Armin_Tamzarian

Wasn't there some suggestion that McCarthy had his eye turned by Chelsea and that had some impact on his performances?

I'd argue that Traore worked out pretty well. He was less than a mill, we sold him for a profit and he provided cover in a couple of positions for years. He didn't turn out Liverpool standard but clearing one off the line in Istanbul gives him a get out of jail free card. Diouf, Kuyt and especially Cisse don't fall into the McCarthy/Santa Cruz bracket. They were all meaningful money, especially Cisse. There was also (supposedly) competition for their signatures and they all came with a reputation as players on the up, perhaps to that extent so did Cheyrou. The frustration with the two Blackburn lads is that both had been marked as eminently suitable for our league for a long time, both were known to be full of potential but also unhappy at their clubs and both were available for a song, at least in football terms. We don't have United or Chelsea's money and probably never will have. When we sign someone for plus 10mill we're pushing the boat out, so I'd rather see us try and spot the Santa Cruz and McCarthy options when possible. I'm not saying we don't do try and do this but I am saying we're not doing as well in this regard as I'd hope. Perhaps I'm being overcritical though, we've plucked Arbeloa from seeming obscurity and he's shaping up nicely. Just wish we could do the same with a striker or winger.

Do the drawbacks come with the pricepoint though? In which case perhaps we're making the wrong compromises. If it's a choice between a player with the technical gifts but questionable work rate /application (say Berbatov) and a player with the work rate and application but simply not equipped to operate at the highest level (you know who I mean), then perhaps we should be buying the one whose faults can be addressed through coaching. Mourhinho never improved Joe Cole's technique but the increased workrate he instilled turned him from a show pony into a top player. Have to say I like Pennant because technically he's one of our better players. His problem seems more mental, think of the chance he had to shoot on Saturday, even before the penalty incident. There's something missing there that top players have but there's still a chance he can develop it and in the meantime he makes a contribution, especially to a width depleted side like ours.

Santa Cruz is good in the air, which we've been crying out for since God knows when. I'd still be pissed off if we signed him as I would if we went for McCarthy. Both of them had been touted around for ages and we seemingly show no interest until they have a good season in our league. With money tight we should be signing players like this before they arrive, the risk is relatively low cause the fees aren't big. Now if we sign him we have to pay a premium to Blackburn and there's still the possibility that the first season gloss will wear off. Hindsight's ace of course, we'd have signed Anelka, Berbatov, Santa Cruz and McCarthy in the last 3 years for less than Chelsea paid for Shevchenko.

RIP to those that perished and best wishes to the bereaved. It will be tough for those few who survive, hope their fallen comrades are accorded the respect they deserve. Phil Sraton has written a superb article on the disaster and the relations between LFC and MUFC. I won't paste it onto a tribute thread but it's well worth a look.

And regional / international links here

I keep a relatively up to date list here

You've completely missed the point. Where did I say he wasn't a superb footballer? Ignoring the fact that we're off form at the moment and struggling your Kevin Keegan mentality won't get us anywhere. If its all about attacking why play any defenders at all? We should respect every opponent, not fear them but show them due respect. Its no use scoring goals if you concede them at an equal rate. The team has a defensive job to complete each game just as it has an attacking one.

His critics have had their patronising faint praise rammed down their throats. Has been great all season but his last few games have been immense. Yesterday was ace, took a knock to the back of his head that would've knocked most players into next week, Sami just shook his head got up and got on with the game. He's hard as nails, has the best 'wasn't me' smile when he's caught bang to rights and when he hangs up his boots we'll have lost a colossus but gained a legend. Hail Sami!

When Chris Bascombe is at his best he's objective and unafraid to call it as he sees it. Unfortunatly he can't see much of the game when he's crawled up the a*** of Stevie and Jamie. Was he even watching yesterday? I was surprised by the lineup in defence before kick off, until I saw the players we were up against. They had a lot of height and strength up front especially coming down their left hand side. The one occasion when Jones had time to pick up the ball and run he was a fearsome sight, only just stopped by a combination of Skrtel and Carragher. Basically we've desperately needed pace at the back for ages, we've signed it in Skrjtel and we needed to find a way of incorporating it without losing Sami's aerial strength against Jones. Rafa made the right decision as the clean sheet shows and if Jamie didn't like it the best thing he could do would be to play well and keep his mouth shut, if he moaned to his mate then I think less of him for it. With Arbeloa out and Finnan off form we needed him there yesterday. As for Gerrard, the first passage of play today showed how his presence in centre midfield is as much a curse as a blessing. We knocked 4 crisp, simple passes together until Stevie got hold of it, raised his head and tried a bloody stupid long ambitious pass which was easily cut out. It happens time and time again because Gerrard is by nature very attacking, which is fine if he's pushed forward and can threaten the goal but when he's further back and there's no real chance on he still pushes and we lose posession and momentum. What on earth has happened at Liverpool to see Alonso, the man who can make us tick, sidelined? Gerrard's our best player, one of the best we've ever seen at Anfield but as a central midfielder his reputation is greater than the reality. Has he been guaranteed a place in the centre? Rafa had it right when he used Steven as an offensive option on the right or the left, has he been overruled? Why can't Chris ask those questions in his reports?

