RaoulD

If Dalglish had stayed he would almost certainly have done a better job than Souness but I doubt he would have solved the problem overnight. He would still have had to grapple with the problem of replacing key players such as Hansen with little if anything sitting in the reserves. I think it is telling that the only recognised Centre Back signed by Kenny in nearly six seasons was Glenn Hysen. I doubt we would have still been regular champions but I do think we would not have seen Man Utd's dominance of the league and that it is perfectly possible that players such as Cantona and Shearer could have worn a liver bird on their chest! I remember that Souness was thought to be the best man to continue our dominance when he was appointed and his first couple of signings (Mark Wright and Dean Saunders) seemed to be good ones. He then shot himself in the foot with the sale of Beardsley and things just deteriorated from there. If Dalglish had stayed longer we would have been participating in the Champions League far earlier than 2001 and the additional revenue that would have generated would have enabled us to compete more effectively with Man U then and now. Dalglish would almost certainly have been Sir Kenny by now and there probably would be no contest as to who was the greatest ever manager. Unfortunately it did not happen and we now have Rafa Benitez who is already on his way to becoming the greatest.

What's even more frightening is that it seemed the "tactical" decisions came from McClaren as much as Sven. I not sure there is even a Plan A. It seems to me that the players just decide for themselves where to play which is why we see Gerrard having to play a holding role because Lampard is either incapable or simply won't sit back and defend. I thought it was pretty obvious from the Man U game at Anfield last season that Crouch cannot operate as a lone striker because he will just get isolated and he needs the support of either a second striker or players running on from midfield. Sven's masterplan against Paraguay? Play Crouch as the lone striker! I think the problem is that Sven's idea of a team is to pick the best 11 players he can think of without any thought being given as to how the team as a whole should function. On paper a midfield of Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard and Cole looks to be the best but in reality it suppresses Gerrard's ability to attack since he is the only one of the four who can tackle and perform the defensive duties to an acceptable standard at this level. I actually think that England would be better with a specialist defensive midfielder in place of Lampard thus enabling Gerrard to play in the advanced fulcrum role where he is so lethal.

There is now no distinction between FAX and other forms of electronic communication in legal proceedings in England and Wales. The recipient must however have previously agreed to accept service by FAX or email (as the case may be). It is correct that solicitors may, for this reason, indicate that they are unwilling to accept documents sent to them by FAX or email. As a matter of substantive law, the manner in which an offer is made is usually a matter for the party making the offer. It is essential that the offer is communicated to the recipient. It is therefore usually better to send a letter by Fax addressed to the apporpriate person rather than to try and identify the appropriate email address. There is also the practical problem that many companies still require offers, orders etc to be in writing and that they will simply not consider documents sent via email. Even in this electronic age importance is still attached to a hand written signature. If a document has to be prepared and signed by hand then it is more convenient to simply bung it on a fax machine than have to scan it and then attach it to an email. I am a little sceptical about the information in this case. Why would a member of staff be telling a sponsor about the possible loss of one of the club's best players? Moreover, why is that member of staff privy to the details of Bellamy's contract?

I think that trying to compare the Arsenal project with our proposed new stadium product is like comparing apples and oranges. They are completely different. Firstly, on the planning side, Arsenal's proposal works because it effectively relocates the stadium to an area of land that was not regarded as prime residential land and frees up a substantial area of land in a prime residential area. Even taking into account the fact that new property developments have to have a proportion of social housing, there is sufficient profit potential in the redevelopment of the Highbury site to appeal to potential institutional lenders. The local planning authority (Islington Council) were overwhelmingly in favour of the scheme and there was little opposition to it. The scheme is a private development (albeit that there is some public utility) funded by Arsenal and not part of the overall regeneration of the area which may be funded from a variety of sources (but which have different interests to promote) Secondly, Arsenal's business plan is heavily dependent upon low interest rates prevailing in the medium term coupled with substantially increased revenues. If they do not fill their stadium regularly or miss out on Champions League/Television revenues, there is a real risk that the financial plan will collapse. Indeed, it very nearly did not happen due to problems in obtaining funding. The institutions felt the plan was far too risky. If Arsenal had not qualified for the Champions League next season the consequences could have been dire. Thirdly, Arsenal managed to negotiate a fixed price construction contract with McAlpine which passes the risk of increased construction costs to the contractor. This protects them from the rising construction costs that we now have to take into account for stadium. It goes without saying that no contractor is going to agree a fixed price now unless it is ridiculously high! The building of the new stadium is the biggest financial commitment the club can make. It will cost pretty much what the club is currently worth. The sheer scale of the task is probably beyond the comprehension of the majority of fans who will naturally be less concerned about the detail (and the potential consequences of any error in such detail) than in seeing the end result.

