RaoulD

I suspect that if he were to terminate his employment as CEO there is a provision in the articles and/or in his contract that will require him to resign from the board (or enable Hicks to sign the resignation for him). The reason why he is being asked to resign rather than simply being sacked is because the removal or dismissal of a CEO usually requires at least a resolution of the board of directors. This is because his contract of employment is with the company and can only be terminated by someone with authority to do so. This is usually the board or someone empowered by the board (such as a CEO!) As Parry is hardly likely to dismiss himself, he can probably rely upon Gillett, Foster and Moores to block any resolution for his dismissal as CEO. If he were to resign, he would be terminating his contract and therefore there would be no need for the board to get involved.

Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't. It was given and the fact that Arsenal fans feel cheated only adds to the enjoyment.

Nice to see that some things never change...

It is a classic case of the press making an issue out of something to suit the theme that Alonso is unsettled and/or likely to move in the Summer. The story overlooks the fact that Alonso wanted to play against Inter AND be present at the birth of his first child. I suspect that Rafa, being a family man himself, would have no difficulty in understanding why Alonso would want to be with his girlfriend but would also realise that it was not really practical to try and accommodate this into the preparation for the Inter game. If Alonso is unhappy it is probably down to the fact that Rafa would not allow him to fly out later rather than an reaction to his decision to stay with his girlfriend. Rafa would have to explain in the pre-match press conference why Alonso was not part of the squad and would not want to make it look as if either party was acting unreasonably, hence his disclosure that Alonso was keen to join up with the squad if everything was OK and his explanation as to why that was not a realistic option.

Which is why I doubt Hicks will want DIC to have any part of Gillett's share as to do so would effectively leave him exposed. DIC would only be interested in a share if they could put pressure on Hicks' ability to raise funds by borrowing against the club or the holding company so there is no real likelihood of the scenario you paint happening.

No they won't. The loans have been taken out by limited companies backed by some form of security from Hicks and Gillett (probably in the form of personal guarantees). DIC's liability as shareholder will be limited to the capital value of their 49% shareholding. The personal liability that Hicks may have in respect of the refinancing loans is only likely to arise if the club and Kop Holdings defaults on repayment of the loan. It is possible that DIC may have to give some form of guarantee or security to replace that given by Gillett but if the effect of this is to make them jointly and severally liable for the debt, they would also have subrogated rights against Hicks if they were called upon to make payment. Hicks would then either have to pay off DIC or do a deal with them on their terms. The fact is that DIC can afford not to cooperate with Hicks in securing repayment of the loans from the club revenues and can hinder any attempt by him to refinance. This all makes it more likely that Hicks will have either to put his hands in his own pocket or sell out to DIc in the long run.

I suspect that DIC's plan involves participation on the board of Kop Holdings and consequently the power to control the board of the club. Hicks and Gillett are not shareholders in the club but in the holding company. How the holding company exercises its shareholder rights as a 100% shareholder of the club depends upon the articles of both the subsidiary and the holding company as well as any shareholder agreement between the shareholders of Kop Holdings. DIC will be aware of the terms of these documents as well as the terms of the financing package taken out by Hicks and Gillett to replace the facility used to acquire the shares in LFC in the first place. If DIC can block the payment of monies from LFC to KH to discharge liabilities that Hicks and Gillett guaranteed to the banks and instead insist that the payments are made out of KH's own resources, Hicks comes under pressure to fund the payments himself. There is also the possibility that the banks may also call in the loans if DIC are unwilling to match the guarantees given by Gillett under the terms of the refinancing deal. A majority holding for Hicks may therefore give him some control personally but it is likely to be less than the degree of control that Hicks and Gillett could exercise jointly.

I suspect that the answer to the first question will not be known until May. As to the request I would swap Finnan for Riise (if fit) and move Arbeloa to the left or would play Aurelio instead of Riise and keep the rest.

