9 Oct 2013

'I told them': Suarez ignores club request & blatantly disrespects LFC. Again....

After serving his ten-game ban for biting, Liverpool striker Luis Suarez is back on the goal trail for LFC, and as predicted, everyone associated with the club is back to kowtowing to the Uruguayan, constantly massaging his ego, and bending over backwards to keep him happy. Basically, it's business as usual, and the same applies to Suarez, who continues to unashamedly disrespect the club.

Discussing his alleged new-found 'calmness' this week, Suarez revealed that he totally ignored LFC's instruction about bringing his children onto the pitch during the recent home game with Crystal Palace. He told The Independent:

"In England it is not common [to bring children onto the pitch], and the club people told me I was not going to go with them, but I told them that my children were going to come with me, like it or not"

So, Liverpool - who pay Suarez's wages - made a reasonable request, and Suarez basically stuck two fingers up at the club and decided to he'd do whatever he wanted.

Sound familiar?

How is this anything other than blatant disrespect? Suarez 'told' LFC that he would do what he wanted 'like it or not', and the club displayed massive weakness by undermining its own authority and acquiescing to his demands.

It seems like a trivial matter, and there's the emotional element involved (i.e. children), which will elicit sympathy for Suarez's position, but the fact of the matter is he ignored the wishes of Liverpool FC. Again.

Yes, it's a nice, cuddly moment to have Suarez's newborn son on the field, but that's not the issue. It's a matter of principle: LFC asked Suarez not to do something, and he totally ignored the request, and did what he wanted.

If, say, Andre Wisdom, or Iago Aspas did the same thing, and admitted it in public like Suarez, they'd be hung, drawn and quartered by the fans, and accused of disrespecting the club, but when the Uruguayan does it, he gets a pass.

It's hardly surprising though. As Kenny Dalglish admitted last week:

"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."

Clearly, Suarez is still bigger than the club. Why else would LFC allow him to basically do whatever he wants? Would Alex Ferguson stand for Suarez's 'like it or not' demand? Mourinho? Extremely doubtful.

Just to be clear: I agree that bringing a child onto the pitch is not a big deal, but that's not the issue here. It's the ongoing pattern of behaviour that's the problem, i.e. Suarez repeatedly refusing to respect the club's wishes, and doing his own thing. Suarez also reiterated:

"What the English papers say I do not care,"

Obviously, he doesn't care what Liverpool FC say either.



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


229 comments:

  1. this is just shit stirring

    ReplyDelete
  2. if it wasn't Suarez it wouldn't even be news

    ReplyDelete
  3. um a little over exaggeration me thinks but eh small thing once we get 50 plus from him in january or next summer and a good *correction* best replacement *costa/ljajic* we should be good

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes it would. Any player who ignores the club like this is out of order. It just happens to be Suarez.

    The club gave Suarez an instruction; he totally ignored them. It's a matter of principle, and I'd write the same no matter who did it.


    I don't recall any other player doing this kind of thing though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mountain...molehill....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here we go again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jamie - this type of journalism does us no favours. You are clearl doing well with your blog, hence why it is always a key feature on newsnow. But articles like this will cause the likes of tabloids and news agencies to pick up on it and run articles in the press about how Suarez has fallen out with LFC. I appreciate your efforts but sometimes you have to consider the wider implications of some of your articles. We have just managed to get to a situation where Suarez name isnt on the back page of every newspaper and the team are performing well. As Liverpool fans we have a duty to ensure we help protect the club's reputation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course it is - Suarez is involved, and he is allowed to do whatever he likes, even if it means blatantly ignoring the club's wishes. Clearly, it's okay with you that players can just turn their noses up at the club's requests and do whatever they want.

    The nature of the issue is not really relevant, it's the principle at stake: LFC told Suarez to do something (which, as his employer, is their right). Suarez told them to get stuffed, and decided he'd do whatever he wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't see any problem with that as long as he keep scoring goals and plays like every game is a cup final, which he is doing this season. You can't compare him with Wisdom or Aspas that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well atleast he does his job. With Suarez your just wasting your time slating him. At this point we as fans are used to him and dont care as long as he keeps banging them goals in.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, what you're saying is that players can get away with anything, and ignore the club's wishes at will just as long as they're 'scoring goals'?

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's exactly what I thought after reading this

    ReplyDelete
  13. Believe me, I know fans 'don't care' - that doesn't mean I have to follow suit. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just giving my view. Fans are Suarez's biggest enablers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "It seems like a trivial matter"
    Key phrase here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You are entitled to your opinion; however, your opinion is constantly negative towards Suarez... utterly boring

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'Seems' being the operative word. If it's so trivial, why did LFC tell Suarez he couldn't take his kids onto the field. Clearly, the club didn't think it was trivial.


    What's actually being trivialised here is the principle that players should listen to their clubs. Apparently, this doesn't apply to Suarez.

    Over the summer, Rodgers told him not to speak about LFC business, and he ignored that too. I guess that was okay too?

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's not news.
    You've heard of spin; well. this is anti spin. If LS does 99 things right out of 100, JK will write an article about the 1

    ReplyDelete
  18. Clubs should be more careful about what they want their players to listen to.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't see the big fuss to be honest, but at the end of the season I want Suarez gone as I have no doubt he'll be fluttering his eyelashes at Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich at some point again but whilst he's a Liverpool player if his goals get us in a position where we can attract players to take us forward then I am fine with that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well Tom Werner didnt seem to mind
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/tom-werner-exclusive-interview-liverpools-2351527

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, he know that the clubs need him more than he needs the club. That maybe the reason he disregard some of the club request but at the mean time we need to solve it in a win-win situation to avoid Tevez problem. We are in a rebuilding state and we should avoid any conflict within the squad. To me this is not considered the worst problem but if he ignored the club again he need to be warn or discipline so other player within in the squad would feel the fair treatment. Just as SAF did during the begining at the career, set the discipline level and build a fair environment for the players.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am not saying that but I would rather have players like him (with attitude) then being the lower half team.

    ReplyDelete
  23. That's exactly what you said :-) You're happy for players to ignore the club's wishes as long as they score.

    ReplyDelete
  24. nice gesture heart warming, he knows we are a family club.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes, just ignore the clear principle at stake here: LFC told Suarez to do something (just like they told him not to discuss the club over the summer), and he ignored them. That is the issue here.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I thought LFC were Suarez's biggest enabler lol?! So do you think he should be disciplined? Have a heart!

