You'll have plenty to celebrate when you subscribe to the Liverpool FC newsletter Sign me up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

There are times when you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Liverpool Football Club's decision not to sack Jon Flanagan this week has divided opinion among supporters.

Social media was awash with demands for the Reds to rip up his contract and show him the door after he was given a 12-month community order for assaulting his girlfriend following a drunken row in the city centre last month.

There was no shortage of outrage aired after the club's internal disciplinary hearing on Thursday concluded with senior Anfield officials deciding they had a duty to help rehabilitate the Academy graduate. It was a close call after a lengthy debate.

Liverpool condemned Flanagan's actions “in the strongest possible terms” and said he had “severely let down the club he had previously represented with distinction”. For many, that didn't go far enough.

There is no playing down the seriousness of the 25-year-old's actions, although it should be noted that the judge spoke about his lack of previous convictions, the fact it was an isolated incident, his early guilty plea and his expressions of remorse.

Jurgen Klopp has accepted that it was completely out of character and is still prepared to work with him. Flanagan made a grave error and has paid a heavy price with the damage to his reputation.

The accusation that Liverpool have somehow ditched their principles by keeping the defender on the books simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

In fact from a financial viewpoint it would have been easy for them to take the moral high ground and dismiss Flanagan.

He made the last of his 51 appearances for the club against Leicester City in the League Cup back in September and even before his brush with the law he found himself below both Joe Gomez and Trent Alexander-Arnold in the pecking order.

He still has 18 months to run on a contract worth £28,000 per week. Liverpool could have ripped that up in the knowledge that it's unlikely they would receive much in terms of a transfer fee if they sold Flanagan.

Not doing so wasn't just about giving someone a second chance. It was also about avoiding setting a dangerous precedent.

You can't have one rule for those on the fringes of the squad and another for the club's most valuable assets.

A year ago Roberto Firmino pleaded guilty to drink-driving after being stopped by Merseyside Police while behind the wheel of his Range Rover on Christmas Eve. There was no outcry then for Firmino to be sacked.

Similarly, Luis Suarez, who was banned for racially abusing one opponent and then for biting another, was repeatedly given a helping hand by Liverpool to combat his demons.

Why? Because he was so good. You don't write off a £75million asset.

Imagine if it had been 24-goal top scorer Mohamed Salah standing in court this week rather than Flanagan. The reaction from some would have been very different.

If Liverpool had sacked Flanagan they would have stood accused of double standards. They would also have made themselves a hostage to fortune the next time a player steps out of line.