JRC

But that way madness lies, becasue the effect of a goal can go either way just as easily - a couple of seasons ago, when we beat them 3-1 Everton were claiming this kind of stuff when Beattie had a goal disallowed, saying how it would have changed the game if it had been given etc....but they actually did score about 2 minutes later anyway, so they were effectively in the position they would have been if it had been allowed; and it certainly changed the game, because the way we responded to conceding was by raising our game and scoring about 5 minutes later to make it 3-1 (OK, a minute after half-time, but only 5 minutes of game play). All you can really extrapolate from these 'if that had or hadn't' scenarios is on an 'all other things being equal' basis. And on that basis, if they hadn't been given their pen and we had been given both ours (and scored both), we would have won 3-2. But that wasn't the case, and it shouldn't have come down to that, but hey......sh*t happens.

Absolutely, it was a ludicrous argument. The foul occurs at the point of contact, which was outside the box. By Lawrenson's logic, if Peter Crouch had the ball at his feet some 3 yards outside the area but fell face forward with his arms outstretched, and then a defender jumped in and caught his ankle as he lay on the ground, it would be a penalty if his fingertips were just brushing the line of the penalty box. Nonsense. Although that was better than Stan Collymore's efforts on Five Live - he refused to criticize the Reading penalty decision because 'you make your own luck' - even after just 18 minutes, a couple of crosses and a single shot on goal. When it was later suggested to him that both Torres incidents could have been given, he argued that 'common sense' should prevail, and the ref should only give a penalty when there was 'no ambiguities', like 'when it's a nasty challenge or the forward definitely has a chance to score'. Bizarre (lack of) logic.

Fernando Torres is so good that the Main Stand don't moan about him...yet

...and I'd give them a lift and pick them up...

I thnk Riise was in specifically to deal with the threat from Davies playing out wide, and that he did admirably as well as getting forward well

Est1892 are getting in a frenzy because someone with contacts at AFL is claimimg they've got instructions to re-prepare the old design based on 70K...

I don't know about in the hole, but for me personally, only a Peter Crouch - jumping - tattoo between those two could do it justice....

Dissatsfaction with the current ownership suggests even more caution ahould be taken about any alternatives, and their potential to go t*ts up, than eagerness to embrace simply because they are an alternative. Awareness and acknowledgement of the potential for a downside with DIC as well.

If DIC come in I shall view their influence with equanimity and take their re-assurances and promises at face value, acknowledging that they have some kind of access to significant funds. However, before we get carried away ahead of the fact, remember :- G&H said all of the right thinigs when they took over - whoever/whatever/however, look at their standing now As even many of those very supportive of DIC acknowledge, the funds are not just their to be spunked up at will - DIC is a business vehicle that has to make an appropriate return, and acts as unemotionally and ruthlessly as it needs to when it needs to The LFC supporter - a senior manager, but not, if I recall the fall-out from last December the very top man; wasn't he struggling to get buy-in from the real top honchos, the Royals etc? Didn't they think he was a bit too close? Would he, in fact, have major input to the management of their investment in LFC/running of the club if it went through? Maybe he would become - or want to become - Chairman, but I don't recall it being clear that that was the case. The Sheikh's personal interests and investments in Horse Racing do not simply translate in to them ensuring they have tthe most succesful football club in their investment vehicle's portfolio. They pulled out becasue the Board demurred and 'allowed' G&H in to talk to them - although it was generally accepted that the board was required to do that. They were 'insulted'. We did not understand their business culture, nor they ours. It was 'disrespectful' to the Dubai leadership and they saw their a***, threw a strop etc....sound familiar? As one who thinks the events of the past week (and maybe the 3 preceding) have been overblown, and not in despair at he prospects for the ongoing management of the club, provided peace is breaking out between Rafa and the owwners, I would still, as I say, welcome DIC in as an alternative if that should happen, especially if they support the Stadium development plans. However, I wouldn't want us to get carried away that they necessarily represent some utopian panacea bathed in redemptive white light. IF we have had our fingers burnt once, as we may/may not have done, then sticking our hand in a different fire instead may well not produce a different outcome.

