Liverpool Football Club [Archive] - Page 6

Portobello Red

May 26th, 2010, 08:58 AM

David Moores' letter to Tony Barrett of The Times today:

Dear Tony,

Thanks for getting in touch again. I’m writing to you not out of any mission to clear my name - if I felt I had anything to apologise for I would have done so, without hesitation, a long, long time ago. I’m sending this to you, in good faith, because my family, particularly the younger members, are continually being wounded by the combination of hearsay, mistruth and malicious gossip regarding my decision to sell the club, and the process that led the sale.

I’m writing because it’s 5 years this week since the miracle of Istanbul - my greatest moment as a fan and as Chairman of Liverpool Football Club - but which now feels light years away from happening again. But above all I’m writing to you because I care deeply about the club, the team and the fans. I hope against hope that Messrs Gillett and Hicks will see this letter, or some portion of it, and do the right thing. In holding on and holding out, they risk damaging a sporting institution of global renown and if they have any conscience or nobility they will stand aside and allow new owners to take over the club for its future benefit and that of its lifeblood - the club’s fans.

One of the principles that unites us as Liverpudlians, gives us pride and informs our sense of identity is the philosophy of doing things The Liverpool Way. On the pitch this evolved from Shankly’s fearless attacking football into a simple but wonderful game of pass and move, founded on hard work and a team spirit that relied upon everybody fighting for each other. Off the pitch things were not so different. We would put our faith in the manager and support him to the fullest extent we were able. Since the day I accepted the honour of becoming Chairman of Liverpool F.C to the day I stood aside, that has been my guiding principle; back the manager, invest in his vision and ensure that the heartbeat of the club - the methods and ethics that we hold so dear - are preserved and continue in The Liverpool Way.

When I asked Rick Parry to join the club as Chief Executive, I knew that he too cherished these ideals. While we were both very eager for success and both dearly longed to help guide the club back towards the good times, we equally knew that there was a correct way, a Liverpool way of doing things. And one thing we would never countenance was any notion of borrowing against the club to create a phony wealth for some “jam today” spending splurge. I can say with certainty that our housekeeping was immaculate. I have always acted with the very best interests of the club at heart, and if I’ve made mistakes - which I know I have, and not solely with regard to Gillett and Hicks - then they have been honest mistakes.

To give a proper context to the situation we find ourselves in now, it’s important to trace things back to their roots. I became the majority shareholder of LFC in 1991, and underwrote a new share issue in 1994. Pre Euro 96, football was incredibly unfashionable. There was nobody else on the scene in Liverpool who was even remotely interested in taking on the financial challenge of LFC. I became involved for one reason - for the love of the club. But in the wake of Euro 96 with the influx of more and more overseas superstars on superstar wages, I was aware the game was changing beyond all recognition and deeply worried, too, about my ability to continue underwriting the financial side.

I was from the ever-decreasing pool of old-school club owners, the locally-based, locally wealthy supporter like Jack Walker who stuck his money in out of his passion for the club. If we’d have done it as an ‘investment’ we’d have come unstuck pretty quickly. Back then, football was a mug’s game when it came to the finances. You did it because you loved you club - although, unlike the Chairmen of other clubs, I would never entertain the idea of a stand or a stadium being named after myself. That wouldn’t be Liverpool, and it wouldn’t be me.

If loyalty is a weakness then I’m loyal to a fault. I stuck to my guns in terms of backing the people I trusted, and it began to work. Under Gerard Houllier we began seeing the results of a long-term strategy. The Academy, the new training facilities at Melwood, investment in the squad all required serious money - much more money than the club could ever generate in those pre-Champions League, pre silly-money years. It’s easy to overlook the fact that we only qualified for the Champions League for the first time in 2001, and only really started making money in Europe thereafter. But 2001 was a year we’ll all remember with great affection - the year we finally began our concerted fight back. Rick and myself felt satisfied that the time, the patience and the investment was finally amounting to the targets we aspired to: winning the League again, and re-establishing Liverpool F.C as a force in Europe.

I’d pinpoint 2002-2003 as pivotal in what led to my ultimate decision to stand aside if the club was ever going to truly progress - and if we could find the right calibre of investment, and curator. At the end of a terrific 2001-2002 where we made a bold and realistic scrap of the Premier League title chase and came agonisingly close in the Champions League, I backed Gerard in a significant summer of signings. The £20 million we spent was a huge outlay in those pre-Abramovich times, and it was done in the knowledge that we couldn’t repeat the spend again without significant progress - a proper go at the Champions’ League and, chief among our goals, the return of the League Title to Anfield. Very regrettably, 2002-03 failed to deliver our aspirations, and the players we invested in were unable to make a difference.

Rick was always vocal about planning for success, and after much soul-searching from everybody close to the club we bowed to the inevitable. We began to accept that the only way we could continue to compete was by building a new stadium. Anybody who cares to dredge the archive will find myself on record as finding the decision difficult to come to terms with; but looking back now, the thing I was finding most difficult, was the transformation of the game I loved. Football clubs were beginning to be seen as a source of profit rather than a source of pride; they were as much financial institutions as they were sporting legacies. The Abramovich era was upon us, and I knew that I could never compete.

The search for suitable custodians began in earnest. I don’t really care whether the supporters like me or approve of me - but it’s important that they believe me. I would never lie, never - and I have nothing to hide. We looked long and hard for the right person or institution, we followed up every lead. We WANTED that fantasy investor to come forward - the infinitely wealthy, Liverpool-loving individual or family with the wherewithal to transform our dreams into reality. And so sincere was our commitment to finding that person or company, that we invested huge sums and massive amounts of time investigating potential investors, only to conclude that they were not the right people for Liverpool. It would have been easier, I assure you, just to take the money, cross our fingers tight and hope things worked out - but we dug deep into every file and asked all the tough questions, knowing the answers might scupper any deal.

To give just one example, we responded to overtures from Thailand - the figures discussed were so enormous we were obliged to take a closer look. We had just persuaded Rafa to join the club as manager and were eager to back him in the transfer market. No matter how dizzying their wealth though, we would never simply rush into a relationship with an unsuitable partner, and so it transpired with Thailand. After looking closely at the deal we withdraw from the proposition, and did so for all the honourable reasons you’d expect from our club. So it was ironic that Manchester City was subsequently sold to the same entity, without so much as a murmur of disapproval from their fan base. When it suits them, football fans can turn a blind eye to the things they’d rather not have to acknowledge. We did acknowledge it though - we confronted the reality that the Thai offer was unethical, made our decision to withdraw and carried on the search. Rick’s remark about selling the family silver has been used repeatedly against ourselves and the board - but it was said in all seriousness, with all sincerity. Several years down the line, I do sometimes wonder if we took the process too seriously. Do the majority of fans just want owners, whoever they are, who’ll buy all the best players, come what may? Speaking for myself, I could never square that outlook and that legacy with our own unique football club.

Around that time, by the way, I experienced my first real backlash from the fans. It started with a few letters in The Echo and quickly grew into a campaign aimed at forcing me to sell. There’s an irony there somewhere that, in holding on and giving prospective new owners the third degree I was somehow seen as deliberately holding the club back! It was loud minority giving me stick, but this growing ill-feeling was certainly a factor I took into account. Our search for funding took us to the U.S where we spent time with the hugely impressive Robert Kraft.

Both Rick and myself were disappointed that the Kraft family decided not to take their interest any further - Robert is a good man, and would have been a fitting custodian for LFC. Around the same time we met George Gillett for the first time, liked him very much as a man and were struck by his sheer passion for the club he owned, the Montreal Canadiens. There was a cultural similarity between the Canadiens and LFC, in that Montreal is perhaps the most un-Canadian of Canada’s major cities; the fans see themselves as separate (and perhaps superior) to the rest of the country. They are devoted to their team, which gives them a sense of pride and identity. Importantly, too, all the fans we spoke to on the street and around the stadium had nothing but affection and praise for their owner, George Gillett. Sadly George was unable to follow up his very real interest with the necessary funding to take our club forward.

We have been accused of failing to capitalise on the Istanbul Effect - in fact our talks with Dubai International Capital stemmed directly from winning the Champions League in 2005, with Sameer Al Ansari from DIC introducing himself to Rick Parry in Istanbul and making it known that he was an ardent Liverpool supporter. Rick wasted no time in following up this lead, and having laid out our needs (significant investment for players; a new stadium we spent the next year working out a deal with DIC. On 1st December 2006 we informed DIC that they were our preferred option - and that the deal would have to be completed by 31st December 2006, for 2 reasons.

Firstly, so that Rafa could take advantage of the January transfer window, and secondly the timeline of non-negotiable targets we had to hit if we were to start the new stadium on time. Several things happened (or didn’t happen) that gave cause for concern. Our being made aware that DIC had devised a 7-year exit strategy was one such issue, along with a suggestion they intended to raise £300 million in working capital (i.e debt), secured against the club. But by far biggest reality check came when we got down to the practicalities of planning a schedule of works on the new stadium. Under strict terms we had negotiated with the various agencies, local and European, with whom we had to deal over grants, planning permissions etc, we were on course to complete the stadium in time for the 2009/10 season, but we had to keep resolutely to the timetable. Therefore (also in December 2006), the club put it to DIC that it was essential we placed an immediate order for the steel required for the new ground’s infrastructure. The steel was going cost in the region of £12 million. Deadlines passed before and after Christmas. New Year 2007 came and still no steel, and quite frankly (and, I think, justifiably) we began to have misgivings.

At this juncture - January 2007 - George Gillett returned with a new proposal. We asked to hear more, and George introduced his partnership with the Hicks family. On 30th January 2007 (the day we played West Ham away) we put the Gillett/Hicks proposal to the board, and they voted in favour. . I was conscious of the fact I’d agreed a deal with DIC, and telephoned Sameer Al Ansari to tell him that the board preferred Gillett and Hicks’s offer, and I wanted 48 hours to think things through. DIC representatives confronted me prior to the game and put it to me that I had to sign off on their offer immediately or the deal would be withdrawn. I told them I wouldn’t be held to ransom - and they withdrew the offer. With hindsight, we may have had a lucky escape there as Dubai is not the buoyant market it was in 2007.

We moved ahead with Gillett and Hicks with all due speed (even now I can not accept that we were hasty) - and here is an element of the process I accept we could have handled better. We had looked into George Gillett’s affairs in detail, and he came up to scratch. To a great extent, we took Tom Hicks on trust, on George’s say-so. There was still the very real business of obtaining approval of the shareholders, however. I was the 51% majority stakeholder, but I was obliged to -and I wanted to - obtain a mandate from Liverpool’s shareholders great and small. Gillett and Hicks produced a very substantial offer document containing all the key assurances re debt, the stadium, investment in the squad and respect for Liverpool F.C’s unique culture, traditions and legacy. It was impressive stuff - and it did the trick. For the motion to be carried we needed around 90% in favour. Over 1700 shareholders voted and the result was 100% in favour of accepting Gillett & Hicks’s offer.

So many times I have had people ask me, and write to me, and quiz the people who are close to me:

“Wouldn’t a simple Google search have told you all you needed to know about Tom Hicks?”

I could be flippant and tell you I don’t know what Google is (I have never used a computer in my life). I could point out that internet searches are as likely to mislead as to inform. But the truth is that we went way beyond Google in our check-ups. We retained Price Waterhouse Coopers to advise us on the fabric of the deal, and they received assurances from Rothschilds, one of the most respected and respectable names in global finance, who vouched for both Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Indeed, Rothschilds - who were representing Gillett and Hicks - telephoned a non-executive director of LFC, Keith Clayton, to assure him that both were good for the money. Could we have done more? Probably - though under those circumstances, in that time-frame, probably not. We did our due diligence on Messrs Gillett and Hicks and if we’re guilty of anything it is that, after four years searching, we may have been too keen, too ready to hear the good news that George and Tom had passed their tests.

The Google question, along with any suggestion that the shareholders and I preferred the Gillett/Hicks bid because it promised to net us more money, is a source of anger to me. Internet culture is inexact and gossip-driven… to suggest anyone at our football club would run a financial health-check via a search engine is just silly. Don’t forget that everyone was delighted with their takeover at the time. Significant shareholders like Granada and Steve Morgan were insistent the board of LFC should accept the G&H offer, and left me in no doubt about my legal duty to accept the offer. George and Tom were carried shoulder high through the city centre on the afternoon of the Barcelona game in March 2007 - it wasn’t just me who was taken in. And as for the extra money I netted from the G&H deal - you really don’t know me if you think that was a factor. Ultimately, the deal we signed up to was laid it in unambiguous terms in the share offer document. That is a matter of fact. But at the end of the day you can carry out any number of checks with infinite degrees of scrutiny and certainty, but I doubt there’s any procedure available that will legislate for a guy you’ve come to trust looking you in the eye, telling you one thing and doing the exact opposite.

As I’ve already said, I feel no duty to justify myself and in writing to you now there is much I’ve withheld out of decency, more than duty. There’s also the very real possibility that, in speaking out, I might derail the process that many believe I can positively effect. But it has been hard for me, sitting mute on the sidelines as the club I love suffers one blow after another. Since resigning from the board I have not set foot inside Anfield - and it hurts. I hugely regret selling the club to George Gillett and Tom Hicks. I believe that, at best, they have bitten off much more than they can chew. Giving them that benefit of the doubt - that they started off with grand ideals that they were never realistically going to achieve - I call upon them now to stand back, accept their limitations as joint owners of Liverpool Football Club, acknowledge their role in the club‘s current demise, and stand aside, with dignity, to allow someone else to take up the challenge. Don’t punish the club’s supporters any more - God knows they’ve taken enough. Take an offer, be realistic over the price, make it possible. Let the club go. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to concede for the greater good.

Yours faithfully,

David Moores

Poolcool

June 5th, 2010, 02:25 AM

Have just read about alan hansen's bullshit, anti-Rafa article in the telegraph, through the Tomkin's Time's.

Has hansen become a cunt of lawrenson proportion's, or what?

Evertonian

June 5th, 2010, 11:13 AM

I appreciate my comments, as an Evertonian, might not be welcome following this fairly shocking departure but as a genuine, non bitter blue who does NOT like seeing either club lurch from crisis to crisis, I have to say honestly that Benitez's legacy has left you with the worst Liverpool side i've seen in 20 years.

Most of my red family and friends feel the same way.

The ownership situation is to some extents a different issue and reds have my total sympathy, but for me Hansens right there about Benitez.

What are your thoughts on Kenny doing the job? I would like to see him getting it permenantly, he is one of the great gentlemen of football, a loyal club servant and unlike many of the potential candidates, has won 3 old 1st division titles with you as coach AND a premiership title.

Toadboy

June 5th, 2010, 11:26 AM

What a pile of shite.

13 players to the world cup, more than any other in this league.

Worst side in 20 years. Don't make me arf.

Toadboy

June 5th, 2010, 11:48 AM

Brian Reade nails it.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/brian-reade/Why-Rafa-Benitez-leaves-Liverpool-as-a-legend-not-the-failure-his-history-rewriting-critics-insist-The-Brian-Reade-Column-article448527.html

Right to the end the professional pundits failed to understand why so many Liverpudlians stayed loyal to Rafa Benitez.

As 500 fans marched on Anfield after his departure, chanting the Spaniard’s name, heads shook at a footballing sub-species bracketed *somewhere between romantic die-hards and mawkish morons.

To the “expert” eye, these deluded fools had been conned by Benitez’s cunning and blinded to his failings by the glory of Istanbul and the *criminal incompetence of the American owners.

Liverpool fans they said, once among the most knowledgeable in the world, had clearly lost touch with the modern reality, and were now a sad throwback to the days when sideburned men kicked orange balls.

