Samuel talks absolute drivel.
Oh brilliant... yet ANOTHER 'foreigners just don't get no justice man' article.
Oh wait a minute, what year is it..?
Shiiit I've overslept and woken up in 2002.
Since when was john terry a foreigner?
Just the sight of Samuels' Jabba-like bearded moosh is annoying, let alone the drivel he writes.
I'm sure he's on City's payroll - so pro-sugardaddy it's cringeworthy. I suppose it's the only way his beloved West Ham will be a force again though.
Terrible writer for terrible papers
Is there actually anything more bitter than a Tottenham fan?
Don't forget jealous . That's usually the next line isn't it?
when you think about it Bale has got more tropies than Spurs has
So, oh bitter Spurs fans, what is it that Samual has written that you disagree with? Instead of your inane drivel that you've spouted above, try reading the article and commenting on the content, rather than its author....
I actually don't like Samual myself, but find it difficult to disagree with him on this occasion....
Not sure how anyone can possibly say Suarez got a raw deal.
The guy is a total thug and has been lucky with just a ten game ban in my opinion.
I was fully on board with the 10 game ban until the FA said the punishment WASN'T related to his previous incidences.
10 games was fair based on Suarez's past indiscretions, but as an isolated incidence it's a complete joke. There's no precedence for a 10 game ban, if the FA wanted to take such a hard line on incidents like this they've had two opportunities to do so and failed on both.
Lucky for Luis, 3rd time is a charm
Why bring up the Defoe incident, every one knows the FA couldn't deal with it cos the ref gave him a yellow card.
If the ref had given Suarez a yellow for the bite he never would of got a 10 match ban
I have no big issue with the 10 game ban, apart from the fact that if it been anyone else, there's no way they'd of gotten the same punishment....
I bet he would I like, they'd have just cited 'exceptional circumstances' and done it anyway. Agree to an extent Didi, I always thought 10 was going to be too much. 5 with a final warning/suspended 5 games would have been a much better punishment IMO.
At times like this I always go by the old maxim:
"If in doubt, don't bite your opponent on the arm... or anywhere come to think of it"
Have to say it's served me pretty well up to now too.
The article is basically saying The FaA make up the rules as they go along. We all know that. They're trying to make sure Terry doesnt come back and play for England again by enforcing a rule which didnt even exist a few months back I think? There's no football people in that organisation. Very few. Majority of them are just a bunch of businessmen who have wormed their way into a position at the top of English football. We dont even know what they do?
Are Liverpool fans trying to WUM me?
Good effort lads . I admire your stance
I like to eat the doo doo's - Vote UKIP
'If the ref had given Suarez a yellow for the bite he never would of got a 10 match ban'
I'm not so sure - I get the feeling that this would have sparked a change in the rules!
Read up on the FA's website. The board consists of ex bankers, media, financial advisors, accountants.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
One of the few good things the FA have done in my opinion...Suarez is a despicable (if highly talented) individual, & deserved all he got
as for Martin Samuels...I don't read him & really don't care what he says frankly
certainly don't read that awful rag he writes for either
Sheriff the bigger picture is how inconsistent they are. They make up rules as they go along with regards to punishment. Lets not forget the mess they've made of English football.
"Shiiit I've overslept and woken up in 2002"
Man, you Arsenal fans are stupid. How can you oversleep in 2013 and wake up in 2002?
We all know the FA are clueless, but rather than berate them I think we should applaud them for actually doing the right thing for once.
Defoe should have got banned for his bite too. He didn't. That doesn't mean that should be the benchmark. It's a despicable thing to do, and I bet we don't ever see it happen again.
Terry is Terry. Anyone with an inch of self-respect would just stay retired. His inclusion meant three people couldn't represent England, whether they would have or not (two have beforw and one was being talked of). He knew what he said, we knew what he said, the FA knew what he said.
Man, you Arsenal fans are stupid. How can you oversleep in 2013 and wake up in 2002?
quality toor!
Sign in if you want to comment
FA not fit for purpose
Page 1 of 12
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 29/4/13
Samuel talks absolute drivel.
posted on 29/4/13
Oh brilliant... yet ANOTHER 'foreigners just don't get no justice man' article.
Oh wait a minute, what year is it..?
