RaoulD

We accepted responsibility for the fans behaviour at Heysel and the individuals responsible were tried, convicted and served their sentences. The club took the punishment for the events even thought the club had little control over what happened (and had actually sought the game to be played at a different venue). I was there and it deeply affected me even though I had no involvement in the trouble. The ban on all English clubs was a result of a series of hooligan incidents involving other clubs and the national team that almost certainly contributed to the events that night. If it had just been an isolated case of misconduct by Liverpool fans, only Liverpool would have been punished. I have yet to meet a Liverpool fan who thinks we did not deserve the ban or the reception we still get from Juventus fans. Manchester City's behaviour and the reaction of their fans is the exact opposite. The delusional notion that somehow City will be able to overturn the decision after the appeal in the courts shows a complete lack of knowledge of the legal position. A further appeal to the High Court is not available as such. The only route is by way of judicial review of the arbitration award and that is far from easy in a fact sensitive matter such as the decision to uphold the charges. City already know this having lost a challenge to the Arbitration over the investigation. The belief that somehow City did not present all of the so called irrefutable evidence to the Commission and that somehow things will be different on appeal appears to be based on little more than the say so of the Club. The plain fact that emerges from the judgment is that the money that was allegedly pledged by sponsors under the agreements disclosed to the auditors and reflected in the clubs accounts did not in fact come from the sponsors. If it came from ADUG not only were the accounts misstated but also it infringed the financial rules of UEFA and subsequently the Premier League about the amount of financial loss covered by equity/owner investment. If it came from the Abu Dhabi Government why and for what purpose was the Government providing the money and why was that source and purpose not disclosed? If FSG had behaved the way that the Commission found them to have behaved, I think most of us would be calling for FSG's heads not blaming the Premier League or the Commission for exposing it. For me, I think the recommendation from the Commission is likely to be expulsion but only the member clubs have that power. The alternative is likely to be either suspension from the Premier League and possible retrospective points deductions rather than trying to null and void results. Retrospective points deductions will probably also lead to the stripping of titles but the credibility of the Premier League as a competition needs to ensure that Manchester City are not seen to have benefitted from their behaviour which is why deciding upon the appropiate sanction is likely to be very difficult. In the meantime, we have to continue to play against a team which has been assembled through a massive breach of the rules. The prize money, legitimate sponsor income and other benefits that City have enjoyed has sustained their strength and enabled them to exist at a table they should never have been allowed to sit at.

The Premier League rules include a requirement to comply with UEFA rules so they could be found guilty of a breach of the UEFA rules even if UEFA had applied their own sanction or, as happened in the CAS case were prevented from doing so due to limitation under the UEFA statutes and Swiss Law

This content is not viewable to guests.

and they are playing water polo at the Hill Dickinson

Both are at the World Cuo and both probably don't need or want speculation about their future to distract from their preparation. We have a new manager who is likely to do what has happened in the past when a major tournament has taken place in the summer which is to assess those members of the squad who are not involved in the tournament and the youngsters who might be suitable for promotion to the first team squad. If there is to be a move for either Nunez or Salah, it is only likely to happen after the World Cup and both players will probably want to spend time with their families before making any decision on their future club whether it be Liverpool or someone else. I personally think we could use either next season but I doubt Iraola will be interested. Rio is the obvious first choice for the left forward position next season and I think we are looking for a younger and quicker right forward to replace Salah. We also have Isak who hopefully will benefit from playing for Sweden in the World Cup and have a proper pre-season rather than last year. Ekitike will hopefully be fit by January as well. Nunez makes slightly more sense than Mo as he seems more the type of player that Iraola fancies than a 34 year old Mo.

