Klopp will get his players to do anything for three points.
Jurgen Klopp Sack Watch
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Did he drive Rooney home?
And not the good sort!
You missed out '5 times' from your post.
definitely not!Knew he was innocent all along!
Stunned and disappointed as a Liverpool fan. At what point will clubs take drink driving seriously.
He could use the old Yaya Toure excuse of 'Its against my religion to drink, I didn't know there was alcohol in the punch'.
What's the club got to do with it. If you break the law is your place of employment culpable?
He looks like the sort you might meet after turning down the wrong street in Thailand.
How do lesbians look?
Very true, he's the twunt who was drunk whilst driving not Liverpool FC as a collective and it's not like Klopp would have said to his players "and remember folks; don't forget to get royally pished and then illegally drive home". Or maybe he secretly does train them to do it and it's called Gin Gin Pressing.
Outrage!! Obviously they all look the same that's what I was clearly saying.
Hahahaha
Like Firmino.
And Nasri.
What Firmino did had the potential to cause injury or death to someone. He has brought the clubs reputation into disrepute. I would not say LFC is to blame for Firmino's actions. But because of the unique place a club holds in the community, the esteem players are held up to, the responsibility of the club to its stakeholders, one of whom are its supporters then yes the club is involved indirectly.
It is the club that pays Firmino's huge wages. It is the club whose name, along with Firmino, has been dragged through the mud because of his idiocy. All the club asks of Firmino in return for his salary is that he behaves in a dignified manner at all times. Drunk driving can never fall under the heading of dignified. Until clubs show a willingness to sack employees, in particular playing staff/managerial staff, or any one employed by the club whose name is high profilie, who drink and drive then I question whether they fully appreciate the seriousness of drink driving.
Spot on. He's an absolute disgrace. Supposed to be a role model.
You should possibly stick allegedly in there a few times seeing as he's not been found guilty of anything just yet, nor are there accusations of him being drunk. Possibly hold fire on your indignation.
Legalese aside, of course Liverpool FC have to live up to a certain standing but you're jumping the gun here - sack him for being charged? I presume you know nothing of the case. In fact, I suspect the moderators of this forum aren't wild about you implying guilt on a person while a case is still very much live.
A friend of mine was pulled over for speeding once, she said she was on the blob so the copper let her go, (s)he should have used the same excuse and maybe given the police his/her digits.
Bob's your uncle.
Bob's your uncle.
Such a little snake trying to get him in bother with the mods. He's been charged and it's in the public domain.You do realise it's not a complex case. You're either over the limit or you're not.
Your either over the limit or your not. If he had been drinking coca cola all night he doesn't get arrested simple as. If he takes a taxi home without getting into his car then there is no story.
What has to be understood is the fact that no one was injured is not the point. The point is he got into his car with enough alcohol in his system to be charged with drunk driving. I'll be amazed if he finds some legal loophole to get out of it. That's even besides the point. By getting into the car drunk then he is putting the lives of others at risk either through injury or fatality. Also the club has a duty of care. Whether it likes it or not it has to do the morally right thing if its standing in the community is to be maintained. If it sacked any employee who was found to have driven while drunk then it would send out a clear message this not acceptable. The other alternative is to not play him again and sell him on. To me any other action by the club is a fudge.
Lets say the club had the balls to make an example of him so what. At some point someone is going to have to be held up as a barometer of what is acceptable and what is not. There has to be a line in the sand. I am a Liverpool supporter and I would hold this view of any player/manager at any club.
Last edited:
What a cock. nonentity to me as a player now.
As for the 'snake' comment. Not at all - I've been on these sorts of forums for years and have seen threads locked / deleted for such talk. Public domain? So what? All police activity is in the public domain - there are still very strict laws about what can and cannot be discussed prior to the case being completed. Not a single newspaper in the land will declare guilt at this point.
I'm not questioning his potential guilt - that's the court to decide. I'm merely stating that prior to judicial proceedings being completed it's injudicious to call out somebody's guilt.
Heck, tons of people have been cleared following such charges. Might be wrong, might be expensive lawyers, might be uncollaborated breatherlizers undermining the charge (can happen)...either way it's wiser to hold back.
If he's found guilty, full your boots.
He must have had alcohol in his system to be charged though surely? He must have been driving? On that basis alone it was an idiotic thing to get behind the wheel.
I can understand your viewpoint legally. Either way he has brought shame on the club's name UNLESS IT IS PROVEN THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE BY THE POLICE.
Pretty sure being arrested by the Police and being charged with drink driving is an accusation...
I won't slate him because he isn't guilty yet like you say. Despite that, like others have said it should be a very straightforward case. There's not really much by way of possible explanations or alternatives.
Being over the limit is a technicality. Does it mean drunk?
@PickledRed you're being over dramatic.
He's been charged and should be named. We have open justice in the UK and it is imperative that we do. With regards to commenting on an open case you are entitled to discuss someones guilt or innocence however publications which pose a substantial risk of impeding/causing prejudice to the course of justice are off limits.
He's been charged and should be named. We have open justice in the UK and it is imperative that we do. With regards to commenting on an open case you are entitled to discuss someones guilt or innocence however publications which pose a substantial risk of impeding/causing prejudice to the course of justice are off limits.
Too drunk to drive, yes. That's what 'limit' means.
I know. Hence my suggested caution. Hardly bad advice.
I think if he's over the limit, then it's considered that he's consumed enough alcohol to impair his ability to drive safely. How drunk people are exactly varies from person to person, but I'd imagine they take various factors into account when setting the limit.
Edit: I don't think it will be case whereby they consider he wasn't 'drunk enough' IE that being over the limit doesn't matter. It'll be a misreading or an error of the Police, causing him to appear over the limit when he wasn't. This is probably unlikely, though always plausible. So I will ofc wait for the verdict.
Are you actually drunk when you drink the minimum that can take you over the limit? I don't think being 'drunk' necessarily equates to being over the limit.
Of course I agree with the drinking limits but they're presumably set at a level that doesn't require a driver to be drunk.
Agree