Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:40 am

Hicks to abandon symphony stage Kop plans?
December 15th, 2007 by Jim Boardman
Liverpool’s current owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, are said to be not only intent on sacking manager Rafael Benitez before the start of next season, but are about to announce they’ve gone back on their word regarding the new stadium.

The exciting plans for a 61,000 capacity stadium, to be possibly extended to a 78,000 capacity by the time it opened, are now looking likely to be shelved. In their place comes a slightly adapted version of the unpopular anonymous bowl design that was first revealed seven years ago. It’s said those plans have been adapted to a 70,000 seater version, which if true would require further planning permission to be applied for before building work could commence.

The new owners, it seems, are running out of money and not only want to take money away from transfers, but want to produce a stadium which won’t meet Tom Hicks’ description: “The Kop is the symphony stage and it needs to play to the rest of the hall.” The Kop will be one end of the bowl, not a unique part of a unique stadium.

It’s not long ago, August, that George Gillett was last heard speaking about the club. He’s been silent since, amid rumours of him falling out with co-owner Tom Hicks. The credit crunch seems to have hit the plans the pair had for the club, and the downgrading of their stadium plans is said to be above Rafa’s future in the agenda during their rare visit to the club this weekend. In August Gillett was enthusing about the supporters he now seems happy to disregard: “I’d never seen anything like it,” he said of the Champions League semi against Chelsea, “The noise and the energy - just amazing.”

Hicks said at the time that this noise and energy was what inspired the designs that are now looking like staying on paper: “The architects came to the Barcelona match and they got it right away because that night the fans were so loud and they knew they had to keep the Kop. They said ‘we get it’.” Then that famous quote: “The Kop is the symphony stage and it needs to play to the rest of the hall.”

Gillett even said that the new stadium was a big part of the decision the pair had in taking our club from us: “The stadium was a critical element in our decision to come here. It’s a necessity. We are in a sport without a salary cap. And if you are going to remain competitive, and Liverpool’s fans deserve to have a club that remains competitive, we have to have a larger stadium. We don’t have the economics of London so we have to have size.”

If the reports are true - and they’ve been rumoured now for a couple of weeks, slowly gathering momentum but hitting a peak now the new owners are in town - then the size will still be there. If they get the planning permission, which requires changes to the local infrastructure before it can be considered, the new stadium will hold 25,000 more supporters than the current stadium. But it won’t have the impressive looks that were promised by the duo with all their razzmatazz in August. Fans will be frustrated because it’s another sign of the way the owners have lost interest in their new toy.

Hicks showed in August that either he doesn’t understand how the transfer market works in football, or that he thinks the supporters aren’t capable of doing sums. Rafa wasn’t given any more money than he’d have got had David Moores stayed on as owner of the club, and had to rip up his first list of targets. He got the players on his second list, including Fernando Torres for £8m less than is usually quoted in the press. Hicks tried to make out he’d given Rafa everything he’d asked for, which wasn’t true: “I can’t go into any of the three stadiums I own without thinking how much people are paying to be there,” he said, quickly adding: “We want to give them value for money. We want to win the Premiership. Before we arrived we were a team that could do well in Europe but not in the Premiership. We now have the depth to do that. We have brought in the players Rafa identified.” Those words must have made Rafa choke.

At the time Gillett was still enthusing about Rafa, in particular Rafa’s work in bringing in players for the future: “Rafa believes in youth and we share that philosophy. That’s why Tom and I are so comfortable with him. He’s a very responsible man. He’s not a slash and burner. He said we needed four or five new players to be competitive and we went out and got them.” Again Rafa must have been shaking his head on hearing this.

David Moores and Rick Parry’s version of how the DIC deal collapsed differs from the story told by DIC in the aftermath. David Moores was made much richer by accepted the American offer rather than the DIC offer, and he accepted with amazing haste.

Gillett spoke of how he and Hicks “love sports” at a time when their spin was still working on many Reds: “The American invasion of the Premiership is a misnomer. Seven foreign groups have come into the Premiership and only three of them are American, and all three have been involved in sports before. It’s been presented as some kind of capitalist invasion, but I don’t think that is an accurate representation at all. We are different to the Glazers and the Glazers are different to the Lerners, but we love sports.”

