This is fact on RAWK.
Evra accuses Suarez of racist remarks | Suarez guilty of racial abuse
- Thread starter Feeky Magee
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
This is fact on RAWK.
They'd be lucky to get £50 for him at the moment as it is
5Live discussion at the moment basically saying the LFC owners shit themselves with negative stories appearing in the Boston Globe, New York Times etc and have sent word down from the top overriding the 100% support Dalgliesh has given to Suarez. Basically the discussion saying the apology is completely forced.
I reckon if SAF or someone else sneaks into the Liverpool dressing room, possibly by wearing one of those stocking masks that burgulars wear, and tamper with his shorts elastic, we could get him banned for indecent exposure during a game. This could lead to a custodial sentence and many months of hilarity by Kenny and the RAWKers reactions.
We could also deprive them of Andy Carroll by waving beer at him as he is running out of the tunnel, thus directly provoking him to go out that evening, get pissed and cause some kind of fracas
We could also deprive them of Andy Carroll by waving beer at him as he is running out of the tunnel, thus directly provoking him to go out that evening, get pissed and cause some kind of fracas
Playing Carroll is the biggest amount of damage that can be done to them.
I do sometimes think their club is cursed.
Literally nothing decent ever seems to happen to them.
And when it does it usually results in even more damage e.g. winning CL in '05 meant they put too much faith in Rafa who destroyed their club and seems to have ensured they'll not be at football's top table for the foreseeable.
Signing Suarez last season seemed to be a rare transfer master stroke for a club who are renowned for poor transfer dealing, but he's ended up bringing deep shame on the club and destroying the reputation of Dalglish, their hero.
Everytime they get new owners they're heralded as saviours and initially impress, but soon get shown to be inadequate or at odds with management leading to internal strife and disruption.
Literally nothing decent ever seems to happen to them.
And when it does it usually results in even more damage e.g. winning CL in '05 meant they put too much faith in Rafa who destroyed their club and seems to have ensured they'll not be at football's top table for the foreseeable.
Signing Suarez last season seemed to be a rare transfer master stroke for a club who are renowned for poor transfer dealing, but he's ended up bringing deep shame on the club and destroying the reputation of Dalglish, their hero.
Everytime they get new owners they're heralded as saviours and initially impress, but soon get shown to be inadequate or at odds with management leading to internal strife and disruption.
Andy Carroll. £35m 6'3" striker. Dominated in the air by a Brazilian cherub.
Yeah there's something rotten at that club and has been for years. An actual pathology... I do think institutions can have a kind of character and a kind of health, and in their case the whole club has a psychological disease.
Probably at the root of it is the success they had - there's a massive sense of entitlement and the failure of reality to conform with it results in paranoia and cognitive dissonance. It's something we should be wary of, because our success can't last forever.
That said, MikeUpNorth made the point the other day that becoming a PLC made us up our game and join the professional world in a way Liverpool didn't. The kind of thing we've seen from their PR and legal departments is inconceivable at United.
I think they've been 'smalltime' for decades. I don't mean that as an insult; rather, I mean that the philosophy & approach of the club is parochial. Communal spirit is all very well but, by definition, it means one often neglects the 'bigger picture', let alone a sense of genuine progress.
Yeah I think that's right. They have big-business yank owners, an team of internationals (plus Andy Carroll), and a world-wide fanbase, but the culture of the club is very parochial and inward-looking.
They're exactly as provincial as Man Utd, they just haven't won the league for 20 years.
I'd like to add to Plech's well worded comments that I think their shear hatred of anything Manchester United - not least our success, has twisted their view of reality, not least with the stance they have taken over the Suarez issue. They've acted disgracefully and when I say they I mean Suarez himself, Dalgliesh, the Liverpool based executives and a whole load of their fans. It's taken a big boot up the arse from their American owners to jolt them out of their entrenched stance. Clearly it's a forced apology and is a PR stunt to me rather than being heartfelt.
Lastly I wonder if the 'apologies' have come before the FA issue some kind of penalty to LFC.
No, I agree with Steve. The extent to which the club is rooted in the community and indeed is seen to define and embody that community is probably more pronounced at Liverpool than at any other premier league club. It's always seemed enviable to me. That and the boot-room culture they espoused. That narrowness of perspective seems to have survived the massive changes the game has seen over the last number of years. Time for them to step back and have a look at things.
Yeah we had less success in the seventies and eighties than they've had since they fell off, but we didn't crack like them. We had a drinking culture and some seedy politics but we didn't rot.
