RaoulD

You're right - I just haven't looked at it since the announcement last week!

Having checked the actual announcements to the Stock Exchange, I now think that this is simply the weekly updating of the disclosure table to include the announcment made last Friday (after the disclosure table was published that week). The disclosure table simply lists the companies in respect of which announcements have been made. NSI is the number of securities in issue and is based upon the 2.10 statement that was made by the club previously.

Looks more like he has made a formal offer for all of the shares!

The problem is that DIC had to make an offer to everyone. If that offer only results in them acquiring Moores' shares, there are restrictions on buying more shares in the immediate future. The reason why acceptance conditions are usually found in takeover offers is that the incoming owner does not want to be saddled with a body of shareholders who may be able to block special resolutions, who are unwilling to match funding introduced by the new owner and are quite happy to sit and watch their investment grow at the new owner's expense. Had a formal offer being forthcoming from DIC I am pretty certain it would have as a condition an acceptance level of at least 75% and probably 90% of shareholdings. The board would therefore have to explain to the small shareholders why they should part with their shares and accept the offer. I don't hold shares in LFC but I'm sure that if it were a choice between LFC having the funds for a new stadium, a transfer war chest etc and a nice profit for yourself on the one hand and holding on to shares of uncertain monetary but great sentimental value on the other, then a great deal of small shareholders might be persuaded to part with their shares.

I think the problem that DIC have is that they have made a Rule 2.8 statement announcing their intention not to make an offer. It is this that precludes them from returning for 6 months. If they had made an offer before withdrawal, the period would have been 12 months!

The more that comes out the more it appears that it is DIC who screwed up. It seems that they either did not appreciate the requirements of the Takeover Code or expected LFC's Board to ignore them. It is important to remember that there is a difference between an agreement for the acquisition of the shares of a single shareholder (in this case Moore's 51%) and an agreement with all the shareholders (or a substantial majority of them) for all of their shares. At best DIC only had an agreement in principle with Moores for the sale of his shares to them. Because of the size of Moores' holding, DIC had to extend the offer for all of the shares in the company under the takeover rules. Regardless of the rules, it would be extremely surprising if the agreement with Moores (even in principle) was not conditional upon a certain level of acceptance of DIC's offer to the shareholders as a whole. It makes no sense to plough money into an company to enhance the value of its assets when up to 49% of the shares may be owned by others since the benefit of the increase in value of the company will also be enjoyed as a windfall by the 49%. The takeover by DIC was almost certainly dependent upon a lot more than just Moores' agreement to sell. When there is only one bid on the table, it is relatively easy for the directors of the company to recommend acceptance of the bid to the shareholders of the company. There is no issue of fiduciary duty (which as a matter of law is generally owed to the company and not the shareholders). It is more complicated when there is or is potentially more than one bid even if the other bids are hostile and unwelcome. It is a fundamental principle under the takeover rules that all offerors must be treated equally both when it comes to providing information and when the bids are considered by the board. When Gillett made it clear than he was a potential offeror, the board had no option but to include his potential bid in their consideration of whether to make a recommendation to shareholders. It seems that DIC misunderstood announcements in the press (which were merely repeating announcements that had to been made under the takeover rules) as signs that the club was behaving dishonourably. They then sought to give an ultimatum which, if it has been accurately reported, appears to go beyond the powers of the board or Moores i.e. securing the acceptance of the other shareholders to an offer that had not even been made! At the very least they were seeking a recommendation of their offer to the shareholders (when it was formally made) to the exclusion of Gillett's. Had they waited they may well have got the recommendation. What the board could not do is supply information about the rival bid or how it was viewed by the board. Not only is this contrary to the takeover rules but it also was the sort of behaviour that got Ernest Saunders and his chums into trouble with the SFO. By publicly announcing their withdrawal DIC disqualified themselves from bidding again for 6 months under the takeover rules. Given that they seem to have misunderstood the announcements by the club under the code, it is highly likely that this was also not foreseen and they therefore are seeking to blame the club for the mess. Personally, I think they would have been better advised to keep their mouth shut, especially since there seemed to be a body of supporters who would quite happily have lynched Parry and Moores for it anyway!

