RaoulD

The clause itself does not make it any easier to sign a player. All it does is provide a mechanism whereby the current contract can be terminated without triggering a compensation claim or prolonged negotations over transfer fees etc. The clause only takes effect if the player wants to move since it effectively is a promise by the player that if he terminates his contract (to move to another club) he will pay the club the amount of the release clause to free him from his contract. In reality the money comes from the new club and is paid on behalf of the player. The reality is that if Suarez does not wish to go to Barcelona, he cannot be forced to do so by the release clause. There is obviously a risk with any clause that the players value will appreciate to a value higher than the clause but in general the clauses are pitched at levels which provide more commercial certainty to clubs and therefore tend to err towards the clubs maximum valuation of the player at the time the contract is signed so as to avoid any suggestion that the clause is in restraint of trade.

Now we are talking, forget Sanchez, straight swap for Messi?

I too think it is not too late. We should sign Sanchez to work wih Suarez not as a replacement.

Someone should tell Sanchez that if he signs for Arsenal he will end up in Hertfordshire rather than London (as Arsenal's training ground is not actually in Central London) and that the traffic from Central London (where he and his partner assume they will live) is far worse than any journey he might have to make each day to Melwood and that if he wants to live in a city centre, Liverpool is miles better than London (which is dead once all the city workers have headed back to suburbia).

I think the uncertainty about what a ban on all football-related activity actually means (as evident from FIFA's own uncertainty as to whether a transfer was banned) could mean that the article under which the sanction was imposed could be challenged under the principle of legal certainty. There would not be a problem if the article simply defined the prohibited activity but it is so vague that I have no idea what is or is not caught by the ban. I cannot see how a transfer of a player can be said not to amount to a football-related activity when it is a fundamental administrative act necessary for a footballer to play for the club that holds his registration. The stadium ban is equally vague in that it is not defined (or confined) as applying only to football stadia nor is what constitutes a stadium defined. If Uruguay take this to the Court of Arbitration, FIFA could find their disciplinary code declared invalid insofar as bans are not properly linked to matches (either in terms of a specified number or within a specified period). It would also seem to me that his agent would also banned from discussing his client's contractual terms with any other suitor as his actions would be deemed to be those of his principal, namely Suarez. This highlights how vague the regulation is.

This content is not viewable to guests.

The problem is that Suarez was charged with violent conduct which carries a standard penalty of a 3 game ban. Unlike Barton, he has not been charged with violent conduct before and therefore this offence was effectively a first offence. The warning as to future conduct is almost standard in every FA penalty and is largely meaningless unless a player re-offends during the same season (in which case it is used as a justification for a longer ban). There is no separate offence of biting and therefore Suarez's conduct is to be judged by the same standards as any other case of violent conduct. It is difficult to see how biting a player can be regarded as more serious that a two-footed lunge at a player which has the prospect of potentially causing GBH. The two-footed lunge ordinarily carries a 3 match ban unless there are exceptional circumstances and most cases end with a 3 match ban. Suarez has already been punished for the earlier offences and, unlike Barton, did not benefit from having any part of the sentence suspended. In my view, the FA| are not justified in looking at past offences to justify a longer ban, they are thereby punishing him not only for the actual offence but re-punishing him for earlier indiscretions. I accept it would be different if part of the earlier sentence had been suspended but this is not the case here. I would hope that the club appeals but I have little confidence that the FA have the integrity to look at the case impartially and without regard to public opinion.

This content is not viewable to guests.