The community thing is double-edged as there is something very admirable about the strength of the bond between club and people, but the downside is they exemplify the bad sides of scouse culture (and there are good sides).
The community thing is double-edged as there is something very admirable about the strength of the bond between club and people, but the downside is they exemplify the bad sides of scouse culture (and there are good sides).
Does anyone else think that if Suarez had have said what he did to a player not representing Manchester United that he'd have been forced to apologise straight away, and things would never have gotten to this stage? I get the feeling Liverpool got caught up in the, quite wrong, feeling that it was them v United, rather than concerning themselves with a racist remark being made by their player. I think they allowed their judgement to be clouded by the fact that this involved Evra, Manchester United and "Mr" Ferguson.
I agree with you. Hatred clouded the issue and the more time went on the more Dalgliesh became entrenched. Suarez clearly is not a character to back to the hilt however Dalgliesh took his time to switch on to that fact. This intervention by LFC's US owners forcing Dalgliesh and Suarez to apologise is just that, a forced, empty apology. Dalgliesh wasn't for apologising when he was wearing one of those shite T-shirts was he.
nail on head.
always inward looking...and looking back.
Dalglish?
really? He proved he did not have the guts then......
Liverpool were really late to the whole commercialization of the game. Really, as the most successful club when the PL was formed they should've been in prime condition to be really big. I think United caught on to the whole "football is a business" idea really quickly. And Fergie's first great team being ready to win just as the PL was making it big was also great timing for us. The attitude of Liverpool's "we're better than this" fans didn't help.
Souness and Evans ofcourse didn't help. They had players like Redknapp, Fowler, Mcmanaman and Owen coming through from their youth system. Really should've been the base for winning atleast 1 title. Those were some really talented players.
Souness and Evans ofcourse didn't help. They had players like Redknapp, Fowler, Mcmanaman and Owen coming through from their youth system. Really should've been the base for winning atleast 1 title. Those were some really talented players.
McManamanamanaman was a useless curly haired feck. The rest were good mind.
To be fair to the sane LFC supporter (if any)
This is just an escalation of problems. They thought that Suarez was right and Evra's the lying cnut( which is understandable, we would have done the same if the situation's reversed). I'm not saying we will support racism, but we will believe Evra first and foremost.
Turns out they're wrong, and instead of just admitting that they are wrong, they wriggle struggle and finding all sorts of mock up evidence to prove otherwise. Hence leads to this circus of stupidity. I thoroughly enjoyed it though, Rawk's a box office entertainment at this time.
(i'm getting my cofffee and some more toffee)
This is just an escalation of problems. They thought that Suarez was right and Evra's the lying cnut( which is understandable, we would have done the same if the situation's reversed). I'm not saying we will support racism, but we will believe Evra first and foremost.
Turns out they're wrong, and instead of just admitting that they are wrong, they wriggle struggle and finding all sorts of mock up evidence to prove otherwise. Hence leads to this circus of stupidity. I thoroughly enjoyed it though, Rawk's a box office entertainment at this time.
(i'm getting my cofffee and some more toffee)
Suarez and Dalglish apologise after owners intervene
BBC Sport
Suarez was banned for eight matches for racially abusing Evra during the Premier League encounter at Anfield in October and his refusal to shake Evra's hand on Saturday contributed to an ill-tempered game. The Uruguay international continued: "I have not only let [Dalglish] down but also the club and what it stands for and I'm sorry. I made a mistake and I regret what happened.
"I should have shaken Patrice Evra's hand before the game and I want to apologise for my actions. "I would like to put this whole issue behind me and concentrate on playing football."
Reds boss Dalglish added on Sunday : "All of us have a responsibility to represent this club in a fit and proper manner. "That applies equally to me as Liverpool manager. "When I went on TV after yesterday's game I hadn't seen what had happened, but I did not conduct myself in a way befitting of a Liverpool manager during that interview and I'd like to apologise for that."
BBC Sport has subsequently learnt that the apologies "contained the input" of the club's American owners, Fenway Sports Group. "No-one is more important than the club. Apologies were necessary," said a senior source at Fenway.
Ian Ayre, Liverpool managing director "Luis Suarez was wrong to mislead us and wrong not to offer his hand to Patrice Evra. He has not only let himself down but also Kenny Dalglish, his team-mates and the club. It has been made absolutely clear to Luis Suarez that his behaviour was not acceptable"
However, the owners believe Suarez can salvage his Liverpool career if demonstrating "better judgement" in future, according to the source.