    ReplyDelete
  27. More overhyped BS!1:21 pm, October 09, 2013

    Does it matter? Its his kids? its not like hes doing anything wrong. He didnt throw his baby at another football player in a rage? Liverpool managed to keep a player that will get them where they want to be and your complaining? Suarez is a proven goal scorer in the league and his partnership with Sturridge is the best in the league. Why ruin that?
    Costa will not come to Liverpool given the fact that he is Atletico Madrids best player at the moment and Ljacic is a player with the next big thing tagged to him for years. Still havent seen the best from him.
    Surely Liverpool should be going for a player to boost the midfield. I still dont understand why Liverpool did not make any real effort to sign Christian Ericksen. A bargain at £11mil. IMO

    ReplyDelete
  28. What if it was Fowler in his pomp?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ok, if you think so then that's fine and I do stick with my words and wouldn't mind signing another next Cantona or next Suarez player.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't think he should be disciplined, but that's not the issue. I may even agree that there's no real problem with bringing a child onto the pitch, but the point is Suarez ignored the club's wishes, just like he has many times in the past (refusing to shake Evra's hand; refusing to stay silent over the summer about his future etc). The point is, he is still ignoring the club's wishes. Where does it end, and what will be next?

    ReplyDelete
  31. The real question is which heartless jobs worth tried to tell Luis what to do and then had to be told by someone more senior at the club to get back in his box. See it depends what spin you put on things.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "...bringing his children onto the pitch during the recent home game...."
    What does this even mean? Were they on the pitch during the game? Were they on the sidelines during the game? Were they in the players box during the game? What does 'on the pitch' mean in this particular scenario?

    ReplyDelete
  33. It applies to everyone, irrespective of who it is. If the club tells a player to do something reasonable, they should do it, not ignore the request, do it anyway, and then boast about it in public.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think what he's saying is bringing your kids into work, whilst not common practise (and probably against H&S) is accepted on the odd occasion in most environments - so no need to hang the guy out to dry for it!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I note how you failed to publish the remainder of the interview where he goes on to explain that the club understood and where happy with it and how he has full respect and admiration for Steven Gerrard who he considers as the best football player he has ever played with. That type of lazy journalism is what leads to us being plastered over the back pages of The Scum and other tabloids.
    "In England it is not common and the first club people told me I was not going to go with them but I told them that my children were going to come with me, like it or not.
    "They understood in the end and it was a nice moment, a unique moment for me. My family make me think hard and calm me. Nowadays I think a lot of them when I'm on the pitch.
    "I wanted my son to live as I do. I suffered a lot as a child and I do not want my children, or any other child, to experience the circumstances as I did.
    "As a parent I try to give them all the love in the world and all the best."
    "Gerrard, for me, is a legend in Liverpool and a great team-mate that helped me a lot," he added.
    "His attitude was an extra boost for me to take the decision to stay in Liverpool; both he and the fans of Liverpool influenced much for that.
    "I admire him for the great player he is worldwide. For me he will always be a benchmark and at club level he is the best player I have played with in my career, as a person and as a footballer."

    ReplyDelete
  36. If his coaches tell him to, say, track back and tacle more, and he doesn't but still bangs in the goals, would you write an article about it ?

    ReplyDelete
  37. There's not evidence to suggest anyone got overruled by someone senior at the club. Suarez states he told the club he'd do what he wanted 'like it or not', which clearly suggests he ignored the club's position on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The club didn't think it a big enough issue to insist Suarez would not do it.
    You are making it important on their behalf, basically YOU are telling the club what is and is not important, if you believe YOUR take on the issue's importance (that it's a massive principle at stake here) is the real issue.
    And yes, I know you're just expressing your opinion on a matter. But to state that this incident is such a massive point of principle is the main thing in dispute here, not your right to express an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jamie....really....I know that you don't like dear old Luis, I think every regular reader of your blog understands that you don't like Suarez.


    He has had a new baby!!


    Put yourself in his shoes, imagine how proud and happy you would be if you had just had a new baby, and it being a South American tradition to take your kid onto the pitch you can imagine how strongly he must have felt about this.


    IMO it was wrong of the club to originally deny him the opportunity, however they did let him in the end, because they are not bastards and nor is Suarez, he's just a proud father.


    Player power does not come into it, this is just common courtesy from his employer.


    Stop talking about Suarez and do an article on McLaughlin, I know next to nothing about him and he looks awesome...started at LM against Spurs U21 and was awesome for a RB...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Next thing you'll be telling us is "look, he never even washed his hair for an important match like this, my god he can do whatever he likes" tut tut these millionaire players eh.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This is not a valid comparison in the slightest.

    ReplyDelete
  42. He is paid to score goals, he went on to score two of them. Was there actually a question he was answering too or did he just post this as a status update on his facebook page?

    ReplyDelete
  43. He won't get 50+ goals by January, maybe 20+, but 50! nah.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The club gave-in. What else would they do? Suarez has all the power, so he can do what he wants. LFC are not going to pursue something like this as they're too afraid to upset Suarez.

    And your point about me telling the club what's what is, quite frankly, utter nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Right, now the inevitable exceptions come into it. Suarez gave an interview. It's covered by every major news provider.

    I'm surprise no one has used the old 'but he must've been misquoted' excuse yet (!)

    ReplyDelete
  46. who cares?!?! cause its suarez its got to be a big deal. he said he was doing it so the club relented and agreed otherwise it wouldnt have happend. in other words he argued which happens every day!! remember the ashley cole holiday during a free weekend for chelsea few years back when he was told not to go?? nope because fuck all was really said about it. the suarez haters really need to get a life!

    ReplyDelete
  47. LFC should have made a principled stand after the Evra debacle because that was important for the club, and for football around the world. They didn't and it heaped shame on Liverpool.


    This is not an issue that requires a principled stand, if LFC made a principle out of things like this then we would be a laughing stock.


    I would argue that in running any organisation a degree of utilitarian philosophy should be adhered to stopping Suarez from taking his baby onto the pitch would not have benefited anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Tom Werner in today's Mirror interview with Oliver Holt:


    “I got a kick out of the fact that Luis came out on to the pitch before kick-off with his baby and his daughter,” Werner, 63, said.

    “He shook hands with all the officials and the other players carrying his baby. That is the side of Luis I know, the loving parent."



    So the club doesn't mind too much I'd say? Also these "club people" could well have been a couple of stewards unsure what to do as it wasn't a unusual practice.


    We all know your stance on LS, some of which I've thought was fair comment, but this is a new low to me.

    ReplyDelete
  49. He said " the FIRST club people"
    That suggests they were junior to the person who made the final decision does it not?

    ReplyDelete
  50. I agree, but the fact still remains Suarez totally ignored the club's wishes. The situation itself is not really the issue; it's the principle, and it matters (IMO) because he has a long history of ignoring the club. What will it be next?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Maybe the reasons Liverpool gave for not taking him on the pitch were unreasonable. I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  52. And the actual full quote reads: "In England it is not common and the first club people told me I was not going to go with them but I told them that my children were going to come with me, like it or not,"

    "They understood in the end and it was a nice moment, a unique moment for me. They (family) make me think hard and calm me. Nowadays I think a lot of them when I'm on the field."

    So in the end the club AGREED to let him take his kids onto the pitch and he disrespected nothing or no one.

    "I wanted my son to live as I do. I suffered a lot as a child and I do not
    want my children, or any other child, to experience the circumstances as I did. As a parent I try to give them all the love in the world and all the best."

