RaoulD

Flo Clucas is the head of the committee responsible for approving the City Council's application for the ERDF grant for the environmental works associated with the redevelopment and not for the actual building of the new stadium. The funds are earmarked for the City Council not the club. The City Council do however need to satsify the Objective One criteria for the grant and that includes matched funding from other sectors. In order to obtain the grant the regeneration plans have been linked to the private development of the stadium so as to create a project eligible for the grant. From the club's perspective there is no deadline for funding to be in place but I am pretty sure that the City Council are seeking to obtain evidence from the club that the funding for the stadium is in place as soon as possible and that pressure is being applied indirectly by Clucas' threats that her committee will not approve the release of the ERDF grant if the evidence is not available by midnight on Thursday. Whilst it is probably true to say that the money will not be released on the 28 September and is potentially available for other projects, the alternative projects don't suddenly materialise overnight and the most likely outcome of the committee meeting on 28 September will be to defer a final decision until a future date.

I think the describing it as a "funding deadline" is a massive overstatement. Objective One funding can only be obtained if certain conditions are met in an area of population. Certain parts of merseyside meet the required criteria including the area around Anfield. The funds cannot be released until there is evidence of matched funding. Flo Clucas had no legal power to impose a deadline upon the club but as she heads the committee which is empowered to release the funds, she must ensure that the other requirements are met. If anything the deadline she sought to impose is indicative of a desire on the part of both the City Council and her committee to progress the project as soon as possible. If the club is not able to meet the requirements by the 28 September (and I personally think that this will almost certainly be the case), the decision on the release of funds will be deferred. The reality is that these schemes often take years to plan and implement and the actual release of the grant is often delayed by the complications that inevitably arise in any major redevelopment project. If the funds are not released on 28 September there will not be an alternative available and it would be extremely embarrassing for the Merseyside objective one committee as a whole since the money was obtained from the EU on the basis of submissions made by the committee

If we have aspirations of winning the league we need to take points off our rivals and avoid dropping points against weaker teams. You cannot predict how a season will pan out after just a few games due to the distorting effect of the fixtures at the time. The games away to Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal and the derbies are the most likely games where we will drop points. We have 2 of these games in the first 5 games of the season. If we lose against Chelsea it makes the task of winning the title harder but it is ridiculous to suggest that a defeat spells the end of our title aspirations. Man U have got off to a good start but there is no reason to suspect that they will sustain their form for the whole season, particularly given the quality of their squad (which appears to be surprisingly limited in key areas). Chelsea had an exceptionally good season last year and a good last 6 months the year before. They have not shown the same form this season and I don't think we will see the title race becoming a procession like last year. Clearly, a defeat against Chelsea will leave us with ground to make up but I would be more concerned if we don't start accumulating points in games where we are expected to win. The game against Chelsea is one which they clearly expect to win and thus any result other than a defeat for us would have a greater impact on them than it ought to for us. This does not mean that I would be happy if Chelsea win - I just don't see it as being as important as some others clearly do.

The signing of Diao was originally scheduled for December 2002. This was the deal negotiated with Sedan prior to the World Cup. He was signed as a central midfielder since we needed cover in this area. At the time he was signed Gerrard was still regarded as a fantastic prospect who had injury problems and Gary McAllister was not expected to be able to perform at the level required for much longer. As a result of an injury scare (I seem to recall that it was Hamann and not Gerrard) and Gary McAllister's departure for Coventry, the transfer of Diao was brought forward. He was highly regarded in 2002 and could negotiate favourable personal terms on the basis of the then demand for his services. I think Rafa's is genuinely concerned about Diao's decision not to take the opportunity to play first team football. I suspect that his contract expires in the summer and he cannot expect it to be extended by the club. He will therefore be a free agent but his marketability will be greatly diminished. If he does not play first team football, he will not be seen by other clubs and he could find it difficult to get a new contract with anyone. Whilst he is perfectly entitled to hold the club to his existing contract and enjoy the benefit of a salary that is higher than anything he might get elsewhere, he also has to take into account that he may be worse off at the end of the contract since any advantage gained by remaining at the club will be offset against the less favourable terms (if any) available to a player seeking new employment without current first team football experience. The same decision had to be made by Hamann this summer when he was told that he could not expect regular first team football.

No, I think Deportivo's achievement of no goals in 6 games in our group in 2004-2005 beats it.