MacKenzie retracted that one fairly quickly once he was threatened with defamation proceedings by the agency. I think he said it on his infamous appearance on question time (where Clare Short tried to get him to apologise and he refused). MacKenzie's latest apology is as insincere as previous attempts by that rag to apologise. Indeed he has the nerve to portray himself as the victim when in reality it is plain that he decided to accept as gospel a story which we now know was wholly uncorroborated. The advantage of seeing the source material for the story (the Whites copy) is that it gives the lie to previous claims by MacKenzie that the sources were interviews with several senior police officers, a tory MP and a reputable news agency. In reality he, as editor of the paper, ran with a story based entirely upon the news agency report without making any attempt to verify the facts. Indeed, the journalist he wrote the article has stated that MacKenzie alone decided on the headline. He personally and falsely represented that the paper had investigated the matter and packaged the whole thing as established fact. Given that it would have been his neck on the line as editor of the paper if the paper is sued for defamation, it is little short of dishonest to suggest that he did not appreciate the importance of having both independent corroboration and the factual evidence to justify any serious allegation that his paper made. He would also have been well aware at the time that the dead cannot sue for defamation nor could you defame a body of people such as the fans of LFC. What he did in 1989 was therefore a deliberate and calculated attack on every LFC fan and no amount of apologies will absolve him from culpability for what has transpired over the past 23 years.

You misunderstand the nature of an insurance contract. SWFC are not RSA's clients in a legal sense and RSA are not SWFC's advisers. RSA effectively indemnify SWFC under the insurance contract between them and have their own legal advisors and privilege in relation to that contract (as would SWFC). The advice RSA receive from their lawyers is privileged and it is for RSA to decide whether or not to waive it.

I think the documentation is more likely to be advice from lawyers about potential liability of SWFC as the occupier of the stadium and any evidence gathered by them for the purposes of legal proceedings. They would have a duty of care to visitors which would have been covered by a public liability insurance policy. RSA may have also sought advice on potential grounds for avoiding liability under the insurance policy. This advice is usually subject to legal professional privilege and is not disclosable unless the privilege is waived (which rarely happens). The HIP asked for the documents but RSA decided not to waive privilege (possibly because if there is now a claim against SWFC they might have to re-visit the question of avoiding the policy).

I think we need to look to a mixture of something old and new. The manager is keen on a possession/passing style and I think the perfect libero in the circumstances is Xabi Alonso. He has the knowledge and experience that would enable him to fit in immediately. We then build a young team about him with Gerrard in the advanced midfield role. Henderson is technically capable of fitting in to the system and carroll and suarez enough options up front to score the goals. The width will come from full backs and I think we have enough there in Johnson and Enrique. Skertel and Agger are a sound defence and I would hope to see Coates either centrally or as left back coming through in the next year. It therefore boils does to one signing - Get alonso!

It doesn't matter who said it, it was unnecessary and actually gave Whelan the opportunity to present himself less of the fool that he had made himself. We had already put it on record that Whelan was talking nonsense when we unveiled someone other than the person Whelan claimed had been offered the job. Steven Gerrard had made it clear that he had been kept in the loop and knew the true position so that there was no scope for Whelan to claim that we had changed our minds. All we had to do is wait for the press to ridicule Whelan as they no doubt would have done. The attention has been drawn once again towards us because a story involving LFC is always going to be more attractive than a story about Wigan. Ayre should have known better, kept his own counsel and got on with the job that he is being paid to do.

It is one thing to discuss the recruitment process, it is another thing to discuss the structure and the management of the club with the fans. If FSG really want to revolutionise English Football they could look at the ownership structures of clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona which inherently involve fan input through the fact that the clubs are owned by the members (who are usually fans) and presidential campaigns often involve open discussion of the candidate's vision for the club. Not only do you get the input of the people who you want to target for the purposes of generating revenue but you also stand a better chance of having your ideas accepted by them if they feel they have been involved in the process.

Whilst I can understand the attraction of Rodgers as a manager, the absence of activity from the club with regard to a) announcing his appointment b) disclosing the structure in which he is to be working and c) recruiting others to work within the structure is a worrying. I cannot see how Rodgers could accept the job without knowing either who he has to work with or whether he is being given a traditional manager's role. If it is the former, there is no evidence that offers have been made to the others or, indeed any clear indication as to who else is being brought in. It therefore looks, to the outside observer, that the so-called new structure has either been abandoned or never existed in the first place. If Rodgers is all we are getting then he is going to have to make a good start otherwise he will soon be judged on the basis that he is not as good as Kenny Dalglish or Rafa Benitez.

