Liverpool FC Forum

[LFC2007]

Ok, well I think that opinion is a load of sh!te and I can't make it any clearer than I already have. I've never said that the board MUST ratify the signing of any player the manager desires, I am saying they must support the manager and be REASONABLE in doing so, or sack him.

1) I think they have been reasonable by pulling out of the process to sign Barry when they think that Villa have placed an unreasonable price on him.

I'm with Shankly, Paisley, Ferguson, and a whole host of managers in thinking that directors and chairmen should exist merely to provide a basic framework for the manager to work within.

I'd agree, if Shankly, Paisley or Ferguson were currently managing us with a proven record of success in this league.

2) So far, Rafa has not demonstrated that he's anyway near those those guys in terms of league success. Nor do I think Barry is the man to get us any closer to Arsenal, Chelsea and Man U.

1) I refer you to my previous answers.

2) Ferguson was nowhere near the level of Paisley/Shankly after the same period of time in the job. He is a firm advocate of the view that once you employ a manager, you should LET HIM GET ON WITH IT, and that means supporting the man in the job, or getting rid of him - Simple really. I've already explained that the signing of Barry can be considered perfectly reasonable, by common consensus. If it can't, how on earth can £20m+ on Keane be considered reasonable? If Rafa eyed up Andy Johnson for £30m, they'd have every right to ask severe questions. It is however, immensely unlikeley that it would ever get to that stage as Rafa is a reasonable man, and if it did get to that stage the board would have more sense to sack him. In this respect the remit to reject a transfer should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, but as I said if it got to that stage the board would have more sense to sack him (why employ someone who would consider making such an outrageous move in the transfer market?). Why should their remit be so limitied? Because you could argue that tens of signings are unreasonable e.g. the signing of Keane, e.g. the signing of Babel, e.g. the signing of Cavalieri. The remit must be clear, and that is why the signing of Barry should categorically be sanctioned - if indeed the fee for him falls within an agreed budget.

If you want owners taking on roles and responsibilities that managers, for decades, have taken on, that's your view. I think it's a load of sh!te however.

In future, I refer you to my previous answers.

[inglis5]

‘I asked for a sofa, but they bought me a lampshade.’ - 2004 & 2008?

I think 95% of Liverpool fans would prefer Silva to Barry but, for good reason, fans don't manage the team and choose what players come to the club. If Benitez wants Barry then give him Barry. If you are asking me who's judgement I trust most, it certainly wouldn't be G&H, Parry or (sorry everyone) anybody else on this forum. 

I still think that if Rafa feels the purchase of Barry is so important then it must be followed through. To publicly undermine the manager is embarrassing.

People percieve that Barry is a gamble but, as with Keane, you know exactly what you are going to get. Silva is not necessarily going to adapt well to the Premier League, even if he does it is very, very unlikely he'll do it immediately (personally I would have preferred Silva and Barry to any other combination of the three but...)

I don't know, this whole thing has just run and run. I'm bored of it now, I'm fed up of thinking about it, personally I can't wait for the transfer window to close.... 

With regards to G&H, I just can't see how they can continue after the refinancing in the Autumn. Fingers crossed, it will be over by the new year.

                   Mascherano
               Gerrard     Barry
            Babel             Keane
                     Torres

[The Manhattan Project]

Ferguson was nowhere near the level of Paisley/Shankly after the same period of time in the job.He is a firm advocate of the view that once you employ a manager, you should LET HIM GET ON WITH IT, and that means supporting the man in the job, or getting rid of him - Simple really.

Fine, let's use Arsene Wenger as an comparison then. Second season....double. Sixth season....double again. Not bad for a team that hadn't won the league for seven years before he took over. Domestically, Rafa hasn't come close to anything like that. So he doesn't necessarily deserve the 100% trust when spending money. I just don't think that football management at every club is a situation of either 100% trust or get fired.

I've already explained that the signing of Barry can be considered perfectly reasonable, by common consensus. If it can't, how on earth can £20m+ on Keane be considered reasonable? If Rafa eyed up Andy Johnson for £30m, they'd have every right to ask severe questions.