What if the scenario was slightly different. You are a senior person in a big company and are responsible for identifying and negotiating the terms of employment of critical personnel who are then your responsibility to manage. The responsibility for the negotiations is shared with the CEO of the company. You feel that the CEO and/or the Board do not appreciate the importance of concluding the negotiations before potential rival employers get wind of the critical employee's availability. You seek to agree a deal in principle and then seek Board approval. Not only does the board refuse to sanction the deal, it refuses to discuss the matter any further. You are then told to focus on managing the employees you already have and told not to get involved in the recruitment of key personnel at all. Understandably, you are annoyed. More importantly, the actions of the Board undermine their trust and confidence in you and implicitly suggest that you are not carrying out your management duties properly. You resign and claim constructive dismissal... No only was the instruction from G & H potentially a fundamental breach of Rafa's contract of employment (by removing an important part of his role and responsibilities from him) it was deeply insulting as it suggested that Rafa had not been properly carrying out his primary duties as manager and coach. Rafa could easily have walked out prior to the PC but instead chose to cryptically refer to the way he had been belittled by the Board by repeating over and over again what he had been told to do. When Hicks issued his statement publicly announcing to the world how they had treated Rafa he not only repeated the insult but did so to the world at large. Rafa should not have behaved the way he did but such behaviour can be explained by the circumstances. Hicks' behaviour on the other hand is more worrying as it is simply unacceptable to publically humiliate your employees no matter what they may have done. The end result is that we now have a manager who is deeply unhappy and knows that the owners do not have trust and confidence in him. Were it not for the fact that he genuinely loves the club and knows that his departure would be to the detriment of the team, he probably would have gone by now. If Rafa does go, Hicks and Gillette will never be forgiven or trusted again. I will continue to support my team but I will not help them to make money from my support.

When Houllier joined us we were a sinking ship. Our defence was a joke, we had a group of players who were more interested in being fashion models than concentrating on football and the team were so unpredictable that we were never really going to win the league. If it had continued for a few more seasons we may never have recovered. We had done nothing in Europe since returning from the Heysel ban and were struggling to sign the quality players we wanted. By the time Houllier left, we had a good solid defence, discipline and a fairly consistent team. It is true that the quality of the football being played was not great (I felt that we tended to sit back and rely on the counter-attack far too much) but at least we had regained a lot of respect both here and in Europe. Top Players started wanting to join Liverpool rather than other clubs and there is no way that Benitez would have even considered joining Liverpool had Houllier not turned us around. He may not have achieved everything we might have hoped or even expected but Houllier was, in my mind, a success whilst he was here.

There were fences at Heysel but they were not the steel-type fences that had been erected in English grounds. The fences were basically ordinary chicken wire boundary-fences similar to those around property. If I remember rightly, the fencing around the pitch also had barbed wire at the top (at least in the Liverpool Sections). There were also wire fences dividing the Liverpool area into sections but they weren't particularly strong and did not prevent the fighting between rival fans that escalated to the fatal charge by Liverpool fans. I can't remember how the Juventus fans got on to the pitch but they were in full scale riot mode by then and I was more concerned with what I was going to do if they got anywhere near the section I was in.

If it had been a simple reference to the fact that Hillsborough happened because the fans were fenced in, I cannot see how anyone would disagree. The fences went up in the 70s in the response to the problem that existed then. By wrongly attributing the fencing of English stadia to what happened at Heysel and invoking Hillsborough in a discussion about the consequences of football hooliganism, the scriptwriters have implied both that Hillsborough was caused by hooliganism and that Liverpool fans were to blame for not only Hillsborough, but also for fencing in stadia and for the 5-year ban in Europe. This is not only a gross misrepresentation of the facts but also seriously offensive to Liverpool fans. Television programmes like Eastenders have the same potential to influence public opinion as the tabloid press do and it is astonishing that the producers of the programme did not appreciate that the subliminal message broadcast last night would be taken to be true by those who do not know, or do not wish to know, better.

For me Mascherano was the stand out performance tonight. He was everywhere and gave the team confidence to play a more natural game. Not only did he dominate in front of the back four his movement and distribution were also world class. He was always making himself available for the pass and more often than not was hitting it to a player in space. In the absence of Alonso, Mascherano allowed Yossi and Voronin to play to their strengths. He also allowed our full backs to press forward and we were able to attack in waves.

I was lucky to see Rush in his prime. You do not appreciate just how good he was from television footage. His movement was amazing to watch as he would constantly pull the opposition's defence all over the place. The best performance I saw was actually the game against Benfica in the old Stadium of Light in 1984. He only scored once but he was unplayable that night. Trying to compare Rush and Fowler is a pointless exercise as the Liverpool teams of the 1980s played to Rush's strengths in the same way that the teams of the 90s played to Fowler's. Robbie was more of a natural instinctive striker who could conjure a goal out of nothing whereas Rush was better at making space for himself to apply the clinical finish. I would not say that the Liverpool teams of the early 80s were attacking teams though. They tended to suffocate the opposition with a possession/passing game and exploited the gaps that appeared when their opponents tried to get the ball. It was often the case that the ball would be passed across the back four and Brucie for long periods until the opposition committed players forward.

He was also fortunate that Bergkamp had been signed by Rioch the year before and had the experience of Ian Wright and David Platt to call upon. Indeed, Anelka really only got his opportunity when Wright was injured mid-way through the 1997-98 season and helped with the late surge which won them the title. The success of Wenger's first team was really down to the brilliance of Bergkamp who was their top scorer and chief creator (and the Player of the Year).