I am not sure that the Takeover panel have much of a discretion but their role is more to ensure that the procedures are followed rather than interferring in the process itself. I assume the reference to Glazer should be to Gillett! There are many grounds upon which the board can safely ignore Gillett requests - funding is the obvious one as the board are entitled to be satisfied that the offeror is or will be in a position to implement the offer in full. With DIC this was obviously a non issue.

Wasn't the game live on television on a Sunday? I seem to remember in those days the televised games tended to be played in half empty grounds.

I think you will find that LFC falls under section A3(a)(ii) of the Code as a public company having its central management and control in the UK. The rules therefore apply to us. Indeed, if the code did not apply why was a Rule 2.10 announcement made?

I agree that not all plcs are listed companies but I think you will find that all plcs are public companies and as such are subject to the requirements of the code. The code does not apply to "private" companies. A company has to be specially registered as a private company at Companies House for it to be a private company and exempt from the code. Whilst private companies are not listed, it does not followthat all non-listed companies are private companies.

LFC are a public company (that's what the p in plc stands for) and the Code applies to them. Indeed, they have made a Rule 2.10 announcement in respect of DIC's offer. The requirement to provide "information" to offerors or bona fide potential offerors is set out in Rule 20.2. There is a difference between information provided to an offeror and due diligence. The information must be specifically requested (you cannot ask in general terms for all of the information supplied by a competitor) and as such if the information has been supplied to one offeror or potential offeror, it must also be supplied to the other. Due diligence is the process of allowing a purchaser (and his lawyer and accountants) access to the internal records of the company to enable them to form a clearer picture of the value of the company. In the course of this exercise, certain information may be supplied by the company to those undertaking due diligence. If another offeror requests the same information, it must be provided to them. There is no obligation under the code to allow a general due diligence exercise to be carried out to everyone. I suspect that unless and until Gillett starts asking specific questions and/or can be regarded as a bona fide potential offeror, the club can simply continue to ignore a general request for "due diligence" from him.

The BBC had planned to record both semi finals for broadcast on Match of the Day that evening. This was at a time when the rights to a FA Cup and England games were owned jointly by BBC and BSB (even though BSB had not started broadcasting at the time). The BBC planned to go "live" during Granstand if anything significant happened. If I remember correctly, they went live when it appeared that there was a hooligan problem and the game was still being played. My recollection is not perfect but I think they actually started broadcasting live just before the game kicked off and carried on doing so until it became apparent that there were casualties. I certainly remember seeing some of the play from the first few minutes on Grandstand. This is probably why so many people thought it was being shown live.

I think the problem is more a case of the existing players do not seem to move into space when we have the ball and make the other side worry about where the ball is going. As a result the next move, particularly in the final third, is easier to predict and can be dealt with more effectively. The better the team, the more effective they are at defending in this area. The Arsenal game highlighted the benefits of running into space quickly when in possession. We used to be the best in the business at this but it seems that a number of factors are currently preventing the team from fulfilling their potential. Particular things I have noticed include: (a) Gerrard is too static when we are attacking, particularly down the flanks. When he does move he tends to run into the same space as another of our players. (b) Crouch may be good at retaining the ball at his feet when closely marked but he is very poor when it comes to finding space for himself and in particular in timing where and when to run in the penalty box. He is also surprisingly poor at directing knockdowns to red shirts (although this is partly due to the fact that often there is no one free). © Kuyt is often left unsupported when he goes to the flanks either to collect a pass or to steal the ball from the defender. This results in a promising and dangerous opening being wasted by the absence of options in the centre. Ideally there should be at least 3 players trying to pull away from markers in different positions to stretch the defence but what tends to happen is that everybody runs for the 6 yard box where they are often crowded out by the defence. Overall, I don't think we are far off but there is still quite a lot of work to be done with the existing squad. I think more than anything they need playing time together as this something the key players at Chelsea, Arsenal and Man U have had for several seasons now.