Well, I’d argue one of the saddest aspects of modern *football is too many pundits, including ex-players, have not paid to watch a game since those orange ball days. And they’ve lost touch with the fan.

I’m not saying Benitez had to stay. The results and the football last year were shocking, he’s been a major player in Anfield’s destructive civil war, and the number of fans disillusioned with his style and methods was growing.

But to paint his six-year reign as an unmitigated disaster, sustained only by the over-sentimentalising of Istanbul, is analysis at its most skewed and cringeful. By 2004 Liverpool had been relegated to the status of European also-rans. Benitez made the club a genuine world force again.

It wasn’t just that 2005 *Champions League win (which is shamelessly downplayed as a fluke despite beating Fabio Capello’s Juventus, Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea and Carlo Ancelotti’s AC Milan). Or reaching the 2007 Champions League final and the 2008 semi-final. It wasn’t even UEFA elevating Liverpool to Europe’s top-seeded club due to results under Benitez.

It was beating Real Madrid and Inter Milan at the Bernabeu and San Siro (which the Reds had never before done) and Barcelona at the Nou Camp. Magical victories at the very top of world football, which restored long-overdue respect to Liverpudlian hearts.

Ah say the experts, but he didn’t win the league. True. But he got closer than any Liverpool boss in the past 20 years. A season ago he was a whisker away, taking the highest number of points by a runner-up in a 38-game season and the club’s best points haul since 1988.

And he did so despite having the 5th highest wage bill *in the league, the 5th *costliest squad, the 5th biggest stadium capacity and a net annual transfer spend of £15million. Which should have made experts ask why Liverpool were ever considered a nailed-on top four side under Benitez, especially when the boardroom was mired in anarchy.

Ah, they say, but he’d long lost the players and the board. So why have Steven Gerrard, Fernando Torres, Daniel Agger, Dirk Kuyt and Pepe Reina signed new long-term contracts within the past year? Why last August did managing director Christian Purslow do interviews purring over Benitez and how he was integral to the club’s future?

Ah, the experts say, but that was before he let Xabi Alonso go, which everyone could see was a calamity. These would be the same experts who, for the previous couple of seasons, claimed Liverpool were a two-man team. With Alonso (on whom Benitez turned a £20million profit) never being mentioned as one of those two.

Ah, they say, but Torres apart, he only signed sub-standard dross and ended up with a shockingly-weak squad. Really?

Liverpool are sending 12 players (13 if you count Milan Jovanovic whose Bosman signing is going through) to the World Cup. Or an entire team: Reina, Carragher, Agger, Skrtel, Johnson, Babel, Gerrard, Mascherano, Rodriguez, Kuyt, Torres. Subs: Kyrgiakos, Jovanovic.

Eleven Chelsea players flew out to South Africa, the same number as Arsenal, and Manchester United sent eight. Does that look like he’s left Anfield bare of talent?

The truth is Benitez leaves a squad worth many times more than the one he inherited, despite spending less in the past three transfer windows than he’s brought in.

I don’t seek to rewrite history or airbrush Benitez’s *failings. I saw last year’s football and it stank. I felt the growing anger among players and fans at his single-mindedness and knew something had to give.

Which is why it may be best for all concerned that he walks on. But now he has, let’s do him the honour of getting his legacy right.

Rafa Benitez was many things at Liverpool but unlike every manager since Kenny Dalglish, he was not a failure. Indeed a majority of *Liverpudlians will remember him as a legend.

Because like Bill Shankly, on more days and nights than those expert pundits ever care to recall, he made the people happy.

Paul D

June 5th, 2010, 12:06 PM

Brian Reade always gets it right,I've got a lot of time for his column.

Evertonian

June 5th, 2010, 01:39 PM

So Liverpool deffinately win the 'sending the most internationals to a world cup, cup then'.

With respect a lot of those named have been dire for the respective countries. Two of those named were players Benitez inherited in Gerrard and Carragher.

Brian Reade is an exceptional writer who penned one of the best books on following a football team, I have ever read. I have often thought he talks a lot of sense....but my word, when he puts those rose tinted specs on!

I maintain he's leaving behind the worst squad in 20 years. Can any of you honestly say that when Torres and Gerrard are gone to Chelsea/City and Real respectively, that you'd be happy with that squad!? I'd be seriously worried about the lack of quality.

Great, he won a couple of cups six years ago (with another manager's squad), was a nearly man for the next 4-5 years and is now an also ran - that there is a summing up that shows a record of gradual decline despite having the third highest wage bill and ony being outspent by Chelsea and City.

That's why he was sacked by 'mutual consent'.

yoshef

June 5th, 2010, 02:33 PM

IMO

Pepe Reina
Jamie Carragher
Glen Johnson
Martin Skrtel
Daniel Agger
Javier Mascherano
Alberto Aqualani
Steven Gerrard
Yossi Benny Noon
Dirk Kuyt
Fernando Torres
Maxi Rodriguez

any of the above players would walk into any Liverpool side in the last 20 years, with the exception of the 1990 side.

LukeMc

June 5th, 2010, 03:02 PM

Will be a very interesting and important decision on who the owners choose to bring in as the new manager

Brian Reade nails it.

And he did so despite having the 5th highest wage bill *in the league, the 5th *costliest squad, the 5th biggest stadium capacity and a net annual transfer spend of £15million. Which should have made experts ask why Liverpool were ever considered a nailed-on top four side under Benitez, especially when the boardroom was mired in anarchy.

With Benitez's spending Liverpool have the 3rd most expensive side, in terms of net spending. Something like £18m a year net.

yoshef

June 5th, 2010, 03:36 PM

This graph puts all the hyperbole eg "worst team in 20 years" into perspective

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/LiverpoolPoints.png

Toadboy

June 5th, 2010, 04:28 PM

Will be a very interesting and important decision on who the owners choose to bring in as the new manager

With Benitez's spending Liverpool have the 3rd most expensive side, in terms of net spending. Something like £18m a year net.

Show your working out, what's the datum and what's the fucking point.

Rafa, a European Cup, another final, several European semis, a domestic cup, 80+ points in 2 seasons, the 2nd highest wins to games (only Kenny was better) ratio in the history of Liverpool FC. This great man will walk in to a top job.

Still gutter press lick arses, with dysfunctional calculators and an ignorance of the dynamics, know better eh.

Splendidineogh

June 5th, 2010, 04:54 PM

Brian Reade nails it.

Not really. He only mentions the good points. My own analysis (below) is more on the ball. Also, showing statistics of end-of-season point talleys ain't exactly very helpful - it doesn't show us what the other clubs were getting or how strong the other clubs were in those seasons, relative to LFC. LFC got 82 points in 2009, but it wasn't enough to win what SHOULD have been LFC's 19th title - thanks ENTIRELY to Benitez.

Millionaire Rafa has just taken millions of pounds out of Liverpool's measily transfer kitty and I don't think he ever thought twice about it. And for all you "mawkish morons" (I agree with that part) - Rafa isn't going to miss you. He ain't the type. He's probably sick of feeling like a socialist dictator every time he sees posters of his face being held up. On the other hand, he might be even worse than I'm thinking and enjoyed it.

Anyway... less of the pundets. Lets stick to the facts - facts that a lot of decent LFC fans have known for some time.

I find it totally perplexing how some Liverpool fans (not sure what proportion; seems to be a lot though) seem to completely lack any insight into how completely lacking Rafa was. There seems to be delusion and lies on an epic scale, although to be fair, a lot of reds fans have rightly been against Rafa for some time.

I think a lot of Liverpool fans backed Rafa and then spent so much time trying to defend him (over the last couple of years), arguing with other Liverpool fans, and other clubs fans, to such an extent that they are now completely deluded about what he was all about. Or maybe some know the truth but don't want to lose face after backing him so hard, for so long. If it's the latter then I do feel some sympathy that they've been let down, but I think it's time to be honest.

People say he won the Champions League in 2005. No he didn't. The team won that trophy, and it wasn't even Rafa's team, apart from a couple of players. The person I attribute that victory to is Steven Gerrard. He dragged Liverpool through the entire competition, with the help of some other players, and showed tremendous leadership during the final. It was Steven Gerrard who won it for them, along with the other players (one or two of them completely crap) who played the best games of their lives that night. What did Rafa do exactly? I'm not saying he did nothing, but let's move away from this completely insane notion that it was down to him that Istanbul happened. Sure, he put Haman on in the second half and that stabilised things. But let's not exaggerate things, eh?

Then there was the FA cup. Again, Steven Gerrard. He scored that blockbuster of a goal right in the dying seconds. It was that local lad who played the biggest role of all - with his outstanding skill, passion, and leadership on the pitch. Give him credit for that.

Then there was the second European Cup final. Rafa certainly showed tactical ability and began to come into his own. Liverpool seemed suited to the European game. Rafa deserves credit for that, and nobody is saying "he was shit, nothing good about him." But again, the players on the pitch, let's not diminish their role.

After that, what was there? Not a great deal. Many people felt exasperated with Rafa's insistence on resting players when these fine physical specimens don't need resting. And half the time, having rested a player and deprived the team of their skill, the player would get injured anyway and would then be on the sidelines. In addition to the "resting" policy he was so obsessed with, was playing players out of position, and his tactical ability could at times be pretty questionable. Before the thick sheep start saying "but he won the European Cup" - NO he didn't, and second, I'm not saying he was always bad tactically, but he was a lot of the time without doubt.

The best season of all for Liverpool was the 2008/2009 season. They didn't win silver, but they played good football for a change. The second half of that season was when Liverpool were playing brilliant, attacking football. It didn't matter who they took on - Real Madrid, Man U - they pushed them back into their half and then battered them. Everybody believed Rafa had finally realised how to encourage attractive, attacking football and it worked. Numerous television pundits said without hesitation "Liverpool will win the title next season."

It didn't matter about the owners or issues in the boardroom. On the pitch, the players were slaughtering the competition in sublime fashion. They didn't have a big squad of great players, but the first team, along with a handful of others were enough to do wonders. Liverpool finished second in the league that season. Liverpool were the best team in the league by a mile and you should have 19 titles right now. But you don't - the blame for that lies with Rafa. The draws against shit teams where crap defensive tactics were employed, and the poor results that followed his Fergie outburst (Fergie is a cunt, and Rafa had a point, but still...)

Then there was last season. Liverpool lost a sublime midfieler who controlled games - Alonso - we all know Rafa played a significant role in that. And this is another problem with him. He is an absolutely shit man-manager. Fact. He is a cold fish and he doesn't unite people. Half the battle in getting a team to play well is surely to create a very powerful sense of team spirit, no? So surely a leader who can unite his team and make them feel happy at the club and working for their manager is a good thing. Mourihno has that quality. Rafa doesn't.

Last season was a travesty. Granted, he hasn't had mega bucks. His net spend isn't what some pundits were making out. But he has been given money and made some poor purchases with it. He has also made superb signings - Reina, Masca, Torres, Alonso, and some decent ones - Kuyt, Benayoun. So can we really say that he has been given nothing and that finishing 7th was acceptable? I don't think so. Last season saw a collapse of confidence and team spirit; a collapse in Rafa's ability to tactically outwit crap and average teams, who have spent far less than he has. He promised 4th place and he didn't deliver it.

Stop blaming the owners for christ's sake. Yes, they are tossers and need to go. But it is completely irrational to blame them for poor tactics, poor man-management, and stupid team selections. They were in charge when Liverpool nearly won the title.

I'm not trying to diminish the terrible situation with the owners, but I'm just sick of seeing these Liverpool fans, some of them who should know better, kidding themselves. It is embarrassing to see it. Some of the fans are thick and bleeting on about "hope you're all happy now, Rafa has gone"; but a lot of the fans should know better. I don't know whether some of them are just completely deluded or are being dishonest with themselves and everybody else. Part of it seems to be that some fans associate supporting Rafa with being against the owners. At the end of the day, they should be kept separate. The owners need to go; Rafa needed to go.

There is no doubt in my mind that millionaire Rafa is glad to be out and won't miss the Liverpool fans at all. He isn't the type.

And also, the whole burning flags outside the stadium and protests thing really isn't going to help Liverpool find decent investors. Just stop acting like plebs for fucks sake. They know you want them out and they've got the club on the market, do your bit to help them find a buyer.

the pool08

June 5th, 2010, 05:08 PM

Toadboy

June 5th, 2010, 05:09 PM

We got 86 points in 2009.

Just a thought for you and others, Splendid, maybe people who actually look beyond the headlines feel the need to defend Rafa from hyperbole cranks rather than idolising the man for the sake of it. I'm a big critic of Rafas football, his over respect to poor opponents, his over controlling of all aspects that stifles individualism, but I fully respect and appreciate his achievements, on his budgets, from the starting position that he had to the end position he's left us.

All this against a background of political infighting, back stabbing, foul, vile cliques and agendas being driven by owners, directors, creditors, stooges, players, etc. Anyone who blames Rafa for the state of Liverpool Football Club needs to assess the whole situation.

Rafa's gone, thanks Rafa, good luck in your future. Time for new blood and god help the poor sod who has to work with an MD appointed by a bank to reduce it's "risk" by £100 million, a chairman appointed by god knows who to sell the club and a pair of leverage buy out sharks who'll hang in to bleed every last penny they can out of the club. At least the new boss will have Reina, Agger, Skyrtel, Carragher, Johnson, Masherano, Aquilani, Kuyt, Gerrard, Torres and Benayoun to work with eh....

Evertonian

June 5th, 2010, 07:11 PM

and maybe your best side in 20, but still you finish behind us.

And as you reds are so fond of "net spend" ecconomics would you care to remind us what Moyes' has been to finish ONE place below you.

Liverpool during the Benitez years have only been outspent by City and Chelsea. They have budgeted to finish 3rd in other words and finished 7th, only getting a UEFA placing because Portsmouth were run even worse (if you can believe that!).

This is why Benitez was 'let go'. It's not good enough for Liverpool Football Club.

Be fair now: even Reade states this in his article.

Evertonian

June 5th, 2010, 07:17 PM

Anyone care to comment on Kenny? Any thoughts?

I have a feeling that IF (and it's a strong if) they can keep Mascherano, Torres and Gerrard; Dalgleish could add some hard working young British players in, bring the accademy back into good shape and really do well for you.

PierreC

June 5th, 2010, 08:04 PM

Oh, and by the way, in addition to the thirteen players listed above, it has been conveniently ignored that Alonso, Arbeloa and Crouch will also able to represent their nations in South Africa entirely due to their time at LFC and the coaching of Benitez.

PierreC

June 5th, 2010, 08:17 PM

With respect, the academy has already been brought back into good shape after the root and branch reorganisation by Benitez last year, after many years of stagnation and indifferent coaching under the control of Parry.

Kenny has been a big contributor to those changes and the subsequent recruitment of young players of good quality., but my concern is that the Spanish coaching staff who have made the major contribution towards this substantial and welcome improvement such as Rudolpho Borrell may not wish to stay on.

Poolcool

June 5th, 2010, 08:21 PM

@evertonian. Arguing with you is like arguing with a michael jackson fan.

Also, does anyone else think theres some masonics going on here? like purslows in the same lodge as dalglish and hanson and there all doing a favour for bretheren hicks and gillet.

yoshef

June 5th, 2010, 09:07 PM

And as you reds are so fond of "net spend" ecconomics would you care to remind us what Moyes' has been to finish ONE place below you.

Liverpool during the Benitez years have only been outspent by City and Chelsea. They have budgeted to finish 3rd in other words and finished 7th, only getting a UEFA placing because Portsmouth were run even worse (if you can believe that!).

This is why Benitez was 'let go'. It's not good enough for Liverpool Football Club.

Be fair now: even Reade states this in his article.