Manchester United also released a statement on Sunday which read:
"Manchester United thanks Liverpool for the apologies issued following Saturday's game. Everyone at Old Trafford wants to move on from this.
"The history of our two great clubs is one of success and rivalry unparalleled in British football. That should be the focus in the future of all those who love the clubs."
Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre also released a statement which read: "We are extremely disappointed Luis Suarez did not shake hands with Patrice Evra before yesterday's game. "The player had told us beforehand that he would, but then chose not to do so. "He was wrong to mislead us and wrong not to offer his hand to Patrice Evra. He has not only let himself down but also Kenny Dalglish, his team-mates and the club. "It has been made absolutely clear to Luis Suarez that his behaviour was not acceptable.
"Luis Suarez has now apologised for his actions, which was the right thing to do. "However, all of us have a duty to behave in a responsible manner and we hope he now understands what is expected of anyone representing Liverpool Football Club." Dalgish added: "Ian Ayre has made the club's position absolutely clear and it is right that Luis Suarez has now apologised for what happened at Old Trafford. "To be honest, I was shocked to hear that the player had not shaken hands having been told earlier in the week that he would do."
After the incident, United boss Sir Alex Ferguson called Suarez "a disgrace" and suggested he should never play for Liverpool again, while Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor described Suarez's conduct as "disrespectful, inappropriate and embarrassing".
Meanwhile, Sports Minister Hugh Robertson told Sky Sports News: "There is an issue that still needs to be tackled. "It goes beyond racism - you hear vile chanting about managers and opposition players. "I don't think that really has any place in modern society. If we don't accept on the high street, I see no reason why we should accept it in a football crowd."
BBC Sport
Suarez was banned for eight matches for racially abusing Evra during the Premier League encounter at Anfield in October and his refusal to shake Evra's hand on Saturday contributed to an ill-tempered game. The Uruguay international continued: "I have not only let [Dalglish] down but also the club and what it stands for and I'm sorry. I made a mistake and I regret what happened.
"I should have shaken Patrice Evra's hand before the game and I want to apologise for my actions. "I would like to put this whole issue behind me and concentrate on playing football."
Reds boss Dalglish added on Sunday : "All of us have a responsibility to represent this club in a fit and proper manner. "That applies equally to me as Liverpool manager. "When I went on TV after yesterday's game I hadn't seen what had happened, but I did not conduct myself in a way befitting of a Liverpool manager during that interview and I'd like to apologise for that."
BBC Sport has subsequently learnt that the apologies "contained the input" of the club's American owners, Fenway Sports Group. "No-one is more important than the club. Apologies were necessary," said a senior source at Fenway.
Ian Ayre, Liverpool managing director "Luis Suarez was wrong to mislead us and wrong not to offer his hand to Patrice Evra. He has not only let himself down but also Kenny Dalglish, his team-mates and the club. It has been made absolutely clear to Luis Suarez that his behaviour was not acceptable"
However, the owners believe Suarez can salvage his Liverpool career if demonstrating "better judgement" in future, according to the source.
Manchester United also released a statement on Sunday which read:
"Manchester United thanks Liverpool for the apologies issued following Saturday's game. Everyone at Old Trafford wants to move on from this.
"The history of our two great clubs is one of success and rivalry unparalleled in British football. That should be the focus in the future of all those who love the clubs."
Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre also released a statement which read: "We are extremely disappointed Luis Suarez did not shake hands with Patrice Evra before yesterday's game. "The player had told us beforehand that he would, but then chose not to do so. "He was wrong to mislead us and wrong not to offer his hand to Patrice Evra. He has not only let himself down but also Kenny Dalglish, his team-mates and the club. "It has been made absolutely clear to Luis Suarez that his behaviour was not acceptable.
"Luis Suarez has now apologised for his actions, which was the right thing to do. "However, all of us have a duty to behave in a responsible manner and we hope he now understands what is expected of anyone representing Liverpool Football Club." Dalgish added: "Ian Ayre has made the club's position absolutely clear and it is right that Luis Suarez has now apologised for what happened at Old Trafford. "To be honest, I was shocked to hear that the player had not shaken hands having been told earlier in the week that he would do."
After the incident, United boss Sir Alex Ferguson called Suarez "a disgrace" and suggested he should never play for Liverpool again, while Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor described Suarez's conduct as "disrespectful, inappropriate and embarrassing".