It is very easy to be negative when you see a team like Arsenal play as a team rather than a group of talented individuals. It is also easy to criticise or question Rafa's decisions with the benefit of hindsight in the knowledge that your own alternative will never be put to the test. I think Rafa's team selection against Arsenal was a hint at the way we will line up when everyone is fit and available. I know the use of Voronin and Kuyt as wide midfielders seems crazy but I don't think that was what Rafa had in mind. If you look at the selection not on a position by position basis but as a single team, you can see the logic of having industrious players such as Kuyt and Voronin either side of a pacy front man such as Torres since it would not only neutralise the attacking potential of the opposition's back four but would also cause the them to be pulled out of position creating gaps for any of the three forwards to move into or for Gerrard to exploit from deep. The key to success is that the three strikers must work as a unit and not become isolated. This in turn requires our full backs to provide the width rather than the three. To avoid being caught on a counter, the central midfielders have to be able to cover the flanks - hence the need for two deep lying central midfielders. Whilst it is obvious that ball retention is the key to success and all the players have to be good on the ball and make themselves available for a pass, this is particularly important in the case of the full backs when operating in this system. Our main problem at present seems to me to be in retaining possession. It is very easy blame particular players for our current difficulties but I think that to some extent, everyone of the outfield players is to blame as we still seem to be far too static when we get the ball. This means that instead of being able to do a simple thing like pass the ball to another player in space, the player in possession often finds himself without an easy option and is forced to either try and beat his man or to attempt a riskier pass. Unfortunately this is not something that can be created overnight and the players need to get used to each other for it to work properly. There is no reason why the current squad cannot play the same possession game as Arsenal (but with a much sharper edge up front) but it will take time. It is for this reason that I did not have a great expectation at the start of the season that we would start particularly well. It is very rare that the introduction of more than maybe one or two new players results in an immediate improvement of the overall team play. If anything, there is usually a downturn in quality whilst the new players are integrated into the team. It is usually the case that the more changes you make the longer it takes for team to gel as a unit. This should not however be read as an attack on the rotation system employed by Rafa. Injuries are a factor of the game and you risk substantial disruption to the team if you rely upon a small group of "regulars" and one or more of them is injured. We only have to see what happened when we lost Alonso and Agger this season as an example of this. Equally, it is important to ensure that your star players play reqularly so as to retain optimum match fitness. It is therefore necessary to strike a balance between having a squad of match-fit players and a core first team. Rafa leans towards the squad system, managers such as Wenger and Ferguson lean towards the risker strategy of playing a core first team. I would like to see us play the sort of football we saw from Arsenal yesterday (but better!) and feel the same frustration that comes from watching us by comparison. The fact remains that despite a poor run of results, we are still within striking distance of the top of the table. Providing we can keep in touch, I think we will become stronger and better as the season progresses and it is therefore far too early to write off our chances of the title completely.

I suspect that we have some sort of option to buy mascherano's economic rights and make the deal permanent and that this involves payment of a certain sum of money. I doubt it would be as high as £17 million given the circumstances in which Mascherano became available to us. However, after what happened with Tevez this Summer and FIFA's ramblings about looking into the 3rd party ownership issue, I would not be surprised if the club look to re-negotiate the price downwards.

It is very easy to say with the benefit of hindsight that you should pick your strongest 11 for every game and that Rafa made a mistake in not playing Gerrard or Torres from the start. Had the result been more favourable, I am pretty sure that most would have said it was a good idea to rest Torres and Gerrard! Does anyone really know what the situation was like for Rafa when he had to decide who to play on Saturday? I doubt Rafa left his team selection until the last minute and probably planned the team before the players had returned on Thursday night. I think a lot of people forget that the combination of internationals on Wednesday coupled with an early start on Saturday meant that Rafa would probably have had to decide upon which of the squad were to travel to Portsmouth and his expected XI from this squad without knowing whether there was to be any reaction to the fact that many of his players had played two international games in the last week and that for some there had been travel over time zones. The effect of the latter is difficult to assess as a player may seem OK initially and then suddenly tire as a result of a combination of jet lag and dehydration that occurs in particular with long distance travel. Gerrard had played both England games and had suffered from cramp in the first: I suspect that he was less than fully fit and might have struggled later in the game. Why bother have players such as Alonso and Sissoko if you don't use them in such a situation? If Gerrard was not fully fit the risk of him picking up an injury was greater. By putting him on the bench you keep the options open. Torres had played both games for Spain and had travelled to Spain then Iceland back to Spain and back to the UK, Crouch on the other hand had not played for more than two weeks. Voronin and Kuyt had both been involved in internationals and had also travelled significant distances but it made sense to rest one of them for Portsmouth. What was most galling about Saturday was the fact that the momentum which was nicely building around the squad appears to have subsided as a result of the fortnight apart. I had hoped that this would not happen and that those who came in on Saturday would take the opportunity presented to them. I suspect that this result will soon be forgotten if we get back to winning ways against Birmingham and win the next few games after that. The only worry as far as I am concerned is that we have another early Saturday away start after the next international break - against Everton...