Kuyt ws excellent Saturday, an almost perfect foil for Torres; Voronin the best man on the pitch vs Besiktas (without scoring, or needing to); Crouch was awful against Marseille etc. etc. Each does and can bring something, and each can be off form. El Nino though, is solid gold. All hail!

Unfair summary re Torres - for a defensive coach, Howe virtually creams himself over Torres, and even says that we shouldn't worry about his missed chances last Saturday because he was so good, and will get better. I'd only really object to the 'technically poor' comment about Masch, and he even qualifies that significantly.

How much better if we had been bought by Enron a few years ago, eh? I'm sure we had these things in place before, they are likely to be different in detail under new owners and new practices.

Symptoms of the spat, Rafa told to desist all transfer activity because he did the Mascherano deal and complained at getting his wrist slapped ? I don't pretend to know, but I suspect I'm not alone in that, including amongst those making some very strong claims.

The negotiation point is a strong one, but it could be even more fundamental. Each business has it's own governance model, and it is entirely possible that G&H have imposed an approval authority matrix and set of financial checks and balances, conflict of interest rules etc which mean that Rafa cannot commit the company to £17m of expenditure - verbally or oherwise. If he had effectively done that, and then bitched about being pulled over it, they would be entitled to get huffy - there is even a point to be made that as owners, and custodians of our club, we should expect them to show fiduciary responsibility and the highest standards of compliance. I have no idea that this is the case, but it is no less a credible theory than some of the conspiracy/engineered conflict/elaborate smokescreen ones,

Not do it in public or to the press? Not use sarcasm and pointed gestures to show how he feels about the owners? Even if you think he was right to go public, the Press conference performance and the Track Suit thing were not in themselves cogent and coherent arguments for his position; they were symptomatic of a perhaps justifiable frustration, but they didn't actually make his case, just made the resolution harder.

Without raking over all that Neggy vs RCDNW stuff from a few weeks ago, it is good that this has crystallized and confirmed the generally common view that, overall, we are currently better off with Rafa than without him - stubbornness, rotation and all. One frighteningly foresightful thread was titled 'Be Careful Wat You Wish For...' .

hAVe mOrE 5tuP1d The0R1es!!!

Dramatic as all this nonsense is, it is not as traumatic as the manager nearly dropping dead at Half Time. Remind me again how we responded to that?

I didn't think any of them did much on Sunday... But it could still well be on, all other things working out.

Let's hope it IS 'All About The Money' with them - because they should be getting the message that sacking Rafa is the quickest way to jeopardize the chances of their business plan succeeding. Perversely, it is perhaps more like the old 'Liverpool Way' to regard a manager speaking publicly and disrespectfully about the failings of the owner/chairman as a sackable offence, no matter how good he was at his job...

And they sat down and had what was a mutually agreeable similar discussion about 3-4 weeks ago. Whatever has gone wrong, I don't think it can really be blamed on not having a sit-down meeting again until December 16.

Not having go at you, but that apparent contradiction sums up the actual lack of knowledge we - and even supposed insiders - really have to base our judgements on. The only true insiders are Rafa and Hicks. The former thinks it is 'not serious', the latter is meeting the former in 3 weeks to discuss a strategy for next year - make of that what you will.

Given Rafa's input to the academy, his 18 hour days and the fact that he has no Number 2 - he has more executive influence over the club than any manager we have had - I don't see anything wrong for the owners to suggest he leaves the detail (not the who) to someone else for a while until it gets to the sharp end in January. Also, like it or not, they make the call on the how much (especially CL knock-out phase qualification as a condition). Only if they are telling him who he can or cannot sell or buy do I see that they are unquestionably in the wrong.

There is 'a situation' irespective of the Press, for sure, but the Press, as is their wont, are not only reporting but embroidering, adumbrating, expanding and exploiting it, inevitably so.

I'm saying I can't see the provenance for his new found insider status, yet can easily see a motivation -'just cause' - for him pushing the line he does - which he can do pretty well with impunity. And I suspect the 'sacked sooner rather than later' stories have all pretty well radiated from his initial reports - the other journos don't want to be seen to have missed it should it be true, but there's little evidence of anyone having an alternative in on the story.