    Wow....what a monster....

    On the English media:

    "What the English papers say I do not care,"
    "The only thing I care about is playing football, and enjoying my family is what I love most."
    Wow...so all he wants to do is play matches for the club and enjoy his family....what an animal...
    Yet still you claim to be completely objective when it comes to Suarez. That's probably where the selective cut and paste jobs on his quotes came from. From your objectivity...

    ReplyDelete
  53. I agree with Jamie on this. Unfortunately Suarez is likened to a high performing employer at a company, and is given preferrential treatment as opposed to a 'water carrier'. Could you imagine if Lucas wanted to do this?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Two quotes from the "story"


    Suarez surprised many by appearing on the field with his children, but it is something of a tradition among South Americans and, despite initial resistance from club officials, they gave way on the striker's insistence.


    "They understood in the end and it was a nice moment, a unique moment for me.



    This sounds rather less controversial than the passage you chose to select.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The club relented; what else are they supposed to do? It doesn't change the fact that Suarez ignored the initial request. There wouldn't have been any need to relent if he'd just listened in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Yeah, I read his interview article this morning. Seems like he was fine with it. Its quite clear that management sees Suarez as integral to the success plan for LFC, i.e, qualifying for CL.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The club 'gave way'. Again, what else were they supposed to do? It doesn't change the fact that the club told him not to do it, and he went against that.

    ReplyDelete
  58. He didn't ignore the club's wishes. He argued against them. Every employee is entitled to do so when he's instructed to do something he objects too. Well maybe in China not every employee is entitled to do so but in England, where Suarez works, they are. You know all this too that's why you left those quotes out of your article. You knew your point has no merit what so ever so you decided to bend the truth a little. Maybe Rupert M has a job for you...

    ReplyDelete
  59. First of all, I am glad Suarez ignored the instructions. First and foremost, it didn't come from BR. 2nd, if Henry and Werner had known about this microscopic issue being played out at the lower end of management, they would have overruled and allowed Suarez to bring his young son and daughter on the pitch.


    I hope it now becomes a tradition of any of the Club's starting XI to parade their newborns before a match. I think it was wonderful to see Suarez holding his newborn son and seeing his daughter on the pitch.


    Lastly, it was a marketing dream to have Suarez's son and daughter wearing the LFC kit. I was watching the game with a few friends and one of them said she was going to purchase the little girls kit for her daughter and Benja's kit for her brother's newborn due in February.


    Whomever told Suarez he shouldn't bring his son and daughter on the pitch was absolutely shortsighted.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Suarez looks up to Stevie who by the way got involved in a punch up in a wine bar and the club backed him and didn't sell him off for being a naughty boy, I'm sure he wasn't supposed to be in a wine bar fighting with people....that Steven Gerrard just does what ever he likes...the little scamp

    ReplyDelete
  61. Wow! You really have it in for him. If you wanted to show some balance, you could at least put the entire quote. After the "like it or not", he goes on "in the end they understood, and it was a nice moment". This would imply that there was a discussion, and agreement - not "blatant disrespect" or "sticking two fingers up at the club."
    He also had some fine words about Stevie G, but no mention of those.
    I think it's painfully clear that no matter what he does, he can never vindicate himself for some people.
    Even the Telegraph's headline is "Suarez WOULD have defied club", not DEFIED.
    It has no end - next article "Suarez leaves the seat up"???

    ReplyDelete
  62. Wow..I can hear Joe Hill turning in his grave...sit down and do as your told little employee! Don't you dare challenge the bossman's instructions...

    ReplyDelete
  63. He didn't ignore the club; they AGREED BEFOREHAND. Jamie is saying he should not have said he would do it anyway. In the end though, the club agreed, so Jamie is accusing LS of believing he is bigger than the club.
    You can tell that this is true because, for instance, when he wanted to leave in the summer, and BR banished him to train alone, he ignored that and refused. Oh, hang on...... Maybe he doesn't believe that.
    JK can claim he does again now though, because he insisted he wanted to bring his kids and took his original refusal to a higher authority to get approval. Oh yes, what a prima donna eh?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Why should I include quotes about Gerrard? The have absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making. Plus, this is about a pattern of behaviour, not just ONE thing, i.e. Suarez repeatedly ignoring the club's wishes on various things.

    As for 'Suarez leaves the seat up' - I already posted that article last year.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Well yeah but what the hell does Tom Werner know about what the club wants..

    ReplyDelete
  66. I hope we enable his arse all the way to the Champions League next season..

    ReplyDelete
  67. I agree with Suarez in this particular situation purely for the reason that why shouldn't players be allowed to bring their children on the pitch? What harm can it possibly cause? It's a silly principle so in this situation I agree with Suarez or any other player for wanting to do it, and I think ultimately the club agreed too

    ReplyDelete
  68. Slow news day in JK towers. A non-story. Dress it up how you will, but we all see through it. Maybe you should write one about Agger hitting fan with ball in frustration at being left out of Liverpool first team.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Suarez is bigger than the club. He can do/say whatever he wants and the club/fans will let him get away with it.

    Over the summer, Rodgers specifically requested that he not discuss LFC business in public, or whilst on international duty. Did he listen? No chance.

    Ignoring the club's wishes is an ongoing pattern of behaviour with Suarez. I agree in this instance that issue involved is not a big deal, but that's not the point; it's the principle at stake, and another example of refusing to follow the club's wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Right, and even if he did mind, he'd come out and say that in public, right? No.

    ReplyDelete
  71. repeatedly ignoring the club's wishes on various things? like what?

    ReplyDelete
  72. I think he meant 50+ million pounds

    ReplyDelete
  73. * Ignoring Dalglish's request that he shake Evra's hand.

    * Repeatedly ignoring BR's explicit instruction over the summer to refrain from talking about 'LFC business' whilst on international duty.

    ReplyDelete
  74. yes and Agger repeatedly goes against the club wishes by making the odd bad pass or being out of position sometimes and not scoring enough from corners....oh his tattoos are a bad example to the young fans, but he's our vice captain so we'll let him away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Making a mountain out of a mole hill ....

    EMBARASSING !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Jamie do you not think you are going a bit far? Suarez was sent to train with the kids. He is not untouchable. He was told in no uncertain terms he would not be allowed to leave and he wasn't. He has come back and got his head down and worked hard, unlike past players. I haven't read much of the site recently so not sure if you have highlighted any of this. To say that Suarez does what he wants and is bigger than the club is stretching it a little. If that was the case he would be playing in North London now. As for Ferguson and Mourinho. Ferguson new how important Rooney was and let him get away with things no other player under him has and Mourinho was openly mocked in the Spanish press by his own players all who seem to still be there.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Or "they understood in the end". Sounds like an amicable outcome after they appreciated just what it meant to Luis. Is this just a heartwarming story of family love spoilt by hardbitten journalism?

