion). If he didn't say it, then I'm wrong.

My argument is whether or not saying it makes him racist because it is a term of endearment in his region of the word, where he grew up as a kid?

I never said I was stating fact, I'm presenting an argument based on my opinion and I've challenged you to provide some information that may indicate he's really racist. Thus far, you've only succeeded in labeling my arguments indicating that his intent was not malicious as being flawed despite them being true. Why don't you provide arguments indicating otherwise?

It isn't my fault you have poor comprehension. Look back a pg or two and you'll see that I said he should be punished if he uttered the word, "nigreto", because although it is a term of endearment in South America, it isn't in England. I did also say I don't think he meant it maliciously because it is acceptable in South America. Which part of this do you not understand? I'll try to simplify it.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Nov 17 2011, 07:15 PM