RaoulD

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.,This content is not viewable to guests.

It wasn't a career, it was an episode and a bad one at that.

I am in the same frame of mind at the moment. The excitement about the forthcoming season, the new signings and the fact that we are the defending league champions completely evaporated and has been replaced by a complete lack of interest in football at the moment. I felt the same after Hysel and really did not want us to play again after Hillsborough but recognised that the team getting back to playing football was probably the support I needed to overcome these tragedies. This time it is the other way round. The team need our support now and whatever happens next season no longer matters provided Diogo is never forgotten and we do everything within our power to support his and Andre's family and friends in this difficult time. I personally am shocked at how this has affected me. My mother died last October. My mother-in-law in February. My partner had a cancer diagnosis in January and a successful operation in April which has, for now, removed the tumour. My late first born son was born in the same month as Diogo but died 4 months later. None of these events have affected me as much as the news on Thursday morning. I did not know Diogo, I never met him and apart from watching on television, never saw him play. Yet, despite everything saying that he was a total stranger to me, I find myself feeling the grief that is associated with the loss of a close family member. I can only attribute this to the fact that he and his brother were in the prime of their life, had every reason to look forward to the future and suddently it was gone. My mother was 90, my mother-in-law 82, my partner is in her sixties and the prognosis is better than it was in January. My son was born at 28 weeks so the fact he survived 4 months was a blessing. Whilst sad and distressing their passing was not unexpected.

I saw Hansen play at his peak and it is difficult to rank him against Virgil as the young Hansen had probably more to his game overall than Virgil did at the same age but Virgil has got better with age and experience whereas Hansen's last few years were blighted by the knee problem that eventually forced his retirement. Hansen played in an era where the physical side was tolerated much more yet he still managed to dance around the more brutal tackles that strikers were allowed to get away with. He was deceptively quick and whilst his heading ability was probably not as good as Virgil, he was part of the defence that only conceded 16 goals in a 42 game season in 1978-79. I just think how fortunate I have been to have seen Beckenbauer, Baresi, Hansen and Van Dijk at their best.

The comparison ignores that the offence charged is different from an offence against the person. The main reason for the statutory offences involving driving is that it does not require the same level of proof of intent that you need to convict under the Offences against the Person Act. The offences have different guidelines for the same reason. Because you can commit the driving offence without specifically intending harm or being reckless as to whether your actions will cause harm, the sentences will be naturally lower than offences that require the prosecution to prove you either intended harm or were reckless.

There may be more than one charge of dangerous driving on the indictment given that there is already evidence of him ramming the car into reverse in Dale Street as well as his subsequent actions in Water Street. If he claims he was just dropping his wife’s friend off in the city centre then police will be studying CCTV of the entire journey to track the movement of the vehicle and may find other examples outside Dale Street or Water Street.

He’s applying for legal aid because this is going to be expensive but I think he may have underwritten the initial cost. I am not a criminal barrister but know and work with the big firms in the city. You don’t normally get someone from Exchange unless you know a solicitor at one of these firms or are a government department. I know what you mean about QCs and murder trials but the junior is often the key and a high profile client often leads to an internal scrap!

I know that the legal aid portal is down because of the cyber attack but I know from experience that if he had a duty solicitor advising him, it is unlikely that senior counsel would have been lined up. I get the high profile nature of the case but i know the chambers defence counsel is a member of and this suggests to me that he has instructed one of the bigger firms of solicitors in Liverpool. I am also assuming that he has had private representation at the police station and that counsel had already been lined up for today in advance given that the charges were only announced yesterday but must have been foreseen. As you say, it does not particularly matter, but I somehow doubt this case will stay in Liverpool as I would certainly be looking for it to be heard elsewhere in the circumstances.

He could have done but I doubt the legal aid application has been made yet (assuming that he is not funding this privately) and the barrister representing him today is 20 years call which is not normal for a first appearance.

This is where I am at and have been for several years. For every great preformance he put in, there was always the casual, no tracking back, hitting balls more out of hope type perfromance that came alongside it. having a player like Mo helped to make him look better than he probably was. He is a good player but certainly not the world beater that Madrid fans expect to be unveiled each year. I think he is like Owen in this regard and will struggle at Madrid once his flaws are revealed and he realises just how much defensive work Salah did compared to Mbappe or Vinicius Jnr. The problem for him, like it was for Owen, is that the route back is now blocked because we have moved on.

Whilst I was not there, the reports suggested that an application for bail was being made but I suppose it was just the prosecution outlining objections in advance rather than responding to a formal application. I would have thought bail was unlikely given the fact that the investigation is ongoing, the flight risk and the risk to the Defendant's safety but on the other hand, he is allegedly a good family man whose has not seen his wife and family since Monday and served his country etc. As he had counsel representing him, I think it is safe to assume that he has the means to pay for his own representation (for the time being) and has been sensibly advised against making a bail application now.

No just a bit late, they only started arriving about 1500 years ago.

The indictment for the offence has to name an individual who is the victim of the assault/wounding and suffers the requisite grievous bodily harm. You could potentially have 70 charges of varying degrees of assault depending on the injury caused but overloading an indictment makes the criminal trial cumbersome and ultimately adds nothing to the sentence if convicted. The charges are based on the evidence that clearly shows him driving deliberately at an identified victim who he had no cause to take offence with.

Crown Court is in the same building and the Judge is free this afternoon. Sometimes happens in combined courts as I have had a civil appeal interrupted so that the judge can deal with a criminal matter. May also be applying for bail today.

The offence is dealt with in the Magistrates Court so will be dealt with separately to the indictment for the s.18/Dangerous Driving offences. Will probably be issued with a summons in due course unless the second test at the station came back negative.

Heysel ceromonies at Anfield and in Turin (where Billy Hogan and Ian Rush are today) to make the 40th anniversary would almost certainly mean that any other announcements will be postponed until at least tomorrow. As the transfer window opens on Sunday and negotiations about Wirtz appear to be ongoing, I suspect that the club will want to defer any announcement until after those negotiations conclude with the registration being a mere formality. Bayern were probably delaying Tah because they were also expecting Wirtz to sign and have only proceeded to annouce Tah (which has been known for some time) because Wirtz has said no to them.

The drug driving offence would only carry a maximum 6 month term of imprisonment but would cover the police/CPS if there was a medical reason for his behaviour since you can commit the offence with lawful drugs in your system.

Causing serious injury by dangerous driving looks a certainty given what constitutes GBH but they could still go for attempted murder knowing that it could potentially allow a jury to consider analternative attempted GBH charge.

Attempted murder requires proof of the specific intent to kill rather than simply to cause GBH. It is usually charged where there is either a clear intent to kill someone or where the motive behand an act which was likely to cause death or serious injury cannot be clearly established (either because the defendant stays silent or the explanation given leaves doubt as to the real motive). The arrest will be on the basis of the most serious potential offence committed as that makes it easier to justify extension of time for questionning to try and establish a motive. The precise charge will probably be referred to the CPS to decide. Attempted Murder can result in a life sentence as the maximum sentence is the same as if the attempt had succeeded.