RaoulD

When did we see a moment of quality from Kaka? The much acclaimed best player in the world produced just 2 moments of "quality". The first was his turn in the first half which was more than matched by Mascherano chasing him down and taking the ball off him and the second was the pass to Inzaghi that led to Milan's second (after Mascherano was substituted and we were chasing a goal). It is obvious that you a WUM and not a very good one at that.

You obviously didn't see Steaua Bucharest in 1986...

Rafa threw caution to the wind when he took off Mascherano with 15 minutes to go. We had to get a goal so Mascherano was chosen over Alonso (who I thought was a bit hit and miss tonight). Unfortunately, the gamble did not pay off because it gave Kaka space he had been denied all evening. Even then I thought Riise should have at least tried to get closer to Inzaghi rather than just standing still. It might haved forced Inzaghi to shoot earlier and give Reina a better chance of saving it. The game is over, we lost, Milan won, congratulations to them but I just get the feeling that this is the start of something special for us too.

It would have to be Rush. His pace would take him past Nesta and Maldini every time and with Gerrard, Alonso or Mascherano knocking balls over the top he would have a field day! Plus he would also hassle them when they had possession and prevent good balls to Kaka and Pirlo.

Benitez has had a lot of money to spend over the last 3 years but you don't sign players on the strength of your budget - you sign them for what you are prepared to pay and the selling club are prepared to accept. The latter will depend on who else is bidding for the player. The signing of any player is a risk whether you pay nothing or £30million for them. It is this risk that dictates which players are available to you. Up until now Liverpool have not been able to risk £30M on a single player but Man Utd and Chelsea can and have done so. So have Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Juventus etc. This means that Benitez, like Houllier before him, has not been able to compete for the very best players. He has had to operate at a different level where the players are often over-priced by clubs desparate to hold on to their star player. There are precious few "bargains" to be had here. In my view no footballer is "worth" the price paid for them but I suspect that if you could measure value by reference to the ability of the player, you will find that the value of the very best players is closer to the prices paid for them than it is for players below this level. Until the formation of the Premier League we could compete with Man U in the transfer market and there was a relatively level playing field domestically as nobody could compete with the Italian and Spanish Clubs. The limitation in Benitez' budget is not so much a description of its total amount but what it allows you to bid for. If Benitez can now bid for whoever he wants, that is the benchmark by which he ought to be judged.

MOTD long ceased to live up to its name when it decided to show highlights of all the games rather than actually choose a "match" to concentrate on for the bulk of the programme. It is inevitable that the producers of the programme are going to put either Man U or Liverpool games at the beginning and end of the programme so as to ensure that viewing figures are maintained throughout the programme. Given that United were going for the title, their games would interest not only Utd fans but could also potentially attract viewers who supported their rivals for the title and the true neutral who was following the title race. When we effectively dropped out of the race our appeal in the eyes of the television producers would have been limited to LFC fans and those of our opponent. By putting us at or near the end of the programme, the producers managed to retain viewers who were only really interested in the highlights of the LFC game and who would promptly switched over once it was finished. If we had been in contention for the title the programming would have been very different. Personally, I would prefer MOTD to go back to showing a maximum of 3 games with extended highlights for the true match of the day but this will probably mean even fewer viewers than at present and will not appeal to television executives seeking to justify the inordinate expenditure on the rights to show highlights.

It really was a stroke of genius. At a time of high tension he sent the message to the players that this penalty lark is a routine and nothing to get up tight about. Shankly would have approved as it was straight out of his book!

Letting Robben take the first penalty against Reina...hasn't the special one learnt that revenge is sweet!

I loved the bit where he looked at his watch just after Pepe had saved Geremi's penalty, probably thinking that a trip to the jewellers may be beckoning...

I think the criticism of Zenden is a little harsh given the circumstances and the fact that we are a little short of options on the left side with the injury to Aurelio. In my view, the absence of Finnan was actually the reason for Zenden being picked at LM. If Finnan had been fit, Arbeloa would probably played at left back with Riise at LM. The loss of Finnan meant that our left sided options were effectively down to choosing two out of Gonzales, Riise and Zenden. A Gonzales/Riise combination may have offered more attacking threat but less defensively that the combination that played.

I think most West Ham fans were wondering why he was not being played. He is now showing the form that he showed in the World Cup and looks perfect alongside Alonso. I think Momo is a different type of midfielder who plays further up the field and hassles the opposition's deep lying midfielder(s). He was not need today since Arsenal do not usually deploy a defensive midfielder as such.

Probably because the Steua Bucharest team from 1986 was not available.

This content is not viewable to guests.

PLC is the permitted alternative for Public Limited Company under Section 27 of the Companies Act 1985. The name of a public company is required by law to end with either the words "public limited company" or the permitted alternative of "plc" by Section 687. If we were to re-register as a private company the name would have to end with the word "Limited". All that has happened is that Kop Limited has bought more than 90% of the shares of the PLC which entitles them to force the remaining shareholders to sell their shares to them. They can also pass the necessary resolution to enable the plc to be re-registered as a private company. The resolution has not been passed nor has the application for re-registration been made. We are still therefore a plc albeit that this will probably change in the next couple of months.