Maybe they do love sports, they certainly have a lot of financial stakes in sports, but do they love sport more than money? Back in October Hicks claimed that refinancing for the new stadium - financing that also took all debt from their purchase of the club away from them and back onto the club, effectively giving them the club for free - was thirty days from being tied up. It’s still not been tied up.

The reversion to the amended older plans could save over £200m in building costs. As snippets of the story behind the change of heart leak out bit by bit it’s been suggested that loans for the other version of the stadium would have cost more than the owners felt would be viable. Not everybody is ready to lend money as readily as they might have been a year ago, and so their choices of lenders were restricted. The lower stadium costs for the generic-style stadium allow them more choices of lenders, and more attractive terms.

This story will be in Saturday’s press, and it will be interesting to see what kind of instant response Tom Hicks arranges this time. He was quick to get Rick Parry to deny he’d fallen out with Gillett recently, and quick to tell the press that Rafa had a month or so to even talk about possible transfers in and out of the club. He wasted no time in denying he was about to sell his share in the club. Will he be as quick in denying the stadium stories? Will he use the Echo to put his story out?

Oliver Kay’s report in The Times includes the following:

“Hicks and Gillett are back on Merseyside this weekend and it says much about the present difficulties at the club that their overdue peace summit with Rafael Benitez, the manager, is no longer top of the agenda. The word from Anfield over the past 48 hours has been that the club’s proposed move to a new stadium on Stanley Park is on the rocks again. With the global credit crunch forcing a rethink over their plan to take the club £500 million into debt, Gillett and Hicks are being forced to reconsider the jaw-dropping plans that they revealed in July. A minimum 60,000 capacity is a must, but the club are now looking to scale down those designs.”

As for Rafa’s future, the manager is still a sitting duck according to various sources. The owners are still said to be planning to oust him the first chance they get. They’ve still not denied that particular claim.

It’s time they put their cards on the table and admitted to the supporters exactly what they’ve got up their sleeve, unless they plan to become even greater absentee owners. Liverpool fans like honesty; they’d rather hear the bad news than some lies that hide the bad news in the short term. If the owners want the support of the fans in the long term they need to start earning some respect from them. More and more fans are becoming disillusioned with the mess David Moores made of the sale of the club.

by **Kharhaz** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:43 am

If the reports are true. And what reports would these be? would these be some sticky notes from his editor say "make up more bs for lfc because we have all been made to look like fools" or would it be a case of quoting comments from when they first took over followed by a journalists whim to cause more discontent by people who believe this tripe.

by **Red Red Tom** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:54 am

I'd rather lose the stadium than Rafa....

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:58 am

Kharhaz wrote:If the reports are true. And what reports would these be? would these be some sticky notes from his editor say "make up more bs for lfc because we have all been made to look like fools" or would it be a case of quoting comments from when they first took over followed by a journalists whim to cause more discontent by people who believe this tripe.

Dunno mate its been on all the Liverpool websites since yesterday. You either believe the yanks or you don't, personally I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

Oliver Kay is a Liverpool supporter, thats not to say he doesn't use his connections to get big stories and then twist them, but he is usually spot on.

by **Kharhaz** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:07 am

s@int wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:If the reports are true. And what reports would these be? would these be some sticky notes from his editor say "make up more bs for lfc because we have all been made to look like fools" or would it be a case of quoting comments from when they first took over followed by a journalists whim to cause more discontent by people who believe this tripe.

Dunno mate its been on all the Liverpool websites since yesterday. You either believe the yanks or you don't, personally I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

Oliver Kay is a Liverpool supporter, thats not to say he doesn't use his connections to get big stories and then twist them, but he is usually spot on.

Many of us on here support liverpool it doesnt mean we dont talk shi.t once in a while. Ok me more than most ! But aside from one good article with Torres and Dalglish the rest is nothing but negative in the press. They say a picture speaks a thousand words, the picture of the press hanging around anfield with nothing to report spoke volumes to me. They are getting more and more desperate in my opinion to put pressure on liverpool. Funny isnt it how this is all happening in the best start we have had made to the premiership in a long time and how liverpool are looking a more complete unit and look to challenge for the premiership. Are the top clubs concerned about liverpools progress or the press. I dont know. Which club sells more papers?