    ReplyDelete
  78. The comical thing is, is that since his return this is the first cricisism lodged at him. Nobody had a word to say about the past 3 games of his performances on the pitch, his behaviour or otherwise, but insisting on bringing his newborn son on the pitch is now a big deal.
    I think he's beend doing what's been asked of him, and that's letting his footballl do the talking.

    ReplyDelete
  79. It's not news now. Just one man and his witch hunt :-)

    ReplyDelete
  80. Thats a personal choice IMO, club pays him to play...not what he should or should not do regarding shaking hands or giving interviews....

    ReplyDelete
  81. Good points, but given Suarez's history at LFC, stretching back to the one-fingered salute at Fulham, and the Evra incident, it's clear to me that Suarez is bigger than the club. If he wasn't, LFC would've got rid of him months ago, just like Ajax did after the Bakkal bite incident.

    As for Rooney, he is the exception to the rule. Ferguson dumped the likes of Stam, Beckham, Keane etc without hesitation, and the players at Madrid can say what they like because their collective power will always outweigh the influence of the manager, whoever it is.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Don't worry, Liverpool fans love him and you can see that at Anfield. Jaimie represents very small, may be, 0.01% of fans. I wouldn't think too much about the article itself.

    ReplyDelete
  83. why don't you focus on things that matter rather than this campaign against Suarez...? this blog remains the most negative regarding LFC I have come across, and I include Manc blogs ...

    ReplyDelete
  84. Jamie settle down and enjoy watching his brilliant football, Robbie Fowler wasn't any where near angel for all his professional career on or of the pitch, yet we call him god and is now on our coaching staff with our youngsters.

    ReplyDelete
  85. If you read the interview it was given in the US with Oliver Holt just a couple of hours after the Crystal Palace match...therefore the comment was made days before Suarez mentioned what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Werner is 63? Doesn't look it...

    ReplyDelete
  87. OK I give in. To be honest you are pobably right again. If he signs another contract they will probably rename Anfield as the Suarez Stadium and give him control over the first team selection.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ha Ha unbelievable. And you say other people ignore things which don't support their argument.
    Werner said he got "a kick " out of Suarez doing what he did. That would CLEARLY show that the club were happy for him to do it, not doing it under duress.
    Yet , based on a quote from LS (one line actually) you can conclude that this is a clear point of principle and massive disrespect.
    Rubbish. Clearly. Nobody saw this as anything but positive on Suarez' part.
    Except you. . To you this was terrible.
    Only soldier in step AGAIN. Just as you like it, I suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  89. If it helps him to focus on his football and avoid biting or racially abusing people then ultimately it is for the best. It would be better to say 'the club says no so you're not doing it' but if the company you worked for pulled that line you or I would be really unimpressed and possibly not score a very important goal in the first half (or knock out a particularly impressive spreadsheet in the morning, depends what you do for a living) - in which case everyone loses, the player, the club, the management.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Given what you think about Suarez Jaimie, you've got to believe he'll give you a better excuse to have a go him then this non-story.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I can see that - but for all the criticisim and analysis there has been over the past few games plenty to say about most of the team, for Suarez, not a peep.
    Now it's all diabolical intent in him bringin his kids on the pitch before kick off.
    At least JK doesn't include a paragraph about "10 game ban.. ..biting Ivanovic" every time he mentions his name.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Seeing as how the club eventually did agree, how did Suarez disrespect the club? Because he said he would do it "like it or not"?


    But the club did "like" it because they agreed to it.


    Sorry to say, but I simply disagree with this assertion that he disrespected the club on this particular occasion.

    He's done it elsewhere (you listed the occasions in another post below), but this is not the same since the club knew about it beforehand.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I'm not sure how to respond to that :-)

    ReplyDelete
  94. Yes, I'm afraid this is true, whatever he says there is no consistency. Kenny's comment is true though. LFC management have be pragmatic when they see what's at stake.
    Also, despite breaking the club policy, management may have seen this as a better opportunity for the fans to warm to Suarez, than him going out onto the pitch on his own. Pragmatism again.
    Jaimie, you've been trying to wish us rid of Suarez for such a looooooong time now. What you gonna do if we qualify for Champs League and he stays another season?
    Yet another Suarez non-story. Please give it a rest.

    ReplyDelete
  95. JK this has to be the most tedious go at LS yet, It really is a storm in a tea cup and you are the one who owns the tea cup lol. Lets have a post saying how well LS has done since he's returned from his ban eh?

    ReplyDelete
  96. There is absolutely no comparison between Suarez and Fowler. Did Fowler bite people? Dive and stamp regularly? Deliberately use his hand in a world cup quarter-final? Make quasi-racial remarks on the field, then refuse to shake hands? Get repeatedly banned? No. Fowler is actually renowned for fair play on the field, so there is no comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Quite frankly, I suggest you read it again. I didn't say you were telling the club anything.
    I said that in order for this to be the massive point of principle you claim, one would have to believe that their take on the issue was more relevant than the club's.

    ReplyDelete
  98. If a player says I'm going to do this 'like it or not', what can the club do? He's indicated that he will ignore the club's wishes irrespective of what they want, that is the point. In that situation, Suarez forces the club to either accede or contest, and in this situation, it was obvious LFC would give in.

    Forcing the club to give in after you basically say 'like it or lump it' is not something that should be encouraged or lionised (IMO)

    ReplyDelete
  99. Damn, I knew I'd left something out. *Hits edit button* ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  100. No, the club showed the power they had in keeping him, despite this upsetting him. Letting him take his kids out onto the pitch is a small concession, but if it makes Suarez a little happier with the management, how is that a bad thing?
    Might help him decide to stay when we get Champs League at end of season. (Oh no, I forgot, you don't want that do you?)

    ReplyDelete
  101. Quite possibly.
    Still, Suarez stories generate lots more interest than others. Maybe JK is just being pragmatic. The last Suarez story generated more responses than the last 5 put together... that, as JK likes to say with anti LS stats , is an irrefutable fact

    ReplyDelete
  102. well true on defying the club .....but u must admit it did make liverpool look good in the end it shows we are the most human club .....unlike a certain manchester in which the fans get kicked by the players :P

    ReplyDelete
  103. Suarez didn't ignore the initial request. He put a strong case forward and LFC accepted his position. There is a difference. If no one at LFC gave him permission then you would have a point.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Straws...clutching...

    ReplyDelete
  105. I'm just sayin take the good with the bad. In the case wasn't really much bad - a little defiance resolved amicably. But on the good side, calming down, concentrating on playing, praise for stevie and the fans, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Suarez haters will try and dredge up anything and are anxiously waiting for him to slip up. I wonder what they will all say if Suarez lights up the league and guides LFC to Champions league place or hopefully the league title.