Shiiit I've overslept and woken up in 2002.
posted on 29/4/13
Since when was john terry a foreigner?
posted on 29/4/13
Just the sight of Samuels' Jabba-like bearded moosh is annoying, let alone the drivel he writes.
I'm sure he's on City's payroll - so pro-sugardaddy it's cringeworthy. I suppose it's the only way his beloved West Ham will be a force again though.
Terrible writer for terrible papers
posted on 29/4/13
Is there actually anything more bitter than a Tottenham fan?
posted on 29/4/13
Don't forget jealous . That's usually the next line isn't it?
posted on 29/4/13
paulpower
posted on 29/4/13
when you think about it Bale has got more tropies than Spurs has
posted on 29/4/13
So, oh bitter Spurs fans, what is it that Samual has written that you disagree with? Instead of your inane drivel that you've spouted above, try reading the article and commenting on the content, rather than its author....
I actually don't like Samual myself, but find it difficult to disagree with him on this occasion....
posted on 29/4/13
Not sure how anyone can possibly say Suarez got a raw deal.
The guy is a total thug and has been lucky with just a ten game ban in my opinion.
posted on 29/4/13
I was fully on board with the 10 game ban until the FA said the punishment WASN'T related to his previous incidences.
10 games was fair based on Suarez's past indiscretions, but as an isolated incidence it's a complete joke. There's no precedence for a 10 game ban, if the FA wanted to take such a hard line on incidents like this they've had two opportunities to do so and failed on both.
Lucky for Luis, 3rd time is a charm
posted on 29/4/13
Why bring up the Defoe incident, every one knows the FA couldn't deal with it cos the ref gave him a yellow card.
If the ref had given Suarez a yellow for the bite he never would of got a 10 match ban
posted on 29/4/13
I have no big issue with the 10 game ban, apart from the fact that if it been anyone else, there's no way they'd of gotten the same punishment....
posted on 29/4/13
I bet he would I like, they'd have just cited 'exceptional circumstances' and done it anyway. Agree to an extent Didi, I always thought 10 was going to be too much. 5 with a final warning/suspended 5 games would have been a much better punishment IMO.
posted on 29/4/13
At times like this I always go by the old maxim:
"If in doubt, don't bite your opponent on the arm... or anywhere come to think of it"
Have to say it's served me pretty well up to now too.
posted on 29/4/13
The article is basically saying The FaA make up the rules as they go along. We all know that. They're trying to make sure Terry doesnt come back and play for England again by enforcing a rule which didnt even exist a few months back I think? There's no football people in that organisation. Very few. Majority of them are just a bunch of businessmen who have wormed their way into a position at the top of English football. We dont even know what they do?
posted on 29/4/13
Are Liverpool fans trying to WUM me?
Good effort lads . I admire your stance
posted on 29/4/13
I like to eat the doo doo's - Vote UKIP
'If the ref had given Suarez a yellow for the bite he never would of got a 10 match ban'
I'm not so sure - I get the feeling that this would have sparked a change in the rules!
posted on 29/4/13
Read up on the FA's website. The board consists of ex bankers, media, financial advisors, accountants.
posted on 29/4/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/4/13
One of the few good things the FA have done in my opinion...Suarez is a despicable (if highly talented) individual, & deserved all he got
as for Martin Samuels...I don't read him & really don't care what he says frankly
certainly don't read that awful rag he writes for either
posted on 29/4/13
Sheriff the bigger picture is how inconsistent they are. They make up rules as they go along with regards to punishment. Lets not forget the mess they've made of English football.
posted on 29/4/13
"Shiiit I've overslept and woken up in 2002"
Man, you Arsenal fans are stupid. How can you oversleep in 2013 and wake up in 2002?
posted on 29/4/13
We all know the FA are clueless, but rather than berate them I think we should applaud them for actually doing the right thing for once.
Defoe should have got banned for his bite too. He didn't. That doesn't mean that should be the benchmark. It's a despicable thing to do, and I bet we don't ever see it happen again.
Terry is Terry. Anyone with an inch of self-respect would just stay retired. His inclusion meant three people couldn't represent England, whether they would have or not (two have beforw and one was being talked of). He knew what he said, we knew what he said, the FA knew what he said.
posted on 29/4/13
Man, you Arsenal fans are stupid. How can you oversleep in 2013 and wake up in 2002?
quality toor!
Page 1 of 12
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10