Meanwhile, Sports Minister Hugh Robertson told Sky Sports News: "There is an issue that still needs to be tackled. "It goes beyond racism - you hear vile chanting about managers and opposition players. "I don't think that really has any place in modern society. If we don't accept on the high street, I see no reason why we should accept it in a football crowd."
They can't and won't see yesterday's apologies as a sign of closure. Look at the comments on this blog which I have been arguing on this morning: Liverpool apologies seek to quell ugly echoes of Luis Suárez affair | Richard Williams | Football | The Guardian
Even now, they feel they need to balance things out by getting SAF to apologise and Evra castigated for his alleged 'part' in the affair which is all down to his 'previous'.
Apparently there were Liverpool t-shirts donned by supporters backing Suarez. What were they? and does anybody have a pic of them?
*1/2.
In honesty I don't read LFC fans comments tagged on to newspaper articles anymore. Vitriolic pro LFC bile which is so biased as to be so narrow minded and blinkered as a one eyed man looking down a 12ft length of drainpipe.
I'm more interested in what the wider media are saying now and LFC, Dalgliesh and Suarez are getting it big time. Dalgliesh dropped a big bollock having a go at that Sky reporter. This all makes their silly pro Suarez anti Manchester United drivel look all the sillier.
Sure we all know Sir Alex had a word in Torres' ear about leaving Liverpool. Clearly he was threatened by Torres potentially helping them restore themselves as Kings of England that he persuaded Torres to jump ship to Chelsea.
It's sad but I am convinced some Liverpool fans would believe that.
"And chants can be heard from the Old Trafford fans in celebration of the death of 96 Liverpool fans at Hillsborough 23 years ago." From The Guardian piece today. There is only one, 96 is not enough, if my hearing is working properly, and it needs to stop imo. Sing as loud as you like about Heysel but leave Hillsborough the feck alone.
I agree, these chants aren't on, but the guy writing that piece might have wanted to mention Liverpool and their baiting over Munich as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if two sets of fans are wrong, both should be pointed out.
Liverpool owner John W. Henry provoked into act of leadership as the cult of manager at Anfield is redressed
This was the most extraordinary 45 minutes in recent Anfield history since the second half in Istanbul. Luis Suarez apologises for refusing to shake Patrice Evra’s hand. Managing Director Ian Ayre condemns Suarez’s behaviour.
No sooner were the repercussions of this digested, manager Kenny Dalglish makes the most startling admission of all.
“I did not conduct myself in a way befitting of a Liverpool manager, and I’d like to apologise for that,” said Dalglish, referring to his post-match conduct at Old Trafford.
The most significant players in all this – Liverpool’s American owners – said nothing, and yet their influence was on every utterance. Behind the scenes, the whip was cracked.
Liverpool’s principal owner John W. Henry and chairman Tom Werner had every right to be furious with Saturday’s events.
On their recent visit they made their discontent with the club’s tarnished image known. They held heated meetings, and issued reminders of responsibilities.
One of the owners travelled to London to meet Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore in an attempt to build bridges with the hierarchy of English football.
For a week at the end of January, there was serenity. Henry and Werner then returned to America believing the worst was over after a dismal few months. Not for the first time in their reign, no sooner had they vacated the premises all hell breaks loose.
One is reminded of a scene in a classroom full of rowdy pupils, unwilling to listen to their timid supply teacher. The authoritative Deputy Head briefly enters, the room falls silent and everyone sits meekly back in their seats, fearing the hand of discipline.
Then the imposing figure departs, and the juveniles vacate their desks and start throwing paper planes at each other again.
Every time Henry and Werner return to United States, a crisis follows them. Each phone call and email sent across the Atlantic brings news of woe. The demand, even in the American media, was for them to sort it out.
Show leadership. Take a more proactive, hands-on role. Easy enough, you’d think. They do own the club, after all. If only the political mechanics of Liverpool Football Club allowed leaders to lead.
Fenway Sports Group’s desire to be more dynamic and authoritative in their approach has been constrained by a flawed ethos at Anfield.
It suggests: “There is a holy trinity between the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don’t come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques.”
It is over-simplistic, romantic drivel. Anyone who thinks former chairman John Smith, or ex-chief executive Peter Robinson contributed no more than ‘signing cheques’ in Liverpool’s golden era is reading the wrong history books.
Since Robinson left Anfield, the managers have been too powerful. First it was Gerard Houllier in the aftermath of the 2001 treble.