I think that many of those who seek to formalise the boycott of the Sun (and even extend it to the NOTW) into some orchestrated campaign are either too young or have forgotten how the boycott came about in the first place. There was no formal call for a boycott initially, it was a sponteneous reaction by many who had previously bought the paper to stop buying it. I don't think anyone anticipated at the time that these people would maintain their aversion to the paper for more than 18 years or that it would involve readers who were not fans of LFC. The reason why other newspapers were not effectively boycotted is simply because readers of those papers did not feel the same revulsion to what their paper had printed (which in many cases was as bad). In my view the impact of the boycott is diminished by seeking to try and dictate what people should or should not read. It is much better that it remains a matter of personal choice so that any continuation of it cannot be blamed on pressure from those who actively call for it.

I think he was actually booking Ben Haim for the original reaction to the incident as it is clear that he is pointing the card in the direction of the Chelsea No. 22. Terry was miles away when the card was shown a second time so the explanation is a nonsense. Hansen dodged the issue by focusing on the general ineptitude of Styles in booking players for minor things. Personally I think this ignores the fact that Chelsea's players seems to universally adopt a style that is niggly provocative and highly intimidatory of referees and the opposition. A strong referee would not shirk at showing a card for the first sign of dissent. Styles failed to be tough on this at the start and Chelsea's players then pushed it as far as they could throughout the game. Styles then was faced with a situation that was bordering on anarchic and I suspect in the confusion did not realise that he had already booked the player (whoever it was) before he brandished the card. What is more of a concern is that I suspect that the fact he had shown a second yellow was communicated to him by the 4th official (given the Poll incident at the World Cup I would be surprised if this was not done) and rather than having the courage to stand by his decision he then decided to "rescind" the second yellow by claiming (dishonestly) that he was only booking Terry (who he had already booked and who had moved back to his position in the centre of Chelsea's defence at the time the second card was produced). The error would have been laughable had it not come after the penalty award which even the apologists for Styles (i.e Graham Poll) cannot understand.

I was about 5 when my father started telling my brother and I about Shankly and the Kop. We were in Hong Kong at the time and there was no live English football in those days but the local English television station did show programmes such as Match of the Day and the Big Match (although there were weeks when the tapes did not arrive in time to be broadcast). On our first trip back to the UK in the Summer of 1972 I got given my first replica kit by my grandfather (with the number 7 on the back). They started showing the FA Cup final live in Hong Kong in 1974 so I was allowed to stay up late to watch it. The first game I went to was the first game of the season in 1975 (at QPR).

The admissibility of a secret recording is a matter of substantive law rather than the procedural rules so does not depend upon whether the material is being introduced into a court or whether it is being introduced before an arbitrator. There are a number of factors which may come into play in considering admissibility, including public policy considerations. Secret recordings may be ruled inadmissible if they have been made in breach of any legal right or obligation including Convention rights under the Human Rights Act. It would not surprise me if United had recorded conversations with the agent but if they seek to rely upon those recordings to contradict the clear terms of any written document they may find that the taped evidence is inadmissible in any event.

It is my view that Heinze could still unilaterally terminate his playing contract with United but he is unlikely to do so. There would be no point in him doing so unless: 1) He has a new club to go to who are prepared to meet any compensation claim; 2) He can be registered as a player of the new club with the FA before the transfer window closes; 3) He is prepared to risk the consequences of any disciplinary action. 4) United do not seek to challenge the effectiveness of Heinze's actions in the Courts. Given that any arbitration will eat into what remains of the transfer window and that United's resolve to keep him will be greater if their position is unheld, I think it is unlikely that Heinze would want to take the risk.

I don't want to get into a length debate about what the regulations say (or my experience of them for that matter) but if you look at the first sentence of regulation 17.4 you will see that the presumption which you have quoted only applied to inducements in the Protected Period.

Article 17 does not actually give the player a right to "buy out" his contract. What it does provide is an obligation to pay compensation. Unless provided for in the contract, the assessment of that compensation is determined "with due consideration to the law of the country concerned". A notice clause would not prevent Article 17 from applying but could materially affect the amount of compensation payable. It could also strengthen any disciplinary case against the player for failing to give "due notice". Personally, I think any limitation on the power of a worker to choose his or her employer is potentially liable to challenge on EU freedom of movement grounds and/or as a restraint of trade and this would also include the suggestion that the 15 day window applies to all terminations without cause.