I think it is very easy in hindsight to criticise Rafa's team selection and I suspect that he would probably agree with some of it. The fact remains that he had to decide who started, who was on the bench and who had to be left out without the benefit of seeing how it worked out. I think it is worth remembering the following: (a) Unlike European games we can only have 5 men on the bench and this normally means a goal keeper, one defender one midfielder, one striker and one other. Furthermore, some players are really only suited to playing on one side of the pitch and therefore the overall composition of the substitutes needs to take this into account. (b) Aurelio was our only really fit left back and would almost certainly not have been played in a derby game if either Riise or, more likely, Warnock, was fit enough to start. © Robbie Fowler needs to start some games to maintain some degree of sharpness. Of the 3 games in the week that we have to play, the derby would be the obvious choice given his previous experience of such games. Crouch is currently in form and provides the height that Robbie lacks. He also had derby experience which probably gave him the edge over Kuyt as a starter. There was just no room on the bench for Bellamy (I expect he will start against both PSV and Chelsea) (d) Gonzales was probably too much of a gamble for the left hand side given Aurelio was playing left back. Garcia's experience probably counted heavily in his favour although Kewell (if fit) would have been the obvious first choice. (e) Carragher obviously felt fit enough to play and is still our No. 1 centre back (despite how well Agger has done in his absence). More significantly, Carragher, Hyppia and Finnan have years of experience playing together as a unit and enable us to maintain a high defensive line. (f) I think most people believe that a midfield with Gerrard, Alonso and Sissoko provides everything you would wish to see from your midfield. The difficulty is that accomodating all three means that one of the wide midfield places is taken (usually the right wing), thus Pennant can expect to start on the bench when this happens. (g) Whilst it is easy to see the substitution of Fowler for Riise as strange in a game when we are 2-0 down, Fowler was not having any impact and the alternative would have been to take off either one of the centre backs or a midfielder. Bring Riise on would have allowed us to attack both flanks more effectively and Kuyt is more than capable of playing the lone front man. Unfortunately, the injury to Riise meant that the change never had time to take effect. (h) The combined effect of the World Cup, international breaks and CL qualifiers has deprived Rafa of valuable time with his squad. Given the number of new faces and the disruptive effect on the players of having to join their respective national squads for nearly 2 weeks, it is hardly surprising that we seem disjointed at present. At the end of the day, 3-0 was not a true reflection of the game, we had the better possession and more chances but this often means nothing. I just wish it had not been Everton...

From the terminology used, I would guess that you are assuming that what would happen in the courts and legal system in North America applies equally here. Unfortunately, we do not have local district courts (we have county courts) and there are no longer plaintiffs (we are all claimants now). More importantly, the procedure for recovery of the small sums involved would be the small claims procedure which does not have the same publicity as a full blown court action. I think you are overstating the position in terms of basic contract law. I doubt whether there is an enforceable contract given that the subject matter was not in existence at the time any such contract would have been made. I doubt there are hard promises made about the book including when it was due to be published or delivered. There are no companies involved and there is simply no regulation on the provision of internet services based upon "past record" as you suggest. All in all, I suspect that those who paid for a book will at best recover what they paid if they take the time and trouble to issue a small claim.

This content is not viewable to guests.

If I remember correctly Gullit was the manager and Vialli and Hughes' best days were long gone. I think most Chelsea fans acknowledge that the signing of Zola coincided with a change in fortunes for the club. His success in England also resulted in the abolition of the Italian national team's policy of only selecting players from the Italian league and must have helped facilitate the signing of many of the star names who subsequently played in the Premier League. Unlike Cantona he also helped Chelsea achieve success in Europe (albeit in the CWC). However the key factor is that Zola and Bergkamp were players who commanded the respect of opposing fans even though the team they played for was reviled. Cantona was simply reviled.

I think it is forgotten that the league in the late 80s and 90s was still largely made up of home-grown players from the British Isles with the majority of overseas players coming from Scandanvia. Most of the top class european players played in Italy (which was the dominant league at the time). Cantona was one of the few top-class players who chose the English League (other than as a retirement option) and had an impact because he was technically better than the vast majority of players here. I do think that his ability was exaggerated by the fact that he played in a team that was blessed with the emergence of some very talented youngsters and in a dominant midfield which could accommodate his unpredictability. There is no doubt that he was a catalyst in United's success but it was a success which was based on far more than just his influence. Personally, I don't think he was as influential as Bergkamp or Zola, the latter transformed Chelsea from what was essentially a second division (rate) side into a club that was capable of qualifying for Europe. There is no doubt that Cantona is regarded as a deity by United fans but it really was a case of a big fish in a small pond rather than him being something special.

