5 Oct 2013

'You move the goalposts' - Suarez's biggest enabler returns to LFC. Bad idea...?

Absolutely not! It's fantastic to see Liverpool legend Kenny Dalglish back at the club, and with Robbie Fowler, Steve McManaman and Rob Jones also back in the fold, the King's return is yet another massive boost for the club.

Earlier this week, I posted an article arguing that legends of the past should be brought back to the club and placed in roles where they can have an influence (the signing of players, for example), and I really hope that Dalglish is utilised on the recruitment front.

Even the most uninformed young player has probably heard of Kenny Dalglish, when it comes to persuading players to come to Anfield, it would be great to have Dalglish alongside Ian Ayre to help in that regard.

Dalglish's belligerent, ill-advised, and counter-productive support for Luis Suarez during the Evra debacle remains (IMO) a dark period in LFC's recent history, and last weekend, Dalglish provided some insight into why he defended the Uruguayan so much (to the ultimate detriment of the club, and his own position)). He told The Mirror:

"It has been suggested that this must be the last chance for Luis at Liverpool. I don’t know if it’s his last chance. The better the player, the more forgiveness is extended to him. That’s just the reality. The greater the need to have a player in your squad, the more the goalposts move in terms of what you forgive him for"

This approach ultimately turned out to be Dalglish's achilles heel during his second spell in charge, and whilst he's probably right that this is the 'reality', it shouldn't be, and (IMO), he should've put the reputation and standing of the club ahead of the individual.

Suarez now has another massive cheerleader in his corner at Anfield, and I'm sure Dalglish will use his influence to try and keep the striker at the club.

All that aside, though, I couldn't be happier to see Dalglish back at Liverpool and if anyone deserves to be involved with the club in a senior position, it's him. Hopefully, he'll be at Anfield today to receive the standing ovation he richly deserves.

Now, just bring back John Barnes, Didi Hamann, and Ian Rush!

NOTE: Please stick to the Comment Policy (Click to read)


  1. and hyypia too if rodgers decides to take the england job later on

  2. Ghost of Liverpool Future12:41 pm, October 05, 2013

    Why bring up the Suarez "Negrito" incident? It was British small mindedness confused with political correctness that led to this being an incident. If I buy a Negro Modelo I won't be offending anyone, I am just buying a black Modelo beer. To not be able to describe someone that just insulted you in your mother tongue is ridiculous. If he said hey little dark haired man...would it offend anyone? Shame on you for bringing up this nonsensical event. It didn't stain Liverpool, it is a stain on British society and what they think it means to be politically correct.

    On another note why bring back some of the pros mentioned? Rush came back and did nothing before? We have seen the mess Barnes has made at Celtic and Tranmere. I love these guys as players but it is time to take off our rose tinted glasses. If we do bring back more ex-pros being back guys relevant in the modern game, such as Hyppia, Litmenen, Morientes and even Ince. Or reserve space for Gerrard and Carragher.

  3. While I agree with his (obvious) mishandling of the Suarez incident, one also has to keep in mind that he's not just a club legend. At the time he was also the manager of the club, trying to turn his club's fortunes around and keep his job.

    The way he looked at it, to help him succeed he needed to keep his most talented (arguably) player.

    Ironically, looking back on it, I believe the way he handled this situation was a contributor (albeit not the main factor) for his firing.

  4. rush is an ambassador at lfc , right?
    i want to see hansen the most
    no player ever loved lfc more then him
    not carra,not stevie not kenny

  5. kenny is liverpools greatest player so any involvement is good involvement as far as im concerned....

  6. Why would Rodgers take the England job though?

  7. So that all the U-21s play and all others sit outside. :P

  8. What the hell does a non executive director do though? I've read his interview on the site and nowhere does it actually mention what his focus area will be. He's just there to help anyone with anything...I'm all in favour of bringing former players back. Works a treat at Bayern Munich but at least over there everyone of those former players has an actual responsibility and role at the club. This just seems like marketing to me.

  9. Oh for fuck's sake. Suarez was in the wrong. Just accept it and move on.

  10. Certainly, if we are to send someone to have face to face meetings with players we want to sign there would be no one better. Front up with KD and anyone who knows anything about Liverpool would be impressed. He's far too important to not have at the club, at least doing something. Clearly his personal pride is irrelevant and it seems even he feels that way which is a remarkable thing for the man. He can put ego aside and just do, as he says, whatever is best for the club.

  11. Taking nonsense about Suarez mate

  12. Marketing is important too.

  13. AndWithSuchSimplicity12:50 pm, October 06, 2013

    Only to you, Gabweb, Original Chan, Jaimie Kanwar, and the PC-blinded media.
    He called Evra black. Evra IS black. So he wasn't really wrong, was he?????