Stop being so trite. Rafa wasn't pushed out for finishing 7th, or for "leaving" liverpool with the worst squad in 20 years. He was forced out because he's seen as a trouble maker, a rebellious element, wielding too much power.

Evertonian

June 5th, 2010, 10:38 PM

Stop being so trite. Rafa wasn't pushed out for finishing 7th, or for "leaving" liverpool with the worst squad in 20 years. He was forced out because he's seen as a trouble maker, a rebellious element, wielding too much power.

No doubt that played a significant part in it yeah.

I appreciate my opinion is as welcome here as a fart in a lift. I can only say that i'm genuinely not on the windup and am the least bitter blue you will come across, I can assure you of that.

No-one is trying to "re-write history". Benitez's reign will be remembered as successful. End of.

Ultimately though finishing 7th isn't good enough for LFC and i'm shocked i'm having to raise this point with reds.

Alan Hansen: the time was right for Rafael Benítez to leave Liverpool Forget the squabbling owners, the failure to build a new stadium and injuries to key players. Rafael Benítez only needs to look at the squad he is leaving behind to realise why his time is up at Liverpool.

The painful truth for Liverpool and their supporters is that the new manager at Anfield, whoever he turns out to be, will find a worse squad at his disposal than that which Benítez inherited from Gerard Houllier in 2004.

And you could even argue that Liverpool are in their worst state since Bill Shankly arrived at the club more than 50 years ago.

After six years under Benítez, it is definitely time for a change at Anfield, and credit must go to managing director Christian Purslow and chairman Martin Broughton for being strong with their decision, but whoever comes in faces a mammoth task, one which will start with a blank sheet of paper and a realisation that it will be a long haul ahead. You could be looking at three to four years before Liverpool get back to where the club should be.

But although Benítez will cite a variety of reasons – the owners, key players losing form, the financial problems – he is the man who has filled a squad that is littered with bad buys. Benítez made too many mistakes with too many players. In recent seasons, he hasn’t got any right beyond Fernando Torres, Javier Mascherano and, possibly, Glen Johnson. They were all big-money buys and players of proven quality. Benítez has had money to spend, but when he has bought players in the mid-range market of £3-5 million, they just have not been good enough and that is why Liverpool's bench has been so poor in recent months. Regardless of the ownership issue, which clearly needs resolving as quickly as possible, Liverpool need rebuilding on the pitch, but if I were in charge at Anfield and I had money to give to the manager, would I give it to Benítez?

The answer would be a categorical 'no' because he has spent too much money on average players and we are now seeing the fruits of that because Liverpool are a long way short of competing to finish in the top four, never mind fighting to win the big boys' trophies.

It became clear to me halfway through last season, when Liverpool were out of the title race and the Champions League before Christmas, that the time had come for change. But the board could not make that change because Rafa had only recently been given a four-year contract that meant he held all the aces. Whoever gave him that contract must have had a screw loose because it was absolutely crazy. The decision has now been taken and a replacement must be hired sooner rather than later.

I would imagine that the board will have a good idea who they want to bring in, but I don't have a preference, other than wanting somebody who will buy well and who will take the job on under no illusions about the challenge he faces. If Liverpool continue to drift away from the Champions League positions, then there is a fear that mediocrity awaits three or four years down the line.

But while I don't foresee the club sliding into a Leeds United-style situation, despite the uncertainty over the ownership and the growing debt, many Liverpool supporters will feel they are already experiencing their own Leeds meltdown. Leeds and Manchester City both fell all the way to the third tier, but Liverpool have scaled much greater heights than those clubs and, for many fans, languishing in seventh with no prospect of winning the league or European Cup is Liverpool's equivalent of playing in League One.

The ownership problem will not go away until the club is sold and while the owners want much more for their stake than potential buyers are willing to pay, it is difficult to foresee a speedy resolution.

In this day and age, will any prospective buyer not want some return on their investment? Probably not, but all that Liverpool fans can hope for is that whoever buys out Tom Hicks and George Gillett will have the club's interest at heart and that they won't use it as a money tool.

The only light at the end of the tunnel for Liverpool at the moment is that they still have Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres.

If the club decides to cash in on those two, it might raise £90million for new players, but what kind of statement would that send out to the supporters and potential new signings? Unfortunately, if Gerrard and Torres go, there will be no light and a dark tunnel for Liverpool.

yoshef

June 5th, 2010, 11:11 PM

No doubt that played a significant part in it yeah.

I appreciate my opinion is as welcome here as a fart in a lift. I can only say that i'm genuinely not on the windup and am the least bitter blue you will come across, I can assure you of that.

No-one is trying to "re-write history". Benitez's reign will be remembered as successful. End of.

Ultimately though finishing 7th isn't good enough for LFC and i'm shocked i'm having to raise this point with reds.

Like I said, 7th is an excuse. LFC don't sack managers based on one season. Believe all that PR shite if you want, at the end of the day its PR shite. When Hansen mentions the £3-4 million players, the likes of Pennant, Zenden, someone needs to remind him that Vidic, Malouda, Dani Alves, Simao, Barry and even Luis Figo were all as good as signed, but went elsewhere because the hierarchy (mainly Parry) wouldn't trust Rafa.

Evertonian

June 6th, 2010, 03:04 PM

Is it "PR" though?

I live in a family split 50/50 reds and blues. My brother is a lifelong fan and season ticket holder who sees them every homegame. Most of my mates are reds.

None of them are naive or ignorant to the damage Hicks/Gillett are doing, they know fine well that most of what comes out about LFC is horseshit, but the vast majority of them are delighted Benitez has gone as it got to the point that they saw that, regardless of the ownership issue, Rafa had stopped becoming a positive influence.

Most of them are happy Benitez is gone and with some of Europes top managers being proposed for the job, I think very soon the hardcore remainder will be persuaded that it was time.

Is it PR when ex pros who care deeply about LFC like Hansen, Aldridge, Saint John and Molby say it was time for him to go? Phil Neal was absolutely scathing about Rafa and put things a lot more bluntly than Hansen did in his article.

Even Brian Reade in his article accepts that, again ownership issue aside, last season's performance was unacceptable.

Then theres this from lifelong Liverpool fan and ex head LFC writer for the Liverpool Echo, Chris Bascombe....

THE RISE AND FALL OF RAFA BENITEZ Spaniard was a serial arsonist By Chris Bascombe

THEY talk about a 'holy trinity' at Anfield. Bill Shankly said when the fans, the manager and the players forge an unbreakable bond they can 'conquer the world'. Rafa Benitez's Liverpool reign ended because he forgot a key component to the threesome: The players. Buy well, make your team sweat blood for you and get results. It's a basic formula for any boss. Shankly mastered it. He was ruthless but adored as a father figure by those who benefited from his wisdom.

His winning philosophy has been applied more successfully by Sir Alex Ferguson and Jose Mourinho than any recent Liverpool boss. Contrast the scenes of Mourinho leaving Inter Milan with Benitez's Anfield departure. Players broke down in tears in Italy. There will be no hysterics from the Liverpool squad. How did it come to this? This is a man who's inspired plays in his honour and commanded a religious devotion from some fans. As with much at Anfield, image and reality didn't tally. Shankly, like Fergie and Mourinho, adopted an 'us versus the world' mentality.

At Liverpool it's been 'Rafa versus the world.' At its worst, it was 'Rafa versus his own club'. The man named after a Spanish matador wasted too much time bull- fighting, waving his red rag. Too often his ire was not aimed against Liverpool's rivals. He targeted his own employers, staff and players. He had much to complain about due to the owners but his gripes were often perceived as self-serving excuses. If you go to war, you need chief lieutenants in the trenches. Benitez had minimal support.

From top to bottom Liverpool got sick of him. His exit was the only way to relieve the depression gripping the training ground. His departure should not only leave fans assessing where the club goes but cause some to re-think their own role.

There's a flaw in the ethos of a club which too readily makes gods of managers. Such was the cult of Benitez after his first two brilliant cup wins, it was joked Liverpool should put a goatie beard on the Liver bird and change its name to Rafapool. Misguided Like Gerard Houllier before him, Benitez transformed in the aftermath of early success from humble work-aholic to paranoid eccentric who'd start a fight at a pacifists' convention.

He was a serial arsonist. No sooner was one fire extinguished he'd light another match. Working for mad chairmen is an occupational hazard but most managers deal with it in a shrewder manner. There's a well meaning but misguided element of Liverpool's support seduced by Benitez's chippy approach.

They want Liverpool as a club and city to be belligerent street fighters and their extreme view of what the Scouse mentality is rooted in militant caricature. Benitez bought into this which is why his behaviour became so erratic.

He became obsessed by what the hardcore of fans thought to the detriment of his judgment and the respect of his squad. He was advised to publicly attack the Americans and Fergie to rally support. Merited though it was regarding Hicks and Gillett, it provided an embarrassing, undignified spectacle. Some on the Kop cheered but the rest of the football world mocked him. Rational Liverpool fans buried their head in their hands. Results, not politics, kept him in his job in 2007. He had no shield this time. He and his supporters claimed critics expected too much in demanding the title.

Let's get it straight. He hasn't gone because he didn't win the league. He's gone because his team finished below Aston Villa. He's gone because he bought too many bad players. He's gone because his side lost to Reading in the FA Cup. He's gone because Liverpool finished seventh.

He's gone because he defended the latter stages of his reign with carefully spun statistics rather than actual performances. And he's gone because, despite all this, he tried to shift blame. Many at Liverpool FC saw him as a political opportunist exploiting the ownership farce to present himself as a victim. He even fell out with Fernando Torres as simmering tensions exploded.

Much is made of Benitez's peculiar relationship with his players but another strange insight came early last season. Torres struck a hat-trick against Hull and asked for everyone to sign the ball. Benitez took it and wrote 'keep working'. Torres, one of the 'senior players' criticised at the start of what became a dismal campaign, was dejected. Some brushed this off as maintaining the bootroom tradition of a stalwart like Ronnie Moran, who'd end title campaigns by warning his players 'they'll need to do better next season'.

But it was argued there was no balance in Benitez's assessments. No ying to the yang. Go back to Shankly, Fergie and Mourinho again and see how often they'd laud their star men. "It's always about him," was the familiar complaint about Rafa. Tracing the beginnings of his decline takes you to his first attack on his own club in Athens, 2007. Before then his rebuilding efforts were magnificent. He was and still is a world-class coach. But hours after defeat to AC Milan in the Champions League final, Benitez held what became a characteristically explosive Press conference. Once he'd crossed that line and (just about) got away with it, he never stopped lighting those fires.

A list of complaints which he'd repeat ad infinitum made their debut that day. He wanted more funds, an overhaul of the academy and a smarter business strategy. The implication that former chief executive Rick Parry was costing the club key signings became increasingly blatant.

The Americans' fatal error was to try and sack him too soon. The fans' backlash meant it was Parry who left.

With a title challenge earning him a new, five-year deal in 2009, Benitez thought he'd won his war. Instead he came up against Christian Purslow at a time when key players' form dipped and injuries took their toll.

Vulnerable, Benitez became more confrontational. Purslow soon found himself cast as panto villain amongst the clan referred to in Anfield circles as 'the Rafa mafia'. The poisonous leaks against Purslow were assisted by the careful manipulation of Benitez's sympathisers who laughably complained when the boss became the victim of his own smear tactics.

No matter how poor his signings, how inexcusable the performances or how costly his fall-outs, the inference was always he was the one suffering.

When the dust settles, Benitez may reflect on what he had at Liverpool and scarcely believe he threw it all away.

He had the control he wanted, chances to buy players and a world- class spine which, when the players were firing, could beat anyone.

But by picking at the club's scabs so often and so publicly he made himself unmanageable and, consequently, his position was untenable.

Some Liverpool fans will always see Benitez as a legend.

Others will say had he listened to the notorious advice that irked him so much it wouldn't have gone so badly wrong.

Had he 'focused only on coaching and training,' he'd probably have been here for five more years.

Toadboy

June 6th, 2010, 03:17 PM

Bascombe "lifelong Liverpool fan". Do me a favour, he writes for that rag, he's taking blood money and he's been riddled with agenda for years. He's a tabloid slut.

Anyway for some reason you're far too focussed on Rafa, so is your red family. This has got nothing to do with football and everything to do with the battle for profit, the battle for control and to see who can make the most £'s out of Liverpool Football Club. Rafa's a victim of the war that's spilling out on to the streets, the sooner the couch potato, ostrich Liverpool "fans" get their heads around that the better.

4th July 2010, St Georges Plateau, we're taking this club back.

Evertonian

June 6th, 2010, 04:15 PM

My red pals and family are able to seperate the footballing side of it (which was Benitez's responsibility) and the ownership crisis.

No doubt if there is a direct action protest they will be part of it though. My brother and cousins have been on a few marches and are fiercely anti-Hicks/Gillett. It's unfair to catagorise people as "burying their head in the sand" just because they wanted Benitez to go.

It pleases me that Liverpudlians aren't taking this shit. I often wish Evertonians would be more forcefull with our club when the board try to do things like remove us from our own city (purely for illustration).

Toadboy

June 6th, 2010, 04:39 PM

The running of the team and the ownership/running of the club are inseperable.

Evertonian

June 6th, 2010, 05:03 PM

They are interconnected certainly, but ultimately the manager is responsible for results on the pitch.

I'm not going to get into an argument on this as I can't be arsed debating net spend ecconomics. My opinion (and that of former Liverpool pros and my family and friends) is that Benitez had plenty of money to spend. He signed the players he did. It is a shame that Liverpool missed some quality signings, but all managers have to suffer this. Moyes reportedly narrowly missed out on Riquelme and Moutinho and many other managers have missed out on players.

During his time Benitez spent over 130 million on a squad that is one place higher than Moyes, which was developed on a fraction of the cost.

For many people the squad left behind is simply not good enough and they are, at the end of the day, Rafa's players.

yoshef

June 6th, 2010, 06:21 PM

Under Rafa Liverpool had become a European force again. How many other managers have gotten to 2 European cup finals in 3 years? How many teams destroy Manchester United at Old Trafford? How many teams have completely trounced Real Madrid? How many teams beat Inter at the San Siro, beat Real at the Bernabau, and beat Barcelona in the Nou Camp? Pretend he's not a top manager all you want Evertonian, you're talking out of your arse though.

UEFA Team Rankings 2010

Liverpool 5th
Everton 42nd.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method4/trank2010.html

Evertonian

June 6th, 2010, 07:43 PM

He is a good coach, I think I mentioned that quite clearly above when I said his tenure in general will be remembered as a success....end of.

As a manager I do not believe he's left you with a very good squad. I believe there's been a decline as do many reds and ex pros.

The future is worrying for Liverpool FC on both boardroom AND on the squad/playing side of things.

....and that does NOT please me in any way whatsoever.

If you're happy with the squad though, fair enough.

yoshef

June 6th, 2010, 07:59 PM

James Corrigan: In debt, nothing to spend, stars may leave and owners hated. Interested?

The Last Word

Sunday, 6 June 2010

When Kenny Dalglish – or as he will soon be renamed "Kingmaker Kenny" – conducts his first interview for the role of manager of Liverpool Football Club it will be interesting to hear him set out the job description. We can only pray he speaks very slowly and very honestly. For it is only fair the candidates be made completely aware of what is expected of them.

But then, we all know Dalglish won't really be involved in the process and that he's only been called upon to douse the anger of the mutineers. It'll be down to whichever puppet the owners/board choose. Whoever it is – whether it's the chairman, chief executive or a £10,000-an hour headhunter – they will have to be some salesman. A smooth-talker whose next assignment will not be to sell sand to the Arabs but sell a debt- ridden club to the Arabs. Perhaps the spiel to the prospective gaffer should go something like this...