I remember that it seemed to be a straight contest between Mourinho and Curbishley initially. Rafa did not seem to be available and therefore did not figure in the early speculation. My preference was for someone within the club - I had hoped for a Gary Mac/ Kenny combo but once it became known that Rafa might be available, I was converted. The Valencia team that he managed is still the closest thing I have seen to us in the 70s and 80s except technically they were far superior!

I remember the first time I saw Hansen in 1977 he was a mixture of good and bad. He turned out alright. I remember first seeing Hyppia in pre-season in Ireland and thinking that he was distinctly average. He, together with Henchoz, were the best central defenders in the league that season. Palletta is young and has not even had a season with the reserves. He needs to learn English and how his new teammates play. It is obvious that he is a tremendous talent and we are fortunate to have got him this early in his career. His performances so far have exceded my expectation of him and I am not concerned at all about him.

I would imagine that Rafa and Rick have a total budget for players this summer which has been provisionally allocated to the totality of the summer transfer business. I would expect that in planning the business this summer the targets were identified long ago and estimates of what they could be purchased for obtained. I suspect the reason for the delay is that Alves' price is more than budgeted for and therefore adjustments have to be made either by obtaining the other targets cheaper or looking at cheaper alternatives. I don't think that Rafa has given up on Alves but cannot agree to Sevilla demands until he is certain that he has sufficient funds to complete all necessary purchases. What is probably going on now is that we are seeking to tie up all of our transfers together and we are considering a number of combinations of new players in order to obtain the right balance. It is clear that Rafa is looking for players who fit best into his team plan rather than nessecarily fitting a player into a particular position. Alves is obviously a player who fits the profile for Rafa but he is not the only player that Rafa is looking to sign this summer in addition to those whose transfers have been completed. We simply do not know who Rafa has identified as the other player or players he wants with Alves and therefore cannot begin to comprehend the nature of the problems(if any) with their deals. Given that there is still nearly two months before the window closes, there is no need to panic or issue ultimatums at this point in time. The uncertainty of the transfer of Alves will also pray on Del Nido's mind given the fact that their own signings will depend upon whether he stays or goes. I think it is good for the club to encourage such uncertainty in negotiating the best price for Alves even if it is extremely frustrating for all fans who perceive nothing is happening. Sometimes the fact that nothing is happening can give you an advantage in these negotiations particularly when the other party needs to sell and the only real purchaser wants but does not need to buy.

I think the main difference between Houllier and Rafa is that Houllier tends to set up his team to play in a certain way and keeps to the plan throughout the game. Rafa on the other hand likes to have options available so that if Plan A does not work the players can switch to Plan B. I don't think it is possible to generalise and say one approach is better than the other. At the end of the day it is how the players implement the plan that counts. The biggest problem Houllier faced was in trying to develop a Plan B with players who had been conditioned to play according to Plan A. Benitez had exactly the same difficulty in his first season and this was reflected in the inconsistency of results. The weight of expectation that is placed upon managers often means that they cannot afford the risk of poor initial results that often accompany the introduction of new tactics.

I wondered how long it would be before we got the annual Anelka transfer speculation. As is clear from the article the link to us is pure journalistic speculation based upon the fact that we are known to be in the market for another striker. I do not know the reason why Houllier decided (at the 11th hour) not to take up the option to sign him but it may well have been purely for tactical reasons based upon the requirements at the time. We already had a pacy goal scorer in Owen and his preferred partner was Heskey. Although hindsight enables us to say that the decision to sign Diouf instead of taking up the Anelka option was the wrong one, I remember most people supported Houllier's decision when it became apparent that we were signing Diouf for £10m instead of the £13m or so that it would have cost to buy Anelka from PSG. Diouf was more likely to complement Owen and Heskey than Anelka. Although I felt that Anelka would have been a success if he stayed, he was just too similar to Owen to justify the amount of money that it would have cost to sign him. Anelka might have been a possibility before we signed Bellamy but now that we have him, I would be surprised if Rafa is not looking at strikers who are capable of leading the line. I think there is more chance of Emile returning that Anelka now but neither appear to me to be what Rafa is looking at.

I think supporting Liverpool and supporting England are entirely different matters. I have no desire to go and see an England game and would feel extremely uncomfortable amongst the majority of England "fans" but this does not prevent me from wanting England to win regardless of who is in the team. I do not have any real passion for the team and I am not at all put out when England lose. This is in complete contrast to how I feel about Liverpool.