  14. Yes, must totally ignore *context*.

  15. AndWithSuchSimplicity12:59 pm, October 06, 2013

    The only "context" was a player who got ripped apart 2 games running by another player, so resorted to old faithful as his only form of recourse.

  16. No, the context is clear: Suarez used the word 'negro' in a hostile situation on the pitch. He was clashing with Evra, so it was antagonistic, not a term of endearment. This is obvious, but you continue to be an apologist someone who used what is basically tantamount to a racial slur. There is no other logical or reasonable conclusion. What caused his reaction is irrelevant.

  17. AndWithSuchSimplicity1:21 pm, October 06, 2013

    The hostile situation was created, and then perpetuated by Evra. The only thing Suarez did wrong was to rise to the bait - he should have simply carried on ripping Evra apart football-wise. And that would have probably made Evra self-combust, basted in his own spite and bile.

    Nothing else to add, thanks.

  18. Yes, nothing else to add, or not from you, because there is nothing you can add to your pathetic, barely rational argument other than more fantasy, gaseous rhetoric, and self-righteous screeching.

    What Suarez did that was wrong was to use a racial epithet to insult his colleague Patrice Evra; something that goes against the moral codes which operate in football in Britain; which is widely considered unacceptable in British social life; and which is forbidden by the laws and codes of conduct which govern all workplaces, including football pitches, in this country.

    Despite the tininess of your conception of the world, which I pity you for, it is not a matter of a few people on internet forums or opportunistic journalists who disagree with you. It is the moral and legal reality of the world in which we live, which I invite to you leave your fantasy land, where your own vision of the world is the only one that matters, and join.

    As for the notion raised by the OP that "if I buy a Negro Modelo I won't be offending anyone, I am just buying a black Modelo beer", may I just point out that a person, such as Patrice Evra, is not a commodity or product; and that we should take more care when we are speaking about, or speaking to, human beings, than we do when we speak about, or indeed into, our beer. I hope I don't need to explain this further, though I would be happy to continue your education, which you appear to stand in some need of, should you wish it.

  19. AndWithSuchSimplicity6:47 pm, October 06, 2013

    When I said "nothing else to add" I should have obviously included the caveat : "Until after my tea....."
    Just because something is 'forbidden by the laws and codes of conduct which govern all workplaces', doesn't necessarily make it RIGHT. Hence why certain people get guaranteed interviews for jobs due to "diversity" yet others have to go through a sift process for the same post; why people can be lazy and ineffective, yet when they don't get promoted they can bring a grievance against their boss or employer due to "diversity"; why my PCS Union can have a meeting for purely black members; why the Police have a National Black Members Association; and why Spurs fans can't use their own nickname in a self-mocking way. Some poor kid was humiliated and forced to wash his pencilled-in moustache off because he attended a WW2 event at school dressed as THE most famous WW2 character. All these things, on the face of it, could be deemed intrinsically racist.

    Your world may be bigger than mine, but it definitely has gone stark raving mad.

    If you wish to explain further, or indeed "continue my education" please feel free to do so. Just try not to be so overly bumptious or condescending.

  20. AndWithSuchSimplicity7:11 pm, October 06, 2013

    And let's not forget Robbie Fowler being FORCED by the BBC to apologise or calling Torres and Vertonghen "girls", and now I read Lord Sugar is being investigated by Merseyside Police for making an alleged "racist tweet".
    It appears the only people truly offended by any of these things are complete d!cks.....

  21. You deserve to be patronised. Though you posture as though your arguments have something to do with an idea of natural justice, your method of argument shows it has nothing to do with the process of reaching a reasoned judgement, and everything to do with it's opposite, which is called prejudice.

    You are retailing anecdotes and fictions, making wild insinuations and misrepresenting reality. Nothing you say stands up to the most cursory analysis. None of your examples have any weight or value, either independently or in connection with each other. The connection you imply lies between them -- that the social order is arranged effectively in order to advantage black people -- is patently untrue, as a brief survey of parliament, boards of directors, the judiciary, and so on, on the one hand, and a brief survey of the impoverished in this country, on the other, might suggest.

    But you are untroubled by reality. You are using mythological examples, at best stories of dubious provenance, which are further misrepresented or at least misunderstood by you, in order to excuse racism. You are not really arguing at all; you are not reasoning, not interrogating, not judging. Your object is not to determine whether or not what Luis Suarez did deserved censure; you have already decided that it did not. That was already decided for you, by your prejudice. That is what prejudice means: it means prejudging, making a judgement before a case is heard. Inevitably, that also means that it is without reason: in other words it is irrational, as all prejudice must be.