"Right let's get down to it – the last chap was a disaster. Rafa Benitez failed dismally. In six seasons he reached only two Champions' League finals, winning only one of them to go alongside his one FA Cup. How dare he? And don't even get us started about the Premier League. Do you know it took him five seasons to lead the club to its best League season in 19 years. Five seasons? I ask you, how much time did he want?

"Yes, yes, 2008-09 was rather promising on the face of it, losing just two games and collecting more points than any other runner-up in the history of the League. But we found out what he was about in the next campaign. Way down in seventh, a whole seven points off the fourth-place finish with which we would have been satisfied. It couldn't go on, so it didn't. Particularly when the press came on side and started printing the myths dressed up as damning statistics.

"Benitez signed more than 70 players for more than £240m. True, 30 of them were youth players and he did sell quite a few, too. In fact, when you do the actual maths his net spend is more like £80m, less than Spurs and, of course, less than Manchester City in the same period. But £240m sounds better, don't you think? And the wages? Well, yes, ours are about three-quarters of United's and Chelsea's, but what's that got to do with anything? This ungrateful man thought just because the new owners have given him virtually nowt to spend since they took over in 2007 he could whinge about it. Couldn't he see we're all suffering here? That even poor old George and Tom, as hard as they have tried, have been forced to put the club £350m in debt.

"So, you'll understand, we had to get rid of him. He would definitely have caused a fuss when we sold Torres and Gerrard and gave him £15m for squad strengthening. You wouldn't mind managing without those two would you? After all, Rafa effectively had to last season, with the Spaniard always injured and the new England captain in the worst form of his career.

"Still, there was no need for anyone to focus on that when they could blame him for selling Xabi Alonso and bringing in Alberto Aquilani. The most outrageous thing was that we only made £10m because of that piece of dreadful business. No, he had to go and now we have to go for a manager able to mask the cracks as we move ever deeper into the red and try to sell this club for a price it is simply not worth.

"So here's what we expect from the new boss in a nutshell. You must qualify for the Champions' League every year, winning it more often than once every six years and reaching the final every three years; you must do better in the Premier League than simply finishing a better second than any team before; and you must do all this on a smaller budget than your rivals, despite the fact everybody will claim otherwise. Do all that – and more importantly do it without moaning – and you'll be a hero in Liverpool and Texas. And please don't suffer one bad season that may or may not be a blip. Because you'll never be able to prove it was a blip. Because we'll get rid of you straight away and Fleet Street will applaud us for doing so.

"The fans? To hell with them. Thanks to those who we will soon have to call our 'friends in the press', the Anfield faithful can be dismissed as being more deluded than those cultists in Waco. Didn't you know they only stuck by Rafa because they had made him the figurehead for their protests. Well, that's what the columnists said anyway. It soon became accepted as a journalistic truth that the Liverpool support was 'in denial' when it came to Rafa and that in their hatred of the Americans they couldn't spot his inadequacies. Insulting? Perhaps just a little bit, considering we're talking here about fans who have consistently proved to be among the most knowledgeable. But it did the trick. They were talking rubbish – Rafa was rubbish. Had to go.

"So that brings us nicely on to you. How can you say no? Liverpool is a massive club, as you well know. And if we're bought out by some rich Arabs one day we might again have the finances of a massive club. To be honest, I wouldn't expect that to be Dubai now as they're more skint than we are. But someone with bottomless pockets will turn up. You just need to give off the illusion this club are as big as they ever were while we're waiting.

"So if you will just sign here, Mr Hiddink? Mr Hiddink? Mr Hiddink? Please don't slam the door, we've only just mended it from when Souness left...

"Valerie, get me Dalglish on the phone. Ask him if he would be kind enough to stop the fans from rioting, will you?"

Keayman

June 7th, 2010, 08:27 PM

Evertonian. You say you wish Evertonians were more like that in marching against those who wanted to remove the club from the city. I think KEIOC did a commendable job without the placards and no doubt their voice made the government realise that what Tesco wanted was illegal in the amount of retail space being required. - job done professionally.

It does make me wonder though why the kopites always console themselves in making comparisons between lfc and Efc when if we're talking nett spending with all our freebies and loan deals + Moyes spending money pretty much being equalled by the dosh we got for Rooney and Lescott. Add to that an unprecedented 3 knee ligament injuries in the same season and an array of others keeping 13 first team regulars out during the early part of the season that saw 7 of our overall 9 PL losses all season, meaning the last 2 thirds of the season was of top 4 standing - much better lfc compare trhemselves with Arsenal or Utd who at this moment look miles ahead of them. Chelsea - well are just Chelsea- the equivalent of the 70s/80s Lfc machine.

At the end of the day 76 players were bought by rafa - some deemed not good enough and re-sold sharpish (Pennant, Keane, Crouch, Bellamy etc) - That is nobody's fault but his own. Substituting Torres to those head shakes and head scratching was a tactical mystery as was his safe bet gearing to make lfc a European force before they were even an English force - seen as in being feared in Europe but not by Blackburn, Bolton, Fulham or Stoke as their style was for the slow build up play rather than the up and atcha.

For all that though, he was well worth another season to see if last season was just a blip.

Poolcool

June 8th, 2010, 03:04 AM

Poolcool

June 8th, 2010, 03:21 AM

Why all this defference to whinging ex-pros anyway ? , all players are ignorant, self-serving cunts . Hansen cunt probably doesn't even know what a right-back should do, let alone a manager.

Poolcool

June 8th, 2010, 03:34 AM

@evertonian. You, if I may say so, have a real problem of giving petty points the same value as important insights.

You also get very confused. Slow down and get things in perspective. You're becoming very irritating.:ohno:

Keayman

June 8th, 2010, 01:28 PM

Aye. In the end the Euro results and the PL results pretty much mirrored each other. Out of Europe not once but twice to teams not as good as you'd previously beaten in Europe under his inherited team which shows the deterioration of the squad. Likewise, only one win in 6 attempts home and away against the top 3 was a decline and shocks against the likes of Portsmouth and Reading.

the pool08

June 9th, 2010, 04:38 PM

This mass rally at St Georges Hall on the 4th July.
***OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY***

City Council, police etc have all been approached and a permit will be applied for. Insurance for an event of up 10000 people secured (probably too much?).

it is suggestion is that we use the event to get all the disparate supporters' groups and forums together for this mass rally.
no excuses, its on a sunday, no world cup games, perfect.
can we all make an effort,, lads are booking flights for this.
get the family down,

this could be potentially the biggest football demo this country as ever seen.

if nothing else it will show a real sense of solidarity. our woostock if you like.

whose in then ?

Poolcool

June 9th, 2010, 06:26 PM

@ Keayman. Your being very subjective. Lfc had injuries this season, therefore different players. The games against manure away, the Arse away and especially at home could have gone the other way . And chelsea, home, I think you'll agree was a nothing game.

Lfc are poorer than the top six, obviously, and cant afford a squad to compete. Team, yes , squad, no chance. Everybody knows this.

Poolcool

June 9th, 2010, 06:55 PM

Keayman

June 10th, 2010, 12:51 PM

Not being subjective when you take into account that in the past, finely balanced games would at best swing liverpool's way or at least end up in the obligatory draw - there being little between the teams. I also don't know when a game against one of the other teams everyone loves to hate - Chelski could ever be described as a nothing game, especially when not finishing 6th means a July start for your boys in the Europa league qualifier, right on top of returning from the world cup.

Regarding injuries. Someone else brought Everton into the equation earlier in this thread by way of making yourselves feel better about your own situation and league position. Really though, it isn't a team with an unprecedented 3 knee ligament injuries keeping those players out for nearly a full season, nor another 10 with various injuries that you should be comparing yourselves with.

Sure, Torres is looking like a never a full season man with a bare medal cabinet after 3 seasons which is unusual for a player of his talents when you consider what Rooney, Drogba, Ronaldo etc pick up each year, but apart from a rare prolonged loss of form from your skipper and some other not so great players missing a few games, I don't think you can use not having a big enough squad to cope as an excuse when you consider Rafa had bought 76 players and whether nett or gross (irrelevant) was one of the big spenders.

I think you should be thankful the Glazers kept the 80M from the Ronaldo sale and the unusually quiet Ferguson (on the subject) allowed Tevez to leave without a wimper or I think you might have been looking at losing your joint most top titles accolade.

yoshef

June 10th, 2010, 01:29 PM

Isn't it a bit daft to claim that Rafa has signed 76 players without mentioning that most of them were youth players and cost buttons?

Keayman

June 10th, 2010, 05:14 PM

Paul D

June 10th, 2010, 05:22 PM

I'm loving the new all blue goalie kit.:)

yoshef

June 10th, 2010, 05:52 PM

Only if their wages are free too but it seems lfc have been catapulted to 3rd highest earners and 3rd highest wage bill. Also, shouldn't a youth/academy policy be from within - not bought in.

Although the 3 players bought last season were financed by the sale of Alonso, it is reported that lfc's top 5 earners were given lucrative new contracts. This is money that has to be accounted from somewhere and is often discounted by fans as though it isn't a cost that really exists.

The academy was self serving when Rafa joined, it was producing decent youth teams but other than Steven Warnock, no useable first team players where coming through, since Owen & Gerrard over a decade ago. Arsenal & Barcelona are seen as the best model for youth team development, and they source their youth talent globally. That's a part of the club Rafa was trying to overhaul and had caused much grief.

Arsenal's wage bill was higher than Liverpool's and has been for a long while.

Evertonian

June 10th, 2010, 09:34 PM

As usual the stupid people get the wrong end of the stick about the difference in euro results compared to prem results. The question you should ask isn't "Why is a team doing shite in the league is winning the CL?", but "Why is a CL winning team doing shite in the league ?"

It's because the premier league was set up by manure fans for them to win all the time. Ain't any of you thick evertonians noticed this ? , everyone else seems to.

Bollocks.

The Premiership was started by Liverpool and Everton back when they were considered the very top dogs of a 'Big 5'. It was in part, sheer greed to snap up TV money from the new BSB/Sky broadcasters and part in answer to being banned from Europe and needing to increase revenue streams for the elite.

Sir Philip Carter (Local Tory party organiser and fund manager, close friend of Thatcher and Baroness Chalker) sided with Thatcher's war against the working man's sport when she wanted to introduce football ID cards and when she favoured English football fans being banned. He along with his Liverpool counterpart went along with the temporary ban after heysel for ideological reasons, rather than fighting against it (as both clubs should have done).

I point blank refuse, as a die hard blue, to go along with the baiting of Liverpool fans over Hysel and the cries of "if it werent' for Hysel" whingeing. The fact is our Chairman (and Liverpool's) went along with the ban, when legally the authorities didn't have a leg to stand on. The European ban was grossly unfair as examples were made of British clubs when Italian football had an arguably WORSE hooliganism problem. Other similarly troublesome countries where not banned.

As I say, Everton bottled it partly because they thought they could create a "Super League" to compensate. It is not manchester united's fault that they capaitalised on it by increasing the capacity of their stadium, marketing, business interests and youth system....while Everton and Liverpool made minimal effort with their stadia, took years to spend money on academies and training fascilities and had dire marketing strategies up until very recently.

Evertonian

June 10th, 2010, 09:35 PM

Benitez's parting gift was a display of sheer class. A true Liverpudlian.

Evertonian

June 10th, 2010, 09:38 PM

This co-ordinated war on Rafa, by fleet steet and the rest of the evil cretins in the london media, reminds me of the collusion of the vicious, petty,spiteful, jealous bastards after convenient ban of '85 and the seemingly change to Aussie Rules, with "rise" of wimbledon in '86.

Laughable, self pity city shite.

This London based fleet street war clearly failed since northern clubs have dominated the Premiership and Europe.

the golden vision

June 10th, 2010, 09:48 PM

Bollocks.

The Premiership was started by Liverpool and Everton back when they were considered the very top dogs of a 'Big 5'. It was in part, sheer greed to snap up TV money from the new BSB/Sky broadcasters and part in answer to being banned from Europe and needing to increase revenue streams for the elite.

Sir Philip Carter (Local Tory party organiser and fund manager, close friend of Thatcher and Baroness Chalker) sided with Thatcher's war against the working man's sport when she wanted to introduce football ID cards and when she favoured English football fans being banned. He along with his Liverpool counterpart went along with the temporary ban after heysel for ideological reasons, rather than fighting against it (as both clubs should have done).

I point blank refuse, as a die hard blue, to go along with the baiting of Liverpool fans over Hysel and the cries of "if it werent' for Hysel" whingeing. The fact is our Chairman (and Liverpool's) went along with the ban, when legally the authorities didn't have a leg to stand on. The European ban was grossly unfair as examples were made of British clubs when Italian football had an arguably WORSE hooliganism problem. Other similarly troublesome countries where not banned.

As I say, Everton bottled it partly because they thought they could create a "Super League" to compensate. It is not manchester united's fault that they capaitalised on it by increasing the capacity of their stadium, marketing, business interests and youth system....while Everton and Liverpool made minimal effort with their stadia, took years to spend money on academies and training fascilities and had dire marketing strategies up until very recently.

Excellent post.

Evertonian

June 10th, 2010, 10:27 PM

If some of these comrades would get a grip for a bit and stop seeing everything in such black and white "them against us" terms and look a bit closer to home they might understand why both Liverpool clubs are in the shit.

If Murdoch/London/The media had such a vendetta against us you would have seen Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal and Fulham winning everything in sight and promoted at the expense of the rest. Instead we've seen United dominate and even Blackburn winning a title. Liverpool and United have won CL and Leeds had a good run for a bit.

All working class, northern towns.

The reason we have been held back is because both clubs have seen a managed decline by incompetent boards, whether it be the Carter administration that oversaw the dismantling of the greatest Everton side in history, through Peter Johnson's woefull 1990's, to the current board who are managing a further decline hoping to move to an out of town stadium in a neighboruing borough of Knowsley.

Like wise Liverpool have had woefull attempts at marketing what should be the biggest brand in sports for years (ironic that it is actually "dem yanks!" that turned that round somewhat on the comercial front with the Standard deal and the increase in turnover in branding/TV/comercial dept/club stores).

Rick Parry and co presiding over years of allowing United to forge on ahead.

Both Liverpool clubs have sat back and watched united increasing capacity every 5-10 years to take Old Trafford to 75,000 seats....while we sit in antiquated, not fit for purpose or deman stadia. Everton in particular have invested a paltry 12 million in FIFTEEN years on Goodison Park, one of the all time great stadiums in world football.

Manchester United have planning permission passed to build over the rail on their south stand to take Old Trafford to 90,000 seats. They will do it within the next 5-10 years on insistence of Sir Alex. It will be part of his swansong.

The city of Manchester in general now has 2 world class stadia of around 50-75k....we have been searching for stadiums for TWENTY YEARS.

So have a look closer to home at how inept both Liverpool clubs have been and how poorly mismanaged, instead of paranoid bleatings about how "s'notfair! Everyone hates us/is conspiring against us!".

We are where we are because of the decisions our clubs have made over the years (i.e. "no plan b" and selling the family heirlooms to dickhead's from oversees who know FUCK ALL of their worth to people).

No conspiracy here.

Evertonian

June 10th, 2010, 10:31 PM

By the way NONE of what I have written above means that people shouldn't protest against the ownership of Liverpool Football Club by Hicks/Gillett and none of it is to piss on the parade of the SoS and Liverpool fans in general.

I understand 100% their frustrations.

T0M

June 11th, 2010, 02:33 AM

I think Evertonian is secretly a closet red! :eek:

Why else would he post more frequently on this thread than anyone else?.... :sly:

Keayman

June 11th, 2010, 06:00 PM

The academy was self serving when Rafa joined, it was producing decent youth teams but other than Steven Warnock, no useable first team players where coming through, since Owen & Gerrard over a decade ago. Arsenal & Barcelona are seen as the best model for youth team development, and they source their youth talent globally. That's a part of the club Rafa was trying to overhaul and had caused much grief.