We needed a better striker than Peter Crouch. We made up some of the fee for Robbie Keane by selling him. It was always going to be expensive for a proven and prolific Premiership striker from another big Premiership side. Andy Johnson was decent at Palace, but nowhere near as good as Robbie Keane.

It is however, immensely unlikeley that it would ever get to that stage as Rafa is a reasonable man, and if it did get to that stage the board would have more sense to sack him. In this respect the remit to reject a transfer should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, but as I said if it got to that stage the board would have more sense to sack him (why employ someone who would consider making such an outrageous move in the transfer market?). Why should their remit be so limitied? Because you could argue that tens of signings are unreasonable e.g. the signing of Keane, e.g. the signing of Babel, e.g. the signing of Cavalieri. The remit must be clear, and that is why the signing of Barry should categorically be sanctioned - if indeed the fee for him falls within an agreed budget.

We signed Babel for about 11M. A lot of money, but not so much for an upcoming talent, who probably has considerable resale value if he doesn't necessarily work out. A player coming out of a great performance at the Under 21 Euros. Cavalieri cost relatively nothing. 3M is a tiny amount these days.

If you want owners taking on roles and responsibilities that managers, for decades, have taken on, that's your view. I think it's a load of sh!te however.

Owners have always held the money for transfers. It's nothing new. They have to run the club as a business. If they feel 18M for Barry is too expensive and bad business, that is their right, and I agree with them.

[LegBarnes]

Might as well close this thread barry deal is never gonna happen .

Think rafa wants silva and i dont blame him 18 mil sounds much nicer to spend on a 23 year old then a 28 year old with half the tallent.

[Yankee17]

I have to agree with LFC2007.
It does not matter if we think Barry is worth the qouted price or not.  It is not completely unreasonable or out of the realm of possibility.  The worrying factor is the owners' meddling in the purchasing of players. 

What if they tell Rafa that Silva is not worth his price tag?  Do we then get angry?  Or is it still justified?

When owners start telling managers who they cannot sign or who they should sign, then that is trouble and will cause many problems behind the scenes.

For those of you who back the owners, let me ask you this question.  On what information are they making this evalution of Barry's worth?  If you can answer me that I would be appreciative. [B]

[account deleted by request]

Worse still how long before they start to tell the manager which player to keep and who to sell. Gerrard is getting on a bit, maybe we should sell him now, while he still has some sell on value? Or Torres.......maybe we could sell him, double our money and bring in another player that Klinsmann recommends? Its b0llocks, the manager knows the value of the player not only in the market but also on the field and to the team, he knows which players will add to the TEAM and which players may look good and be popular with the fans, but may ruin the team.

I think Barry is overpriced, I thought Keane was overpriced as well......... Rafa may be right or wrong, but at least if the team is not good enough and he is sacked its for HIS decisions and not someone else's.

FFS you are all saying Silva is better than Barry when you don't know what position he was going to play Barry , what formation we are going to play, and what role Barry was going to be asked to take on.

Gillett after the CL FINAL ""If Rafa said he wanted to buy 'Snoogy Doogy', we would back him."

Apparently not !

[The Manhattan Project]

We tried to sign Snoogy Doogy from Monaco but he couldn't agree personal terms.

[LFC2007]

Ferguson was nowhere near the level of Paisley/Shankly after the same period of time in the job.He is a firm advocate of the view that once you employ a manager, you should LET HIM GET ON WITH IT, and that means supporting the man in the job, or getting rid of him - Simple really.

Fine, let's use Arsene Wenger as an comparison then. Second season....double. Sixth season....double again. Not bad for a team that hadn't won the league for seven years before he took over. Domestically, Rafa hasn't come close to anything like that. So he doesn't necessarily deserve the 100% trust when spending money. I just don't think that football management at every club is a situation of either 100% trust or get fired.

I've already explained that the signing of Barry can be considered perfectly reasonable, by common consensus. If it can't, how on earth can £20m+ on Keane be considered reasonable? If Rafa eyed up Andy Johnson for £30m, they'd have every right to ask severe questions.