    Thus it's not the world that's mad, but you; it's you who is without reason, unable to explain adequately to yourself the social world around you, to understand it, to reach an accommodation with it: you who are full of baseless anger, your head full of nonsensical stories and wild ideas; you who set yourself against what you call the world, without first comprehending what it is; you who accost strangers on the internet in order to cry out your complaint. I would call this mad: indeed I'd prefer to believe you're simply crazed, that you can perhaps be helped or cured, than to believe the alternative: that you are full of lying malice.

    You say I am overly condescending towards you. But what you have to say is achingly, painfully familiar; your complaints are typical of those who share your prejudice, are nothing more than a tedious and tacky jingle, long since overplayed. I believe that, being human and endowed with the power of reasoning well, you can do better than this, that you are in fact obliged to do better than this. What you write is contemptible. But the mind it suggests lying behind that writing is pitiful, really -- an object of pity: weak, and poor. And to be absolutely clear, it's not me that's responsible for making it appear like that: it's you.

  22. AndWithSuchSimplicity7:48 pm, October 06, 2013

    The examples I have given you I have witnessed myself. They are not myths. I don't believe the social order is arranged to advantage black people, but I do believe that a lot of them use diversity to their advantage, to gain something that they their efforts may not necessarily deserve.
    And if that is truly what prejudice means: ie the "prejudging, making a judgement before a case is heard", then that is surely what happened to Suarez.

  23. No, Suarez had his case heard, and he lost. There was due process. He was in the wrong.

    When you're taking up a moral position, it's important, I would argue it's essential, to generalise it, to test it as a universal position. You have to ask yourself: what if everyone thought or acted as I do? What kind of world would that make? As a philosophical principle this is usually accredited to Immanuel Kant. It's the principle that lies behind most modern legal systems and enlightened (meaning not totally biased in favour of the powerful) moral codes. It often involves choosing the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it involves sacrificing some self-interest in the interests of others. It brings us to structure our decisions like this: if I act in this way, it will do harm to myself. But if I act in the opposite way, it will do a greater harm to others. Because I am a reasoning person, I know that it is evil to do harm: a greater harm is a greater evil. Therefore I will act to do a lesser harm, because to act otherwise would be to prefer evil to good, which is not reasonable.

    So this is really very simple. What's more harmful? What has the most severe effects? What is the greater evil? Racism or anti-racism?

    How do the examples which you cite of an excess of zeal in institutional anti-racism compare to examples of institutional racism? The examples you cite could only have caused inconvenience, embarrassment, or upset. Anti-racism can't do much more than that. But you know as well as I do that institutional racism has brought death, relentless persecution and oppression, unspeakable injustice, not in remote history, but in recent memory -- some of us see this in our day-to-day lives.

    So when you take up a position which abets institutional racism, by opposing anti-racism, it seems to me that you are making a bad decision, failing to generalise your position, failing to reason out the consequences of your moral choices; as I said more harshly before, this is like failing to engage with reality, because you are only thinking about that small fragment of it which you can see, and only thinking about it from one perspective, that is, your own.

    The focus on offence is wrong, and I don't think that's really the issue with "political correctness". It's ultimately about learning to take personal responsibility for the world we live in, and making judgements about the consequences of our moral choices and beliefs: about knowing that there's a difference between good and evil, and that it falls to us to act in the interests of the good, no matter that it might not bring us immediate private advantage.

    Like sacrificing the integrity of our anti-racism in the interests of gaining a Champions League spot, for example.

  24. Yes Ian Rush is also working at the club and is an ambassador

  25. thexcuriousxwanderer8:28 pm, October 07, 2013

    Jamie, you yourself conveniently ignore the context - he's a South American, and in South America the word negrito is not as offensive as you would find it to be in the UK. In most cases it is more descriptive than racist. In fact there's a little chocolate cake that is named "negrito" that's quite popular (I could post a picture of it if you like). You can't deny that he did something wrong in the context of British society, but to call him racist imho is overboard. You can't prove mens rea, you can't call him racist. I would like to hear from you on this one.

  26. I didn't call Suarez racist, and never have done. I said that in the context of the situation, what he said is tantamount to a racial slur, and it is. Doesn't mean he's racist though. This is not a criminal situation, so mens rea is not relevant. The burden of proof is balance of probabilities, and using the standard, Suarez was clearly in the wrong.

  27. thexcuriousxwanderer1:31 am, October 08, 2013

    I guess my memory is bad on that racist claim. It's the impression I get. My opinion is that mens rea is relevant even in non criminal situations, in many situations in life out of court intent is important (like lying). But I agree with you he did something wrong, just not racist wrong. In that light, I believe FA's punishment was too harsh.