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:20 am

Hicks and Gillett have already proved they aren't exactly the most trustworthy of people to me when they went back on their word after they bought Liverpool. This might be a load of cr@p or it may be true, all I will say is it wouldn't surprise me if its true.

This was posted 1/12/07 by Rushscored4 (supposedly an excellent source (?)

Some of you might remember that I've got a mate who works for the architects in Manchester who did the original 'New Anfield' 'stadium in a box' design. You might also recall that in March he gave me some info that they had been sacked and a new firm (HKS) had been appointed to revise the plans (I was told on a Friday night, posted it on the Saturday and it was all over the news on the Monday).

Anyway, I was out drinking with him again last night and he said that his firm had been approached again to build a new 70,000 seater stadium based on the original design, i.e the one that looks like the City of Manchester / Emirates / Reebok / José Alvalade Stadium in Lisbon and lots of other grounds across the world.

So... it looks as though this could link in with the rumours about the fall-out with Tom Hicks and the club struggling to raise the funds for building the new design which is a lot more expensive than the original plans. Apparently the AFL design would cost around £300m including the 'fit out' (i.e. the interior) whereas the HKS design would cost around £180m more without the 'fit out'.

Remember, I'm just passing on what I heard so don't shoot the messenger but he was 100% accurate with his information in March...
Link to story

From this

back to this

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:31 am

Lest we forget :-

Tuesday, 6 February 2007, 12:32 GMT
They confirmed they will make funds available, both for team strengthening and the building of the club's new stadium in Stanley Park and denied they had secured the club on borrowed money.

"We have purchased the club with no debt on the club," said Gillett.

by **Ciggy** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:31 am

Well isnt this just great news to wake up to.

:glare:

Groundshare will be back on the agenda now if these two get their way.

Wish they would cut their loses TBH and sell us.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:56 am

Sven talking to Thaksin Shinawatra " I think it will take about £100million to get a title winning team."
Thaksin Shinawatra "I don't like to talk figures Sven, but here's £150million, win me a cup as well! "

by **Dundalk** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:01 am

Lets wait and see how this materializes before going mad. The papers know that the big meeting with the owners is this weekend so there was bound to be some type of story in the papers this morning .

If it is true then all hell will break loose, but lets hear from the men themselves and not some journalist who had a dream last night.

by **Ace Ventura** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:25 pm

Funny how ANOTHER major unsettling story crops up on the eve of a major Liverpool fixture.
I wont believe any of this until i have heard an official statement.

by **Sabre** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:37 pm

So true Ace Ventura.

Instead of focusing in new gossips and negative rumours (surprise, surprise), why don't we pay more attention to the excellent Rafa interview S@int has brought from Rawk?

Among other things, Rafa talks about other past myths that the very press that is saying concerning things now, said back then

One of those players is Steven Gerrard. People always say that you two don’t have a very good relationship.

- That is just part of the false myths that circle the press, that get repeated over and over and people end up believing in them. It’s a shame that this sort of thing happens and even more so in this case because it’s not true, Steven is a fantastic lad and the relationship is very good.

Hear, Hear!! or Here Here!!

He also says the things are quiet now about all this American owners stuff, so that's good enough for me as of now.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:27 pm

Facts For a Time Capsule

The distorting lens of the past is one of the most deceptive things in football; it’s easy to forget, with the foreshortening of time, how long it took rival managers to build their empires.

I thought it would be advisable to write an article before the United game, that would still apply after it –– win, lose or draw.

Because whatever happens, it’s just one game. A very important game, which will set some kind of marker and invoke a lot of passion and pride, but not a cup final, and not a title decider. And some things
in football are not fundamentally changed by the result of one game in the first half of the season. The aim was to write something not distorted by either victory or defeat, particularly with the
manager’s job said to still be in the balance.

Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger, English football’s two outstanding managers since Bob Paisley’s retirement, remain in place for people to use as examples of Benítez’s “failure”, while there have also been
some bizarrely unfavourable comparisons with Gérard Houllier (the most recent being by Ian Ridley of the Mail, on Sky’s Sunday Supplement; I know Ridley is a pal of Houllier’s, but what had he been smoking? HE
said “Houllier was sacked for finishing 15 points behind Arsenal”, when it was the small matter of 30 points).