    ReplyDelete
  107. He is as entitled to feel Suarez should be shown the door as others are to believe he should stay; I don't have a problem with JK wanting Suarez gone.
    The problem I have with this piece is the portrayal of something that probably happens all the time with players ( differences of opinion on certain issues) as such a massive point of principle and blatent disrespect.
    No matter how much he insists otherwise, I personally don't believe this article would have appeared at all if it were someone else

    ReplyDelete
  108. They might generate interest, but they don't do the credibilty of the writer much good. He's been on producing some great stuff lately, other than defending Hodgson's tenure :-). Our number 7 seems to bring out the worst him...

    ReplyDelete
  109. The summer showed quite clearly that Suarez IS NOT bigger than the club.
    If he was, he'd be at Arsenal right now.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Fine. But neither you or I know whether he changed the mind of a single person or group by petulantly insisting he would do it anyway, or simply stood his ground and took the decision higher.
    That's why the stance you take requires a massive assumption on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  111. True, and it's not just here. Any Suarez story will generate attention. The BBC has had simultaneous HYS stories on Suarez generating 2000+ and 3000+ comments each. He is by far the subject that garners the most discussion in English football at the moment. Rooney, Bale, Moyes, Mourinho, and Janasjazz(whatever!) combined do not generate as much discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I agree with your reply. I don't mind Jaimie wanting Suarez gone. It's just frustrating that he would use this complete non-story as yet another excuse to add more (in this case petty and nonsense) reasons to justify his Suarez beef.
    I would love it if Suarez stayed until retirement as a permanent fixture in a resurgent LFC, bringing back the success levels we enjoyed in the 70s and 80s.
    Mainly, because I'd love Suarez to stay, but also just to get up Jaimie's nose.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Which is why I asked. He was asked a question about bringing his kids onto the pitch and he answered it in all honesty. It's not like he decided to show how big of a man he was by volunteering this information to the world like you imply. It also shows from the interview that he discussed the matter with the club and they allowed him to bring his kids on. Ergo, a consensus (that's a GROUP decision) was reached which in turn means everyone involved agreed that an exception would be made this time. I'm sure it had a lot to do with his kid only being a week old and that he shouldn't expect to be doing this every week. Had he said f you and just walked onto the pitch, you would have had a point. The only proof there out there though, being his own FULL quotes and Werner's, suggests that you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  114. That's ironic since the only person misquoting him is you :-)

    ReplyDelete
  115. Once again Kanwar, you come up with an "agenda" post. This practice is a really big issue is South American football. We are in a period of mutual conciliation (whether you believe we should be the case is a different issue). This gesture did no harm and it was good that it happened and weird that it was refused. I'm happy for any Liverpool player to do this if they want to. If this was Gerrard doing it, you wouldn't have activated your predictable trigger finger.
    You've spoken a lot of sense recently which has surprised and pleased me. As a result, I've started to read a lot more of your posts. Don't turn me and a lot of others off by you getting weird hard-ons about things that make you look a bit silly.

    ReplyDelete
  116. LFC agreed to it because it's not a big deal and they realized how important it was to the player... and I stress again... it wasn't a big deal.


    This isn't the same situation as when he told Kenny that he would shake Evra's hand and then didn't. That was a big deal.


    You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill. There's a reason why there's only one other person on this thread that's agreed with you here.


    If for every 10 people, 9 disagree with your view on this particular event, there's probably a good reason for it.

    ReplyDelete
  117. No, he'd probably say it was a matter for BR and the management team. There would be absolutely NO need to embellish and say he got "a kick" out of it.
    But he did.

    ReplyDelete
  118. He's a player that club sees to can push us for CL and make our chances stronger, you know its same as a student who scores the best in his studies isn't punished for most of the crimes he does because he's an asset to the organization.

    ReplyDelete
  119. i read this yesterday and I knew that you would bring it up! Probably some guys didnt want him to take them out for health and safety or insurance reasons! Its nae big deal and if you look at it positively he thinks the fans and the club are important enough for him to show of his children! Remember if his kids are happy here then it will strengthen his bond with us. One gets the feeling thee will rejoice when and if he leaves us!

    ReplyDelete
  120. Liverpool fc can't afford to lose Suarez. Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I am afraid you missed the point. It's not about him bringing his children to the pitch, which was cute, but it's about the fact that he was told not to do so and he still did it.
    He has a patern and history of disobeying the club and he did it again. LFC have their reasons for giving him those instructions.
    Most likely for security reasons. Gerrard doe not have a known history of disobeying the club like Suarez does, it's just the principle.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Dude Write about something substantive!!

    ReplyDelete
  123. Jamie, we get that you dont like Suarez. Move on.

    ReplyDelete
  124. He owns the club that's all he needs to know..

    ReplyDelete
  125. Everybody enjoyed the day out, Suarez, his kids, the fans, the players, we took 3 points. We are all happy apart from JK.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I am sure Suarez is the only one in the entire FC world that does what they want right???

    ReplyDelete
  127. Such a lousy article.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I don't write stuff to appease people or keep them onside; I write what I think, and if that turns people off, so be it.



    Sent from Samsung Mobile

    -------- Original message --------

    ReplyDelete
  129. Jeez, when will people finally get it :-) I'm not interested in whether I have 'credibility'; I just write what I think, and if people don't like it, that's their choice.

    Sent from Samsung Mobile

    -------- Original message --------

    ReplyDelete
  130. Then why didn't you make your point before you waded in with the bad attitude? Given that your point is a classic "my mate told me that he was told that someone heard..." it's probably not quite as definitive as you think.

    ReplyDelete
  131. he does what he wants he does what he wants he is Luis Suarez and he does what he wants

    ReplyDelete
  132. By credibility, I meant you write some really good balanced and interesting articles, but when it comes to Suarez that often goes out of the window (and i don't think you're writing about Suarez just to generate responses!). In the same way,we "Saurez apologists" :-) have over-defended his actions at times are brought our credibilty into question.

    ReplyDelete
  133. With respect, that's hardly definitive. Plus, it doesn't change the fact that LFC told Suarez not do something, and he decided he'd go ahead and do it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  134. I'm very happy with the club's performance. Suarez is not the club, he is an individual.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Next time Suarez want's to do something like showing his baby to everyone at Anfield and literally saying "look i'm human, i'm a parent and i know iv'e made mistakes ", he should write and ask jk if it's ok wouldn't want to offend him.

    ReplyDelete
  136. islesfan - the UK public made sure Mr Blobby and Fireman Sam got to number 1 in the charts; doesn't mean it's good music though, or that the majority got it right (!)

    I'm not bothered whether people agree with me. If I was, I'd be kowtowing and constantly writing stuff to appease the majority.

    Strip away all the emotion of the situation; the kids etc, the bottom line is LFC told Suarez to do something, and he said no, thus putting the club in an awkward, untenable situation.

    It's not a mountain out of a molehil; it's the latest incident in a long-running pattern of behaviour, and it will not be the last.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Right. Over the last two seasons, LFC have a win record of 37% with Suarez in the team. Clearly, he's irreplaceable. No striker in world football could improve on a win ratio of 3 out of 10.