Redevelopment of the existing stadium has already been carefully considered and rejected as an option. There are a number of obstacles that immediately come to mind with such an idea such as: 1. The site as a whole is not large enough to meet modern requirements. Our pitch is actually too small for UEFA requirements and we currently need an exemption to play on it in European competitions. The advertising requirements mean that front seats cannot be sold. 2. If you increase the capacity of a stand, safe access and exit points also have to be built into the design increasing the size of the stand even further. I doubt there is sufficient land available to be able to significantly increase the size of the stand so as to make the proposition economically viable. 3. Access to and from the stadium also has to be considered. If you increase the capacity of the stadium this has a knock on effect upon the surrounding transport infrastructure. There is little scope for improving the existing access and transport links to the stadium Even if the club were not to move, money would still have to be spent upon improvements to the ground in future (including redevelopment of stands) in the same way as the past giving rise to significant capital expenditure which would have to be funded out of existing revenues. Given the fact that it is considerably cheaper to build a new stadium from scratch rather than to maintain and improve the existing structure in order to provide the same benefits in terms of increased capacity, I would imagine that the only valid argument for remaining is a sentimental one.

No bank will lend the full cost of building the stadium on the basis of projected increased revenues. There has to be some equity participation from the club. As we don't have sufficient liquid assets to put into the project we require some investment to increase our asset base and to invest in the building of a new stadium. Even with investment, I would imagine that the bulk of the cost will be met by loan capital from financial institutions who will want to be satisfied about LFC's abilty to pay. The more they advance, the more we pay in interest. Investment is cheaper especially where there are not the same commercial presures that apply to listed companies to pay regular dividends. However, the absence of a regular dividend return will deter many potential investors. One of the unforeseen consequences of Man Utd's commercial success was the fact that they suddenly took on the appearance of a cash cow enabling a corporate raider to come in and trigger a takeover financed to a great extent upon the future profits that Man U plc could be expected to generate. We are less vulnerable to such an investor due to the more private nature of the underlying limited company combined with a significantly lower turnover than Man U. That does not mean that we are swimming in shark free waters and the motives of new investors need to be carefully examined.

Jimmy Greenhoff Lawrie Sanchez Charlie Nicholas Dennis Wise Kerry Dixon Lucas Neill Robbie Savage Joe Cole Gary Neville... for a start

I think he meant Brazil - Australia judging by the fact that the bar was full of Brazilians and Aussies.

England are still contenders because in Wayne Rooney (even if half fit) and Steven Gerrard they have two players capable of turning a game in an instant. England had no-one in 2002 or 1998 that had the same ability, the closest being Michael Owen in both competitions. The 1990 squad had Gazza, Barnes and Waddle who were all capable of producing something sublime in a tight game. In theory Lampard should also be included but I think that this World Cup is exposing his limitations as a player and that his true ability is masked by the overall ability of the rest of the Chelsea team. He seems to need far more space and time than he gets at this level and has been extremely wasteful in possession The problem with England is that the squad is unbalanced and that there is no real variety in the ways the team can be set up. This means that the team is too dependent upon the performances of the "star players" to be seen as strong contenders for the title. Although Owen Hargreaves had a reasonably good game against Sweden, he was still caught out of position and on the wrong side of a player far too often for my liking. If the Swedish midfield was not so pedestrian, I think England would have been in serious trouble. Hargreaves is a classic example of a player who gets into the squad as a jack of all trades when it would have been better to take a specialist holding midfielder or fill his place with a player who actually adds something to the team. There was, in my view, no need to take both Hargreaves and Carrick. The same can be said about selecting 2 wingers when neither is likely to feature much in the competition. If you are going to take 2 wingers you also need a striker who takes full advantage of the crosses into the box that they will deliver. None of the 4 strikers selected by SVE really good enough to trouble international defenders in this respect. The two wingers are therefore effectively wasted. In addition, too many of the squad were lacking in match fitness and/or form and were picked on the strength of past performances. Whilst this a coach can reasonably risk taking the odd player who is out of form or coming back after a long injury, England seem to have gambled on a host of players whose current form did not justify their selection particularly Owen, Rooney, Campbell and Ashley Cole. Lastly there is the selection of Walcott. I think it is always good to have a player such as him in the squad but you have to take a chance and play him otherwise it is simply another waste of a squad place. The group games provide the opportunity to try the player out (in the same way that Hoddle played Owen against Romania in 1998) and I think England should have brought him on after the injury to Owen instead of Crouch. Having already qualified for the second round, England could afford to take the risk that underpins Walcott's selection in the first place. I see England as being in a similiar situation to that which Liverpool found themselves in after the group stage of the Champions League in 2005. They can still win the World Cup but are very much outsiders to do so.