But since Mourinho departed*, Rafa is compared most with two heavily-established managers, despite still being in the initial stages of his time regarding building an empire at Liverpool. Plenty has changed in
the last two decades, but it is unfair to judge Benítez against men who’ve sorted every last details at their clubs over a decade or two, rather than when they were at the same stage of their tenures.

(*Mourinho is perhaps the only modern exception. But he didn’t really build an empire: merely breezed in, spent megabucks on an already expensive squad, taking it up to around the £300m mark, and blitzed his way to two titles. He did a great job, but it wasn’t a comparable situation to that at Liverpool. Avram Grant has done well so far, but he’s not had to build an empire, merely take control of someone else’s.)

Anyone who’s read my pieces or books knows that I’m a big fan of Arsene Wenger. And I have a grudging respect for Alex Ferguson that, even when typing, I note through gritted teeth. But the media have locked in on some lazy stereotypes: Benítez, with his crazy rotation and barmy zonal marking (which just happens to lead to hardly any set-piece goals being conceded each season, but let’s ignore that), purveys purely pragmatic football, while his tactics work only in European games.

Football is a subjective issue, but let’s concentrate on some facts:

Alex Ferguson’s first five seasons, after inheriting a team which
had just finished 4th, were as follows: 11th*, 2nd, 11th, 13th, 6th.
Rafa Benítez also inherited a team that had finished 4th, albeit a
whopping 30 points behind the champions (compared with the United of
’86, who were just 12 points behind Dalglish’s champions), but
subsequently finished 5th, 3rd and 3rd. (*In Ferguson’s defence, that
first 11th-place finish came after he took charge in November 1986,
roughly a third of the way into the season.)

So in his first five seasons, Ferguson took United so far
backwards it’s almost farcical. Perhaps part of this was essential ––
the idea of one step backwards, two steps forward. But those first
years were five steps backwards to only one step forward. Manchester
United had spent the previous five seasons in the top four before he
arrived. In the five seasons following his arrival, they averaged 9th
in the table. In the five years before Ferguson was appointed, United
were averaging 75 points a season. In the five years after, they
averaged an abysmal 59 –– just one point more than in Benítez’s
Premier League annus horribilis, in year one.

Alex Ferguson won nothing until the end of his fourth season,
when he landed an FA Cup. He followed this with a Cup Winners’ Cup in
his fifth season. Benítez won a European Cup in his first season and
an FA Cup in his second. He also made two other cup finals in his
first three years, including a second in the Champions League.

In 1989, Ferguson broke the transfer record on Gary Pallister,
spending £2.3m. Steve Bruce and Paul Ince were also fairly expensive
signings around that time, while in 1988 the Red Devils paid what was
then a club record £1.8m to buy back Mark Hughes. Ferguson’s capture
of Roy Keane, at £3.75m in 1992, also broke the British transfer
record. These fees may not seem stellar now, but they were the £30m
deals of their day –– more expensive, by current terms, than Fernando
Torres, who is more than £10m below the current British record, with
roughly a dozen other players (including Ferguson purchases Rooney,
Ferdinand and Veron) also costing significantly more than the Spanish
striker. It took Ferguson four years after this initial heavy
expenditure, and with a lot more further investment, to win the league
title –– his first ‘major’ honour (league titles and European Cups
obviously being the two major ones big clubs look to win). The season
when Ferguson signed Pallister and Ince, United finished in 13th
place, with a paltry 48 points.

It took Ferguson between six and nine years to start reaping the
dividends of his revamped youth system. The emergence of Giggs in 1991
was the one early bonus, but Scholes, Butt, Beckham Neville and
Neville first appeared between 1992 and 1995. Even now, in 2007, his
team relies on three of those players. In those terms, Benítez would
be relying on Gérard Houllier’s youth recruitments; alas, none proved
good enough.

Only now, after 11 years in charge, is Arsene Wenger enjoying
more than the occasional bud blossoming from his famed youth set-up,
with half a team constructed from canny scouting work commenced many
years ago. During his first eight years, the only youngsters to be
regulars were Vieira, Anelka and, from 2000 onwards, Ashley Cole. Kolo
Toure arrived aged 20 in Wenger’s sixth season, Fabregas aged 16 in
his eighth.

