Liverpool FC Forum

bigmick wrote:Yes we should never have agreed the contract, yes we shouldn't have given him total control

Hmmm! I seem to remember you saying we SHOULD give him a new contract. I think the term "fickle" comes to mind  I guess it makes sense in your world. You take everything negative and you run with it as if it was the truth.

Igor Zidane wrote:Is it too much to ask?
Posted on May 4th, 2010 by Jim Boardman

Liverpool boss Rafael Benítez does not want to leave Liverpool. If Liverpool want him to leave they’ve not told him so directly. And he’s not agreed a deal with Juventus.

The only reason he’s not denied the speculation about his future being elsewhere is because he wants one perfectly reasonable assurance from the club first.

Any money that comes in from player sales, he wants to be able to use on new signings.

Is that too much to ask?

Last year it was. Last season the club brought far more in from sales than it spent on adding new players.

And this is where the arguments about Rafa’s future start to become far more trivial than what it all says about the bigger picture.

What a great way to distract fans from that bigger picture. Spend a whole season with the attention on the manager, making sure that one story is given out in public, then a range of other stories are given out in private dependent on the audience.

Liverpool Football Club have been involved in the Champions League for every one of Rafa’s six seasons so far. The money coming in from TV rights deals has gone up by a massive amount in recent years. The commercial side of the club has been improved dramatically, certainly in monetary terms. In 2009 Liverpool should have had money to spend on transfers over and above what came in from player sales.

From the beginning of February 2009 until the end of August 2009 players sales earned Liverpool somewhere in the region of £52.5m. In the same six months the club committed to paying out transfer fees of £36m.

So Liverpool made a profit of £16.5m on player trading in those six months of 2009. Since then they’ve continued to bring more in that they’ve laid out for transfers.

Yet Christian Purslow told The Times, last August, that the club had actually spent £20m: “We’ve spent pretty much the same as we’ve spent every year over the past four or five years. We’ve spent about £20 million more than we’ve generated, which is what we expected. We’ve bought players the manager wanted to buy and sold players the manager wanted to sell and it has cost us almost to the penny what we expected it to cost.”

How? How on earth did Purslow arrive at that figure? That figure represents a difference of £36.5m on what any supporter can see was spent.

Where did that £36.5m go?

Of course all of that could be checked in the club’s accounts. But they were due in on Friday and are now overdue. By the time they come out the manager will be gone, and not for the right reasons.

More evidence that something was amiss with the transfer funding for last year comes when looking back at what the manager said after signing Glen Johnson. He kept quiet about the fact the deal was part-funded by money Portsmouth still owed the club for the transfer of Peter Crouch and the loan of Jermaine Pennant. He was happy to just stick to the script put in front of him by the new temporary MD. But after being pressed on whether there would be any more signings he didn’t see a problem in saying that there might be, that he had funds in place.

Benítez said: “We have a plan. We can sign one more player if necessary, but that’s without any players leaving.”

At that point in time the club still hadn’t sold Xabi Alonso, Álvaro Arbeloa or Sebastian Leto; players who would eventually be sold for a total of £36.5m.

The club only bought two more players, £17m Alberto Aquilani and £2m Sotirios Kyrgiakos, at a total of £19m.

So that’s £14.5m left over, plus the money Rafa had already said was available for another signing. Except the £14.5m didn’t get handed over, and the extra funds Rafa had spoken about disappeared. So again, how on earth could the temporary MD make the claim that the club had spent £20m on players?

Before Purslow’s £20m claim, on August 18th, a message came out from a ‘source close to Rafa Benítez’.  The unnamed source said: “The figures have changed since Rafa signed his contract. He has sold several players and raised a lot of money, but is not being allowed to spend it.” This quote came after Rafa himself felt he couldn’t talk about the missing funds at a regular press conference, his only response being “I do not want to discuss money.”

Soon after this it became common knowledge amongst the press that whenever Rafa attended any kind of meeting with the press Purslow would be there to shadow him, it was as if Purslow was frightened that Rafa might not stick to the Purslow version of events, the Purslow version of how things were going behind the scenes.

