RaoulD

I have not read the book but then, having witnessed the events first hand ( I was in the X section), I don't need a book or film to tell me what it was really like as a fan.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

The fact is that Rafa would dearly love to manage us again but is realistic enough to realise that Kenny is the right man for the job now and that he has to move on. Whatever his personal loyalties, he will do a professional job for whoever employs him. He proved that in Spain with Valencia despite his obvious connection to Real Madrid. There is no reason why the same would not apply here. Obviously his association with LFC is going to make his appointment difficult for certain clubs but this has nothing to do with his ability as a manager but more to do with fan perception. It is for this reason that he is more likely to go to a mid to lower-table club in the Premier League.

Torres went to Chelsea because he wants to play in the Champions League and by January it would have been apparent that we were not going to qualify this season and that he was therefore looking at at least another season without Champions League football regardless of the improvement that was already beginning in January under Kenny. It was true that he was not playing particularly well for us but he was getting very little support in a lot of games due to the lack of movement in the team under Hodgson. It is no surprise that he started to show some form for us when Kenny came in and got the team to play a more open and fluid passing game. I don't think it was a case of him not trying but he certainly lacked confidence and this might have been linked to some regret over his decision to stay with us in the Summer Although he had a better start in his first season with us than he has had at Chelsea, he really took off in the second half of the season and I suspect that both he and his team-mates need time together to understand how each other plays. Whether he will get the time at Chelsea will probably depend upon what happens to Ancellotti and Drogba in the summer. What he probably did not anticipate is the extent that Kenny has turned things around and what might have happened had he stayed and forged a partnership with Suarez. Given that there was still an outside chance of us sneaking 4th until quite recently, it cannot have helped his situation at Chelsea to have seen the impact Suarez has had on the team. At the end of the day, Torres is no different from the vast majority of professional footballers whose priority is to win trophies rather than retain their loyalty to a particular club. If there was one club which Torres might have remained loyal to it was going to be Athletico rather than us.

Rafa might have had a 5 year contract but that still does not prevent early termination as you cannot compel performance of a contract of employment. The contract could have been terminated by: (a) a express clause enabling immediate termination (i.e. you pay £X and the contract terminates immediately) - The sum has to be a realistic estimate of likely damages that would be recovered for breach of contract so will usually be a fraction of the amount that could be earned over the whole contract, (b) a notice clause - these are rare in football contracts as they tend to be contracts for a fixed term rather than an indefinate period like most other employment contracts, © breach of contract - leaving the innocent party free to sue for breach of contract but also placing the innocent party under a duty to mitigate losses by finding alternative employment or an alternative employee (as the case may be) (d) by agreement. This is usually what is meant by the phrase "by mutual consent". Essentially, the payment made to an employee will reflect the likely damages he or she could get if they were forced to sue for breach of contract. The length of Rafa's contract was never really an issue given the fact that he is one of the top managers in the game at the moment and could be expected to find alternative employment fairly quickly. What would have been more significant would be the pay package and how that might compare with employment elsewhere. Regardless of the length of the contract, there is always going to have to be some incentive for someone to go quietly. On the other hand, the length of Rafa's contract was an asset for the club as it meant that anybody else wanting to poach him away would be faced with a hefty compensation claim and the longer he was under contract the greater the price that could be demanded for the club's agreement to release him from his contractual commitments. if Rafa did actually tell journalists to lay off Hicks then I suspect it had more to do with the fact that his briefings to the press had been a major source of irritation to Hicks and regardless of what Rafa thought of Hicks, he still had to work with him.

Always wondered why they bothered drafting Article 2 of their constitution

I have to confess I did not feel the same about the way Arsenal fans celebrated. I would expect most fans who had seen their team almost throw a league they were on course to win, had arrived at Anfield needing to win by 2 clear goals, listening to the Kop singing YNWA and getting ready to accept second place, would react in a similar fashion to what happened. I was of course disappointed by what happened, particularly as it would have been a fitting tribute to have won the league in that fashion after Hillsborough. However, I remember feeling after Hillsborough that I did not really care whether we played again that season and therefore whilst 1989 might be etched in Arsenal fans memories for what happened at Anfield on the last day of the season, for me the abiding memory is and will always be Hillsborough.

Moores made the mistake of trying to promote the sale as being to the right people and that it was in the best interests of the club when it was really about realising his investment for the best price obtainable (which was his perogative). He also made the mistake in relying upon Parry for advice. It appears Parry failed to undertake proper due dilligence of prospective purchasers in the light of the owner's stated wishes.

If I remember correctly, they said that they did not think Gillett had the money and had, of course, chosen to negotiate with DIC instead. What changed? Obviously nothing to do with the fact that Gillette came back offering more per share than DIC.