By contrast, Benítez only began his youth procurement policy in
earnest in 2005; there wasn’t time in 2004, when he arrived. With many
of the key players turning out to be Benítez’s signings (Hobbs,
Anderson, Antwi, Roque, Hansen, Ajdarevic), Liverpool won the two most
recent FA Youth Cups.

Wenger, meanwhile, has spent far more money on certain players
than he’s given credit (debit?) for. For instance, look at his major
buys, costing £8m* or more: Jeffers (£8m), Hleb (£10m), Wiltord
(£13m), Reyes (deal rising to £17m), Van Bronkhurst (£8.5m), Henry
(£10.5m), Walcott (fee rising to £12m), da Silva (reportedly between
£8m-£16.5m). Not a high amount for 11 years, but not a low one,
either. (*Prices ‘factually’ correct based on the most reliable
media sources. Bear in mind that, because of football’s almost ten-
fold inflation since 1992, and two-fold inflation since the late ‘90s,
£8m spent in 1999 is closer to £15m in 2007. £8m in 1999 was roughly
half the transfer record in England, while £15m is half the current
one.) Benítez has only thus far signed four players for £8m or more:
Kuyt (£9.5m), Alonso (£10.5m), Babel (£11.5m) and Torres (£20m). And
while Kuyt has slightly disappointed when it comes to his goal return,
there is not a flop like Jeffers in sight.

If we’re talking about net spend due to recouping money,
then Wenger has done extremely well. But of course, Benítez, who has
also recouped a fair amount of money (his net spend this summer was
only around £25m), is in a disadvantaged position when it comes to
comparing transfers this way, as a) after just three years, he’s still
building his first true team, not dismantling it; b) none of his best
players or main signings have asked to leave, unlike Anelka,
Overmars, Petit, Vieira, Ashley Cole and Henry, whose sales netted
Wenger almost all of his transfer income. Some of those players
leaving hindered Arsenal, but of course gave Wenger a lot of money to
reinvest, while others, like Henry and Vieira, left when approaching
their sell-by dates.

If Benítez wished to sell Gerrard, Carragher, Torres, Reina,
Agger, Alonso and Babel (or was forced to by transfer requests,
neither of which is the case), he could raise £120m and be trading at
a big profit; thankfully that’s not his aim. Hopefully they’ll all
leave for a small fee, on account of old age, in a decade’s time, when
success has given them TLF (Trophy Lifting Fatigue). When it comes to
selling inherited players, Benítez was also unlucky to be in a
position to get only £16m in total for Owen and Cissé (whose combined
values were £40m in 2003) due to contract length and horrific injuries
respectively.

Arsene Wenger’s first five seasons resulted in the following
finishes: 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd and 2nd. Very impressive. But ‘only’ one
league title and no other ‘major’ trophies, so while ahead of him on
average league position, on a par with Benítez after just three
seasons in terms of major honours. I also feel that the rival managers
to Ferguson and Wenger at the top of the league in the late ‘90s were
inferior to what we now find: Roy Evans was a great backroom man but
never proved himself as a top-class manager, while Ruud Gullit,
Gianluca Vialli, and David O’Leary are all still relatively young but
unable to get near a top job, having gone into high-profile positions
in the late ‘90s without any real management experience or coaching
pedigree. This was also the era of pre-Roman Abramovich Chelsea.

Wenger’s points tallies in his first five seasons were 68, 78, 78,
73 and 70. Benítez managed a superior 82 in just his second season. It
doesn’t mean that 2006 Liverpool were better than 1998 Arsenal, who
won the league with just 78 points, but it does show, with the use of
those pesky facts, that Benítez is not this naive man who struggles to
win games in the Premier League while Wenger understands everything about
English football. Additionally, in the last two seasons Benítez has
finished above Wenger in the league.

Wenger’s Champions League record is not a patch on Benítez’s. In
just three seasons, Benítez has reached twice the number of finals
(two to one), and unlike Wenger, has actually won one. In 15
successive years of qualifying (in itself a notable achievement),
United have only made it to one solitary final. Until Benítez started
doing so incredibly well in the European Cup, it was seen as being of
massive importance to the big clubs; it may be coincidental, but it’s
as if his success has led critics to downgrade that importance.
Perhaps it’s my paranoia (and not necessarily a fact), but if Alex
Ferguson had made two finals in three years, even his pet labrador
would have been knighted by now.