    ReplyDelete
  138. There's no assumption:

    * Suarez states: LFC 'told me I was not going to go with them'. This establishes that the club specifically said NO to taking his child on the pitch.

    * Suarez then states: 'I told them I would, like it or not'. This establishes that Suarez:

    a) Defied the original request.

    b) Made it clear he would do as he pleased, irrespective of the club's wishes.

    At this point, LFC has no choice but to let him do what he wants. What is the alternative? Drop him? Make a big deal out of it and fall foul of the emotional element (i.e. children)

    The fact he said 'like it or not' shows belligerence; an obvious 'If you don't like it, touch luck' attitude.

    If LFC had stood their ground, Suarez would've still done as he pleased, so again, the club had no choice but to acquiesce.

    The idea that there was a nice conversation where Suarez persuaded the club and everyone ended up happy is, IMO, fanciful at best. LFC gave in to avoid another public spat with Suarez.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Jimmy Mcnulty: "F**k the bosses".

    I actually have to say it's a positive one from Suarez. Very full of life from him. What can you say, the man is in peace with his god. I like him.

    ReplyDelete
  140. It cant be Club policy..i have seen Carra.. Shelvey.. Gerrard bring their kids onto pitch......
    For christs sake all them kid 'mascots' always walk on pitch with players..kids are kids and whats the difference.
    Even when Suarez was in the stands..always had his daughter with him,i dont see a problem.
    LFC have always promoted a 'family' image..would be hypocritical to then have some policy against children??
    Why not write an article about media intruding on family life when its not wanted then??

    ReplyDelete
  141. Slow day at the office eh Jamie? Jesus the fact that he showed his kid to the crowd tells me he is trying to tell the fans where his head and probably his heart too.

    ReplyDelete
  142. So it wasn't "on the pitch during the recent home game" and it wasn't that his kids were there, it was that HE was there. Mind you that at any one time before the match, there are probably dozens of people on the pitch (maintenance, security, etc.)...they just aren't the players.

    ReplyDelete
  143. No - but he did make homophobic gestures and comments to Graeme Le Saux and pretend to snort a line of coke on the football field!!

    Mind you, the biggest outrage he caused was when he dyed his hair.... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  144. So should get rid of all those Engand players thatgo on a night out or involved in card schools when they are told not to??
    Or when clubs tell players about 'respect' campaign and not t have a go at refs but they still do?? Get rid is what you are saying.. Like Moyes is going to get rid of Young for diving because the manager has told him not to..

    ReplyDelete
  145. Yup just like whe FA turned a blind eye at Shearer when he kicked that Leicster player in the face..

    ReplyDelete
  146. thexcuriousxwanderer5:48 pm, October 09, 2013

    I think what Suarez has with a club is a relationship. Now that relationship should go both ways, just like any other one. This is not a slave master relationship (especially true in football), but one between humans.

    Now it happened like this. The club said, "Hey let's not do this, no one's done this before." He said, "Like it or not they're coming with me, (they help me play/concentrate better.)" The club then said OK (because without their approval they wouldn't be on the pitch would they?)

    Now it seems to me, the "like it or not" has been blown out of proportion. It could be a translation error, it could be figurative (sounds to me he is just insistent, no one would rush out their kids if security was adamant at keeping them out anyway). His request was not unreasonable too, and wouldn't Liverpool let him do this gesture which would help him player better anyway? Why should Liverpool's reasonable gesture be the only one be allowed to stand? Think of it more like a strong counteroffer, and it was ultimately accepted, without ill will.


    Here's another perspective: In a corporate world, he would have been lauded, because he is taking the initiative to increase his own productivity. Why shouldn't his attitude be viewed as a positive in the football world as well, especially if it is part of the SA tradition?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Steven Gerrard brought his kids on the field with him for his testimonial so it's not like it's not been done before.


    The club agreed to let Suarez bring the kids on the field. It was a nice gesture on the club's part to agree to let him do it.


    Instead of turning this into a negative about Suarez somehow disrespecting the club, how about turning this into a positive of the club doing a nice thing for the player after some reconsideration (even when they don't owe him anything).


    There are times when you are absolutely right that Suarez does the wrong thing and the club kowtow's towards him. The whole Evra situation is proof of that.


    But look at the most recent bad events:


    1. He dives against Stoke. Admits it. And is then excoriated by Rodgers.
    2. He bites Ivanovic. Excoriated by Rodgers again.
    3. Whores himself out to the highest bidder essentially saying "Come Get Me". Excoriated by Rodgers and John Henry. Sent to train in solitude.


    After all of this, the club showing that they will not tolerate his behavior by giving him what he wants... this is the example that you use to get your point across: Luis Suarez wanting to bring his kids on the field "like it or not" and after the club first resisted, but then agreed that it was OK.


    You've made several sound and strong arguments before. I'm afraid to say that this particular situation is a reach for your overall argument.

    ReplyDelete
  148. First i've heard of it. Can't imagine he was told not to, who told him? Also if Suarez was bigger than the club, he would have gone to Arsenal in the summer.

    ReplyDelete
  149. walter white rules

    ReplyDelete
  150. LOL, as soon as I heard about this I knew there would be something about it on this website.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Irrelevant but wow, Harry Wilson in the Wales squad!

    ReplyDelete
  152. Jesus, what the hell has happened to you J-Dog? You've just let this thing turn into the Daily Mail of blogs, haven't you?

    If you want to talk about players being 'bigger than the club', then surely Steven Gerrard's continued insistence upon being played in a position where he's less effective, and his obvious influencing of the manager's tactics, would be a more pertinent and poisonous example than our top scorer of last season asking to bring his kids onto the pitch for the pre-match build-up.

    But I suppose that kind of sh*t won't get you clicks, will it?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Jaimie I think you're making a bigger issue out of this than it is. LFC probably said it wasn't a good idea and he chose not to listen. It's hardly like he broke a curfew, threw a dart at someone etc. In comparison to a lot of disciplinary troubles players get themselves into this is hardly a big deal. In fact all it does is show him to be the family man that he is, if it was Stevie doing this you wouldn't have written this article. You seem hell bent on hounding our players as soon as they don't live up to your upstanding principles, they're human just like us and if the worst they're doing is bringing their children onto the pitch then I don't really care. GIVE THE GUY A BREAK, if he gets us into the top 4 then you won't be complaining...

    ReplyDelete
  154. I'm imagining the conversation went a little like this:


    Suarez - 'I'd like to take my daughter and new son out at Anfield to introduce them to the crowd and celebrate his birth, my return to Anfield and hopefully show everyone I'm committed to the club.'


    Club - 'Well, we don't normally allow that apart from in exceptional circumstances like winning a cup, last game of the season or for the club.'


    Suarez - 'It would really mean a lot to me and I think it would help me reconnect with the fans. Hopefully it would show that although I wanted to move on in the summer, I know this is my home for now.'


    Club - 'Well ok, this once we'll allow it.'