Whilst it is quite admirable to express concern for the exploitation of workers in Dubai, it does not seem right to me that we should seek to impose our standards on the way another sovereign state conducts itself. This is especially true when many who are quick to criticise do so on the basis of limited, and often inaccurate, knowledge. The Emirates (of which Dubai is one) are the modern equivalent of the boom towns that developed in this country during the Industrial Revolution or abroad during, for example, the gold rushes of the 19th Century. In each case you see tremendous wealth being generated for a few with the vast majority living in cramped and poor conditions. Despite the poor conditions, the workers are there by choice often because the economics mean it is better for them financially to tolerate the poor conditions than to remain where they were. About 40 years ago, Dubai and the rest of the Emirates were little more than desert, the exploitation of oil meant that they could attract workers to the states by offering more money than could be earned at home. This remains the reason why workers still flock to Dubai and tolerate conditions which seem abhorrent to those of us who enjoy the benefits of living in a society which has moved on from what was an almost identical situation in the past. I find the views being expressed to the effect that the takeover of the club (if it happens) by DIC as being no different to the Abramovich takeover of Chelsea as being far too simplistic. As far as I am concerned the crucial difference between the two is as to the source of the wealth not the fact of it. The source of DIC's wealth is obvious whereas how Abramovich came to control the former Soviet state run gas and oil enterprises remains obscure. If we suddenly find ourselves in possession of unlimited funds, I like to think that we will continue to conduct ourselves for the good of the game as a whole rather than behave like Chelsea Mark II. I think it should not be forgotten that the Dubai ruling family already have an excellent reputation in this country through their support and investment in racing. Of all the foreign investors that have been touted over the last 3 years they are the most likely to understand and respect the traditions of our club.

I think there is no fair comparison between the two situations. Houllier's last team were largely an established and settled side with only really Kewell and Finnan (both established Premiership players) having to be accomodated into the first team. On the other hand Benitez has carried out major surgery to the team over the last 2 years so much so that: - None of the 4 main strikers he inherited (Owen, Baros, Cisse and Diouf) remain - Only Finnan, Gerrard, Hyppia, Kewell, Dudek, Riise and Carragher remain from Houllier's final squad. - Of the above seven players, Kewell has hardly played because of injury and Dudek rarely gets a game now. The remainder (with the exception of Gerrard) are primarily defensive players. In each of the last 3 summers we have seen new arrivals in key positions who have to settle into the side and get to know how the others play. In some cases you are fortunate and the players gel immediately - in others it takes time. In the pre-season optimism many of us expected the new signings to have an immediate impact and we ignored the fact that it could take time for an understanding to develop between them. The situation has not been helped by the fact that we have be unfortunate in the way the fixtures have worked out (with all our most difficult away games in the first third of the season) and the disjointed start to the season (caused by international breaks). The real cause for the disenchantment with Houllier was that there was no excuse for why the team played so badly and consequently no hope for an improvement. The same cannot be said of Rafa or the current squad. It is of course frustrating to see pre-season hopes of a title challenge dashed but at the end of the day the signs are still there that we are slowly (albeit slower than we would like) putting together a squad of players that is capable of dominating a game and suffocating the opposition in the same way that Valencia did under Rafa and we used to do in the 70s and 80s.

