2. Is it right that the ban affects Liverpool too?
Adam Davies: Ultimately, he’s Liverpool’s asset and their responsibility. They knew what they were getting, given they signed him after his Ajax ban for biting PSV’s Otman Bakkal, and they’ve defended two indefensible incidents at Anfield already. With that in mind, it’s hard to have too much sympathy.
Steve Green: Big time, Liverpool are being punished more. You could say that they didn’t do enough to rehabilitate him after his past two incidents, but judging by the way he behaved last season everybody probably thought he was over the worst of these outbursts, but apparently not.
Jacob Daniel: Absolutely. Liverpool chose to humour their asset when he bit someone before, rather than cut their losses, so it shouldn’t be a huge surprise that he did it again. It was their decision to roll the dice with his behaviour rather than sell him, so I don’t have much sympathy.
Rob Summerscales: Undoubtedly. Liverpool stood by him throughout the racism scandal involving Patrice Evra and after bite number two – on Branislav Ivanovic. They did not create the monster, but they have facilitated his development into the menace he is today.