Believe me, no player is untouchable. There may be very strong reasons or factors which make the sale of a particular player improbable but that requires the assumption that person making the decision was acting rationally. 12 months ago, if it had been suggested that Torres would be sold to Chelsea the reaction from the fans could well have been similar as he was equally "untouchable".

I am not suggesting that they would have put Gerrard up for sale. The fact was that Hicks and Gillette really did not care what the fans thought and were only interested in their "investment". If Gerrard had behaved in the same way as Rafa, they could have sold him. I'm not saying that they would have sold him but it might explain why Gerrard in particular avoided direct criticism of Hicks and Gillette at the time. The point is that he could quite reasonably take the view that his position was not so secure that he could criticise the owners with impunity. The reason why Rafa was not sacked earlier probably had more to do with the fact that there was no readily available alternative and that despite the problems, he was still delivering the results that meant the club earned the revenues to keep them in control. Once it was clear that they were going to have to sell the club and the club failed to qualify for the CL, Rafa's position became more vulnerable.

My opinion is based upon the fact that I have seen a fair few football contracts, I have advised and represented football clubs and have 20+ years experience of contract and employment law. Hicks and Gillette would not have cared about whether there was a breach of contract or not as they would have known that Gerrard would be snapped up by another club who would pay him the same, or probably more, than his current contract. They would also be open to bids for his registration. The position is different with managers or players in the last years of their careers as there is a greater likelihood that they will not be able to fully mitigate their losses if they are dismissed before the expiry of their existing fixed term contract. Andy Carroll did not want to leave Newcastle, had a good length of time on his contract there but the issue was still forced because we were prepared to pay for it.

I think there is an element of trying to blame everyone but themselves for the fact that we finished 7th in Rafa's last season in charge by pointing to the civil war that was going on between the owners on the one hand and the fans and manager on the other. The timeline of events does not easily fit with such an excuse as the events that are highlighted actually took place before the season in which ultimately came second. I can quite understand why they, as employees of the club, may decide to keep their own counsel when it comes to criticising their bosses, particularly when Hicks and Gillette were not exactly prone to rational thought and they had seen how Rafa's critiicism had so nearly cost him his job regardless of whether it was in LFC's interest. Whilst we can assume that the players were relatively secure, I think the reality was different as, for example, Hicks and Gillette could easily have facilitated Gerrard's transfer if they so wished. I think what will slowly emerge is the fact that Rafa was having to fight to prevent the team being dismantled rather than to try and secure investment in new players (as it appeared at the time) and that there may be more to the sale of players such as Alonso than appeared to be the case at the time. If so, then it is hardly surprising that team morale would suffer. What may also be interesting is whether any further light is going to be shed on precisely why Rafa was dismissed and replaced by a manager whose record could not possibly compare with his. Could it have been down to the fact that Hodgson was perceived as being a manager who would accept and, probably cope better, with a team that had been stripped of its prime assets?

I don't think Xabi will return, the move to Spain was largely due to the fact that he wanted, and probably still wants, his children to grow up in Spain. The fact that he put his children first was what caused the initial problem with Rafa but I also think that there were other reasons why he was keen to move to Real most notably the World Cup. I don't doubt that there remains a connection with Liverpool which will never disappear but I can see him seeing out his career in Spain even if Real were minded to let him go. Torres is not the first person to discover that the streets of London are not paved with gold and it would not surprise me that he might privately feel that the move was a mistake when he realises that not only has he given up the support that he got from us but was never likely to get from Chelsea fans, but also has not got the comfort of the city that he had when he was with us. These factors would have helped him through a barren spell, now he just looks isolated and a shadow of the striker than used to terrorise Premiership defences. I personally think he would be better back here rather than sticking it out at Chelsea but I think he is more likely to return to Spain than risk another move in England. Mascherano was never connected with the club and the city in the way that Xabi, Torres and Rafa were. He was generally professional and fully committed with us but I doubt he feels any particular urge to play for us again. The reality is that we are now looking towards buying the star players of the future rather than established stars of the past.

I doubt there would be a clause allowing Suarez to leave for 12M if Ajax don't qualify for the CL. It is more likely that this is the estimated value of a player who will then only have 12 months left on his contract and will not want to sign an extension without the prospect of CL football. The problem from Ajax's perspective is that they are gambling on retaining Suarez to enable them to qualify for the CL next season against the prospect of a large premium if they cash him in now. The premium probably reflects the value to them of qualification for the CL. I suspect that we are the only club willing to consider paying more than his estimated value to take him in this window but the benefit to us is not likely to be anywhere near what Ajax think they could lose. The fact that Suarez is now disinterested in remaining at Ajax puts the pressure on them to do the deal before the end of the window. The prospects of qualification for the CL look less dependent on Suarez staying if he is not motivated to play at his best. He has certainly made himself unpopular with a proportion of Ajax fans and I would imagine that the noises coming out of Ajax are largely directed towards getting us to pay as much of possible for him. If Suarez does sign I suspect it will not be until Monday.