Then Rafa Benítez briefly had a contract giving him more power than any coach in Europe. Dalglish’s status eclipses the pair of them.
He is rightly loved for reasons thirty years in their construction, but he is also expected to live up to unattainable ideals of infallibility. It is too much, even for him.
Henry and Werner will never be held in the same regard as Dalglish, so they can never utter a word or issue a statement that may be interpreted as undermining him.
It is a sign of their astute leadership they have allowed both Suarez and Dalglish to admit their own mistakes rather than have to publicly point them out themselves.
The new Americans do not deserve to be spoken about in the same terms as Tom Hicks and George Gillett, but they know what happened to them and are still paying a price for the skewed culture of a club which has lived in fear of another populist uprising for too long.
Elements of Liverpool’s fan base believe it was they who forced out an unwanted regime and unpopular manager, and they can mobilise again should they believe similar circumstances exist under FSG.
For those who don’t trust FSG, that’s reassuring. For those who believe they deserve the chance to do it their own way and succeed or fail on their own terms, it’s debilitating.
Henry and Werner have assumed the right to exercise full executive control and guide the club in the direction they want.
Amid the squalor of Suarez’s conduct, something positive may have emerged. Over a year after the last takeover, Liverpool may have finally found some leadership again.
Liverpool owner John W. Henry provoked into act of leadership as the cult of manager at Anfield is redressed - Telegraph
This was the most extraordinary 45 minutes in recent Anfield history since the second half in Istanbul. Luis Suarez apologises for refusing to shake Patrice Evra’s hand. Managing Director Ian Ayre condemns Suarez’s behaviour.
No sooner were the repercussions of this digested, manager Kenny Dalglish makes the most startling admission of all.
“I did not conduct myself in a way befitting of a Liverpool manager, and I’d like to apologise for that,” said Dalglish, referring to his post-match conduct at Old Trafford.
The most significant players in all this – Liverpool’s American owners – said nothing, and yet their influence was on every utterance. Behind the scenes, the whip was cracked.
Liverpool’s principal owner John W. Henry and chairman Tom Werner had every right to be furious with Saturday’s events.
On their recent visit they made their discontent with the club’s tarnished image known. They held heated meetings, and issued reminders of responsibilities.
One of the owners travelled to London to meet Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore in an attempt to build bridges with the hierarchy of English football.
For a week at the end of January, there was serenity. Henry and Werner then returned to America believing the worst was over after a dismal few months. Not for the first time in their reign, no sooner had they vacated the premises all hell breaks loose.
One is reminded of a scene in a classroom full of rowdy pupils, unwilling to listen to their timid supply teacher. The authoritative Deputy Head briefly enters, the room falls silent and everyone sits meekly back in their seats, fearing the hand of discipline.
Then the imposing figure departs, and the juveniles vacate their desks and start throwing paper planes at each other again.
Every time Henry and Werner return to United States, a crisis follows them. Each phone call and email sent across the Atlantic brings news of woe. The demand, even in the American media, was for them to sort it out.
Show leadership. Take a more proactive, hands-on role. Easy enough, you’d think. They do own the club, after all. If only the political mechanics of Liverpool Football Club allowed leaders to lead.
Fenway Sports Group’s desire to be more dynamic and authoritative in their approach has been constrained by a flawed ethos at Anfield.
It suggests: “There is a holy trinity between the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don’t come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques.”
It is over-simplistic, romantic drivel. Anyone who thinks former chairman John Smith, or ex-chief executive Peter Robinson contributed no more than ‘signing cheques’ in Liverpool’s golden era is reading the wrong history books.
Since Robinson left Anfield, the managers have been too powerful. First it was Gerard Houllier in the aftermath of the 2001 treble.
Then Rafa Benítez briefly had a contract giving him more power than any coach in Europe. Dalglish’s status eclipses the pair of them.
He is rightly loved for reasons thirty years in their construction, but he is also expected to live up to unattainable ideals of infallibility. It is too much, even for him.
Henry and Werner will never be held in the same regard as Dalglish, so they can never utter a word or issue a statement that may be interpreted as undermining him.
It is a sign of their astute leadership they have allowed both Suarez and Dalglish to admit their own mistakes rather than have to publicly point them out themselves.
The new Americans do not deserve to be spoken about in the same terms as Tom Hicks and George Gillett, but they know what happened to them and are still paying a price for the skewed culture of a club which has lived in fear of another populist uprising for too long.