Porto

I think that the problem is not as straightforward as many seem to think. The difficulty with Gerrard in the traditional CM role is that he tends to curb his instinct of trying to get forward and support the attack in order to provide some defensive security to our CBs. The result was that we often ended up defending far deeper than necessary and became more reliant upon hitting teams on the counter-attack. It is no coincidence that Gerrard's key contributions have come about when he is freed from this role by the use of Hamann and/or Sissoko. Whilst Alonso can do some of the defensive work it is not the strongest part of his game. Sissoko's strength is in his defensive/destructive capability. He could be played in the holding role like Makalele but this would invite teams to press up against us knowing that if he wins the ball in front of our CBs there is likely to be time to recover. This would also lead to Alonso being denied the space which makes him particularly effective. It's therefore better to have Sissoko stirring things up in the middle of the pitch since teams will be more cautious about committing players forward for fear of losing the ball to Sissoko in a more dangerous position. Unfortunately I don't think we have anyone else in the squad that can do the role Sissoko does although it was worth seeing whether Zenden could do it given his technical ability and his previous experience in a defensive role. Arsenal away was probably not the best place to have to experiment since their players are extremely confident on the ball and would have taken heart from Sissoko's absence even if Gerrard was playing in the centre. The problem is not made any easier by Gerrard's poor form (by his standards) at the moment. Although we are not a one-man team (as many in the press still persist in saying), he is not forcing opponents to take steps to neutralise him which would create space for others to exploit. Whilst players of his calibre will occasionally produce moments where even the additional precautions prove inadequate, the real advantage is usually enjoyed by others who exploit the often numerical advantage created as a result of the precautions. It is not necessary for Gerrard to play in the middle to have this effect, indeed it is better that he has a free role so that he can drag the opposition players out of position as well as create space for others - the problem is that he is not seen as the threat he ought to be by the opposition teams we have played this season. Personally I think that we could have done with a few easier away games spread between the tough games against the other members of the so-called Big Four, particularly given the number of new faces being introduced into the team this season.

If it was simply a request for a couple of autographs for two youngsters then I think he ought to have signed them. He has gone on record on numerous occasions of wanting to do things for the fans and it doesn't take much to sign a couple of autographs. The two young lads were probably heartbroken by his refusal and would not understand any reason put forward for the refusal. He effectively alienated 2 fans for life by his actions. It would be different if the request was one of a number of requests being made at the same time. Ideally, you should try to keep everyone happy but there will be times when you simply have to say enough is enough. I would not put it past his agent to have agreed some deal for cash to be paid for the right to reproduce his signature such that even the author cannot reproduce it without permission! As a matter of principle I refuse to buy anything which bears an form of "celebrity" endorsement.

If I remember correctly Speedie was bought by Dalglish shortly before he left. In the days before transfer windows you could sign a player when the need arose and I think Dalglish was looking to add to the striking options. Speedie was a decent enough player but he was nearly 31 when he signed and I imagine was not in Souness' plans when he took over. He was part of the cull which also saw Beardsley go to Everton. On the basis that Eric Meijer made the official top 100 list, I think the 5 worst are: 1. Diouf - for his attitude and lack of application rather than his ability; 2. Paul Stewart - he was simply not good enough and was a complete waste of money 3. Torben Piechnik - wholly unsuited for the English game let alone Liverpool - another player signed on the back of one good tournament 4. Sean Dundee - £1.8 million completely wasted. He should have been ashamed to call himself a striker - on the rare occasions he was on the pitch we would have been better off if he managed to get himself sent off - he could not even do that. He was a total liability. How did Houllier manage to sell him for £1.5 million ? 5. Jean Michel Ferri - OK we did not lose money on his transfer but he was supposed to be the hard working ball winner in midfield - 2 substitute appearances and less than 60 minutes of action where not a good return on the salary paid to him.

It does appear that the quotes are replies to questions put to him and therefore the contest is difficult to ascertain. The fact is that Le Tallec has not realised his potential despite being given opportunities which a lot of young players would be extremely pleased with. It is amusing to see his appraisal of Houllier and Domenach given the latter's criticism of Houllier for bringing the two to Liverpool too early when they were unlikely to play in many games. His problem is more his lack of application and effort to make the most of the skill he was blessed with. His cousin was unfortunate not to get a run of games in the team but achieved far more with no obvious sign of the frustration that inevitably arises from being a perennial sub/reserve team player. Pongolle will be remembered for his decisive contributions in games on the path to both the European Cup in 2005 and the FA Cup last season. Le Tallec's contribution is already fast disappearing into the ether!

