Bromage

I think you're absolutely right here Kev. If we actually get to play them in a CL game then I think the rules will be very different with a truly neutral referee, without the possibility of advance inflluence. However on the issue of being effectively muscled out of the game yesterday, that's down to us and nobody else. I accept that a partial ref might award more often against us than reasonable but we should expect our players to be capable of coping with that; no excuses!

I actually think he did display self-control until after the sending off. His approaches to Bennett were calm and measured in every case, prior to then and so he cannot at this point be accused for "losing it". Up to now the questioning of refereeing decisions has not been a bookable offence and so we have to conclude that this is a new rule, apparently invented specifically for "Super Sunday" or whatever they decided to call it. (I thought it was Easter) So what it boils down to is whether the players were briefed before the game or whether we have to rely on the briefing from now on in the media.

There was an interesting comparison between Bennett and Clattenburg this morning in terms of their conduct and guidance towards the players, both before and during the game. What was implied was that Clattenburg invoked the new "policy" correctly by getting the two captains together before the game and making clear the new approach regarding dissent. I think the inference was that Bennett failed by NOT doing the same but you have to wonder whether he was directed by the powers that be as a result of our game. It's an interesting comparison between on the one hand, players can just say they did as they were told and the manager gets the blame whereas on the other referees do the same and yet they get "hung out to dry". Who'd do that job, even for £70k!!

It now seems that the media are pushing for a long ban for JM's "behaviour" after the sending off. As far as I can tell his behavious was confined to his incredulity at being sent off for talking to Bennett. Irrespective of the high profile nature of the Cole incident, have the FA or UEFA implemented a new rule this week and applied it right across Europe? Was it evident in the other premiership games on Saturday or just saved up for a one-off performance on Sunday. (Isn't it ironic that the 3 worst exponents of harranguing the ref, have effectively got away with it again whilst Liverpool have been punished). How dare we have the nerve get remotely close to challenging the favourite 3!! Presumably, give it a few weeks and this "new rule" will go the same way as the time a keeper can hold the ball in the box, the mandatory retreat of 10 yards for a free kick or the ball is carried forward another 10 or who could forget the all new "crackdown on diving" policy.

Hansen's view; "A strong referee would have dealt with the incident completely differently. He would have gone to Gerrard, as the Liverpool captain, and to Mascherano and indicated that one more example of backchat would see the player dismissed. And the pity is that Bennett got most of the decisions of a big afternoon right, but it is the one he got wrong that he will be remembered for." Telegraph

Whatever the personal views, we know that the press has talked of nothing else wince the Cole incident. It can't have been beyond even the dimmest of footballers to realise that Bennett would be looking for the first opportunity to re-assert himself in the eyes of his masters. The impression I got from events after the sending off, was that his team mates were tellinh him he'd been warned.

Of course you're right and fair play to you for maiking the point. We might disagree on the final unhindered outcome but it must be annoying not being able to say that you won the gamre "fair and square", whoever you support. Gerrard's failure to control his team-mate was unforgiveable but Bennett's failure to ensure a fantastic spectable for the watching fans was bordering on the criminal. But I guess someone will question whether that's his job........

The thing is, Sky will be patting themselves on the back for what they regard as a succesful "weekend event"; they'll continue to disregard the interests of the game in favour of the ratings. It seems extraordinary that the one powerful voice who could truly change the farce that footall has become, chooses to preserve the staus quo; or maybe it's just in their script after all.