Elements of Liverpool’s fan base believe it was they who forced out an unwanted regime and unpopular manager, and they can mobilise again should they believe similar circumstances exist under FSG.
For those who don’t trust FSG, that’s reassuring. For those who believe they deserve the chance to do it their own way and succeed or fail on their own terms, it’s debilitating.
Henry and Werner have assumed the right to exercise full executive control and guide the club in the direction they want.
Amid the squalor of Suarez’s conduct, something positive may have emerged. Over a year after the last takeover, Liverpool may have finally found some leadership again.
Liverpool owner John W. Henry provoked into act of leadership as the cult of manager at Anfield is redressed - Telegraph
I suppose John W. Henry and FSG cannot be seen (not least in the US media) to not do what they can to stamp out racism when it's directly associated with LFC, as well as when it may affect FSG's share price.
Liverpool's US owners and their shirt sponsor have intervened to help defuse the race row surrounding Luis Suárez's refusal to shake Patrice Evra's hand before Liverpool's defeat at Manchester United on Saturday.
Standard Chartered, which pays around £20m a season to sponsor Liverpool, went public with its criticism in a brief statement, saying: "We were very disappointed by Saturday's incident and have discussed our concerns with the club. A person familiar with the matter said: "It was a very robust conversation."
Standard Chartered was attracted to Liverpool by its strong Asian support base. The bank is based in London but makes almost all its profits in Asia. Most of its staff are in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
The BBC reported that the Fenway Sports Group, which bought the club in 2010 and owns the Boston Red Sox baseball team, had said an apology was necessary. A spokesman for Liverpool declined to comment on the reports that pressure had been brought to bear.
The Football Association, which imposed the eight-match ban, will take no action over Suárez's refusal to shake hands because it is not a disciplinary issue.
The Liverpool striker apologised on Sunday for refusing the handshake before his team's 2-1 loss at Old Trafford and his manager Kenny Dalglish also said sorry for his post-match reaction when challenged over the snub. Suárez was returning to the Liverpool starting lineup for the first time since serving an eight-match ban for racially abusing Evra during a match in October.
Standard Chartered, which pays around £20m a season to sponsor Liverpool, went public with its criticism in a brief statement, saying: "We were very disappointed by Saturday's incident and have discussed our concerns with the club. A person familiar with the matter said: "It was a very robust conversation."
Standard Chartered was attracted to Liverpool by its strong Asian support base. The bank is based in London but makes almost all its profits in Asia. Most of its staff are in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
The BBC reported that the Fenway Sports Group, which bought the club in 2010 and owns the Boston Red Sox baseball team, had said an apology was necessary. A spokesman for Liverpool declined to comment on the reports that pressure had been brought to bear.
The Football Association, which imposed the eight-match ban, will take no action over Suárez's refusal to shake hands because it is not a disciplinary issue.
The Liverpool striker apologised on Sunday for refusing the handshake before his team's 2-1 loss at Old Trafford and his manager Kenny Dalglish also said sorry for his post-match reaction when challenged over the snub. Suárez was returning to the Liverpool starting lineup for the first time since serving an eight-match ban for racially abusing Evra during a match in October.
Source: Luis Suárez handshake row upsets Liverpool sponsors Standard Chartered | Football | guardian.co.uk
Well. Nothing says "I'm sorry" like money, eh?
I don't agree with either events chants but feck me that is a low chant from our fans. I've been to 2 united liverpool games and I've not heard that one.....
Awesome. Makes it clear to all that they aren't sorry, they're just willing to put money before everything else.
How long before the fans have to consider ditching YAWN?
Over the last couple of months Liverpool have destroyed themselves. Just when you think they can't sink any lower, a new thing comes up.
Now even the sponsers override Klan leader Kenny. That's got to hurt! I'd laugh myself senseless if they were both booted from the club, but I really want them to stay because they'll just keep dragging Liverpool through the mud and showing the world that the cult of Klanfield is infact just a bunch of brainless, classless has-beens.
Now even the sponsers override Klan leader Kenny. That's got to hurt! I'd laugh myself senseless if they were both booted from the club, but I really want them to stay because they'll just keep dragging Liverpool through the mud and showing the world that the cult of Klanfield is infact just a bunch of brainless, classless has-beens.
That telegraph article pretty much rips Kenny apart and he's realised he can't go against the owners wishes otherwise he'd be out.
Cult leader
Wheres that simpsons gif olly made.
Cult leader
Wheres that simpsons gif olly made.