[i think their current method is to pay up front and write them off in one go as one off costs, which probably explains their huge losses, their wage bill alone isn't behind the £130m loss. Therefore from June they will have a clear balance sheet as far as that is concerned and it will then be about getting their wages in balance and maybe selling to buy or just selling. The latest accounts suggest otherwise - the loss included £71 million for amortisation of players and it is clear that they are accounting on a capitalisation and amortisation basis for the players. The UEFA rules would require this cost to be included as an expense in the break even calculation. I suspect that City will try and off-load some of the more expensive acquisitions in this window or the summer whilst they can still get reasonable fees for them. This would either result in a loss that falls outside the breakeven accounting period (for sales before 31 May 2011) or a loss on the sale that is less than the amortised cost of retaining the player for the year. They have also converted all debt to equity so that finance charges on the debt do not eat into their revenue in the calculation. The rules will probably stop them from buying older players who have low resale values but it could also be that they are prepared to risk losing European football in the short term in order to achieve domestic success which would then lead to greater revenues. It is noticable how their turnover has increased as a result of the signings and the same happened at Chelsea when Abramovich spent massive amounts on players but the problem is sustaining this growth as neither club has the global appeal that LFC and Man U have.

Hicks and Gillett have until 4 pm tomorrow to discontinue the Texas proceedings otherwise they are in breach of the injunction. Anybody with notice of the injunction who aids or assists Hicks and Gillett in continuing the proceedings risks being held in contempt as well. There is likely to be an application to the Texas court to set aside the TRO backed by the anti-suit injunction. Mark Stephens needs to brush up on his conflict of laws.

Judging by the language used, this looks like an application for an anti-suit injunction restraining Hicks and Gillett from continuing the Texas proceedings. If granted and they do not withdraw the claim in Texas, they will be in contempt here.

I thought he was representing NESV yesterday!

I think it is too late for Mill Financial to take control of the club. The High Court injunction required Hicks and Gillett to reconstitute the board of the shareholder company (Kop Football) to ratify the sale of the shares in LFC to NESV. That took place last night. The sale agreement was signed by the chairman of the board on 6 October (from the Texas petition) and therefore NESV will have a specifically enforceable contract for the sale of shares in an English Company. The Texas court will not have jurisdiction in relation to that contract as it concerns an English company based in England and governed by English law. If Mill Financial have obtained Hicks and Gillett's shares they are the shares in the Delaware corporation not the English companies. RBS have not enforced any security right (yet) and are not the sellers. If RBS' debt is paid off, the benefit of the money being paid by NESV will go to Kop Football rather than RBS and ultimately to whoever owns the shares in the Delaware corporation. The only way that the sale to NESV can be stopped is if the board was acting ultra vires and, even then, NESV will still be able to enforce the sale provided that they acted in good faith. This is because the ultra vires rule has largely been abolished in England (which the Texas judge does not appear to have known), Whilst I have not seen the precise terms of the injunction granted by Floyd J, there is a possibility that Hicks and Gillett have breached the injunction by taking the proceedings in Texas. I suspect that an anti suit injunction will now be sought in England and there may even be a committal application. The grounds of the Texas claim are almost identical to the claims made in the High Court and the proceedings seek to overturn the judgment and order of the High Court.

I think it is a case that journalists are applying western values and business practices to Huang and his backers. If you step back you can actually see that the statements coming out are very carefully worded and that there is a very clever strategy being implemented. Much of the confusion surrounds the link with CIC. CIC manages some of PRC's foreign exchange reserve. These reserves have accumulated because the Chinese economy is running a massive trade surplus. CIC along with SAFE, NCSSF manage massive state funds. The funds are controlled from Beijing (usually through committees made up of senior party officials) and there are therefore both political and idealogical reasons why those in charge will wish to stay in the background and maintain the confusion until the takeover is complete. Huang is the public face of the bid and has clearly been tasked with the management of the takeover. He has to deal with two amercian capitalists who are looking to make a huge amount of money for themselves plus potential rivals in the process who could trigger a bidding war. If he reveals his hand either in full or too early, his position is weakened. On the other hand, it is advantageous to get the supporters on your side and therefore some carrots needed to be dangled. It would not surprise me that they anticipated Hicks and Gillette would dish the dirt and that they are encouraging this. Whilst this may seem strange to some, it is a tactic I have seen employed before. It would not surpise me that behind the scenes pressure is slowly being brought to bear elsewhere so that when the time is right, Hicks and Gillette will be forced to accept terms which they would not otherwise accept.

I am afraid this is nonsense. The information in the email exchange concerned matters of public record and would never have been confidential. There is no copyright analogy to be drawn and client privilege does not prevent a lawyer stating facts that are lawfully in the public domain. It does not matter where the disclosure takes place.