Benítez has yet to fail to qualify for the Champions League, and
has made the knockout stages for the fourth successive time, halfway
through his fourth year. Before he arrived, Liverpool had failed to
reach the competition at all (2003/04) and gone out in embarrassment
in the group stage the year before (2002/03).

Wenger is a world-class manager, but it does seem strange that he
has somehow ‘never signed a flop’, and that all his young signings
have been ‘inspired’. In July 2007 The Times ran a piece about how
Benítez had pipped Arsenal for Ryan Babel, which also intimated that
Arsenal had lost interest in the Dutchman. Its author, having praised
Wenger’s record in scouting young players as “proven and largely
unblemished”, suggested that: “As a procurer of young talent, Rafael
Benítez’s record has been somewhat hit and miss since he took over as
Liverpool manager three years ago. Daniel Agger, the accomplished
young Denmark defender, may be one of Benítez’s better acquisitions,
but the failures ring a little louder than the successes. Gabriel
Paletta anyone?”

If we’re talking about players in their late teens and early 20s,
then as well as Agger, what about Xabi Alonso, Pepe Reina and Javier
Mascherano, all just 22 when signed? Or Scott Carson, who’s now worth
ten times his original fee? Even Momo Sissoko, whose stock is low at
the moment, had two excellent seasons aged 20 and 21. How does
Paletta’s name, alongside that of the disappointing Mark Gonzalez,
outweigh all the successes when it comes to players aged 22 or under?
Meanwhile, teenagers like Jack Hobbs, Emiliano Insua, Gerardo Bruna,
Marvin Poure, Sebastian Leto and Daniel Pacheco have not had time to
prove themselves; but each has looked the part at either youth or
reserve level. After three and a half years in charge, Wenger had only
fully blooded Anelka and Vieira, while relying heavily on older
players he inherited, like Bergkamp and the back five. Since the
Times’ piece, Babel has proved a big hit at Liverpool, as has another
20-year-old, Lucas Leiva.

Which brings us back to perceptions; or perhaps just
misconceptions. How does the £10-17m failure of José Antonio Reyes, 21
when signed, fit in with this picture of Wenger, the master, and
Benítez, the failure in the art of procuring young talent? Wenger’s
judgement is undoubtedly up there with the very best, but would even
he call his judgement ‘largely unblemished’ when thinking of Cygan,
Stepanovs, Wreh, Diawara, Chukwunyelu-Obinna, Danilevicious, Luzhny,
Volz, van Bronckhurst, Boa Morte, Wright, Jeffers and Wiltord? –– many
of whom were youngsters when they signed for the Gunners, and plenty
of whom weren’t cheap. And the list doesn’t even include those who
came and went without even being noticed, or only proved medium-level
successes, like Senderos.

So, just a few facts to bear in mind, both before and after the United game, about where Benítez ranks against his main rivals at the same stage of their tenures.

Quite simply, Rafa Benítez has to be the man to lead this club forward, for two more seasons at the very least (unless things go really pear-shaped). Arsene Wenger, after one early success, only made Arsenal a truly great side in his 6th season, and Ferguson –– a man who also laboured under two-decades of pressure to win the league title –– took until his 7th to do just that.

If Rafa is going to be under pressure to keep his job following every defeat –– and here I’m only going on what’s said in the papers, which may or may not be reliable –– the club is in grave danger of shooting itself in the foot. All managers lose games; it’s an inescapable part of football. No manager is perfect.

Liverpool FC needs strong and consistent leadership right now. It has it on the pitch and in the dugout, and now is the time to prove that it’s the case behind the scenes, too.

Until genuine peace is officially (and festively) announced at Anfield, I’ll continue to throw a few facts around and call for common sense. I am not saying that anyone within Liverpool’s hierarchy lacks this crucial trait –– in my heart I want to believe they don’t –– but if Rafa is sacked, or made to work under unbearable pressure and with unreasonable demands, then I’ll have to revise that conclusion.

© Paul Tomkins 2007

Another happy clappy article from Tomkins for you to enjoy Sabre

by **Sabre** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:29 pm

Huzzah!

Thank you S@int, love that stuff!

by **redmikey** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:58 pm

nice one saint, but it won't do a blind bit of good posting a great article when most people think the word rotation is equal to murder,rape or snuff

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online