As someone who felt that Slot should go in November, I am happy we are looking for a new manager/coach for next season and that we did not waste time over the summer coming to a decision that was pretty obvious to a lot of people well before the axe fell. The decision however cannot have been one that FSG had in mind before the end of the season since otherwise, it makes no sense that we had not lined up a replacement before letting Slot go. I think the lack of action on our parrt might also have limited the options available since clearly there were other potential candidates who were either available or were stalling on extending their existing deals who might have been interested in the Liverpool job. I am slightly concerned that we seem to be only looking at Iraola. This does not mean that I am unhappy with the prospect as I think his football is more likely to appeal that Slot's did last season but the same noises were being made about Slot (based on his Feyenoord title winning team) as they are about Iraola. We have been down this route before with firstly Roy Hodgson (who had a good season with Fulham before he was appointed) and Rodgers (with Swansea) and now Iraola seems pretty much to be the same type of appointment. Our successful managers since Houllier have been appointments with a track record of winning major titles and experience of competing in Europe alongside a domestic competition. The issue is not just about fitness but also the opportunity to coach, plan and address issues in the team before the next game. Our best season under Rodgers was also one where we did not have European football and early exits from the cups. We should be make enquiries about Luis Enrique not simply assuming that he is going to extend hiis stay at PSG. He may well be unattainable but the noises from PSG's chairman suggest otherwise. If it is Iraola, then we need to address the other elephant in the room and that is recruitment. We knew we needed a right back to replace Trent last summer and that given Bradley's fitness issues, we probably needed two. Frimpong was at best a wingback. Similarly, we needed more that four centre-backs even before selling Quansah. Gomez has a history of injury concerns and Van Djik is at the end of his career. Leoni was a good buy but realistically was only stepping into Quansah's shoes. We should have been making our approach for Guethi well before Leoni got injured regardless. We have now lost Salah, Konate and Robbo. That means we probably need 3 new centre-backs, a new right back, a new left back and probably two wide strikers given that we did not replace Diaz last season and Ekitike is out until next year. Ir is a World Cup summer so we need the players signed before it starts otherwise the new manager has not got anything to work with.

He wanted to move to Barcelona and his Father wanted him to do so too. The move did not materialise because Barcelona could not afford to buy him and already have an established strike force that won the league last season. The contract was just a smokescreen for what was effectively an attempt to engineer a move but the club took it as encouragement to sell him before he entered the final year and we had TAA Mk 2.

He is playing Salah as a right winger/midfielder when Salah needs to be running on to balls played quickly into space. The right back needs to be playing wide so that space is made for either Salah to cut inside or have space to go outside. He then plays Curtis Jones as a right back who does nothing but make safe short passes to a standing player next to him. It takes an age for use to get the ball forward because the coach wants to keep power yet we can’t do that because we are to narrow to launch a speedy counter if the other side press and therefore we are exposed to a press and constantly on the back foot. He has sold our best pressers in Diaz and Nunez and lost another in Jota without properly replacing them. He signs a great player in Wirtz but as with Salah the delivery of the ball to him is too slow and he can be dispossessed by doubling up on him. Gakpo is not a left winger but is expected to play like one because Kerkez is constantly cutting inside. We have a defender on the bench who can play both centre back and right back but instead we play a midfielder who cannot defend as a right back and offers no more going forward. These are all coaching decisions and despite clearly not working the same team and tactics are rolled out each game. The players are not happy, the fans are walking out and there is no sign that Slot has a plan to change the situation. FSG need to act now.

Stop kidding yourself. We scraped through the first five with a bit of luck since then we have won 1 out of 7. The manager does not seem to give a f*** and certainly seems to have no answer to the current form which has existed sine Easter last year. We need to get rid and plead with Jurgen to come back because if this carries on we are looking at another long spell in the wilderness

The problem seems to be that we are trying to play like we did last season with half the personnel missing. Last season, Trent's ability to hit a long ball into space for Salah meant that teams did not commit numbers down the right flank for fear of being caught on the counter. Salah, as a result, tended to position himself on the shoulder of the defender and started moving when Trent had the ball to feet fully expecting the ball to be put in front of him. This season, the delivery to Salah has been much slower as a result of which Salah is playing the ball either with his back to goal or in a less advanced position with the covering defender in front of him. He is in effect playing more like a traditional winger than he has done in any previous season. We also played Diaz as a false 9 which meant that the opposition central defenders had to cover both Diaz and Salah's runs from deep and this in turn made more space available for other strikers on the opposite flank (Gakpo/Nunez) or for Jota's runs into the box. This season we have reverted to a more traditional centre forward arrangement which is not working because neither Isak nor Ekitike are best utilised as a target man and prefer the ball to feet rather than in the air. Wirtz is clearly intended to be a playmaker/creator but is having to hunt for the ball further up the pitch (and therefore more likely to be tackled and dispossessed in a dangerous position than he would be if he was on the outside of the opposition penalty area. Another factor is the lack of width in our play. Neither Gakpo nor Salah like to run the lines and cross from deep in the same way that Trent and Robbo did. Frimpong was clearly signed to provide the overlapping full-back that we lost when Trent left. Kerkez was supposed to do likewise on the left but if we are going to play this way we need to look at how this interacts with the front 3. At the moment, Gakpo, Isak and Salah are too close to each other in the box and so a massed defence in front of goal is negating the crosses that we do put into the box. We need to either revert to the false 9 set-up with Wirtz effectively in that role and Salah/Isak and Gakpo/Ekitike coming in off the flanks or we play Isak and Ekitike/Salah up front with Wirtz at the head of a 4-man diamond midfield with overlapping full backs. Much of the defensive issues stem from the fact that we are allowing teams to press us because we are too slow iand static n possession and the opposition can commit numbers up front without too much risk of a fast counter.