We needed a better striker than Peter Crouch. We made up some of the fee for Robbie Keane by selling him. It was always going to be expensive for a proven and prolific Premiership striker from another big Premiership side. Andy Johnson was decent at Palace, but nowhere near as good as Robbie Keane.

It is however, immensely unlikeley that it would ever get to that stage as Rafa is a reasonable man, and if it did get to that stage the board would have more sense to sack him. In this respect the remit to reject a transfer should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, but as I said if it got to that stage the board would have more sense to sack him (why employ someone who would consider making such an outrageous move in the transfer market?). Why should their remit be so limitied? Because you could argue that tens of signings are unreasonable e.g. the signing of Keane, e.g. the signing of Babel, e.g. the signing of Cavalieri. The remit must be clear, and that is why the signing of Barry should categorically be sanctioned - if indeed the fee for him falls within an agreed budget.

We signed Babel for about 11M. A lot of money, but not so much for an upcoming talent, who probably has considerable resale value if he doesn't necessarily work out. A player coming out of a great performance at the Under 21 Euros. Cavalieri cost relatively nothing. 3M is a tiny amount these days.

If you want owners taking on roles and responsibilities that managers, for decades, have taken on, that's your view. I think it's a load of sh!te however.

Owners have always held the money for transfers. It's nothing new. They have to run the club as a business. If they feel 18M for Barry is too expensive and bad business, that is their right, and I agree with them.

Brick wall time I'm afraid, I refer you to my previous answers 

[The Manhattan Project]

Ferguson was nowhere near the level of Paisley/Shankly after the same period of time in the job.He is a firm advocate of the view that once you employ a manager, you should LET HIM GET ON WITH IT, and that means supporting the man in the job, or getting rid of him - Simple really.

Fine, let's use Arsene Wenger as an comparison then. Second season....double. Sixth season....double again. Not bad for a team that hadn't won the league for seven years before he took over. Domestically, Rafa hasn't come close to anything like that. So he doesn't necessarily deserve the 100% trust when spending money. I just don't think that football management at every club is a situation of either 100% trust or get fired.

I've already explained that the signing of Barry can be considered perfectly reasonable, by common consensus. If it can't, how on earth can £20m+ on Keane be considered reasonable? If Rafa eyed up Andy Johnson for £30m, they'd have every right to ask severe questions.

We needed a better striker than Peter Crouch. We made up some of the fee for Robbie Keane by selling him. It was always going to be expensive for a proven and prolific Premiership striker from another big Premiership side. Andy Johnson was decent at Palace, but nowhere near as good as Robbie Keane.

It is however, immensely unlikeley that it would ever get to that stage as Rafa is a reasonable man, and if it did get to that stage the board would have more sense to sack him. In this respect the remit to reject a transfer should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, but as I said if it got to that stage the board would have more sense to sack him (why employ someone who would consider making such an outrageous move in the transfer market?). Why should their remit be so limitied? Because you could argue that tens of signings are unreasonable e.g. the signing of Keane, e.g. the signing of Babel, e.g. the signing of Cavalieri. The remit must be clear, and that is why the signing of Barry should categorically be sanctioned - if indeed the fee for him falls within an agreed budget.

We signed Babel for about 11M. A lot of money, but not so much for an upcoming talent, who probably has considerable resale value if he doesn't necessarily work out. A player coming out of a great performance at the Under 21 Euros. Cavalieri cost relatively nothing. 3M is a tiny amount these days.

If you want owners taking on roles and responsibilities that managers, for decades, have taken on, that's your view. I think it's a load of sh!te however.

Owners have always held the money for transfers. It's nothing new. They have to run the club as a business. If they feel 18M for Barry is too expensive and bad business, that is their right, and I agree with them.

Brick wall time I'm afraid, I refer you to my previous answers 

Yes, I've read them.

[Reg]

I imagine the decision was a Board decision and not simply from G&H, there would have been input from Moores and Coco.