It stuck out like a sore thumb to many of those who witnessed it.

In that interview with the times Purslow also showed ignorance about why the owners even got the chance to take over our club. The need for the stadium, the one that still isn’t started, was basically to provide transfer funds to allow the club to compete with its rivals. David Moores felt he had no way of bringing that new stadium to fruition, hence the search for investment. But Purslow tried –when making that doubtful £20m transfer spending claim – to make out that transfer spending wasn’t all that important anyway: “Spending isn’t the panacea everyone thinks it is, but we’ve spent £20 million and that’s real money.”

But despite that attempt to play down the importance of the transfer budget, Purslow has had to keep trying to explain it. In September he tried to, telling the Liverpool Echo: “We reinvest over half of our profits in transfer spending. We always have done and we will continue to do so.” Of course the accounts are late, so we don’t know what half the profit would have been last summer, but we also know that if the club made a profit on transfers it certainly didn’t invest any of its operating profit into transfers.

And this summer Rafa isn’t even asking them to do that. He wants the assurance that he can spend whatever comes in from sales. If the club can’t assure him of that, where does it leave the club? What kind of future does the club have if it can’t even use what it gets from sales?

If Rafa leaves, having failed to get that simple assurance from the chairman, the board, the owners or whoever it is that is running this club, we’ve got far more to worry about than many fans seem to think.

http://www.anfieldroad.com/news....sk.html

lakes10 wrote:

Igor Zidane wrote:Is it too much to ask?
Posted on May 4th, 2010 by Jim Boardman

Liverpool boss Rafael Benítez does not want to leave Liverpool. If Liverpool want him to leave they’ve not told him so directly. And he’s not agreed a deal with Juventus.

The only reason he’s not denied the speculation about his future being elsewhere is because he wants one perfectly reasonable assurance from the club first.

Any money that comes in from player sales, he wants to be able to use on new signings.

Is that too much to ask?

Last year it was. Last season the club brought far more in from sales than it spent on adding new players.

And this is where the arguments about Rafa’s future start to become far more trivial than what it all says about the bigger picture.

What a great way to distract fans from that bigger picture. Spend a whole season with the attention on the manager, making sure that one story is given out in public, then a range of other stories are given out in private dependent on the audience.

Liverpool Football Club have been involved in the Champions League for every one of Rafa’s six seasons so far. The money coming in from TV rights deals has gone up by a massive amount in recent years. The commercial side of the club has been improved dramatically, certainly in monetary terms. In 2009 Liverpool should have had money to spend on transfers over and above what came in from player sales.

From the beginning of February 2009 until the end of August 2009 players sales earned Liverpool somewhere in the region of £52.5m. In the same six months the club committed to paying out transfer fees of £36m.

So Liverpool made a profit of £16.5m on player trading in those six months of 2009. Since then they’ve continued to bring more in that they’ve laid out for transfers.

Yet Christian Purslow told The Times, last August, that the club had actually spent £20m: “We’ve spent pretty much the same as we’ve spent every year over the past four or five years. We’ve spent about £20 million more than we’ve generated, which is what we expected. We’ve bought players the manager wanted to buy and sold players the manager wanted to sell and it has cost us almost to the penny what we expected it to cost.”

How? How on earth did Purslow arrive at that figure? That figure represents a difference of £36.5m on what any supporter can see was spent.

Where did that £36.5m go?

Of course all of that could be checked in the club’s accounts. But they were due in on Friday and are now overdue. By the time they come out the manager will be gone, and not for the right reasons.

More evidence that something was amiss with the transfer funding for last year comes when looking back at what the manager said after signing Glen Johnson. He kept quiet about the fact the deal was part-funded by money Portsmouth still owed the club for the transfer of Peter Crouch and the loan of Jermaine Pennant. He was happy to just stick to the script put in front of him by the new temporary MD. But after being pressed on whether there would be any more signings he didn’t see a problem in saying that there might be, that he had funds in place.