    You're right Jaimie, what an utter scumbag!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  155. The Dark Joe Allen7:44 pm, October 09, 2013

    OMG! Suarez is actually a football player with independent thinking! I wonder how come he's such a unique and great football player.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I think the issue here isnt that Suarez ignored the clubs wishes, it's that the consequences of ignoring those wishes were insignificant. If anything it showed a softer side to Suarez and gave the media a positive story about him and Liverpool for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  157. You keep saying you write what you think whether people like it or not, but of you keep writing stories like this then you won't have a site at all because people won't want to visit it. Judging by the comments 99% of the people on here disagree with you saying this article isn't worth publishing, and I am one of them, so in theory if you we're to keep producing articles like this and the same amount of people kept on disagreeing you not think that the majority of this 99% would consider finding other sites that produce good articles with a comments section that splits opinion 50-50 rather than yours which as I said seems to be 99 to 1, without us you wouldn't have this site so give us something worth reading or risk losing your career/hobby whatever it is

    ReplyDelete
  158. Why do you think any of this bothers me?

    This site is now in its seventh year; if people wanted to leave, they would've done so already. Visitors are entitled to disagree, and that's fine. I'm not just going to stop posting what I genuinely think just because people disagree with me.

    If people want to leave and find other sites, that's up to them. And with the greatest respect, this site doesn't exist for me to serve you; unlike other sites, I'm not interested in pleasing the majority, or posting generalised opinions that back up the status quo. I post what I think, and if people don't like it, that's fine with me.

    If you or anyone else doesn't think the site is 'worth reading' then there are hundreds of other LFC sites out there for you.

    The truth is, if no one visited this site, it wouldn't change anything; I'd still write the same stuff, just like I did in the beginning, when the site had no visitors.

    This site has a very specific, individual editorial voice, and it will continue to do so, irrespective of whether people agree with it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Ah if we can restrict him to this kind of misconduct til we sell him in the summer I'll be happy.... :)

    ReplyDelete
  160. My past posting history refutes your belief. I don't have favourites, and I was highlighting stuff like this about various players long before Suarez arrived on the scene.

    You say this sort of thing 'probably happens all the time'. If that's true, you should be able to find 3 examples of LFC players publicly stating they defied the club's wishes on something. That should be easy if it happens all the time, no?

    ReplyDelete
  161. There is no 'group' decision. Suarez told LFC he was going to do it regardless of what they thought, so the club gave-in. That is evident from Suarez's quotes. What else were LFC supposed to do but give in to his wishes?

    ReplyDelete
  162. If he didn't ignore the request, why did he say 'I TOLD them I was going to do it, like it or not' ? That is ignoring LFC's wishes and basically saying it's my way or the highway.

    ReplyDelete
  163. I think you are well within your right to have an opinion, but what I'm challenging is that your opinion shouldn't always be turned into an article, like this one as it makes you look bad as a journalist and shows you have no real stories to actually publish on this site, if I was to come on here and read something interesting and worth my time I would comment on how well you have done as I have done in the past on numerous occasions, but on this occasion I think you have been lazy and just looked for anything to create a discussion, I respect your site and realise I may have been a bit harsh in my words but as you say 'I'm just expressing my opinion'

    ReplyDelete
  164. Next time, express your opinion without resorting to personal insults, or your comment will be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Where is the personal insult?

    ReplyDelete
  166. Read your previous comment. Attack the argument, not the person.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Everything I have discussed is to do with your work as a journalist not you as a person so I don't think I have insulted you personally, I have though, questioned your methods as a journalist

    ReplyDelete
  168. A father of a player wants to bring his new born son into the field, you can't take everything seriously everytime! Lets say its just an affection and a happy man introducing his son to the world. LFC permitted it in the end, the fans are happy seeing him. The only thing is Suarez is just too honest in saying everything. He never thought what he were saying as wrong and i dont see any wrong this time either. He's from a poor background family, the mentality was not much different. Just too honest and dont find any wrong i what he's saying. End of story

    ReplyDelete
  169. I completely agree, and that is what I have done :)

    ReplyDelete
  170. get with the programme jimmy .....its yin and yang suarez is jaimies mr glass they cant exist without each other

    ReplyDelete
  171. that sounds like a result all round

    ReplyDelete
  172. Any reason my message wasn't added?

    ReplyDelete
  173. The Daily Mail of blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Tell me where I'm wrong here...


    According to your argument, Liverpool approved Luis Suarez to disrespect the club while they couldn't do anything to stop him because they were afraid of getting into a public row with a player that they've had at least three different public incidents in the past year.

    Just to help me better understand your argument:

    Four things:

    1. He disrespected the club...

    2. The club kowtowed (gave in) to his demand because they had no choice

    3. The club couldn't do anything to stop him

    4. The club was afraid of another public spat with the player

    Now I'm going to try and address this one by one:

    1. The club agreed to let him do it. Albeit not at first evidently, but they still agreed in the end. Hence no disrespect towards the club.

    2. You accuse the club of letting him get away with it but quickly follow it up by saying that they couldn't do anything to stop it. How exactly would SAF or Mourinho have stopped it then?

    3. Easy. Security doesn't let the kids anywhere near the field. Or they don't start him.

    4. After publicly chastising him, banishing to train alone, and publicly stating that they were not going to sell him for any price to anyone... does anyone really think the club is afraid of another public spat with Luis Suarez? I don't.

    Finally, Tom Werner comes out and says that it was nice to see this happen.

    The bottom line is this: LFC, while at first disagreeing with the idea, eventually approved it.

    ReplyDelete
  175. I saw it as a gesture of good faith - first game back at Anfield after the summer shinanigans and suspension, him bringing his son on the pitch to show the Anfield faithful that he and his family are fully vested with the club and the city.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Yeah the damage was done early on in the Daglish administration. The relationship between Suarez and Liverpool was defined back then. Under Kenny it was established that Luis Suarez was in charge and that Liverpool would bend over backwards in order to accommodate the Uruguayan. So it is hopeless to think now in this later stage that anything would be different. Just like it is when you fail to discipline your kids when they are young it becomes harder to discipline them when they become older. Mistakes made by Liverpool under Kenny will now make it hard for the club to control the Uruguayan. As long as Suarez can continue to find the back of the net he will always be given carte blanche to do what he likes.


    We recently saw Suarez banished to training with the reserves in the preseason . This action only came about after Suarez had had a field day with the press saying a lot of detrimental things about his club while at the same time praising a rival club (Real Madrid). Don't think the great Shankly would have let matters even get that far. Mourinho, and Sir Alex would have punished Suarez long before his media outbursts or at least fined him heavily. What we saw was a desperate man hanging on to a priced asset due to the fact that he knew he could not replace the player in the transfer market. All this meant was that Rodgers was going to put up with the players hi-jinx till he could bring in the right type of player. We have to give him credit for trying to do just that with Athletico Madrid's Deigo Costa.