It was my personal opinion and impression and I do not share your confidence in FSG for the reasons I have set out. I could understand it if, as in the past, the decisions are taken behind closed doors and presented in one go. E.g. when Joe Fagan decided to retire and Kenny was appointed as player manager in his place. It is the fact that the sacking of Kenny was so public that you would have expected to see the replacement being lined up almost immediately. I know it is not wise to appoint someone to a position whilst another is still in place and not expecting to be replaced, but to suggest that it would be disrespectful to even consider a replacement before taking the action is too far for me. It was pretty disrespectful to dismiss Kenny on the basis that he was not the right man for them without any clear indication who that man either was or might be.

I am getting increasingly concerned that FSG do not have any clear plan. They seem to be ignoring the importance of maintaining the confidence of fans in both themselves as owners and the manager (whoever he or she may be) to deliver the results that we want to see. It is not so much a question of them appointing a particular person but the impression that is created by the events of the last 2 weeks. The problem that this creates is that whoever is appointed may not inspire confidence in the fans and this can rapidly have a negative impact upon the support for the team. Traditionally, Liverpool fans have tended to be supportive of the manager and consequently focus their energy at games on supporting the team rather than criticising the manager and/or the board. The one exception in recent times was Hodgson but the lack of confidence in his case was more self-inflicted than as a result of the then owners decision to sack Rafa and replace him with Hodgson. The cause of my concern is as follows: 1. FSG removed Kenny without any replacement being lined up. Whilst it is possible to understand the reasons why they came to the conclusion that Kenny had to be replaced, it is strange that they appeared to do so without any clear idea as to who his replacement ought to be. Instead of having an obvious replacement in mind, we have heard nothing from FSG and there are unanswered rumours that a shortlist has been drawn up without indication of the criteria used to determine who is or is not being considered. 2. Whilst removing the manager without a replacement may be explicable if it is a one-off and there is only a short delay before a new man is appointed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that a pattern of indecision is emerging from the fact that the director of football was removed nearly 2 months ago and still has not been replaced. 3. We are in a critical period where our main rivals for CL positions are busy trying to secure the players for next season. In the absence of a director of football and manager, I cannot see how LFC can plan for next season, let alone seek to sign or release players as necessary to implement the plan. The input of the manager and others in the structure would surely need to be crucial to the plan for next season and we therefore either have no plan or are working on a plan drawn up by men who FSG have publicly stated a lack of confidence in by removing them from their positions. 4. The impression created by what little is in the public domain is that FSG have not evaluated all the options available to them. This is apparent from the fact that only Martinez has definitely been considered and other candidates, particularly Rafa Benitez, have not even been contacted. The issue of whether Benitez should or should not be considered would be less significant, if FSG had contacted Benitez and were seen to be doing so. If they then decide that he is not right for the position, their decision is more likely to be respected than if they simply chose to ignore him. Had the two cowboys been seen to consider Dalglish when Rafa was sacked, Hodgson may not have come under such pressure from fans chanting Dalglish at games.

Nope - just typed in haste!

If you seek to induce an employee who is engaged under a contract of employment ) to break the terms of his contract by joining you without lawfully terminating their employment first, you are liable in tort for inducing such a breach of contract. The reason why you ask for permission is that most football contracts are for a fixed term so by interviewing and offering a job to someone under contract exposes you to the risk that legal action will be taken to prevent this happening. Whilst you would still have to pay compensation for the breach even if you obtain permission, there is considerably less chance of getting an injunction if you have given permission to the employee to speak to a prospective new employer.

I can see the logic behind Martinez and recall that Benitez was quite complimentary about Wigan under him a couple of years ago. He appears to be keen on playing football rather than what you would normally see in the bottom half of the table and that has obviously been noted. I think the fact that it is Wigan rather than one of the larger clubs means it is hard to judge whether he is capable of becoming a success with us. I suspect the biggest disadvantage is that he will need to make a good start because otherwise he will lose the support of the fans and will have the press vultures circling in no time. AVB falls into a slightly different category because of his experience at Chelsea. It is a significant black mark on an otherwise impressive CV. There are worrying signs that he is probably better suited to a club where the expectations and exposure are not as high as Liverpool. If anything, the level of expectation and press attention is greater at LFC than any other club in the Premier League due to our history, fanbase and the fact that it is now 22 years since we last won the league. I am not sure that it is wise to gamble on AVB for this reason. The real mystery is why Rafa Benitez has not been approached. I could understand it if he was employed at another club but he is clearly available. Whatever the issues may be about him, I think he at least merits consideration and the fact that he is not even being considered is hard to understand. It may be that FSG are concerned that if they are seen to approach Benitez the other candidates may not wish to risk losing their existing positions and will make themselves unavailable and/or the press will have a field day. As they do not have to ask another club's permission to speak to him, it could be that the approach to Benitez is discrete and that they will include him in the process outside the public eye.