It occurs to me that after 3 years of pundit comment about the "rotation system", (you know the same forward thinking people who say Directors of Football don’t work, foreign investors are only after the money and oh don’t forget, technology will only damage our traditional game) many on here have now jumped on the same bandwagon and suggested that this is the reason for our poor performances. I'd like to put forward a case for why I think it's the right thing to do but I will openly admit that it isn’t working for us at the moment. Experts will say that we won all those titles & cups with a squad of only 14 players but you only have to look at the physical state of our past heroes, after the constant “patching up” and cortizone injections, to see that even at the slower pace of the game 20-30 years ago the long term damage is too high a price for a young man, whatever the salary. If you take a look at our 1st team squad showing 34 players, excluding those out on loan or without squad numbers, you would anticipate that at least 24 are of sufficient quality to play in the 1st team, with the others available to “low level” introduction where possible. The squad presumably train together and whilst each has their own specific skill, one assumes that they all follow the tactics outlined by the coaching staff and therefore have some indication of what s expected of them. I have to therefore assume therefore that when Lucas is played on the left, Riise is told to push forward rather than stay alongside Sami and Babel is told to stay out wide rather than central, it is part of a well-rehearsed plan on which the WHOLE SQUAD have worked for several days before the game. So my contention is that squad rotation is perfectly acceptable given the demands of the game and in the interests of the players. If a player is considered good enough to pay £20k+ a week then they should surely be expected to have the talent to play where and when the coach demands. Players don’t meet up at games as strangers, they practise together on a daily basis and if Kuyt & Torres or Crouch and Voronin don’t know how to play with each other then isn’t that more a reflection on them rather than the coaching staff? So if there is criticism to be levelled, in my humble opinion it isn’t the obvious target; DO blame the quality of the players, DO blame the tactics (or the players’ lack of ability to execute them) and DO blame the coaches for not making the right team selections. But DON’T blame rotation because that should be the system that helps us to keep players in prime condition for the 60 games or so a season.

Completely agree; he should always start on the right.

YNWA Forum Etiquette Any muppets, consider yourself warned!!!

In fairness to Rick Parry and I don't say that very often, it is always easier to conclude the deals on players who nobody else wants.

As I clearly haven't a hope of a ticket for the final, I'm wondering whether anyone is planning on watching the match in London and if so, where? If there's enough interested we may be able to organise something.

Many will know that my patience has stayed firmly in its place since Rick Parry's management capabilities have been questioned in the last year or two. My belief was that his professionalism in launching the Premier League brought a great deal to the WI Market Stall management style which is known as the Liverpool FC Boardroom. However my patience is now tested to such a breaking point that I feel compelled to write this. We know very little about events other than what the parties disclose or press fabricate but what is certain is; 1. George Gillett made an offer for the club last year which was rejected after consideration by the board. 2. DIC made its bid last November and received approval to conduct due diligence prior to confirmation of the offer. Their CEO is a fan of some 30 years standing. 3. George Gillett, a bankrupt in 1991, has an estimated ?fortune? of around £450m and almost certainly would finance the takeover through loans, similar to the Glaziers. 4. DIC would also finance the take over through loans but the significant difference is that the city is falling over itself to offer them the money due to their credibility and the wealth of those involved. 5. George Gillett conducted his due diligence process in 3 days. 6. DIC raised questions as a result of their due diligence process which may have affected their valuation; we don?t know the details. 7. The directors do indeed have a fiduciary duty to consider all serious offers in the interests of the shareholders. 8. DIC were advised last week that their offer would be put to the LFC Board this week for approval. So in my mind this means that the decision to bring the Gillett bid back into the mix is as a direct result of the possible lower share valuation, resulting in less money for the shareholders and nothing to do with the amount of the investment money paid into the club towards the debt and the new ground, plus funds for development of the squad. I can forgive Parry for the Houllier saga, the Gerrard saga and even the Thai PM?s crooked deal but on this occasion I just have to say this; if you are any good at business you have to be able to keep all parties happy in this situation and you do that by keeping them informed. If it were down to me I would have him on the next plane to Dubai, prostrating himself at the feet of DIC and pleading with them to come back to the negotiating table, in the interest of the fans. But rather than propose a ?Parry Out? vote right now I would prefer to ask people who they would prefer to buy out David Moores; DIC or George Gillett?

Having this quality cover all over the park will only match Chelsea and not necessarily guarantee success; ultimately it's the quality of the team which will make the difference and in my view Rafa has a better chance of achieving this than JM, particularly after Sunday.

Last time I say Aimar play for Argentina, he played right sided midfield. He missed out last season due to injury and like England, the fact that he played for a less high-profile team last season meant that he missed out on a squad position for the WC. IMHO he is possibly the best buy we could make since Xabi.

No mate, this is the bit where the credibility disappeared!

Once a year.

So few memories!