I think it is only natural that when the company who employs you is taken over, you are concerned to ensure that your job is secure and that you will get the support of the new owners. This is particularly so when you hold a senior management position within the organisation. It is hardly surprising that a person in such a position would wish to ensure that there is an alternative available should, for whatever reason, things not work out with the new owners. Most players probably consider their options whenever a new manager comes in so why should Rafa be any different? A football manager is an inherently unstable occupation. In a short period of time you can go from being untouchable to being unemployed. To expect anyone to shut out potential future employers is unrealistic. Equally, I get the impression that Rafa would want to honour his contract with LFC if at all possible. What happened at Valencia was probably more a result of a lack of communication and breakdown of trust between the owners and the manager.

If you had suggested in the 70s and particularly the 80s that any club needed an 80,000 or even a 60,000 capacity stadium you would have been laughed at. Attendances were declining and you could generally turn up on the day and get in if you wished. United usually had higher attendances than us but Old Trafford was still less than full. If I remember correctly, it held about 55,000 against our 45,000 or so. The development of Old Trafford has been incremental and has matched the increased marketing of United. One factor in the increase in attendances is the way in which clubs such as United moved away from the concept of a local catchment area to cultivating a more global appeal. They are now enjoying the benefits of a long-term strategy which has been aided by success on the pitch. If we wish to match United we have to take drastic action to catch up. I am sure that Gillette and Hicks were attracted to LFC because it has the potential to match United in terms of global appeal. Hicks' comments about the club to the east indicate to me that they see LFC as having the same potential to pull in 80,000 fans for each game as United now do. Do all the United fans come from the area around Manchester? - its an often repeated joke that they all come from Surrey! The truth is that United abandoned the focus as a local club decades ago but I am sure that the majority of their supporters who attend games at Old Trafford still have some connection to the Manchester area. A season ticket is attractive to someone who can attend all of the games, it is less so for someone who due to geographical location cannot get to every game but would still like to watch their team. Whilst the clamour for season tickets at LFC is partly due to the difficulty that non-season ticket holders face in getting tickets for games I am sure that there is a potentially huge demand from those supporters who would like to be able to buy tickets for particular games but cannot justify the expense of a season ticket. In order to meet this demand we need to improve not only the capacity of the stadium but also the manner in which tickets are made available to supporters wherever they may be. It is therefore not simply a case of having a stadium big enough to accomodate all of your season ticket holders.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

One of the planning conditions limits the capacity of the new stadium to 45,000 until agreement is reached in respect of the transport arrangements to get fans to and from the stadium. The intention is to lift this limit when a system is in place to ensure efficient transportation links to and from the new stadium. There is no ceiling on the capacity once the appropriate arrangements are in place so in theory an increase in stadium capacity would not give rise to planning issues relating to transport links but would require the arrangements to be modified in order to lift the 45,000 ceiling. The main limitations in planning terms are things such as the height and external appearance of the stands. If an increase in capacity would cause the height to increase or the external appearance of the stadium to change, amendments to the existing permission would need to be sought. I am not sure how practical this may be given the fact that there are external factors such as the European regeneration grants tied in with the existing project. On the other hand, there is probably no harm in exploring the possibility of building a larger stadium whilst the preparation work is underway as any application for a new permission would probably take the form of an application for amendment to the existing permission rather than a new application. It is worth remembering that the original plans for the stadium and the decision to go for a 60,000 capacity design were prepared in 2002 and 2003. The cost implications of a larger stadium greatly increased the financial risk to a club that was looking to finance the build from its own resources. The position is very different now that we have new owners since they clearly have greater resourses available and can afford to take a more optimistic view as to the future. If they want to take the risk and build an 80,000 capacity stadium for LFC it will also be their problem in filling it. The best way to fill a stadium is to create a team that appeals not only to those fans who would watch Liverpool whatever the circumstances but also to those who could not be regarded as the "core" support.

I remember Hicks said he would be getting his people to look at the stadium plans to see whether improvements could be made when the takeover was first announced so it is hardly surprising that the plans drawn up 3-4 years ago are now being revisited. If I remember correctly, the planning permission relates to the external structure of the stadium and that the actual stand layout and consequently the capacity was not something which had a significant impact in planning terms. The biggest problem would be in seeking to alter the external design since it was this which was a major factor in the grant of planning permission. If Hicks and Gillette can build a 70,000 seat capacity stadium within the same framework then it is unlikely that planning will be a major problem. However, the external design that was approved was also believed to have structural limitations in terms of what could be achieved as regards internal capacity. I would expect that anyone taking a fresh look at the plans would explore the possibility of increasing capacity. Hicks and Gillette also promised a large hole in Stanley Park this month - maybe the hole is going to be larger than originally envisaged and that the pitch level is actually going to be below ground level so that the stands can be bigger but still fit the original external design?