Thank you Kenny for saving the club not once but twice. Thank you for guiding the club out of the darkness of Heysel and restoring its reputation both domestically and internationally through the beauty and success of the teams that you managed whilst we were banned from Europe. Thank you when all seemed lost again for coming back and restoring hope in our hearts.

Andy Hunter in the Guardian mentioned it but I don't personally know. It does seem the most credible scenario in the light of the reports that Kenny has returned today.

Kenny was due to go on holiday tommorrow by all accounts. He had the game in Wales on Sunday afternoon and probably felt it was best to have the discussion with the owners before he went on holiday. The only way to do that was either for the owners to fly out and meet with him or, given that there was a Red Sox game, for him and Clarke to fly to Boston. I doubt Clarke would have remained in Boston if Kenny has been sacked since his position must be equally vulnerable. The most likely scenario is that in the absence of a director of football, Kenny has delivered his report, explained his plans and been told to enjoy his holiday whilst the owners consider what to do next. Clarke remaining tends to suggest that for the time being KD remains as manager.

I do not think it is wise to replace Kenny this summer. This is not because of sentiment as many of the problems with players and team selection that we saw in the last season were similar to problems that existed when Kenny was manager first time round. My real concern is the lack of continuity that is caused by repeated changes in manager. The most obvious consequence of this is that the team ceases to play as a unit and becomes merely a collection of individuals. A similar problem can occur when you embark upon a wholesale overhaul of the players in a transfer window (which we have done for the past 2 or 3 seasons) and the new players struggle to integrate with the existing ones. The fact is that the sacking of Benitez, the appointment and removal of Hodgson and Kenny effectively being parachuted in mid-season has had a negative impact upon the team and what is now required is a period of relative stability not more change. It is therefore my view that if Kenny is to be replaced it should be with Benitez as he has worked with some of the players, has a proven pedigree and experience in the Premier League and is more likely to be able to identify the players we need to improve the exising team rather than embark upon yet another rebuilding exercise

I think Kenny will be given more time by the owners to get things right. At the end of the day his primary responsibility is picking the team to play each game and apart from identifying which players he would like the club to sign, I doubt he has had much involvement in the implementation of the owners' transfer strategy. I think the owners were looking to sign players who would both improve the team and either have a sell-on value (if the player was young) or not cost too much. Comolli was the man primarily responsible for identifying the players and for negotiating with their agents and their clubs about the transfer. In the past this responsibility also fell on the manager so if Comolli had not been in place, Kenny's position would be vulnerable as it is clear that the transfers last summer did not produce the desired effect on the team. The signings of Downing and Henderson for huge fees would ultimately have been something which Comolli had to justify to the owners and, particularly in the case of Downing, Comolli was gambling his reputation on their performance on the pitch. Even if Kenny had insisted on the signings as being essential to the team, it would still have been Comolli's responsibility to make the business case for paying what was paid for them to the owners. It is therefore hardly surprising that the owners have lost confidence in Comolli's judgment and, rather than try and replace him in a transfer window, have decided to act now. It is also clear that they are looking for someone to take over Comolli's role rather than revert back to the old system with Kenny in charge of everything. I don't think they have lost confidence in Kenny's ability to manage the playing side and they are certainly conscious of the pitfalls of dismissing him (which would have been a consideration when they decided to appoint him on a permanent basis last year). I also think Kenny will want to do what is best for the club and if he feels that he is no longer the right man for the job, he will make way for someone else without the owners having to make the sort of decision they had to make in Comolli's case.