It is obvious that Benitez's original plan/budget was on the basis that Cisse would be sold and it comes as no surprise that he would say as much. Equally, what he does not say is that his spending was dependent upon the sale of Cisse. I doubt this was the case in any event. What is noticable is that even Bascombe is still naming the same targets and there is no suggestion that we cannot now afford them. If it is any consolation we were looking to replace Cisse before his injury with another striker and we therefore do not have to divert funds earmarked for the purchase of a striker to cover the purchase of an additional player in another position (who would probably cost more in transfer fees and wages than the actual cost of having Cisse for another year). It also makes sense to tell the world you have less money to spend if you are seeking to negotiate prices for new players. I am pretty certain that the prices quoted to us last summer were slightly inflated by the fact that we had earned a large amount of money from a successful Champions League campaign. The public message will inevitably be negative until we have completed the summer business!

You cannot help but feel sorry for him despite the fact that he is very well paid and will continue to receive his wages whilst injured. In terms of his career at Liverpool nothing seems to be going right for him. First he is signed for a club record by a manager who he respects and who had been pursing him for years only to see the manager go before he joins the club. He then finds himself with a new manager who has very different ideas as to how the team should play and what is expected from him. The club then sell their star striker who had shouldered the goal scoring burden for the last 6-7 seasons increasing the pressure upon him to be a success. He suffers a serious leg break in the early part of his first season despite a promising start. He comes back from injury and manages a complete season which culminates in him scoring a crucial goal in the FA Cup Final. The season has not been an easy one for him as the manager (quite rightly) has altered the team and brought in a striker who is completely different to him. Despite frequently playing out of position or coming on as a substitute he was our top scoring striker. He is made aware by the manager that the club will be looking to sell him in the summer despite his wishes to stay. He accepts this and looks forward to a World Cup and a fresh start in France. He suffers another leg break which means that he misses the World Cup and his proposed move back to France disappears. The result is that he is forced to remain a Liverpool player for the foreseeable future and his career is thrown into uncertainty. Any difficulties for the club caused by the loss of a transfer fee are minor by comparison. In financial terms the major cost of a player is now his wages. Transfer fees are spread over a number of years and even assuming he could have been sold for £7-8 million, it is unlikely that more than about £2 million would have been received in the next 12 months for him. The real benefit of a transfer is that is removes the cost of a players wages from the budget for the next season. I would be surprised if the club did not have some sort of insurance policy in place to cover his wages whilst injured (I seem to remember some discussion about how Michael Owen's goal against Argentina in 1998 caused the club to have to pay a much bigger premium to insure him) and therefore it likely that the benefits under such a policy will compensate the club for the loss of the wage saving that would have resulted from his transfer. Rafa is a manager who likes to make plans for a number of different scenarios and I am fairly sure that this summer's transfer targets were not totally dependent upon the sale of Cisse. Clearly the figures will have to be re-jigged but this happens all the time. The most likely result is that a couple more of the fringe players will be loaned out to reduce the wage bill whilst Cisse is injured rather than the transfer budget (i.e the cost of transfer fees and wages payable in the next year in respect of new players) being trimmed. As a fan of LFC I take great pride in the fact that the club looks after its players when they suffer serious illness or injury even if their prospects of playing again or commanding a high transfer fee are bleak. The way we looked after Markus Babbel and the support offered to Mark Gonzales after his injury (and he was not even a LFC player!) goes to our credit when we seek to sign new players. I think the last thing in Rick Parry's and Rafa's minds right now is the loss of a potential transfer fee and that they will be offering uneqivocal support to Cisse. We, as fans, should be ashamed of ourselves if we cannot do likewise. Get well soon Djibril.