The fact is that both Riise and Bellamy have caused disrepute to fall on the club whilst both of them were on a club training camp. They were not on holiday. As such every thing that they did would naturally be asssociated with the club. If they got drunk or caused a scene in a restaurant or bar their behaviour would be associated with LFC. Both Riise and Bellamy therefore broke club rules by bringing the name of the club into disrepute. It was however an internal matter which by all accounts was dealt with on Friday (i.e. before the story broke). What is rightly a matter of concern is that someone fed the Norwegian press with the story that Bellamy had attacked Riise with a golf club. This particular incident was not picked up by the local Portguese press who reported the lesser "story" of general bad and drunken behaviour by Liverpool players focusing primarily on Dudek. It was the "attack" which interested the News of the World and led to the questions about Bellamy's future which we now see. Given the apparent source of the story and the way in which Bellamy's actions have been described in the press, it is hardly surprising that the finger is pointed at Riise as the source of the story. At best it was an incredibly stupid thing to do but this looks more like a deliberate (and crude) attempt at revenge which, whilst targetted at Bellamy, has caused the club and Rafa and in particular to get caught in the crossfire.

The list on the UEFA is the list of players registered for the latter stages of this years CL. As Garcia is injured and unlikely to play again this season, the club decided to remove his registration to allow another player to be registered instead. Mascherano is registered to play in the CL but as I read the regulations he also needs to be registered with the national association to be eligible for the CL.

I suspect it has more to do with the fact that our share of the prize money from the Premier League finish in 2005 (5th) was significantly less than Chelsea's as champions and the fact that our share of the pooled funds from the Champions League was tiny compared with the amount Chelsea got as national league champions. Arsenal had a good run in the Champions League. That coupled with the fact that you need a mortgage to get a ticket at Chelsea these days! I think it is our potential to do much better that has made us particularly attractive to outside investors. There will also be a major increase in our turnover when we move to the new stadium. Personally I still regard LFC as my football club rather than a business so where we are in the table and how much we earn are very low down on my list of priorities. Even more so now that we have secured the necessary investment from 2 rich yanks!

The piece would have been fine if he had simply confined himself to commenting on the way the takeover unfolded. It was the attempt to link the takeover with what happened at Bradford, Heysel and Hillsborough and the repetition of the quite offensive suggestion that those affected by the disasters should in some way take comfort from the fact that we now have all-seater stadia. It is obvious that Bradford and especially Hillsborough led to the change to all-seater stadia in the early 1990s but this has little correlation to the massive increase in turnover that football clubs have enjoyed since then. The major reason for the increase in turnover was and still is the vast sums available from television. This was the catalyst for the creation of both the Premier League and the Champions League.

Whilst the message at the end of Winter's article is basically what we all hope to see happen, I think some of the previous content is below his usual standards. The reality of football now is that clubs have become businesses and that the people who invest in clubs are increasingly doing so for reasons of profit. The days when investment in a football club was seen almost as an act of charity (i.e. that you were effectively giving the money away) are gone and commercialism has won. It is ironic that we were probably responsible for the move towards running clubs as businesses when we introduced advertising onto shirts. Having taken the initiative we then surrendered the advantage to Man U who proceeded to become less of a club and more of a corporate enterprise over the next couple of decades. We remained essentially a football club that was beoming increasingly dependent upon the goodwill of wealthy fans to enable us to compete in an increasingly commercial world. Whilst Man Utd were exploiting every commercial opportunity and developing their ground on the strength of the proceeds, we maintained our traditions. As a result, unlike Man U, we are not asset rich and I doubt corporate raiders would view us as an excellent opportunity to extract value in a short period of time. Indeed the fact that we have an immediate funding requirement for some £200 million plus for a new stadium would probably scare away any asset-stripper! The remark that Gillett and Hicks should not view us as an ATM is neither justified as a matter of fact nor is there any basis for attributing such attitude to them. This is not to say that Gillett and Hicks do not intend to make money out of their investment - they most obviously do - as would any other investor apart from perhaps a certain Mr Abramovich or an extremely wealthy fan of the club. It was Hicks himself who pointed out that there were easier ways to make money that investing in a football club. Both men are already wealthy individuals from other business ventures. Their reasons for investing in LFC as opposed to another (more profitable) venture are probably more to do with their enthusiasm for sport and a belief that it is possible to blend traditional values with a business model at LFC that makes greater use of actual and potential sources of revenue. It is clear that Hicks' interest in LFC is of recent origin and it is highly unlikely that he would have been interested if LFC had been put forward as merely a means for a quick profit. Whilst he would have wanted to satisfy himself that there was a viable business to justify the investment, his motives seem to me to be based more on the attraction of owning "one of the crown jewels".