I think we do need a striker who can fulfil the lone striker role in a 4-5-1 formation. Although Crouch can do the job, his performances for both LFC and England as a lone striker have highlighted the fact that he tends to become isolated and can be knocked off the ball quite easily. He also lacks pace which allows defenders to get tight on him in the knowledge that if he manages to turn them, they can usually recover. Bellamy is better with a target man alongside him and Fowler would probably be similar to Crouch without his height! None of our current strikers are particularly good at heading the ball. I suspect that Morientes was originally earmarked by Rafa to fulfil this particular role and Bellamy is more of a replacement for Cisse than Morientes. I can therefore see us going for a more "traditional" style centre forward to complete the striking options at out disposal. Players such as Kuyt or even Bent seem to fit this particular requirement. Having seen Torres in the World Cup, I am not sure that he is worth risking the enormous amount of money that it will cost to sign him. It is obvious that we are seeking to strengthen on the flanks (i.e with Alves, Aurelio, Gonzales etc) we need to improve the focal point for the deliveries we can expect to come from these areas.

We have seen this many times in the past, a Liverpool legend ending his playing days at another club. It happened to Emlyn Hughes, John Toshack, Tommy Smith, Ray Kennedy, Terry McDermott, Ian Rush and John Barnes to name a few. I much rather see a player who has served the club so well continuing his career elsewhere than have him languishing in the reserves or just seeing out his lucrative contract with Liverpool. The player will leave Liverpool but the memories will remain forever. If he returns to Anfield with another club he deserves the best possible reception from us.

Owen's latest injury appears to have had far more impact upon him than previous injuries and he appears very low on confidence at the moment. He really needed to play the full 90 minutes in each of the friendlies before the World Cup to get back into the right frame of mind. This is the first time that I have seen Michael like this. Even when he was not scoring he tended to remain quite upbeat. The problem is that SGE may not be able to afford to give him the time and support he needs to regain his confidence. I personally would start him against Sweden and allow him to play the full 90 mins regardless of form. If England lose to Sweden it is not the end of the world and if he manages to score then I think we might see a rejuvenated Owen for the later stages of the World Cup. I think more damage will be done to his confidence if he does not start and is left on the bench. England simply do not have the luxury of loads of other striking options in their squad to effectively write him off.

I am pretty sure that we will sign players who Rafa feels will enhance the team rather than talented individuals who have to be accommodated within it. His idea of who the best players are will therefore differ from ours. I am not concerned by the fact that Chelsea have bought Shevchenko and Ballack. Indeed it seems to me that they weaken them rather than strengthen the team. The best way of illustrating the point is to consider who they replace in the Chelsea line up. Take Ballack for example, he is going to want to play each week in central midfield and therefore one or more of Lampard, Makelele or Essien will have to give way. This seems to me to be similar to the situation when United signed Veron and then tried to fit him into a well balanced and settled midfield. Chelsea's recent success is primarily down to the ability of Mourinho to foster a team spirit amongst a squad of established internationals. This was aided by the fact that many of the players they signed were emerging superstars (Robben, Duff, Drogba, Cech, Essien) rather than established superstars whose best years had already probably gone. The latter are potentially harder to work with because they don't have the same hunger as those striving to reach their peak and are less likely to accept a "squad" role. This applies equally to Shevchenko but in his case I don't see a significant improvement on Chelsea's striking options. Although we like to laugh at Drogba, he is actually well suited to the role of centre forward (particularly when on his own and supported from midfield) and Shevchenko is not as good in this role. Shevchenko is a better finisher, but I actually think Crespo is better in this regard than Shevchenko. I would not be happy if Rafa went out and signed a high profile player on the strength of what that player has achieved with a different club and different players around him. The risk that the player will not gel sufficiently with the rest of the team often outweighs the potential advantages of such a player. Of Rafa's major signings I think only Morientes could be said not to have improved the team yet he was our highest profile signing in recent years. Last summer a lot of us felt that Peter Crouch was not the sort of player we should be in the market for but look where he is now. We will buy new players this summer and they will bring something different to the team. Their profile is actually irrelevant since its what they do in a red shirt on the pitch that counts.