Benítez said: “We have a plan. We can sign one more player if necessary, but that’s without any players leaving.”

At that point in time the club still hadn’t sold Xabi Alonso, Álvaro Arbeloa or Sebastian Leto; players who would eventually be sold for a total of £36.5m.

The club only bought two more players, £17m Alberto Aquilani and £2m Sotirios Kyrgiakos, at a total of £19m.

So that’s £14.5m left over, plus the money Rafa had already said was available for another signing. Except the £14.5m didn’t get handed over, and the extra funds Rafa had spoken about disappeared. So again, how on earth could the temporary MD make the claim that the club had spent £20m on players?

Before Purslow’s £20m claim, on August 18th, a message came out from a ‘source close to Rafa Benítez’.  The unnamed source said: “The figures have changed since Rafa signed his contract. He has sold several players and raised a lot of money, but is not being allowed to spend it.” This quote came after Rafa himself felt he couldn’t talk about the missing funds at a regular press conference, his only response being “I do not want to discuss money.”

Soon after this it became common knowledge amongst the press that whenever Rafa attended any kind of meeting with the press Purslow would be there to shadow him, it was as if Purslow was frightened that Rafa might not stick to the Purslow version of events, the Purslow version of how things were going behind the scenes.

It stuck out like a sore thumb to many of those who witnessed it.

In that interview with the times Purslow also showed ignorance about why the owners even got the chance to take over our club. The need for the stadium, the one that still isn’t started, was basically to provide transfer funds to allow the club to compete with its rivals. David Moores felt he had no way of bringing that new stadium to fruition, hence the search for investment. But Purslow tried –when making that doubtful £20m transfer spending claim – to make out that transfer spending wasn’t all that important anyway: “Spending isn’t the panacea everyone thinks it is, but we’ve spent £20 million and that’s real money.”

But despite that attempt to play down the importance of the transfer budget, Purslow has had to keep trying to explain it. In September he tried to, telling the Liverpool Echo: “We reinvest over half of our profits in transfer spending. We always have done and we will continue to do so.” Of course the accounts are late, so we don’t know what half the profit would have been last summer, but we also know that if the club made a profit on transfers it certainly didn’t invest any of its operating profit into transfers.

And this summer Rafa isn’t even asking them to do that. He wants the assurance that he can spend whatever comes in from sales. If the club can’t assure him of that, where does it leave the club? What kind of future does the club have if it can’t even use what it gets from sales?

If Rafa leaves, having failed to get that simple assurance from the chairman, the board, the owners or whoever it is that is running this club, we’ve got far more to worry about than many fans seem to think.

http://www.anfieldroad.com/news....sk.html

it might just be the case that the owners dont feel he is any good at buying players...what is it now?  1 in 4 hit rate, i would say its more like 1 in 10

If you honestly think that is why the owners haven't backed the manager I'd have to say you are a bit deluded...
It couldn't be that the owners aren't interested in investing a penny into the club?
Oh, of course not, that can't be it...

That is why Torres, Alonso, Reina etc all were found at a bargain. Bought buy Rafa who has no clue for 35 million and today at a value way beyond 100 million and all now known as world class. Yeah, rafa clearly sux...

shabelle50 wrote:Purslow is just a stop gap who is not even half as good as Parry was. Purslow told radio five live the day Liverpool beat United last October that Liverpool "don't buy players during the transfer window in January because it's not how we like to do our transfer business". Really-

January 05 Morientes
January 06 Agger
January 07 Arbeloa
January 08 Da La Valle

Did Purslow know anything about Liverpool when he was appointed? Has he ever worked in football administration prior to his appointment last summer? The silence from him in recent months on Benitez says it all. Silence after the Pompey away defeat in December when Benitez should have been sacked then. After the Reading FA Cup defeat he said "The manager's future has not been discussed". When Broughton announced a few weeks ago the club was being sold where was Purslow?

