So The Rabid Chipmunk Is At It Again!!!

[Jason H]

They should sack him for Gross Misconduct then.

Much like people are calling on one of our employees to be sacked (and quite fairly, I must add) for abusing someone on Twitter outside of his capacity as an employee.

 

[Grecian_Jay]

They should sack him for Gross Misconduct then.

Much like people are calling on one of our employees to be sacked (and quite fairly, I must add) for abusing someone on Twitter outside of his capacity as an employee.

Difference is Coles is worth nothing to us, Suarez is a £100m(or however much you wanna value him) asset. Hence why a club at that level will rarley, if ever sack anyone.

 

[Antony Moxey]

They should sack him for Gross Misconduct then.

Costing your employer £100M is a bit more 'gross misconduct' though, isn't it? It could even be more than that (financially) if both their league and CL performances suffer as a result of him not being on the pitch. Liverpool could end up an absolute bucketload out of pocket because of his actions - didn't that bank trader end up inside after costing Barings nine figure losses?

 

[Jason H]

They took the risk in keeping him on, though, after his second indiscretion (third if you also add in his racism incident). Giving him a four and a half year contract given his history was a massive risk - one they obviously felt worth taking.

It would be up to them, were he to be banned for, say, a year or even two, to decide whether his asset value on the pitch outweighed the costs associated with keeping him on the payroll.

 

[Antony Moxey]

They took the risk in keeping him on, though, after his second indiscretion (third if you also add in his racism incident). Giving him a four and a half year contract given his history was a massive risk - one they obviously felt worth taking.

It would be up to them, were he to be banned for, say, a year or even two, to decide whether his asset value on the pitch outweighed the costs associated with keeping him on the payroll.

So are you suggesting that if, and it's a very hypothetical if, legal action was bought by Liverpool against Suarez for financial losses, that the judge would turn round and say 'he had form, serves you right for keeping him'?

 

[Jason H]

I doubt whether Liverpool would bring legal action against Suarez personally, so from my perspective it becomes quite moot.

 

[StroudGrecian]

He should only be allowed to resume playing after a lengthy ban if he has had those ridiculous incisors removed.

 

[Antony Moxey]

I doubt whether Liverpool would bring legal action against Suarez personally, so from my perspective it becomes quite moot.

Mine too, but it's an interesting aside as a long ban - which is a distinct possibility - could have a huge financial impact on his employers.

 

[grecIAN Harris]

Apparently he is gutted at the thought of not being able to play against Germany. He fancied getting his teeth into a bit of Lahm.

 

[richard_portland]

ban him now for the internationals, and then lets see how long it takes to wind him up for number four bite, and then ban him from football for life. Scum!