Arsenal's wage bill was higher than Liverpool's and has been for a long while.

Don't Arsenal have a strict wage code that they will not break hence Fabregas probably leaving etc...

Houllier started making the academy full of French kids, Rafa got rid and now it's Spanish amongst others. Like you say, a decade is a long time for a regular local born and bred first teamer to break through. It's why a few lads who were in Liverpool's academy/youth team that my daughter knows left to go elsewhere where such players are given a chance.

Toadboy

June 11th, 2010, 06:18 PM

Steven Derby, Jay Spearing and Martin Kelly pushing through, Thomas Ince and Chris Amoo will advance next year. There's been a problem at the academy but Rafa was dealing with it and local talent is coming through as a result. I hope the club focus on this aspect of LFC and make sure that talent is given a chance.

Arsenal have got a high wage bill, they do have a salary code and they do stick to it but they do pay the top wages.

Evertonian

June 11th, 2010, 08:10 PM

I think Evertonian is secretly a closet red! :eek:

Why else would he post more frequently on this thread than anyone else?.... :sly:

Interesting, as i'm often accused of shoehorning my beloved Everton into every thread, much to the annoyance of some reds/non-interesteds.

Poolcool

June 11th, 2010, 09:32 PM

The world's just a little too complex and subtle for you, innit 'to.

bluesnapper

June 13th, 2010, 11:49 AM

DIC is about to hit the wall.

Toadboy

June 13th, 2010, 12:44 PM

Great headline opportunity - "DIC IN THE SHIT".

Evertonian

June 13th, 2010, 01:46 PM

A lucky escape if you ask me. Thank fuck god you didn't get bought by them.

Toadboy

June 13th, 2010, 02:26 PM

Not entirely, there would be no bank debt demanding £millions repayment every year, probably £5/700 debt to the holding company though, with a new stadium built and investment in the team. Liverpool FC would probably be worth the £6/800 million (or more) demanded by Hicks.

It was private equity but a different debt/equity model than the current regime.

Poolcool

June 18th, 2010, 02:58 AM

I've noticed the mingland cap'n is no longer considered media worthy.

Poolcool

June 18th, 2010, 03:14 AM

Cue evertonian to come back with some bbc/fleet street moony shite

Before you do, d'ye know all that crap you came out with, (verbatum, from the london media loons, that you, no doubt, think your smart for "getting", like the rest of the yokels from mingland) makes you sound like the manc troll thicko you are.

Awayo

June 18th, 2010, 09:01 AM

I've noticed the mingland cap'n is no longer considered media worthy.

How'd you mean, Pc? That they seldom interview him? He's not really England captain material though, to his massive credit. He's professional of course and will do this job as he does others, and he likes doing well for personal reasons not matter what stage he's on (the old Stevie Me aspect of his personality).

If they really want someone who feels Mingland in their heart, a lustily God Save the Queen bellowing ex-NF scumbag, they really are better off interviewing someone like Terry, which they do. He's in tune with the loathesome body of England support and of the filthdip London tabloid print media. "I'm finkin of the twoops in Afganishtan when I'm playin", and so on.

Keayman

June 18th, 2010, 11:04 AM

If you wanna hear Stevie G speak about England, City talk are doing a taped loop every half an hour. He's expecting to be played in a more advanced role tonight so I don't think it's totally true that Capello doesn't give his players an insight into the team he's thinking of picking. How could you work on set plays all week long without it.

Anyway, he's 3rd choice captain and it looks like they'd rather interview the injured Rio than him. I go along pretty much with what Awayo says. I think Gerrard leads by example rather than by vocally and I don't think he does enough to diffuse ref situations with players when they get themselves in bother - he prefers to stay out of it instead.

the pool08

June 18th, 2010, 06:39 PM

Independence Day 4th July

Peter said that the idea for an event or action on the 4th July had started on supporters’ websites and had been picked up and adopted by the Union. It had been originally suggested that there should be another march but the union were strongly against this as it was felt there was “march fatigue” for many and something new needed to be considered to get attention.

The Rally is to be at St Georges Hall on the 4th July starting at 12.00noon. It would probably last until about 3.00pm. It would take the format of a stage, speeches by the Union, politicians, former players and other supporters of the campaign. There would be entertainment from local bands between speeches and the aim would be to celebrate our “independence” from the owners and the start of a real push to see them gone once and for all. It would be a family day.

It would also mark the official launch of the Credit Union and hopefully the formal merger between Share Liverpool and the Union. It would be a union event and it needed to be noted that anything adverse that happened on the day would reflect badly on the Union and as such all necessary safety issues would be considered and the Union would do all it could to avoid flag burning.

help spread the word lads.

Poolcool

June 21st, 2010, 01:22 AM

@ Awayo. Spot on.

On the subject of Rafa ; With him gone and purslows evil manipulation of Kenny and friends come to fruition, can we expect the same agenda from gray and the rest of the cunts if Pelligrini (or Hodgson) get the job?

the pool08

June 21st, 2010, 07:53 AM

4th July 2010 - Our Independence Day
Sunday 20th June 2010

As discussed at our recent EGM, Spirit Of Shankly is to host an "Independence Day" Rally at on Sunday 4th July at St George's Hall from 12 noon. Using those famous steps were Shankly himself once stood, we have a good line up of speakers and musicians, including Karen Gill, Neil Fitzmaurice, John O' Connell and Sons of Anfield, with Councillors, MP's, Ex-players and others to be confirmed shortly.

We will be officially launching our Supporter Ownership proposal, and our Declaration of Independence from Tom and George.

This event is for every Red - Young and old, Male and Female, from Bootle to Berkshire, Anfield to Aberdeen. It is our chance to come together, and say loud and clear that we don't want them here anymore.

Make sure you are there. Make sure you are heard.

"Tom and George - It's OUR club, not yours!"

Further information and acts will be announced shortly. There is no march planned. This event is for all the family and all ages will be catered for, including entertainment/food/drink. If you can be there, you need to be.

Portobello Red

June 21st, 2010, 11:15 PM

Liverpool FC banner destroyed by FIFA in World Cup censorship clampdown

http://images.clickliverpool.com/admin/article/articleimages/1276680777-worldcup.jpg

Click Liverpool (http://www.clickliverpool.com/sport/liverpool-fc/129499-liverpool-fc-banner-destroyed-by-fifa-in-world-cup-censorship-clampdown.html)

Liverpool fans campaigning for the removal of George Gillett and Tom Hicks were shocked and angered after a banner was destroyed by FIFA officials at a World Cup game last weekend.

The flag, seized by officials at Durban Stadium on Sunday evening, was part of an internet-based awareness campaign opposing the club's ownership by the Americans, who have saddled the Reds with debts in excess of £351million since seizing control in 2007.

Stewards confiscated and destroyed the inoffensive flag taken into the stadium by Nadeem Khan, a member of the South African Liverpool Supporters Club, proclaiming 'Save Liverpool FC - Hicks and Gillett out' during to the game between Germany and Australia.

The 29-year-old was told by representatives of world football's governing body that the flag contravened their rules against obscene or vulgar images being displayed at games, despite no such guidelines existing in FIFA's ticketing terms and conditions.

He said: "I then went to the second level of the stadium as soon the kick-off whistle sounded to hang up my banner with the rest of the team supporters’ ones there.

"Then I went back to my seat at the lower level and constantly gazed up to check on the banner, it was around the 27th minute of the game that I looked up and to my horror there were three security officials removing the banner from the rail.

"I immediately got up to approach to the officers but I was confronted by two officials as soon as I stood up and asked to go to the security office.

"On my arrival there I was met by two other supervisors, both European and they showed me to a camera where they had recorded me. They had traced me from the time I got to the stadium until the time they called me.

"They saw the banner on live game footage and apparently had to remove it because FIFA's rules state that no material bearing obscene or vulgar images is to be displayed at their events.

"I pleaded my case then gave in after no joy and asked for the banner back so that I may keep it away, but they refused to return it to me. One steward sliced the banner up with his Stanley blade"

Nadeem, who had travelled to the game from Pietermaritzburg with his wife and child, had his phone searched as part of a crackdown on hooliganism and was warned that he would be closely monitored at future games he will be attending throughout the tournament.

"They then started lecturing me on football hooliganism and what charges they can issue against me and went through the call list on my phone," he added.

"My ticket number was recorded on their computer and they showed me all the games that I would be attending and how they will keep a close eye on me.

"By the time I returned to my seat Germany scored their fourth goal so I took my stuff and left with my wife and child who were terrified, not knowing what was going on.

"I only stopped shaking when I got back to Pietermaritzburg which is over 85 kilometres away."

Alan Cooper, one of Save Liverpool FC's co-ordinators, confirmed that the Football Supporters' Federation (FSF) are investigating why FIFA took such stringent against Mr Khan for displaying the banner.

He said: "We want an explanation from FIFA why a guy who was with his wife and kid was accused of being a hooligan and treated so badly.

"We understand them taking the banner down but I'd like to know why it was destroyed in front of him.

"The sensible thing to do would be to keep hold of the banner until the end of the game and then hand it back to him."

A FIFA spokesman confirmed to Click Liverpool that they were aware of the incident and "will revert in due course."

Two Irish fans were threatened with imprisonment for displaying an inoffensive flag during France's game with Uruguay last Friday whilst Americans were also threatened with jail terms for holding up a banner claiming, 'Wayne Bridge for USA' during their clash with England.

FIFA have been condemned by football fans worldwide for their censorship of this summer's tournament after they ejected 36 Holland fans from yesterday's 2-0 win over Denmark for wearing mini-dresses designed by Dutch brewer Bavaria, citing "ambush marketing".

Local businesses in South Africa have been banned from using the phrase 'World Cup 2010' unless they are officially recognised partners of the tournament whilst locally-made products are forbidden unlike FIFA's officially licensed merchandise, which was all made in Taiwan.

Keayman

June 22nd, 2010, 01:41 PM

Worse than bureaucracy gone mad.

Howie_P

June 25th, 2010, 03:40 PM

Sounds a good day!! Burn the stars and stripes

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/Our-Independence-Day-_-Sunday-4th-July-12-noon.html

Toadboy

June 25th, 2010, 03:56 PM

Aye aye, Howie. No flag burning, the Union is going upmarket.

the pool08

June 26th, 2010, 02:22 PM

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs296.snc3/28441_1336105118553_1108852185_30821162_5628964_n.jpg

Babaloo

June 30th, 2010, 12:00 PM

Roy Hodgson is the new Liverpool FC manager
Jun 30 2010 EXCLUSIVE by Dominic King

ROY HODGSON will be officially named Liverpool FC’s new manager today (Wednesday).

The 62-year-old is due on Merseyside to complete the formalities of signing a contract after the Reds agreed a compensation package in the region of £2million with Fulham for his release.

Cordial negotiations have been ongoing in the past 72 hours between Liverpool’s Managing Director Christian Purslow and Fulham Chief Executive Alastair Mackintosh and they have now reached a successful conclusion.

Though Liverpool – who have remained tight-lipped throughout their search to replace Rafa Benitez – were linked with a clutch of names, Hodgson was always the number one candidate.

Other names in the frame included former Real Madrid boss Manuel Pellegrini, Galatasary’s Frank Rijkaard and Didier Deschamps of Marseille, while Kenny Dalglish also made it clear he was desperate to take the job on.

Dalglish had initially been named as part of the recruitment process but he was desperate to have a second crack at the post he occupied between 1985 and 1991 when he felt his claims were as strong as the other candidates.

The board, though, were anxious to pursue Hodgson and Liverpool will be his 16th job in a managerial career that has spanned almost 35 years.

His first post was with Swedish side Halmstads in 1976 and he enjoyed instant success, leading them to two Swedish titles; he would later coach Malmo after a brief stint with Bristol City.

Until the Yanks go, I doubt it matters who happens to be the manager. I would have gone for Dider (he wasn't interested) or even Kenny (so keen - too keen? Can someone explain why Hodgson?

yoshef

June 30th, 2010, 12:26 PM

Until the Yanks go, I doubt it matters who happens to be the manager. I would have gone for Dider (he wasn't interested) or even Kenny (so keen - too keen? Can someone explain why Hodgson?

I'd guess he is cheaper, has a decent track record of working within a limited budget, and possibly being in his 60s they can tie him to a much shorter contract?

Babaloo

June 30th, 2010, 12:55 PM

An encouraging level of pragmatism! Maybe he will just focus on the job in hand and that will bode well.

It won't be long now before we find out!

Toadboy

June 30th, 2010, 07:15 PM

Until the Yanks go, I doubt it matters who happens to be the manager. I would have gone for Dider (he wasn't interested) or even Kenny (so keen - too keen? Can someone explain why Hodgson?

Didier was interested, made a very strong pitch for the job. It was between him and Woy, they went for Woy as the idiots running the club believe it's the risk free option - Liverpool rejected Dechamps. That's right, risk free. Spend £8 million sacking one man and compensating another club to change the manager, that's no risk. The Idiots.

the pool08

July 4th, 2010, 08:41 AM

Portobello Red

July 12th, 2010, 04:06 AM

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/102808771.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF87892102A727B1636DE2E636A5883386BAD47FB9F452224ADA3205CD035E73DD218F46

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/102807939.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF87892102A727B1636DE2E6370FC72BBE64A828B9F452224ADA32052F2AB8B90E05C357

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/102812838.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF87892102A727B1636DE2E611C3CF5C7A9E26BD03106E2CAF0C9D33CC12A55F117C102F

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/102808060.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF87892102A727B1636DE2E6B9FD670D6E3E2EA1B9F452224ADA3205710675B43A07C00C

Keayman

July 19th, 2010, 03:33 PM

JOE COLE has signed on a 4 year deal.

Toadboy

July 20th, 2010, 08:45 PM

Cripes.

Poolcool

July 28th, 2010, 09:35 PM

Has anybody got any photos, looking from the top of Anfield or Goodison?

Paul D

August 2nd, 2010, 02:31 PM

Another possible buyer?

Liverpool FC buy-up planned by Chinese businessman Kenny Huang

Aug 2 2010
A LEADING Chinese businessman is in the hunt to buy Liverpool FC.

Kenny Huang, the chief executive of Chinese sports investment company QSL, is believed to have lodged a major bid to take over the Reds several days ago.

And it is understood he is pressing for a decision within days – one which could finally remove American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett – if he is successful in persuading the Reds’ board to agree the sale.

Huang, who is partnered by one of the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the Far East, is co-chairman of the National Basketball League of China and holds the same position with the National Baseball League of China.

He was the first Chinese college graduate from mainland China to work at the New York Stock Exchange.

The QSL Youth Development Support fund is the largest sports related charity fund for under-privileged children in China.

Its aim is to create development opportunities for young people in sport and increase the popularity of sport in China.

It is not known how much Huang’s QSL bid involves or at what price it values the five-times European champions.

But it is being suggested a deal would see Huang and QSL effectively take over the Reds’ overall debts of £350m, £237m of which is owed to RBS.

There are said to be plans to not only retain Anfield’s top stars like Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres but to invest further in the transfer market and get the long-since stalled stadium building project back on the agenda.

It could also see Hicks and Gillett depart with little, if any, material profit from their three years co-ownership.

So far, Liverpool FC have made no statement on reports about the bid from Huang.

The club was officially put up for sale in April when Hicks and Gillett appointed British Airways chairman Martin Broughton to oversee any deal.

The closest Liverpool have come to gaining new investment in the past 12 months was when the New York-based equity firm the Rhone Group made a bid to acquire a 40% stake in the club but it was dismissed by Hicks and Gillett.

tommygunn

August 2nd, 2010, 05:30 PM

This is great news wealthy new owners and no profit for the cowboys.