The club has become a joke run by jokers and amateurs only interested in lining their own pockets. A proper qualified football CEO should have been brought in last summer after Parry left not a damp squib called Christian Purslow who never had the remotest idea what job he was taking on.

wot planet are you on f.uck face?  parry deserves be-heading for bringing these two vipers into our club!!  wish I could get my hands on the little fecker!!!!!

Igor Zidane wrote:Top artical this by Tony Barret . Some up my feelings really 







Tom Hicks and George Gillett are the real problem at Liverpool

Tony Barrett
May 04, 2010

Tom Hicks and George Gillett have pulled many stunts in their time, the most obvious one being their purchase of Liverpool Football Club on the back of a string of promises they were unlikely ever to keep.

But even that is starting to look a minor ruse in comparison to their convincing of so many people in football that all of Liverpool’s myriad ills will be rectified by the removal of Rafael Benitez is manager.
They haven’t done it publicly and they haven’t done it with statements questioning Benitez’s ability or pronouncements doubting his aptitude to manage one of Europe’s greatest clubs.

They have done it by stealth, fading into the background after advice from the two PR firms employed by Hicks – both of whom had their costs met, until recently, by Liverpool. The idea may have been simple but the results have been startlingly effective.

While the worst owners Liverpool could ever have wished for have been able to get on with their comfortable lives in the USA without fear of being challenged about their failings and, let’s tell it like it is, their ongoing destruction of one of the most famed institutions in world sport, Benitez has had to face the full glare of the media spotlight to discuss his own limitations and those of his team on almost a daily basis.

This has meant all discourse about Liverpool has been dominated by questioning of Benitez’s signings, his team selection, his substitutions – the furore over Fernando Torres being taken off at Birmingham is only just beginning to die down weeks after it happened – and his apparent coldness.

Let’s get one thing straight – this is not a defence of Benitez. As he himself has pointed out, the Liverpool manager has made some big mistakes over the last couple of years and even his greatest admirers would be hard pressed to defend signing the likes of Andrea Dossena, Philipp Degen, Robbie Keane and, judging by his injury-ravaged travails this season, Alberto Aquilani.

Benitez’s performance over the past 12 months has not been of the standard required and he has to accept his share of responsibility for an absolute abomination of a season in which Liverpool have lost 19 times and limped from one setback to another. At a normal club which is well run and equally well financed, a tumble from genuine title challengers to also-rans would guarantee only one thing for the man in charge – instant dismissal.

But Liverpool are anything but a normal club. They are one which is crippled by inordinate levels of debt (heaped on them by Hicks and Gillett), one which has been riddled by boardroom in-fighting (started by Hicks and Gillett), one which cannot compete at the top level in the transfer market (because of the failings of Hicks and Gillett) and one which is in a state of continuous and insidious limbo (because of Hicks’ and Gillett’s sale process and ridiculous asking price).

It is one where the solution to such limbo is seen to be the appointment of a Chelsea-supporting chairman (to break the boardroom deadlock caused by Hicks and Gillett), where Benitez is handed a five year contract complete with a £16 million payout which means the manager cannot be sacked when things go wrong (as agreed by Hicks and Gillett), where the oft-promised and desperately needed new stadium remains a pipe dream (another failing by Hicks and Gillett) and where the future is becoming increasingly bleak and uncertain (thanks to Hicks and Gillett).

There is a blame culture in football whenever things go wrong but sometimes fingers can be pointed in, if not the wrong direction, then certainly one which allows those who are the biggest culprits to escape the full weight of criticism that they deserve.

Since Liverpool’s predictable defeat at the hands of Chelsea at the weekend, page after page of editorial comment has been devoted to the failings of Benitez. Some of it has been entirely fair and some of it has been preposterous – does anyone with a modicum of commom sense really believe that £1.5 million Sotirios Kyrgiakos was signed as anything other than a squad stop gap because of a chronic lack of funds or that the retention of Danny Murphy would have cured all of Liverpool’s ills – but whatever your opinion of Benitez you cannot have failed to notice a similar lack of critical column inches being devoted to Hicks and Gillett.