Liverpool was run by John Smith with Peter Robinson as secretary and a board. Shanks or Bob didnt simply walk into Smiths office with an empty suitcase and say 'Fill that'. Business doesnt run like that and knowing that The Canadian Dwarf has a board majority then the decision was most likely agreed by Moores and Coco.

Rafa has to take the good news with the bad and I dont see the loss of Barry as dramatic either way.

[Igor Zidane]

Look it's simple , either you trust the manager with a budget or you don't.

It doesn't matter if manhattan thinks Barry is not worth £18 million , it doesn't matter if i think he's only worth £10 million .

The point is , it's the manager who makes these decisions and if Gillett and HIcks don't trust him ,then they should clearly say so and sack him . They are now saying they've got the £18 million ,but want to spend iit on someone else . Who the feck are they to judge players . If rafa gets the players he wants and they don't perform , then the board have every right to ask feckin questions , but there decideing the playing squad now , what happens if the players don't perform then , who do you sack ?Gillett and Hicks , didn't think so.

[The Manhattan Project]

I'm not sure it's a matter of not trusting Rafa, but it could be a case of not letting Aston Villa conduct business the way they've been doing.

MON on the BBC at Euro 2008 whining and complaining about it. Making repeated hysterical comments to the press. It's fine if he didn't want to sell, but the way he's acted, you'd think Rafa had made a bid for his first born child.

For all we know, Rafa himself has become frustrated with Villa's increasingly unreasonable demands and he's also agreed with the board and said "fook it, we can look elsewhere"

[Igor Zidane]

I'm not sure it's a matter of not trusting Rafa, but it could be a case of not letting Aston Villa conduct business the way they've been doing.

MON on the BBC at Euro 2008 whining and complaining about it. Making repeated hysterical comments to the press. It's fine if he didn't want to sell, but the way he's acted, you'd think Rafa had made a bid for his first born child.

For all we know, Rafa himself has become frustrated with Villa's increasingly unreasonable demands and he's also agreed with the board and said "fook it, we can look elsewhere"

You could be right manhattan , but why make a statement on the offal ,totally going against what rafa had previously said , something along the lines of "it's not about the money" was what rafa said . The statement clearly suggests that it is about the money.

[account deleted by request]

Look it's simple , either you trust the manager with a budget or you don't.

It doesn't matter if manhattan thinks Barry is not worth £18 million , it doesn't matter if i think he's only worth £10 million .

The point is , it's the manager who makes these decisions and if Gillett and HIcks don't trust him ,then they should clearly say so and sack him . They are now saying they've got the £18 million ,but want to spend iit on someone else . Who the feck are they to judge players . If rafa gets the players he wants and they don't perform , then the board have every right to ask feckin questions , but there decideing the playing squad now , what happens if the players don't perform then , who do you sack ?Gillett and Hicks , didn't think so.

Spot on Igor

What criteria have they used to decide that Silva is better for the team than Barry? Playing ability or possibly that he might sell more shirts?

What next buy a couple of yanks to sell shirts in the US or a couple of Chinese to sell shirts in Asia? Or maybe sign a player who was an ex-builder and get him to make a stadium instead of training?

Football decisions should be made by the manager, within a budget set by the board.

[The Manhattan Project]

I'm not sure it's a matter of not trusting Rafa, but it could be a case of not letting Aston Villa conduct business the way they've been doing.

MON on the BBC at Euro 2008 whining and complaining about it. Making repeated hysterical comments to the press. It's fine if he didn't want to sell, but the way he's acted, you'd think Rafa had made a bid for his first born child.

For all we know, Rafa himself has become frustrated with Villa's increasingly unreasonable demands and he's also agreed with the board and said "fook it, we can look elsewhere"

You could be right manhattan , but why make a statement on the offal ,totally going against what rafa had previously said , something along the lines of "it's not about the money" was what rafa said . The statement clearly suggests that it is about the money.

Well it could be that Rafa has said "why waste so much money on one particular player, when I may have an option elsewhere for cheaper, or perhaps the same amount of money, in a different position?"


He may have had an 18M budget.

It doesn't mean it was ALL meant for Barry.