    Suarez knows that the club needs him more than he needs the club and this has put him in a very powerful position. The incident in which he came on to the pitch holding his new born son is just another example of the player exercising his power. Jones, Allen, Lucas and any other players with really young kids could not disobey the rules concerning their newborn and get away with it unscathed but Suarez knew he could that is the difference here.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Just remember... for all the talent that Luis Suarez has... and for all the begging he did to leave this summer...


    Only two bids came in... both from Arsenal... which in my opinion was all a show for their fans.

    ReplyDelete
  178. I think everyone around the world who saw Suarez bringing his new born son to the field for the pre-match handshakes won't see it as a lack of respect. Off all the disrespectful things Suarez has done this can only be seen as a protest for a good cause. Like how people protest the government on certain laws and policies, or how teachers go on strike because classroom sizes are unmanageable. Here is a Suarez, a family man, showing his utmost happiness to the general public for his newborn son. Why don't we keep it at that and not act bitter?!?!!? Hes scoring goals for fun, and has given Liverpool a boost since coming back.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Who said don't was it BR or was it the tea lady ... Perspective needed

    ReplyDelete
  180. Does anyone remember Thomas Brolin. Got fat and sat on his paycheque for Leeds Utd. Some people will still be bitter of Suarez no matter how hard he plays on the pitch. His workrate is second to none in the Liverpool team. He is a proffessional, and yeah sure he had instances where off the pitch he could have acted better, but on the pitch he counteracts that. But I guess scoring a goal to get Liverpool going vs Palace isn't enough for bringing his new born son on the pitch for a kind (I mean disrespectful) gesture.

    ReplyDelete
  181. exactly probably some jobs worth trying to make a name for himself it wouldnt be rogers as he has enough problems with his own kids without worrying about any one elses

    ReplyDelete
  182. if suarez and tino go so be it.....fans get to hung up on players when in reality them being on the pitch has very little outcome to the results...at a big club and Liverpool is a big club it shouldn't matter as other players come in..or to put it as one door closes another opens

    ReplyDelete
  183. Your posting history on Suarez supports my belief. Care to guess what the ratio of critical to supportive posts of yours is?
    I'd be surprised if it wasn't high 90's %
    Suarez is the only player who you seem utterly unable to be unbiased about.

    ReplyDelete
  184. But that fact cannot be used to predict how results are going to pan out in the future.
    You said so yourself.
    File that one under 'misplaced sarcasm'

    ReplyDelete
  185. The sooner he is sold, the better. We really don't need him, no matter what all the sheeple Liverpool fans believe. The results show it.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Peter from Perth WA1:04 am, October 10, 2013

    Jesus, get a life, you are beginning to sound like a bitter ex-wife..

    ReplyDelete
  187. I'm with Suarez on this one. LFC is not some holy, perfect, untouchable institution. The club's "people" make mistakes and have silly ideas on things just like the rest of us. The notion that taking his kids on the pitch would not be in the best interests of anyone is daft and in this instance I'd be right there with him, supporting his suggestion. The club (if we're to assume whomever Suarez initially asked represents "the club" as a whole) said something which Suarez disagreed with. That's not disrespect, it's just normal everyday life. It's not an indication that Suarez is some uncontrollable sociopath, in fact it's an indication that he's a man who holds his family very close and wants to share them with the club and the club with them. So in this instance I'd say very much that the club was in the wrong. Standing up for yourself and pushing your own agenda when the person you're talking with is clearly in the wrong is not "disrespect".


    "How is this anything other than blatant disrespect?" .... when it's just an employee making a request of his employer and not simply shirking away quietly when they initially say "no". No one takes everything their bosses say as perfect gospel and it's normal and expected that you disagree with them from time to time. In your world it seems you'd have us all saying "yes sir" and "no sir" and "sorry to bother you sir" for fear of "disrespecting" someone. Life doesn't work that way and people don't usually get their knickers in a twist when someone else asserts themselves in a contrary way. For someone who advocates an adversarial conversation you sure do seem very sensitive about an employee asserting himself.

    ReplyDelete
  188. He's a wee rebel chill out
    If you were Suarez you'd be a rebel too
    Maybe you are jealous of Suarez Jamie

    ReplyDelete
  189. It's crazy how 'youth' and 'potential' tends to cost so much more than 'experience' and 'proven quality'...

    ReplyDelete
  190. Yawn, So what. It's no big deal. If Tom Werner is OK with it then who cares, it's not important. Its like last week when you said it would be good news for Liverpool to sell Suarez in January. You just have an anti-Suarez agenda. Most fans love Suarez as a footballer, we want to see him in a liverpool shirt showing that he is one of the best footballers in the world. He is a fantastic footballer, a genius with the ball. And he's our player, as much as you would love him not to be. It does n't matter that he is highly strung or hard to manage, let Brendan Rogers worry about that, and support our players and our team, Leave out the continuous anti-Suarez agenda you have, and try and support the team.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Fergie went out of his way for his players that felt still needed. Remember he went personally to bail out Roy Keane from jail? So it is true, in any club the greater the player the more forgiveness latitude is given

    ReplyDelete
  192. You labour 'your point' Jaimie, and yes, we get it! But you even quoted King Kenny in your article yet missed his point completely. Or perhaps you think your point is more valid than his?

    It is extraordinarily naive to believe ANY club would not bend the rules for their best player but not for someone more replaceable. That happens in every line of business, not just football. Build a bridge and get over it!

    Perhaps you could do an article on why TPTB at the club even tried to stop our best player sharing a moment of joy with the fans!

    ReplyDelete
  193. Poor article written out of pure hatred. You are kind of contradicting yourself when you say that "the club showed massive weakness by undermining its own authority and acquiescing to his demands" and then saying that "I agree that bringing a child on to the pitch is not a big deal". Selling him to Arsenal would have been "acquiescing to his demands", letting him show off his new born to the fans is a non-issue. In every walk of life you have to choose your battles otherwise you waste too much resources/energy on non-issues and end up on the losing side when it really matters. For me the owners are choosing their battles very wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  194. I only care about the following:
    1. In he scoring goals
    2. Is he passing and not being overly selfish
    3. Is he avoiding stupid needless acts that cause bookings or suspensions,

    If yes to all three, then skip the trivial stuff about kids............this ain't the army. It's soccer.........

    ReplyDelete
  195. I've said it before, if everyone would stop commenting on JK's posts, may be it would stop him from writing this sort of nonsense , the guy clearly thrives on attention.

    YNWA

    ReplyDelete
  196. Mountain out of a molehill. I am certainly no Suarez apologist but this article is unreal. Its simply a tradition in South America>>> that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  197. No that's not evident from his quotes. What is evident from his quotes is that they had a discussion and they allowed him to bring his kid onto the pitch. If they felt so strongly about it, they could have just not played him. Clearly, the issue was a lot less important to them than it is to you. Then again, that's hardly a surprise since you're obsessed with the man.

    ReplyDelete