Out of sight clearly means out of mind as far as sections of the British media are concerned. Never mind the fact that Liverpool have spent much of the last three years shipping in the region of £100,000 in interest payments every day, a haemorrhaging of money and resources which would jeopardise any business, never mind one which is unable to invest to anything like the same extent of its major competitors.

Again, it must be stressed that Benitez has been his own worst enemy at times during this American enforced era of austerity. His net spend is often used as a defence when his failings in the transfer market and there is some justification to such arguments, particularly given the fact that should Fernando Torres be sold this summer the £70 million he would fetch would all but wipe out Benitez’s spending over and above what he has recouped. But even this should not be allowed to detract from the fact that it was Benitez who scouted and recruited Aquilani, Riera, Degen, Voronin, Dossena, Aquliani, etc. They are his purchases and none have improved Liverpool and when resources become scarce their shortcomings were only ever going to be increasingly exposed.

It is a matter of administering blame where blame is due and Benitez has to take his fair share, anything else would be to create a farcical situation of managerial infallibility and a vacuum of responsibility.
But the overwhelming accountability for the horrendous mess that Liverpool find themselves in must lie with the buffoons who described themselves as “custodians”. It is they who heaped the debt onto the club which means they cannot sensibly afford to sack the manager.

It is they who gave Benitez the five year deal that tilted the balance of contractual power too much in his favour. It is they whose failings have gradually reduced Liverpool’s ability to compete at the transfer market. It is they who have singularly failed to provide anything by way of convincing and decisive leadership ever since they were handed the keys to the Shankly Gates in February 2007.

By all means criticise Benitez. By all means call for him to be replaced. Everyone has a right to such opinions, after all. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that at least his motives are genuine, he wants success for both himself and his team.

The ostensible motives of Hicks and Gillett are to bleed Liverpool dry before moving onto their next leveraged buyout and it is they who must carry the can for the sorry state of a football club which looks increasingly doomed with every passing day, a feeling that will only intensify tomorrow should Manchester City beat Tottenham and put themselves in line for a place at the top table of European football that used to be Liverpool's but one which they may not even be in a position to take up for years to come.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame....ol.html

lakes10 wrote:

Igor Zidane wrote:Is it too much to ask?
Posted on May 4th, 2010 by Jim Boardman

Liverpool boss Rafael Benítez does not want to leave Liverpool. If Liverpool want him to leave they’ve not told him so directly. And he’s not agreed a deal with Juventus.

The only reason he’s not denied the speculation about his future being elsewhere is because he wants one perfectly reasonable assurance from the club first.

Any money that comes in from player sales, he wants to be able to use on new signings.

Is that too much to ask?

Last year it was. Last season the club brought far more in from sales than it spent on adding new players.

And this is where the arguments about Rafa’s future start to become far more trivial than what it all says about the bigger picture.

What a great way to distract fans from that bigger picture. Spend a whole season with the attention on the manager, making sure that one story is given out in public, then a range of other stories are given out in private dependent on the audience.

Liverpool Football Club have been involved in the Champions League for every one of Rafa’s six seasons so far. The money coming in from TV rights deals has gone up by a massive amount in recent years. The commercial side of the club has been improved dramatically, certainly in monetary terms. In 2009 Liverpool should have had money to spend on transfers over and above what came in from player sales.

From the beginning of February 2009 until the end of August 2009 players sales earned Liverpool somewhere in the region of £52.5m. In the same six months the club committed to paying out transfer fees of £36m.

So Liverpool made a profit of £16.5m on player trading in those six months of 2009. Since then they’ve continued to bring more in that they’ve laid out for transfers.

Yet Christian Purslow told The Times, last August, that the club had actually spent £20m: “We’ve spent pretty much the same as we’ve spent every year over the past four or five years. We’ve spent about £20 million more than we’ve generated, which is what we expected. We’ve bought players the manager wanted to buy and sold players the manager wanted to sell and it has cost us almost to the penny what we expected it to cost.”

How? How on earth did Purslow arrive at that figure? That figure represents a difference of £36.5m on what any supporter can see was spent.