Medici

August 2nd, 2010, 10:09 PM

At least the Shanghai Expo has been good for one thing.

Paul D

August 2nd, 2010, 11:48 PM

A word of caution,everyone seems to be getting a bit ahead of themselves here,the deal hasn't been done yet,remember the DIC bid was done and dusted once.

Paul D

August 3rd, 2010, 04:17 PM

Striker Fernando Torres committed to Liverpool

Liverpool striker Fernando Torres says he is "committed to the club and fans" and is "looking forward to working with new Reds manager Roy Hodgson".

Torres, 26, had been linked to Chelsea and Manchester City ever since the club failed to qualify for this season's Champions League.

"I am looking forward to the challenge ahead," Torres told the club's website.

"My commitment and loyalty to the club and to the fans is the same as it was on my first day when I signed."

The Spain international returned to training on Monday after helping his nation win the World Cup in South Africa in July.

However, Torres, who is recovering from the adductor injury he sustained in the final against the Netherlands, is delighted to be back at the club.

"I am really happy to be back, really happy to stay with all my team-mates," he said.

Liverpool finished seventh last season in the Premier League, failing to win a trophy, with manager Rafael Benitez also leaving the club after six years in charge at Anfield.

As the dismal 2009/10 season drew to a conclusion, Torres claimed the Reds needed to sign four or five players in order to meet his ambitions in terms of challenging for honours.

Liverpool have only added attacking midfielder Joe Cole, Serbian forward Milan Jovanvoic and defender Danny Wilson to the squad, while Yossi Benayoun has joined Chelsea and Argentina defensive midfielder Javier Mascherano is also set to leave.

However, with new manager Hodgson at the helm the former Atletico Madrid star is keen to fire the Reds back into the top four of the Premier League and begin challenging for trophies again.

"This is the best club in the country so the targets and expectations are always high," added Torres who arrived from Atletico in July 2007.

"Hopefully we can stay at our level. At Liverpool the aim is to fight for every title.

"It was difficult last season but we are sure we can improve this season."

Torres was visited in Spain after the World Cup by Hodgson who later said he expected the striker to stay at the club.

And the Madrid-born striker who endured an injury-plagued season last year has admitted Hodgson's visit played an important part his decision to commit to Liverpool.

Torres suffers groin injury in the World Cup final

"I really appreciated the fact that Roy came out to see me while I was on my holidays," stated Torres.

"He told me about his plans for the club and what he wanted from me and I appreciated that. I hope he will be the right man to reach the targets of Liverpool Football Club and I am really looking forward to working with him."

With talk of a takeover of the club also, Torres comments will be a further boost to Liverpool fans ahead of the new season.

Torres has always felt a love for, and loyalty to, Liverpool and has no intention of turning his back on the Merseysiders after one difficult campaign.

"From my first day I got the same welcome as Stevie [Gerrard] or Carra [Jamie Carragher] or players who have been here for a long time," he said.

"I felt at home from the first day, I feel the fans love me and everyone knows I am really happy here and really happy to play at Anfield.

"I'm looking forward to starting the season and playing with my team-mates and for the fans."

Keayman

August 3rd, 2010, 04:21 PM

"Hopefully we can stay at our level''

That'll be 7th then?

Portobello Red

August 5th, 2010, 05:07 AM

Front page of The Times today:

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Aug/Week1/15677241.jpg

Evertonian

August 8th, 2010, 03:10 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/aug/08/liverpool-rbs-takeover

Taxpayer could take over Liverpool • RBS's main £237m loan expires on 6 October

Liverpool are two months from becoming majority-owned by the taxpayer, which, the Observer can reveal, has become the likeliest outcome if a sale has not neared completion in that time.

The Royal Bank of Scotland's main £237m loan to the club expires on 6 October and must either be repaid or rolled over. Additional sums owing to RBS are believed to have increased the club's total debt to the bank to £325m. Liverpool's company secretary, Ian Silvester, said: "From what I understand, and that's all I can say, the urgency is there due to the pressure from the banks, so I would anticipate that something will be happening within the next four to six weeks or so."

One option open to RBS would be to put the club's parent company, Kop Football (Holdings), into administration, but that is not favoured since it would almost inevitably lead to a nine-point deduction under Premier League insolvency rules. Instead, the Observer has learned, unless one of the parties involved in negotiations to take over at Anfield follows through with a formal offer, RBS's corporate-restructuring team would assume control of Liverpool and run the club as a wholly owned subsidiary. That would effectively put the five-times European champions in the hands of the taxpayer who, through the government-owned UK Financial Investments Ltd, holds 84.42% of the issued share capital in RBS.

When the loans last required refinancing in April Martin Broughton was installed by RBS as club chairman. This is said to have been due to the inability of the current shareholders, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, to provide the necessary personal guarantees to the bank. But those close to the situation say RBS's patience has now reached breaking point. In the absence of a takeover or fresh funding from the Americans the bank will be entitled to oust Hicks and Gillett from the board of Kop Football (Holdings), a step the bank is believed to be ready to take in October.

"One or two in the bank are getting twitchy about getting their money back at all," a source said. "And they are incredibly nervous about the current bids. They don't regard anything as particularly serious at the moment."

Those said to be keen on bidding include the Chinese Kenny Huang, the Syrian Yahya Kirdi, the Kuwaiti Kharafi Group, the US private-equity firm Rhône Group and, reportedly, now the Indian conglomerate Sahara.

RBS's prerequisite in the sale process is for repayment in full, though none of the bidders has yet provided proof of funds. This is highly significant since formal due diligence cannot therefore proceed, despite pledges from several consortiums to build a new stadium and invest in the team.

That is when buyers would look for the first time over player contracts, planning applications surrounding the stadium and a host of other legal issues that could potentially throw up obstacles to a takeover. Due diligence can take weeks, so the chance of a takeover before the closure of the transfer window on 31 August is remote. There is also a growing possibility that the 6 October deadline will not be met.

In an effort to bring greater order to the chaos around Anfield, Broughton has issued a request for all parties to demonstrate their funding by the end of the coming week. There were indications yesterday from Huang's camp that he will show he is capable of financing a bid. However, for the first time there was an admission that any cash he has raised will not derive from China's sovereign‑wealth fund, the China Investment Corporation. That development raises issues over the credibility of Huang's bid, since those inside the sale process had previously been informed by his camp that CIC was involved.

Broughton will seek this week to apply similar pressure to Kirdi, whose consortium's credibility has been called into question by those involved in the sale process. If neither Huang nor Kirdi can meet Broughton's terms by next weekend, Liverpool will have no further contact with them.

That would leave only two, possibly three, bidders at the table. And without one of Rhône, Kharafi or Sahara proceeding over the next nine weeks to a stage where a takeover is almost a foregone conclusion, the prospect that Liverpool become effectively a state‑owned enterprise rises.

Won't this make them the :omg: PEOPLE'S CLUB!!!???

Toadboy

August 8th, 2010, 03:25 PM

We already are.

tommygunn

August 11th, 2010, 06:27 PM

The greediest ones in all this seem too be RBS they must be loveing it.

Paul D

August 11th, 2010, 09:00 PM

The latest in a long line of stories,I don't know how true it is but if it is things aren't looking good.

Published: 7:36PM BST 11 Aug 2010
Liverpool postpone meeting to discuss takeover with no serious bids on the table
A Liverpool board meeting scheduled for Thursday to discuss offers for the club has been postponed, providing further evidence of the complications and uncertainty surrounding the club’s future.

Telegraph Sport can disclose that the decision to postpone was taken amid continuing doubts about the credibility of potential bidders and after the date had been publicised in the media.

A well-placed source said it would have been “premature” to meet this week, indicating that the club were yet to receive any formal offers backed by proof of funds.

Sources said the board would not meet this week and it is unclear when the five-man group – chairman Martin Broughton, owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett, managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre – will now convene.

The delay raises doubts about the club’s prospects of changing hands this month, or even before the Oct 6 refinancing deadline set by Royal Bank of Scotland.

Broughton had asked as many as six potential buyers to table detailed offers, including proof of funds, by the end of this week, in the hope that two might be worth serious consideration. That deadline now looks ambitious.

For supporters desperate for clarity amid the claims and counter-claims of the last fortnight the postponement is not a positive sign.

Broughton might still emerge from the fog of speculation clutching a piece of paper securing the future of Liverpool FC in the near future, but this does not make it feel any more imminent.

At least five potential buyers are thought to have expressed an interest. Chinese-American businessman Kenneth Huang and Syrian Yahya Kurdi have both said they are considering an offer for the club, while the Kuwaiti Al-Kharafi family and New York investors the Rhone Group are also thought to have expressed an interest. Indian conglomerate Sahara said this week it would not bid “for the time being”, but did not rule it out.

Until any of them table offers with proof of funds Broughton’s hopes of securing a deal before the end of the transfer window will be dashed.

The timing is significant. The deadline for formal offers falls on Friday, and marks the end of the two-week window after which Huang indicated he would walk away if his offer was not accepted. It is also a fortnight from the closure of the transfer window, the last opportunity for Roy Hodgson to enhance his squad.

It appears likely now that the window will close without a formal change in Liverpool’s ownership leaving the far more significant deadline set by RBS looking like the decisive factor in the fate of the club.

The bank agreed to extend its £237million loan facility in April only after Hicks and Gillett agreed to sell and to appoint Broughton to oversee the process.

RBS is also understood to have imposed more expensive terms on the Americans, with £110million of their debt reportedly converted to payment-in-kind loans accruing interest of up to £2.5m a week.

This gives RBS by far the greatest leverage of any of the players in the Anfield saga, though whether they will choose to use it remains to be seen.

They are reported to have offered to “ease” the financing for any bidder, a move that emphasises the sensitivity of their position.

If October arrives with no acceptable offer RBS could extend its financing to the Americans again, or take a more drastic step and force out Hicks and Gillett and effectively take control of the club.

That would be a hugely controversial step for the publicly-owned bank to take and would require the endorsement of senior management including chief executive Stephen Hester. Removing the Americans might be popular on Merseyside and would certainly simplify the process, but it would not be without implications for the banks reputation.

For potential bidders RBS’s situation offers an opportunity. Letting the clock tick down will increase the bank’s anxiety, the fees paid by Hicks and Gillett and drive the price down .

Sahara’s statement this week suggests that may be their strategy. Yahya Kurdi, understood to be backed by investors from Sharjah and considered a serious bidder by the Americans, who are seeking a profit from their time in charge at Anfield, indicated he would do likewise.

“I want at least two months, two months to see everything. After that if everything is OK it’s a deal. If not, ‘Thank you very much,’” he told Bloomberg this week.

The Huang bid told Telegraph Sport on Wednesday that it had still not decided whether to make an offer. Marc Ganis, a US associate of Huang’s, said via email:

“We haven’t yet decided to submit a formal proposal but are interested in looking at an investment there. I suspect that is obvious. We also have not identified the potential investors.”

Ganis’s statement is a far more sober assessment than the suggestions of a swift Chinese government-led takeover emanating from Huang’s camp last week Huang, a sports business investor who cites top-level contacts in China and the US, has made no comment himself since news of his intentions emerged last week, there has been confusion over the source of his funding and the exact make-up of his team.

His background has come under scrutiny too, though not via his company website, which has displayed the message ‘Site Under Maintenance’ since his involvement Huang received high-profile endorsement on Wednesday when Randy Levine, president of the New York Yankees, telling The New York Times he had arranged marketing tie-ups in China.

Huang would hope to do the same for Liverpool, but first he will have to convince Broughton that he has the investment backing to buy the club.

Huang would hope to do the same for Liverpool, but first, like everyone else circling the club, he will have to convince Broughton he has the finances to buy the club.

Evertonian

August 11th, 2010, 10:16 PM

yoshef

August 12th, 2010, 01:05 PM

I hope some propper thought goes into who takes over and a damn sight more scrutiny.

I understand Liverpudlian's feelings of wanting to get rid of the gobshites ASAP, but the same mistakes cannot be allowed to happen again.

Perhaps Liverpool are experienceing the same problems Bill Kenwright claims is the case in trying to sell Everton, in that there is always an "interested party", but when it comes to the nitty gritty and time to put the cards on the table, it can turn to be empty promises with no real backing.

This Huang guy SEEMS to be the best bet rather than the Syrian, from my feeling on this, but it is a big concern that his backers seem to be unidentifiable. IF he can provide Broughton with details of how he is going to finance 150 million for the squad, 250 million for the debt and 400 million for the stadium, then this deal seems the most advantagous for the club and possibly the city in general.

There is a lot of rubbish in the press about money the club requires, or people are going to spend. If the purchase of the club includes clearing the debt, that immediately frees up over £40 million a year to spend on player transfers and towards financing of a new stadium. The club is more than capable of drumming up a big sponsorship deals to put towards a stadium build. The idea that someone buying the club immediately needs to underwrite £800 million is a bit far fetched.

Paul D

August 12th, 2010, 09:13 PM

Kenny Huang "50% confident" of Liverpool FC takeover
by Richard Buxton. Published
2010-08-12

Chinese businessman Kenny Huang believes that his consortium have a chance of "about 50%" of winning control of Liverpool, with a deal expected as early as October.

Following weeks of intense speculation, the former Wall Street stockbroker has broken his silence in a rare interview in his homeland during which he confirmed that the Anfield board had accepted his group's proposals.

However Huang, 46, insisted that no bid has been submitted to chairman Martin Broughton, the club or its lenders and that the group had 'some way to go' before they would be able to table an offer for George Gillett and Tom Hicks' shares.

"Our interest in buying LFC has been recognised by the board," he said.

"At the same time, we have continued our work - researching and evaluating, the overall progress is good. However, there are quite a number of strong competitors. So there are still a lot of unknowns.

"We have put forward many proposals and we have the answer: the board has accepted our proposal and wish us to continue the process. We have a reply in less than 10 days.

"There is still some way to go. It was that we asked the board to let us know whether our proposal would be overall acceptable and the board has said yes."

Huang also revealed that investors from the Middle East and North America are battling against him in the race to takeover the club with any successful deals set to be finalised in October, when the Royal Bank of Scotland plan to recall Liverpool's £237million debt.

The Anfield board, including Gillett and Hicks, are expected to meet to discuss any potential offers on the table before Liverpool kick off their Barclays Premier League campaign with Arsenal this Sunday.

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 09:22 PM

There is a lot of rubbish in the press about money the club requires, or people are going to spend. If the purchase of the club includes clearing the debt, that immediately frees up over £40 million a year to spend on player transfers and towards financing of a new stadium. The club is more than capable of drumming up a big sponsorship deals to put towards a stadium build. The idea that someone buying the club immediately needs to underwrite £800 million is a bit far fetched.

Forgive me Yoshef but I never said that the money needed to there upfront and immediately.

I am saying that whoever comes to Liverpool needs to understand that theres a 400 million pound stadium needed as a PRIORITY for this club and as importantly, this city. The debts need to be reduced or else the bank COULD adminstrate the club (9 points deduction).

Long term this is a billion pound+ project. My deep concern is that whoever takes over is vetted properly and that a Hicks/Gillet scenario is avoided in future.

Now that's not me saying all that. Broughton was the one who publicly stated that they had to show they had the money to invest in debt reduction AND start the stadium.

Huangs organisation have stated publicly that they want to show they have the model to purchase the stadium AND pledged to remove totally, the debt.

It's not "rubbish" to point out that 800 million is needed as a bare minimum to save Liverpool.

I say all of this as a person coming from a family made up half red/half blue and as someone who wants to see a resurgence in Merseyside football (i.e. to the point where Everton and Liverpool dominate as they did in the 80's). I'm not posting on here to wind people up.

yoshef

August 12th, 2010, 09:52 PM

Forgive me Yoshef but I never said that the money needed to there upfront and immediately.

