Article today about rlSeedorf going to the Brazilian football leaguerl. It'll be interesting to see how the Brazilian league develops now that money from the oil business is starting to flow into it. Could it undermine the Portuguese and Spanish leagues?

the Seedorf deal was done weeks ago and caused quite a stir in Brazil when Botofago signed a 36 year old on a two year deal - it's mega bucks for him

nice work if you can get it !

WTFever, Judge Judy.

The truth is that you don't know what would have happened had Suarez been taken to court. But there was still a great deal more evidence against Suarez than there was against Terry.

Had Suarez been taken to court, they would have had the advantage of police interviews and a much more confrontational method of questioning in the court. Maybe Evra would've cracked and flawed his case, but it's just as likely to that Suarez could have cracked too.



The truth is that we haven't even seen all the evidence, we haven't seen the witnesses, we haven't seen the hearings. I don't know if you remember, but I backed Suarez all the way until I actually read the summary of the decision. Up until that point I felt it was ridiculous that the decision had gone that way because I was at the mercy of reading journos reports. Based on everything I'd read I backed Suarez, but reading the summary of the decision painted everything in a completely different light.

I don't think anyone truly knows what went on in either case. But on the evidence presented Suarez's offence was far greater than Terry's. The only evidence against Terry was the clip on TV. But he came straight out with his explanation of what went on, he went and talked to Ferdinand and clearly tried to sort things out. His story never changed. The video evidence backed up what he said and Ashley Cole confirmed what happened. Suarez's evidence changed as he was questioned and his version of events was confirmed as wrong. There was the fact that video evidence emerged that he started pinching Evra's skin. Suarez wasn't found guilty of that, but that to me suggests that he was clearly trying to wind Evra up and virtually eliminates his argument that he was "just greeting him like we do in South America".

But on the counter, what was happening at Anfield was happening in the middle of a pressure match, while both participants were talking in a 2nd or 3rd language(?). Linguistic experts may give their opinion, but IMO a linguistic expert is kind of moot when we're talking trash talk on a football pitch.

But while I am prepared to concede doubt against Suarez, the scousers on here will not give Terry even the slightest benefit of doubt. To them, Terry is guilty, Suarez is innocent. Robbie even pronounced Terry guilty of racially abusing Ledley King, even though that appears nothing more than a BS internet rumour.

So f*** the scouse c****, and if you continue to back their BS, f*** you too. And f*** idiots like Garth Crooks who can't stop crying about the verdict because it's not the one they wanted.

I wonder what the FA will do now ?

Obviously you'll still want then to throw the book at Terry, while completely ignoring that Ferdinand was even more guilty of breaking football's rules than Terry was.

Have you seen Rio Ferdinand's tweet supporting someone calling Ashley Cole a choc ice? But I guess that's okay?

www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... le-1143013

www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... le-1143013

Not necessarily so. It would depend to some extent on whether he had a legally valid defense.

Terry admitted using the FBC words but said he was repeating back, sarcastically, what Ferdinand had said to him. That was accepted as a valid defense, the issue was whether Terry was actually repeating back those words.

As I understand it, Suarez admitted using the term "negrito" but said that it was not meant to be offensive, because in his culture it wasnt necessarily a racist term. The question would be whether that is a legally valid defense.

Under UK law, racially aggravated offenses are generally viewed from the perspective of the victim, whether the victim would reasonably believe that he/she had been racially abused. In the Terry case, it could be argued that if he was repeating back, sarcastically, words use by Ferdinand it would be unreasonable for Ferdinand to claim he had been racially abused. If the Suarez case had come to court the "cultural differences" defense might not have been accepted as being legally valid.

I haven't read into Terry's trial, but how did the "sarcastically" come about?

I can understand Terry shouting, "I didn't call you a f***ing black c***, you f***ing k***head." if he thought Ferdinand was accusing him of that. But sarcasm doesn't fit at all with that description.

On another point, I do think the "you f***ing k***head" does support Terry's claim that he was repeating it back. I just don't think anyone would end a nasty insult such as FBC with a playground insult of KH. It just doesn't fit to me, but maybe it's my bias.

Rotherham United calling their new ground New York Stadium. Are they trying to force a company to pony up for naming rights to save themselves from embarrassment?

I don't know about legally but in the context of the FA we can think through the process ourselves. Imagine if you were a business owner and Suarez and Terry did what they did in your workplace. Make your decision based on that. How much weight do you give to each argument? I'm not defending Suarez but Terry has less of an excuse for using the language he did because, as far as I'm concerned, being a long-term resident of this country he knows that it is wrong so to use it means his actions have been deliberate and willful i.e. I never call anybody "black xxx" or whatever. I think Suarez used his language willfully too but I think we have to admit that it's not that big a leap to see how his usage [icould[/i have been deemed to have come from cultural differences (I don't agree with that but I can see the argument that says it could be). Again, I am not saying one is worse than the other, or that both should receive penalties, only that there is reason for applying a penalty in both instances.

How'd you work that out?

What's next on your list, are you going to call somebody gay? Are you going to call somebody's mummy? Self pity? Jobless?

Easy. You murdered 33 Italians. You have a player found guilty of racial abuse during the game. You choose to ignore the death of the Italians, instead preferring to just call for J96 and choose to believe that South Americans just greet everyone they meet with racial comments rather than hello.

You seem to be trying to climb on a high horse, but it was you scouse filth who were taking delight and pride in the abuse Terry received about his mother.

Just a question to the people who are now wanting Terry charged by the FA.

Obviously you're wanting Terry charged, found guilty, banned and probably hanged.

But is it just Terry you want charged, or is it Ferdinand and Terry who you think should be charged, or do you not care about Ferdinand so long as the chance is there to punish Terry?

Who did? Me? The football team I support? The population of Liverpool? The players of Liverpool FC? Are you really this dim or are you acting? Keep digging, you're giving me the best laugh I've had since those plastic flags.

I think it's probably depression that's causing you to laugh out of despair.

You bent over backwards to defend Suarez from the start. He was proved to be guilty of racial abuse. It seems that causes you great distress and the only way you can deal with it is to claim the whole world is against you in a giant conspiracy.

You couldn't condemn John Terry fast enough and pronounce his guilt. You even went as far as saying he was guilty of abusing Ledley King, even though the only evidence for that is crazy internet ramblings.

So the Suarez guilty verdict and John Terry not guilty verdict have clearly screwed up your head. Being that you're a scouser, it would probably be for the best if you took your own life before you take someone else's.