Where did that £36.5m go?

Of course all of that could be checked in the club’s accounts. But they were due in on Friday and are now overdue. By the time they come out the manager will be gone, and not for the right reasons.

More evidence that something was amiss with the transfer funding for last year comes when looking back at what the manager said after signing Glen Johnson. He kept quiet about the fact the deal was part-funded by money Portsmouth still owed the club for the transfer of Peter Crouch and the loan of Jermaine Pennant. He was happy to just stick to the script put in front of him by the new temporary MD. But after being pressed on whether there would be any more signings he didn’t see a problem in saying that there might be, that he had funds in place.

Benítez said: “We have a plan. We can sign one more player if necessary, but that’s without any players leaving.”

At that point in time the club still hadn’t sold Xabi Alonso, Álvaro Arbeloa or Sebastian Leto; players who would eventually be sold for a total of £36.5m.

The club only bought two more players, £17m Alberto Aquilani and £2m Sotirios Kyrgiakos, at a total of £19m.

So that’s £14.5m left over, plus the money Rafa had already said was available for another signing. Except the £14.5m didn’t get handed over, and the extra funds Rafa had spoken about disappeared. So again, how on earth could the temporary MD make the claim that the club had spent £20m on players?

Before Purslow’s £20m claim, on August 18th, a message came out from a ‘source close to Rafa Benítez’.  The unnamed source said: “The figures have changed since Rafa signed his contract. He has sold several players and raised a lot of money, but is not being allowed to spend it.” This quote came after Rafa himself felt he couldn’t talk about the missing funds at a regular press conference, his only response being “I do not want to discuss money.”

Soon after this it became common knowledge amongst the press that whenever Rafa attended any kind of meeting with the press Purslow would be there to shadow him, it was as if Purslow was frightened that Rafa might not stick to the Purslow version of events, the Purslow version of how things were going behind the scenes.

It stuck out like a sore thumb to many of those who witnessed it.

In that interview with the times Purslow also showed ignorance about why the owners even got the chance to take over our club. The need for the stadium, the one that still isn’t started, was basically to provide transfer funds to allow the club to compete with its rivals. David Moores felt he had no way of bringing that new stadium to fruition, hence the search for investment. But Purslow tried –when making that doubtful £20m transfer spending claim – to make out that transfer spending wasn’t all that important anyway: “Spending isn’t the panacea everyone thinks it is, but we’ve spent £20 million and that’s real money.”

But despite that attempt to play down the importance of the transfer budget, Purslow has had to keep trying to explain it. In September he tried to, telling the Liverpool Echo: “We reinvest over half of our profits in transfer spending. We always have done and we will continue to do so.” Of course the accounts are late, so we don’t know what half the profit would have been last summer, but we also know that if the club made a profit on transfers it certainly didn’t invest any of its operating profit into transfers.

And this summer Rafa isn’t even asking them to do that. He wants the assurance that he can spend whatever comes in from sales. If the club can’t assure him of that, where does it leave the club? What kind of future does the club have if it can’t even use what it gets from sales?

If Rafa leaves, having failed to get that simple assurance from the chairman, the board, the owners or whoever it is that is running this club, we’ve got far more to worry about than many fans seem to think.

http://www.anfieldroad.com/news....sk.html

it might just be the case that the owners dont feel he is any good at buying players...what is it now?  1 in 4 hit rate, i would say its more like 1 in 10

Sir Roger wrote:Are people really suggesting that the reason we have played so badly this season is because Rafa was upset because he was lied to?
Is that why he continued with his flawed plan and useless formation? Because the yanks told him porkies?
Is that why he persisted with his favourite useless players in a static and stuttering style? Because the yanks fibbed?
After he had bought johnson and aquilani are we to believe he was so pi'ssed off at the thought of the yanks being economical with the truth that he deliberately, or accidentally (either way its a disgrace) insisted on tactics and substitutions that were beyond reason and eventually brought him (and us) ridicule from everyone involved in football.
Why those dirty, no good, untruth telling yanks...