This content is not viewable to guests.

I hope Preston win because otherwise it's going to be a miserable drive back late on Sunday.

It is worth more. If maturing markets in the Far East can be directly served with ppv matches then it's potentially worth the quoted billion and more. It depends on delivering the stadium, keeping the team competitive and building the brand in the overseas markets. It also requires an end to the collective selling of overseas rights, something that the likes of Hicks and Glazer will have high on their agenda.

Without Dr Karl Kennedy, Ian Beale and DJ Spoony onboard how can they hope to establish credibility with the banks and hard core support? Les Dennis for Chairman.

Xabi Alonso Harry Kewell is a no show Gerrard and Mascheranoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

We've got the best Paco lookalike in the world.

To be fair I argued as much at the time. As did many of those who had looked at the potential of DIC's involvement. Even those who had been following the PR line from the club had a lot of suspicion of Gillett, they had after all been briefing against him for weeks. To me much of what you say is simply the result of a damage limitation exercise by the club and its financial advisors, neither of which wanted to be blamed for a humiliating public dismissal by DIC after their dalliance with G&H became public. Of course there were issues and interests to be addressed, this was a complex sale with many interested parties. That's why small investors looked to the board to do a thorough and professional job. Given the protracted and unseemly process that took in Thailand, Morgan, Kraft, Miskelly DIC and finally G&H I'm amazed anyone still believes this to have been achieved. I think you missed my point concerning the small shareholders. I'd argue your definition of interest is too narrow. My argument was that small shareholders had an interest in the future of the club which overrode the additional value. Certainly everyone of them that I knew held the shares in the club primarily through love of the institution. They trusted the board when it reccommended G&H as fit custodians. The new owners made a smart move in guaranteeing ticket priveliges to shareholders but I'd bet that if they felt the club was being sold down the river they'd sooner have sold elsewhere for less. Of course an institution like Granada wouldn't have that same emotional connection and would simply seek to maximise its return.

I understand the difference between the responsibilities of a shareholder and a Director and still maintain that fiduciary responsibilities were used as a fig leaf following the departure of Dubai. For example, you correctly state that the Chairman was legally bound to put the interest of all shareholders ahead of any personal interests but that's only partly accurate. In fact his duty lay with the Company, both current and future shareholders. So any bid should've been assessed not only in terms of it's immediate value to shareholders but to its long term benefit to Liverpool FC. Even though the G&H bid was more £500 per share more he could still recommend a lesser bid if he felt it offered a better future for the company of which he was custodian. In any case the renewed bid didn't preclude him from communicating with DIC and being honest and open about the American interest. Instead they learned about it from a journalist. By mishandling relations with DIC Moores and LFC were left with only one option, G&H. How was that in the interests of the company? Furthermore as Chairman and majority shareholder DM was also the leader of the board which recommended this bid. Never mind Granada, he had a responsibility to each and every small and single shareholder to act in their best interest, which given their emotional stakehold in the club ran a lot further than simply securing an additional 500 quid. Don't you think the people whon owned one share apiece would've happily foregone that extra £500 to see the club in safe hands? I liked David Moores and he's a genuine fan. It broke my heart to hear him breaking down in the AGM under pressure from Morgan and others, much of it petulant and ill-informed. That doesn't mean I couldn't see the whitewash following the departure of DIC for what it was. After the longest yard sale in football history LFC tripped up at the last hurdle and delivered the club into the hands of exactly the sort of speculative chancers we should've avoided from the start.

Who are these independent parties?

Liverpool embarked on a desperate damage limitation exercise once DIC pulled out. They reversed everything they'd been saying for weeks in the rush to portray the whole fiasco as a triumph. They didn't persuade many.

I disagree. The DIC takeover was virtually complete and the price had been agreed. Seriously entertaining other bids at that stage could only be viewed as either bad faith or a negotiating ploy. This continual repetition of the Boards duty to consider all offers flys in the face of Moores status as majority shareholder and guardian of the clubs future. He could sell his shares to anyone he pleased and he'd gone far enough down the road with DIC for the to reasonably expect him to honour the deal. If you look again at what DIC leaked after it all broke down it seems that they'd heard rumours for up to 3 weeks that Liverpool were talking to other parties, not from the club themselves but from others and that phone calls and questions were going unanswered. Perhaps the club were happy to give DIC the impression that their deal was in danger in the hope of squeezing a bit more from the purchase price? We'll never know for sure because when they allowed DIC to form the impression that they were being played they withdrew and Hicks and Gillet became the only show in town. At which point the embarassing spin began.

No its not but DIC are a sovereign investment company with a reputation to protect. It's not just a question of honour it's their reputation in the market they need to preserve. Allowing a couple of opportunists to force their hand would create more trouble in other areas of their investment strategy.

If I'd shook hands on a deal to buy a house only for the vendor to come back and say someone else was offering 10k more and could I match/beat it I'd tell them to go to hell.