Isak's statement suggests that he is alleging that trust and confidence has broken down. He and his team may well be asserting that NUFC are in breach of the implied term in his contract of employment and that he is threatening to terminate his contract. If he can establish "just cause" then NUFC technically will have to pay compensation to him for the damage caused but in reality it frees him up to sign a contract with LFC without payment of compensation to NUFC. I am not sure that Isak's position is legally tenable but if he terminates his contract prematurely (and therefore is in breach of it) he becomes liable to pay compensation and will be subject to a 4-month ban on playing. As a result of the Diarra decision, NUFC would have to show that LFC induced the breach in order for sporting sanctions and liability to pay compensation to be imposed on LFC. The rule previously presumed this to be the case but the Diarra decision has caused amendments to what is Article 17 of FIFA's transfer rules to place the onus of proving the new club induced the breach on the complainant . Without the prospect of sporting sanctions being placed on LFC, NUFC would most probably get far less that the £110M offered by LFC in compensation from Isak and would have no recourse against us should Isak accept an offer of employment from us in future. Isak would still be unable to play for 4 months and this sanction is itself the subject of a legal challenge similar to the Diarra case. The NUFC statement is not as clear cut as the Geordies think. They have left open the prospect of a sale if certain unspecified conditions are met. This gives them the wriggle room they might need if Isak is sold but also sends a message that they are still open to the prospect of a sale to LFC. If a sale is agreed, the need for Isak to terminate his contract and the potential dispute between LFC and NUFC over whether the breach of contract was induced by Liverpool is avoided. In this regard LFC are doing nothing to encourage Isak's behaviour making it difficult for NUFC to pin liability on us should Isak quit. NUFC cannot afford Isak quitting even if they could ask for sporting sanctions to be imposed on us since the sanction would only be a transfer ban for 2 windows (which may be why we are getting other business done in this window) and the compensation we might have to pay jointly with Isak is likely to be much less than the £110 million offered. They would then find themselves back in a PSR nightmare because they have to fund the cost of the players they have already bought and any replacement for Isak and might not get an award of compensation for 18 months to 2 years. l The situation is even worse for them if Isak establishes that he has just cause to leave and his statement suggests that he believes that he has cause (and freezing him out of the squad only aggravates the situation). The RSTP defines just cause as "In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship." English Law (which is the governing law of his contract) recognises an implied obligation of mutual trust and confidence in employment contracts and allows an employee to terminate a contract where an employer, without reasonable cause, does an act that seriously undermines or destroys that relationship. Isak is suggesting that the relationship has been destroyed by NUFC's actions so the key question is whether NUFC had reasonable cause for them. It is therefore not just a question of holding him to the terms of his contract but also potentially in what might have been promised to him in future and whether by breaking such promises, NUFC destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence. We can afford to sit back and wait for NUFC to blink, they cannot. If they leave it to the closing of the transfer window Isak could then decide to terminate his contract with them and become a free agent (albeit with a potential sporting sanction/compensation liability accompanying him).

I was at Heysel and I don't see the connection between the song and what happened that night. It is a contrived association which has nothing to do with the hostility towards Liverpool that still exists in Turin and everyone knows the real reason for that hostility. Are we supposed to take offence everytime someone sings the Leaving of Liverpool? Chiesa likes the song and that is good enough for me.

Newcastle cannot pay the same salaries that we, united, city, chelsea and arsenal can offer despite having the resources to do so because those resources are not generated by their commercial operations. They clearly suggested to Isak that his contract would be improved after a couple of years when they signed him because otherwise they would have fallen foul of the PSR and hoped that by signing him (and probably a few others) on an initially low salary (in comparison to what they would be abe to command elsewhere) would enable them to enjoy greater commercial and on-pitch success. Whilst the latter has given them some prospect of future increases in earnings (from CL revenue), the reality is that they cannot honour any promise of an improved contract that they might make to Isak or convince anyone else in the light of how the Isak situation has played out that they should sign for them.

So was I

This content is not viewable to guests.