I am saying that whoever comes to Liverpool needs to understand that theres a 400 million pound stadium needed as a PRIORITY for this club and as importantly, this city. The debts need to be reduced or else the bank COULD adminstrate the club (9 points deduction).

Long term this is a billion pound+ project. My deep concern is that whoever takes over is vetted properly and that a Hicks/Gillet scenario is avoided in future.

Now that's not me saying all that. Broughton was the one who publicly stated that they had to show they had the money to invest in debt reduction AND start the stadium.

Huangs organisation have stated publicly that they want to show they have the model to purchase the stadium AND pledged to remove totally, the debt.

It's not "rubbish" to point out that 800 million is needed as a bare minimum to save Liverpool.

I say all of this as a person coming from a family made up half red/half blue and as someone who wants to see a resurgence in Merseyside football (i.e. to the point where Everton and Liverpool dominate as they did in the 80's). I'm not posting on here to wind people up.

Calling it a billion pound project is sensationalism. If Huang buys the club for anything higher than around £320 million in cash, the debts are cleared straight away. Without the interest repayments on the debt, the club will be £40 million a year in profit, and more than safe. That's before even considering the stadium.

Anybody buying the club will know all about the necessity of a new stadium, and they'll no doubt allow for a substantial cash injection to start the stadium build in their business plan, but the stadium pays for itself at the end of the day, and will no doubt be partially financed by sponsorship and debt, of the good variety. With the club in profit it can handle a substantial amount of debt, just not the £300 million it is carrying at the moment.

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 09:58 PM

I hope so.

jets9

August 12th, 2010, 10:26 PM

Despite the vageries of business and investment, it is understandable that there is a queue to purchase LFC....it's one of the most famous and potentally lucrative sports 'franchises' on the planet with the sixth or seventh highest football club turnover in the world.

There is about nil chance of Lpool fc going into administration.....loose(Evertonian) talk costs lives :lol:

tommygunn

August 12th, 2010, 10:28 PM

Yoshef is right their was talk of a £250 million nameing rights deal for the new stadium a while back.

the pool08

August 12th, 2010, 10:34 PM

Thank you Chelsea FC,
We got Joe Cole on a free,
Five million pounds for the yid Yossi,
That's what we call robbery.

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 10:42 PM

Yoshef is right their was talk of a £250 million nameing rights deal for the new stadium a while back.

Pre-credit crunch/recession. Advertising revenues are dramatically down.

WirlieG

August 12th, 2010, 10:43 PM

Yoshef is right their was talk of a £250 million nameing rights deal for the new stadium a while back.

If this is possible why would G&H have not gone down this route?

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 10:44 PM

There is about nil chance of Lpool fc going into administration.....loose(Evertonian) talk costs lives :lol:

Let's hope that prooves to be the case.

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 10:55 PM

If this is possible why would G&H have not gone down this route?

The model was based on the Arsenal model, which as we know was in very different circumstances.

I don't doubt whatsoever that Liverpool FC has the potential to be THE biggest club in Europe. Certainly up there with the Real's, Milanese and Barca's of this world, but expecting the figures talked about then is perhaps asking a bit much in THIS ecconomic climate and considering there are no guarantees that Roy can get Liverpool back into the Champions League (this is not a wind up, this is a realistic assessment that Manchester City and Spurs will be competing hard to take Arsenal and Liverpool's traditional spot and will probably outspend Liverpool in the short term).

Any naming rights deal would be spread over 15-20 years and would come in installments over that time. A considerable amount of money is required to get this project off the ground. A project all but the most bitter of rival fans agree is essential for this city.

THIS is why I am saying that I hope some real time and consideration is taken in due dilligence to ensure that whoever takes control of the club has the capital to start the Stanley Park project. That will be hard at a time when banks worldwide are not lending money.

Hicks and Gillet are no poorer than Huang (and in fact probably have a higher personal wealth combined) and yet couldn't secure the lending.

Let's all just be (as SoS are) cautiously welcoming of the investment, while praying that Broughton and co conduct a propper scrutinisation of any bidders.

yoshef

August 12th, 2010, 11:00 PM

If this is possible why would G&H have not gone down this route?

I've no doubt they would have prior to screwing the clubs credit rating, perhaps not to the value of £250m, but certainly around that of Arsenal's deal with Emirates. The Standard Chartered deal alone is worth £80m.

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 11:05 PM

Is the Chartered deal 80 million up front or is it dependant on conditions being met and payed in installments?

Will Liverpool pocket the full 80 million if they fall out of the top 4 for example?

(genuine non-wind up question)

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 11:06 PM

Ah right....

The bank agreed a four-year £80m performance-related shirt sponsorship with Liverpool starting this season with remuneration linked to on-field achievements.

A repeat of last season’s lacklustre fortunes is unlikely to result in a maximum return under the terms of the deal

yoshef

August 12th, 2010, 11:11 PM

Hicks and Gillet are no poorer than Huang (and in fact probably have a higher personal wealth combined) and yet couldn't secure the lending.

Huang isn't using his own money though, he's a frontman. The fact is it is not yet public knowledge what sort of backing he has.

Gillett and Hicks couldn't secure funding because they're both in the shit. Gillett sold off his hockey team, and Hicks' baseball team defaulted on a loan and has been auctioned off.

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 11:16 PM

My hope is that the Chinese bid is strong, passes due dilligence with a good bill of health.

The reason being that I would like to see this as the begginging of a lot of Chinese investment in the city. A chinese company running this sporting icon and being active in the city would be very good for attracting further Chinese investment, I am sure.

Further to this Liverpool FC really need to take their brand over to China more. They are popular in Asia but according to articles i've read recently, they are not as strong in the market as Arsenal and Manchester United.

A wealthy, strong, succesful and well backed Liverpool FC (and for that matter Everton FC as well) is in the ecconomic and cutural interests of Merseyside. This goes beyond petty footballing rivalry.

yoshef

August 12th, 2010, 11:25 PM

Ah right....

how much do you think Liverpool got last year from this deal considering we finished 7th ?

I'll give you a hint, this was our shirt last year.

http://www.jersey99.com/bmz_cache/d/d77303c578f0e3f908203d172dab65c5.image.309x320.JPG

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 11:32 PM

No idea mate? Considerably less I would imagine.

yoshef

August 12th, 2010, 11:33 PM

No idea mate? Considerably less I would imagine.

our shirt sponsor was Carlsberg last season

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 11:37 PM

So if you finish 7th (or 5th or 6th) again how much will the Standard deal be worth?

tommygunn

August 12th, 2010, 11:48 PM

So if you finish 7th (or 5th or 6th) again how much will the Standard deal be worth?

20 million a season i think maybe a bit less if we do really bad.

yoshef

August 12th, 2010, 11:55 PM

So if you finish 7th (or 5th or 6th) again how much will the Standard deal be worth?

I don't know, but I can't imagine it being much different as it just a performance incentive. The example was given to demonstrate the clubs ability, even in a distressed state, to secure big sponsorship deals. The fine details of the deal, like Standard Chartered selling Liverpool merchandise from their branches, aren't particularly relevant.

Evertonian

August 12th, 2010, 11:59 PM

It won't be 80 million if you are not in the Champions League then.

yoshef

August 13th, 2010, 12:19 AM

It won't be 80 million if you are not in the Champions League then.

So what? The club signed a deal worth a potential £80 million. It is still an £80 million deal. You're missing the point and getting bogged down in fine details.

Evertonian

August 13th, 2010, 12:26 AM

The point i'm trying to make is that some people are assuming that because Liverpool signed an 80 million pound deal, that a naming rights deal would be equal, if not more lucrative than the Emirates one and that this would pay much toward the stadium.

I would hope that would be the case, however the Emirates deal was done during a very different ecconomic climate and much depends on Liverpool's performance.

Would you not conceed that advertising budgets in general are going to be cut over the next 5 years and that no club (and I mean no club) is guaranteed 4th or above?

yoshef

August 13th, 2010, 12:27 AM

It is understood Standard Chartered initially decided to sponsor a football team and only then - after speaking to a number of clubs - decided to go with Liverpool.

Among the reasons, apart from its strong history and trophy record, was the huge potential fan base it offered to the bank.

One estimate has put the LFC following at as high as 130 million fans across 16 major markets - including China (58m), India (6m), Thailand (5m), Malaysia (2m), Japan (2m) and South Africa (6m), all of countries of interest to the bank.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8282125.stm

Liverpool striker Fernando Torres' surname was the most popular to feature on replica Premier League shirts printed worldwide last season.

It is the second successive season the Spaniard has been top, while Anfield team-mate Steven Gerrard was second in the top 10 list compiled by SportingiD.

Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney moved up one place to third.

Figures are based on the number of official club shirts sold domestically and internationally.

Top 10 names printed on shirts 2009/10 Season

1. Torres
2. Gerrard
3. Rooney
4. Fabregas
5. Arshavin
6. Lampard
7. Drogba
8. Owen
9. Carragher
10. Tevez

yoshef

August 13th, 2010, 12:28 AM

buggedboy

August 13th, 2010, 12:30 AM

Apparently Huang has submitted his bid to BarCap. Could go to the board within next couple of days.

Also, H & G have been committed to paying £2.5m per week penalty fees to RBS and this cannot be charged to the club. If the club gets sold cheap/in administration = H & G will get sued by RBS.

Interesting times.

Evertonian

August 13th, 2010, 12:33 AM

The Emirates deal is Shirt Sponsorship AND Stadium Naming rights. Liverpool's shirt deal was signed with a BANK whilst the country was still deeply in recession.

You believe in this ecconomic climate that a similar deal to Emirates can be secured?

Let's hope you are right.

yoshef

August 13th, 2010, 12:48 AM

You believe in this ecconomic climate that a similar deal to Emirates can be secured?

Let's hope you are right.

No I believe they can do much better. IIRC Arsenal took a hit to get money up front, a 15 year sponsorship deal actually only worth around £6.6 million per year.

Evertonian

August 13th, 2010, 01:05 AM

We shall see.

A lot depends on you getting back into the top 4 which is not certain.

Personally I predict, within the next 5 years, a massive hole is going to be blown through the Premiership bubble and football in England in general. I don't think there will be anywhere near the money available as has been during the good years, particularly sponsorship. I also predict a large downturn in fan attendance when we're facing 3-4 million unemployed in this country in the next 2 years.

tommygunn

August 13th, 2010, 12:07 PM

Gillett and Hicks couldn't secure funding because they're both in the shit. Gillett sold off his hockey team, and Hicks' baseball team defaulted on a loan and has been auctioned off.

Might be the best thing that could of happened them two being skint its worse haveing someone who can afford too screw the club like malcom galzer.

Paul D

August 13th, 2010, 02:58 PM

I thought Huang had only had his "proposal" accepted and not a bid as such,that's what the article I posted says anyway.I've heard nothing of a direct bid with BarCap and can't find nothing anywhere?

buggedboy

August 13th, 2010, 04:17 PM

Looks like the board are meeting tonight, according to the most reliable sources.

Could be significant this...

Toadboy

August 13th, 2010, 04:34 PM

It is. Hopeful of a formal announcement tomorrow.

guenuk

August 13th, 2010, 05:24 PM

If the chinese bid is backed by CIC then the likes of Peel will be rubbing their hands on glee I'd imagine at the potential business deals that could be done with the Liverpool and Chinese links, the spin off potential could be enormous for the city.....not that I'm getting ahead of myself you understand!...I'll just be glad to see the end of hicks and gillett but concerned for the future of the club under the direction of new ownership.

tommygunn

August 13th, 2010, 05:26 PM

Maybe the Shanghai expo had something too do with the chinese bid you never know.

cambrian

August 13th, 2010, 07:00 PM

It is. Hopeful of a formal announcement tomorrow.

If there is a formal announcement ,Will it be announcing the preferred bidder's name, or are we further along the line than that?

Toadboy

August 13th, 2010, 07:03 PM

There's only one bidder, they've now been assigned as the preferred bidder, a bit more due diligence.

guenuk

August 13th, 2010, 07:06 PM

Toadboy do you have a source or are you gleening your info from the likes of rawk?

cambrian

August 13th, 2010, 07:22 PM

There's only one bidder, they've now been assigned as the preferred bidder, a bit more due diligence.

Thats good news hopefully things sorted by end of month then.

Keep my eye on the directors box on Sunday for sightings of Mr Huang.

Evertonian

August 13th, 2010, 11:07 PM

Maybe the Shanghai expo had something too do with the chinese bid you never know.

There's no doubt in my mind that the council have been pushing hard for people to look at LFC at the Expo.

I believe that despite Liverpool being a private company, it is in the public interest for LCC to do just that.

yoshef

August 13th, 2010, 11:52 PM

Maybe the Shanghai expo had something too do with the chinese bid you never know.

Huang knew about Liverpool before the Expo

Huang was reported to have turned down the chance to buy Liverpool in 2008 because he felt a valuation of £650m was too high.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/8876510.stm

tommygunn

August 14th, 2010, 01:10 AM

Great news for Liverpool as a city if the chinese take over i think should make Liverpol one the most powerful clubs on earth.

guenuk

August 14th, 2010, 02:12 AM

Great news for Liverpool as a city if the chinese take over i think should make Liverpol one the most powerful clubs on earth.

Theres already plenty of links between Liverpool and China, if I'm not mistaken the university of Liverpool has already got in the act, something like a chinese takeover would send it through the stratosphere...okay so I might be exaggerating slighty? I just want official confirmation that twit and twat have finally gone.

Paul D

August 14th, 2010, 09:38 AM

Offers on the table in battle for Liverpool FC

Aug 14 2010

LIVERPOOL Football Club has received a number of firm takeover proposals, Anfield officials have confirmed.

The club released a statement following a key board meeting in London yesterday which followed two weeks of intense speculation about potential bidders, including Chinese mogul Kenny Huang and the Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi, as well as unnamed others.

Liverpool's statement read: "The Liverpool FC Board has reviewed a number of proposed bids for the club at a meeting held on Friday.

"The Board will continue to act in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its supporters, doing all that it can to ensure that the Club is ultimately sold to a buyer who has the resources and real commitment to give it a long-term, stable and secure funding position for its plans.

"The sale process is continuing. However, its timing and outcome remain uncertain.

"In the meantime, we will not comment on rumour and speculation."

The development is a positive sign that there is at last some formal substance to the Anfield sale process, with declared bids and letters of intent from several parties now vying to buy out Americans George Gillett and Tom Hicks, now on the boardroom table. Anfield officials made it clear after news of interest from Huang and Kirdi emerged that they wanted to see potential investors "show them the money" and had grown weary that the process was being played out in the media.

However, the club’s senior executives, led by Chairman Martin Broughton, Managing Director Christian Purslow and Commercial Director Ian Ayre, will take all the time they need to evaluate each offer thoroughly.

Though the Reds are still hoping for a swift resolution to the process, it is being stressed that the greatest priority above all is to ensure the club moves into the right hands, given all the controversies and broken promises of the past three years.

There is a determination to ensure that not only do bidders have the money to back up their now formally declared interest – but that they will deal with Liverpool’s debt burden, commit to finally building a new stadium, and prove worthy and responsible owners of the five-times European champions.

All of those criteria mean that a decision on a preferred bidder – should one eventually emerge – is still a matter of days, possibly even weeks away.

All the while, pressure is continuing to mount on Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

The Royal Bank of Scotland will call in their debt of £237m on October 6, rather than facilitate another re-financing deal.

Hicks and Gillett could also be hit with a £20m fine in charges by the RBS if Liverpool is not sold before the end of August.

Evertonian

August 14th, 2010, 03:14 PM

I find it quite alarming that Liverpool has two and a half months to be sold before it goes into administration.