I don't recall Benfica having an official programme (although my knowledge is limited to the visit in 1984!). I understand that there are a number of unofficial "programmes" and Inferno Na Luz is probably one of them given that the title is used by Benfica fans as a nickname for their team. I think it translates as Hell in the Light. The "programme" is probably the English version prepared with a view to sale to Man U fans. If the article is genuine, it : a) was probably written by a fan familiar with the cliches trotted out by Man U fans (it could even have been a Man U fan) b) is almost certainly fictitious. It loses credibility when it suggests that Manchester is a particularly attractive or stylish city and who in their right mind would survey cities by the number of torched cars per kilometre? Given that recent surveys on car crime tend to show Sheffield as the worst city in the country with Manchester (but not Liverpool) in the top 10. I suspect that the whole thing is a wind up manufactured by a manc on Redcafe seeking to flog the useless programme on Ebay to more gullible mancs...

The players that played 60-70 games in the 70s and 80s did not have to compete against opponents who only played half (or less) that number of games. Every team in the league comprised a squad of about 16 players with 8 or 9 of those being expected to play every game. The result was that fitness levels at the end of the season were not dissimilar accross the board. Once the game started to introduce more substitutes and bigger squads, the physical demand on players to play every game diminished and thus the players are now fitter at the end of the season than they were in the 70s and 80s. The fact is that a small squad nowadays will be at a disadvantage in the latter stages of the season when playing teams with the bigger squads and fresher players. Apart from the fitness issue, a larger squad allows a manager greater tactical flexibility, particularly where there is no clear distinction in quality among the members of the squad. Every manager to a greater or lesser extent will change the team to meet the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent in so far as he is able to do so without compromising on the strength of the team. At the same time, there will probably be groups of players who play together regularly in order to benefit from the understandings which develop as a result. I suspect that if one looks at every team Benitez has put out over the last 2 years, you will see these groups of players. At the end of the day most goals are scored as a result of a combination between 2 or 3 players rather than the whole team. It does not need a genius to work out that you can get more such combinations from a group of 20-30 players than a team of 11.

I suspect that Kuyt's slightly delayed reaction might have caused the referee to have doubts as to exactly what happened particularly if he did not have a perfect view of the incident. If you are going to exaggerate contact it is important that it is consistent with the laws of physics.

Unlike you, I have seen the 106 Agreement, the conditions, the minutes of the planning committee etc. The regeneration project was not part of the planning application and the planning authority did not therefore make the development of the stadium conditional upon it. In order to ensure that the funding for the regeneration was secure the planning authority imposed the condition of a Section 106 planning obligation on LFC. Clause 4.1 of the 106 Agreement contains the covenant by LFC not to commence the development of the stadium until the funding for the regeneration projects has been secured to the satisfaction of the Council. You are quite right that the s.106 is a bilateral agreement between the Council and LFC but it is not the planning consent. There is as far as I can see no Grampian condition either in the consent or the 106 obligation.

I'm not sure that the planning consent for the stadium is invalidated if the regeneration does not go ahead. As far as I can see the development conditions included the requirement of a S.106 Agreement which has been entered into. The problem appears to be in the funding of the regeneration project. The City Council needs the EDRF funding to pay for the work, the funding will only be given if it is part of a project which has private funding matching the public funds. The European funds are clawed back if not spent in the time allocated, but in order to even qualify for the EDRF the project and the stadium have been linked together in the application by the City Council for the grant. Under the terms of the S.106 Agreement LFC have agreed with the Council not to commence development until LFC provides evidence to the Council (not the objective one committee) that funding is in place for the regeneration work (note this is not evidence of funds to build the stadium). This is no doubt a consequence of the application by the Council for EDRF funding being piggy backed on LFC's private development It is therefore the Council's application for EDRF funding that requires evidence of LFC's funding for the stadium and has nothing to do with the conditions attached to the planning application. The objective one committee have imposed the deadline on the basis that it needs to issue a match funding certificate for the EDRF grant before the monies can be released. This would in turn allow LFC to satisfy the condition in the S.106 Agreement enabling it to proceed with the development without a breach of the S.106 Agreement. If the EDRF funding is lost alternative funding needs to be found for the regeneration project to the satsifaction of the City Council. In summary the doomsday scenario painted by Clucas is inaccurate, particularly as regards the need to reapply for planning consent.