Let's hope that one of these bids is serious and succesfull.

Paul D

August 14th, 2010, 03:39 PM

the pool08

August 14th, 2010, 05:16 PM

Poolcool

August 14th, 2010, 06:49 PM

Poolcool

August 14th, 2010, 06:52 PM

Has anyone seen Tommy Smith's article in the echo? Talk about on message. Has he gone senile/weak or what?

yoshef

August 15th, 2010, 02:45 AM

no bidders have proof of funds, so it will be either RBS ownership and a new round of bidding, or administration, more likely the former. :ohno:

buggedboy

August 15th, 2010, 04:01 AM

Either, or...it'll be better in the long run.

Toadboy

August 15th, 2010, 10:56 AM

Just let the process take it's time, no one is going to come out and make declarations until it's the right time to do so. People wanted to come out before todays match but clearly it isn't going to happen.

The current activity is the final jostling, throat cutting, legal stuff - this is more vital than in a straightforward deal as this transaction is aggressive to say the least.

paulmac35

August 15th, 2010, 11:06 AM

Do you think Liverpool would stick with the current design for a new stadium if they're taken over or will it be back to the drawing board? I know it's all ifs and buts but I'm curious to how that might pan out.

Am sick of each and every time they spend millions drawing up plans for a new stadium, get planning permission from the council and do fuck all about actually building it. I mean I remember the club already had planning permission for a new stadium before these pair of cunts took over in February 2007. But what did Hicks and Gillette do? Blow millions of pounds of the clubs money on plans for a new cheaper, modified stadium, that they were never really in a position to afford.

Evertonian

August 15th, 2010, 06:15 PM

When Everton FC asked to build on a public grade listed park they were told in no uncertain terms no.

Many blues feel that it takes the piss that Liverpool when then offered this very sensitive site and have done virtually nothing on it, while Everton desperately need to get started on a new stadium.

Everton were not given the time extention required to secure a measly £30 million for Kings Dock. Liverpool have had planning passed since the early part if this decade and a spade hasn't hit the ground yet. Time and time again extensions have been granted to the club.

Liverpool F.C. were approached by Liverpool City Council to become a tenant on the flagship King's Dock project. The club however rejected the offer because the site would only be suitable for a 50,000 capacity stadium.[7] At the same time, rivals Everton F.C. informally inquired about building on North West section of Stanley Park, Liverpool but were deterred when told that a Victorian covenant was in place. Liverpool's, then CEO, Rick Parry threatened to move Liverpool into a neighbouring borough on Merseyside because the only other site he considered viable was to become a residential estate in Garston.[7] The City Council then offered Everton F.C. the opportunity to become tenants of King's Dock. Everton agreed to this as they would only need to raise £30million for a 50,000 capacity stadium and the rest would be paid for with public money by the Council.[7]

Sensing an opportunity, Rick Parry told Liverpool City Council that Liverpool F.C. wanted to build on the South East area of Stanley Park and that they were considering leaving the city boundaries and taking millions of pounds of income that would usually be paid to the council with them. The City Council reluctantly agreed to Parry's demands and Parry told the press that the solution was "under our noses all along".[7] At the time, Everton chairman, Bill Kenwright chose not to contest the reasoning because they were being given financial support from the public sector. Plans to build on Stanley Park were resisted by local residents and Friends of Stanley Park who did not want to lose parkland for a football stadium.

I hasten to add that I want to see this stadium built (preferably to the specification of the stadium design just previous to the last known one, which was downgraded by Hicks Gillet due to financed).

The design is unique and expandable. The Kop end particularly looked perfect for LFC.

guenuk

August 18th, 2010, 10:57 PM

latest post from bamba

Just to bring a little sanity to the guessing-games as to who I’m ‘working for’. No-one. I’m certainly not cheerleading one particular bid. I salute the work Jack Slater and others are doing in urging caution and proper detailed scrutiny before we welcome a new bunch of well-heeled saviours through the Shankly Gates. That said, the Huang bid is the one I know a lot about; have done for a while; and am satisfied, via friends, colleagues and contacts inside and outside LFC and the City of London financial community, that his bid and his proposal for the future development of the club stacks up. If there’s another bid of substance that is currently on the table complete with proof of funding, then neither myself or anyone I rely upon for a credible inside track knows about it.

There was definitely a feeling on Friday afternoon that Huang was to be named preferred bidder. It remains a mystery as to why the club advised, around tea-time last Friday, that an official statement was coming within the hour, only for the non-committal statement we all saw to be issued some three or four hours later. It was also odd listening to Christian Purslow state on 5Live that no bid was jumping out as being particularly attractive at the moment, and none had supplied proof of funding. Huang’s bid came complete with the necessary proofs, though a well-placed financial journalist thinks the club has asked for more documentation.

The same journo is convinced that Huang’s proposed takeover has come down to a blinking match. Martin Broughton is looking for a richer valuation than Huang is prepared to pay. Huang is adamant he’ll put as little profit as possible in the current owners’ pockets. Something has to give, and it could be that Huang retires for the time being, if a deal can’t be concluded in time for Roy Hodgson to invest in the current transfer market.

In terms of my gagging, Alan F has it spot on. By a process of elimination, those closest to the sale process will work out who is giving classified information to the likes of myself. For my part, I’ve passed some of that on to the moderators of this site, so they’re satisfied there’s no skulduggery or stealth PR going on. There’s a lot of fascinating detail to reveal, and in time it will all come out. For now, I really am going to shut it. I want Hicks and Gillett gone, and I’m not saying anything more that might in any way stop, or delay that happening.

Keep checking The Times. The two Tonys speak to the same people, and they’re the only journalists who keep calling this takeover accurately

Toadboy

August 19th, 2010, 12:58 PM

Some stuff will start to hit the media over the next day or so.

guenuk

August 19th, 2010, 01:06 PM

More stuff than whats being reported today? because Huang is thinking of walking away from a bid altogether, he seems to think he's the only credible bidder at the table but that the club are stinging this out for all its worth to get more money....or Huang is a just all talk....with Liverpool these things just get publicised, strung out and then nothing happens, both chelsea and city had someone walk in and buy the clubs with no fuss.

Its a shame that city's owners are wasting their time, with all the money they are throwing around they could have easily afforded to buy us.

Toadboy

August 19th, 2010, 02:09 PM

Huang withdrew his PR people early on as Broughton was uncomfortable with them being involved, Huang is bringing them back to communicate with the media.

People are playing poker with the club.

guenuk

August 19th, 2010, 02:59 PM

The latest from the echo who I assume get their sources from high up at the club is that the deal could take up to 2 months and even go past the October deadline....pokerface it certainly is.

There seems to be loads of PR companies using the liverpool forums, people are being fed all kinds of info.

Toadboy

August 19th, 2010, 05:44 PM

The Echo is well out of the loop.

If it takes 2 months I can't there being a deal. H & G are pretty much in the shit, they've got very little to lose and everything to gain. RBS should be getting a twitchy arse. The noise was that they'd got everything in place to force the sale and had taken the decision out of H & Gs hands, if that's the case this should be out in the open now with the deal progressing while H & G frantically start launching the law at the board and RBS.

Huangs the only proposal that fits the sale and ticks the boxes, some people might not be happy with the price but if there's a distressed seller and only one willing and able buyer then what happens if it all collapses?

Toadboy

August 19th, 2010, 05:46 PM

Gah!

the pool08

August 20th, 2010, 08:27 PM

Hey Jude..

na na na- na na na na- na na na na- joe cole
na na na- na na na na- na na na na- joe cole
na na na- na na na na- na na na na- joe cole
na na na- na na na na- na na na na- joe cole
and so on.
man city on monday...

Evertonian

August 20th, 2010, 10:56 PM

Evertonian

August 24th, 2010, 08:45 PM

I really feel for Liverpool's fans and for the city as a whole today.

I did say a few pages back that I feared LFC would fall victim to the same kind of thing Bill Kenwright says he has been up against in terms of people claiming and interest in buying only to later not show the readies.

Keith Harris: Selling a club for £500m is a tricky business

by Mihir Bose
London Evening Standard
24.08.10

Keith Harris is locked in negotiations that could bring the reign of Liverpool's unpopular American owners to an end but his experiences over the past year tell him not to get too excited.

The former Football League chairman has seen deals for Everton and Newcastle collapse in bizarre circumstances and was also a leading light in the failed bid to oust the Glazer family from Manchester United.

A previous attempt to wrest ownership of Liverpool from George Gillett and Tom Hicks for a Kuwaiti he dubbed "The Man in the Sand" also collapsed at the 11th hour so Harris is not about to get carried away as talks progress with the group his investment firm Seymour Pierce has been advising.

"The overseas buyer we represent has completed due diligence. A huge amount of work has been done," he says of a deal that would cost between £400-500million.

Neither was the 57-year-old particularly concerned that months of hard work were threatened by Kenny Huang's attempts to install himself at Anfield, allegedly with the help of the Chinese government.

It came as no surprise when the businessman abandoned his takeover last week. "The Chinese government involvement was always a bit far-fetched," he says.

"In any takeover situation, when people resort to announcing it to the media, you have to question the seriousness of the offer.

"If the name of the prospective buyer comes out before the deal is done then probably it is never going to be done.

"Look at when Chelsea was sold in 2003. My firm was advising the club and we only knew of Roman Abramovich on the Thursday before the deal was completed the following Tuesday."

Harris will not disclose the name of the buyer he is now advising but says: "It is none of the groups mentioned in the press.

"The ball is now in our client's court to make an offer. I do not think the deal will be done before the transfer window closes this month but the next pressure point is October when some of the RBS loan of £237m has to be repaid. It may happen then. But in the present climate these things are impossible to predict."

Harris has played his part in takeovers at Premier League clubs Aston Villa (Randy Lerner), West Ham (Eggert Magnusson) and Manchester City (Thaksin Shinawatra) and, two years ago, he was working for another would-be buyer, Nasser Al Khorafi, a member of the powerful and clan-like Kuwaiti family interested in acquiring Liverpool.

Khorafi has been mentioned again as a possible buyer but, in 2008, this long- standing Liverpool fan was so keen to keep his name a secret that Harris was involved in cloak-and-dagger secrecy.

"I had to give Khorafi a pseudonym, 'The Man in the Sand' and Liverpool were identified as 'The Target'. After being vetted, I had to travel to a hotel in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. For a time, I was the only guest. Then The Man in the Sand turned up."

Getting the American owners, who were then barely on speaking terms, together was also not easy.

"They met in Montreal under the auspices of the commissioner of the National Hockey League, who acted as a sort of referee," says Harris.

"The Man in the Sand eventually met Gillett and his son, Foster, when they came for tea at my Chelsea home. "

Khorafi agreed to pay £300m for the equity with an additional £100m depending on Liverpool's financial performance. But then, two hours before the deal was due to be signed, Harris received an email saying the buyer had changed his mind.

"He just lost his appetite," says Harris. "No explanation was forthcoming."

Harris was unable to contact Khorafi and eventually instructed lawyers to recover his fees. The collapse of deals for Everton and Newcastle proved equally frustrating.

"In the case of Newcastle it was a funded offer which was then declined by the owner," says Harris.

Mike Ashley, the Newcastle owner, wanted £100m and, reveals Harris, "the offer by Barry Moat wasn't very much lower". So having put the club up for sale and with many Toon supporters keen to get rid of him, why did Ashley reject popular local businessman Moat? "All I can say is the offer didn't hit his target."

And Everton? "Ah," says Harris, with a sigh. "There the would-be buyers, both of them British, turned out to be very flaky. When they had to show up with the money, they disappeared. They led everybody a merry dance."

Harris says the difficulty in finding suitable buyers for the country's leading clubs is because "wealth has shifted very substantially away from the West and resides in the Middle-East and in the economic boom countries of the world - China, India and South-East Asia."

He adds: "The Premier League is a great brand but owning a football club is not a must. It's like the second or third home, the yacht or the private plane - a trophy asset. The Manchester City phenomenon [the club was purchased by Abu Dhabi businessman Sheikh Mansour, who then cleared their debts] was exceptional and it is not easy to see it being repeated."

The one takeover Harris would love a third crack at engineering is that of his beloved Manchester United, a club he has supported since he was six.

He concedes that hopes of the Red Knights, of which he was a member, buying it from the Glazers are dead. "Their interest in buying remains undiminished but the Glazers gave very clear and loud signals that the business was not for sale. And for the time being that is the end of it," he says.

The Glazers' opposition meant that the Red Knights never made an offer, or even had a meeting with them. The sticking point was the price. "The Glazers would want £1.5billion," claims Harris. "The Red Knights would have been prepared to go up to a billion."

He says the Knights had 30 eager investors, each prepared to contribute a minimum of £10m - "They said: 'Yes, we'd like to be a part of this'."

They were prepared to invest in Manchester United despite the club owing £800m - and this included interest rates on some of the debt which increase the longer the money is not repaid.

Against that background Harris insists: "It's important that people don't overpay in this environment."

Was it not a problem that the Red Knights' effort was never supported by the most important man at Old Trafford, Sir Alex Ferguson?

As I mention the manager's name Harris goes very quiet. "Um, what you have to say is that Alex has been hugely successful and part of that success is being a very loyal, senior member of the team and you wouldn't expect anyone in his position to say anything different from what he said."

Did the Red Knights try speaking to Sir Alex? "I don't - I don't really want to go down that path," says Harris, adding: "Football clubs don't enjoy success without a break, it has never happened. Manchester United's success in this era has lasted 17 years, which is longer than most.

"But clearly there is more competition coming with Chelsea and Manchester City and Alex has to contemplate retirement. The protest against the Glazers is about the debt they have put on the club and a fear over what happens tomorrow rather than a condemnation of what has been happening until now."

But even if the Glazers had been prepared to sell, was not the Red Knights' concept flawed as David Gill, United's chief executive, suggested? How can any football club, let alone one the size of United, be run by a committee?

Harris, surprisingly, agrees with Gill. "No one can deny that. You can't have seven or eight people making decisions. What you can have is an agreement on policy issues. But nobody in the Red Knights' group suggested that David Gill should not be running the club after a takeover."

The saga also marks a remarkable change in Harris's relationship with United fans - from villain to trusted adviser. In 1998 when Rupert Murdoch's Sky bid for the club, Harris was advising the United board and was anathema to the fan groups opposing the bid.

"The fans took against me then," he admits. "It was in part a lack of understanding of what is required of a financial adviser. The duty of a financial adviser of a public company is to advise shareholders whether the terms that are offered are fair and reasonable. And the price of £650m offered by BSkyB was a fair one, a huge offer."

Harris began to work his passage back with the fans when, in 2005, he tried to stop the Glazer takeover by organising an alternative fans buy-out with the help of investment bankers Nomura.

"On paper, something like 15 or 17 per cent of the shares were in the hands of fans, a mighty amount in terms of defending a takeover. But they were in the hands of thousands of supporters and a lot of them, to be blunt, wouldn't really understand the mechanics of the takeover. Although we tried hard, against a public company takeover timetable, it just proved impossible. Had there been three or four major shareholders representing 10 or 15 per cent of shares, then something could have been done."

But while Harris now cannot praise the fan groups organising the anti-Glazer protest enough, his advice to them is that, if they want the Glazers out, their protests must be more than just an emotional one.

"Waving the green and yellow colours of Newton Heath is very evocative. But do they persuade the owners that they ought to be selling? I would say categorically, 'No'. If you are serious about change then you have to vote with your feet or your credit card. If you are a season-ticket holder and you don't renew you are protesting.

"Then you are hurting them and if you really want change, that's the way to do it."

But even Harris cannot be sure how long the hurt will have to continue before the Glazers could be forced to vacate Old Trafford.