Does anyone know the name of the tune that's played when the second half commences? "Carmina Burana" by Carl Orff

The red card was for the so-called professional foul i.e. a foul that denies the player an obvious goal scoring opportunity. It was clear that Lehmann deliberately took out the man as he went past him so as to deny him the opportunity of slotting the ball in the net. At that point in time the foul had been committed and it was a sending-off offence. The problem was that the referee ought to have waited to see whether notwithstanding the foul Barcelona had an advantage. If Eto had got to his feet and still knocked the ball in there would have been a debate about whether the foul had denied him the goal scoring opportunity but he did not. The problem was that the referee blew for the foul so quickly that he could not allow the goal that subsequently followed (as no doubt the Arsenal players would have claimed to have heard the whistle and stopped playing). It often happens that when a referee allows play to continue following a cautionable offence, he subsequently goes back and cautions the offender for the original offence despite not giving the free kick. The offender cannot then claim the advantage to mitigate the seriousness of the offence. I actually think that the referee ought to have sent Cech off for the foul on Baros in the semi final last year and allowed the goal. Clearly some referees like to try and mitigate the rigours of the law but I think Lehmann had to be sent off for the foul he committed last night regardless of whether the referee awarded a free kick for the foul or had played advantage.

Watching and listening to the self appointed "special one", I can't help but feel that he is tired of Chelsea and has set his sights on managing the Portugal national team. I do not see him having any desire to manage another club and he has made no secret of his desire to manage his own national team at some point. Given that the FA were seeking to nick Scolari for England, it would not surprise me if Mourinho has already been sounded out by the Portugal FA. Personally, I don't think it will make much difference to Chelsea whether he stays or goes since their strength lies in the ability to field a team full of established internationals with the same in reserve. I think this season has shown the limitations of Mourinho tactically and that a lot of Chelsea's results are down to individual moments of brilliance from one of their multitude of "star players" rather than their manager. The problem is that very few teams in the league can put out a team to match Chelsea's quality of players and even fewer have sufficient quality squads to be able to match them over the course of a league season. The chances of Chelsea dropping points against lesser teams over the course of season is therefore less than it is for others. I suspect that Mourinho has come to realise that the real challenge with Chelsea is in the big games against sides who can match their starting XI and his record in these games is good but not impressive. Add in the personal factor of a huge ego and it all points to Mourinho jumping ship before the tide turns - the only question is whether he genuinely believes he will win the Champions League with Chelsea next season. If he does, then I suspect he will have one more go at it next season. Whatever happens I doubt he will still be at Chelsea at the end of next season.

If I remember correctly there was a great deal of enthusiasm for Souness when Kenny resigned. The main problem with the team was the defence. It was a problem created by the past success of Hansen, Lawrenson and Gillespie in the role and the failure to groom a replacement whilst these players were still in their prime. The UEFA rule was not a problem for Dalglish because we did not play in Europe due to the Heysal ban. The biggest problem for Souness was that there was a shortage of quality defenders available and he did not have the luxury of signing a player and then conditioning him to the Liverpool style before throwing him into action. This meant that he had to take a chance on finding defenders who could immediately slot into the team and, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to criticise some of his signings. I never understood the sale of Beardsley but I think Souness tends to form opinions on players fairly quickly and does not take as much time as other managers in looking at players. I think he tended to sign individuals who where outstanding for their teams but who were not necessarily suited to play the way that Liverpool had developed over the previous 20 years. Dean Saunders particularly comes to mind as do Nigel Clough, Neil Ruddock and Julian Dicks. A lot of Kenny's signings, particularly after 1988 were not as good as what had come before. The problem was that in Bill Shankly and Bob Paisley we had two of the best talent spotters in the business. Following on from the men who had found players such as Keegan, Clemence, Hansen, Whelan and Nicol in lower divisions or in Ireland and Scotland wqas always going to be an impossible task which unfortunately Souness could not meet. In fairness, I suspect that the decline which started in 1990 would have happened anyway even if Kenny had stayed but it might not have been as bad or as prolonged as it turned out to be.

I don't think he was helped by the fact that Chelsea scored fairly soon after he came on and the game plan that had been given to him by Benitez went out of the window. The tactic of having him on the shoulder of last defender was designed to keep Chelsea stretched and enable us to play further up the field. When Chelsea scored it was noticable that we started to defend very deep and he became isolated. I suspect he is low on confidence at the moment and this cannot have helped, particularly when we broke out of defence and were looking to him to run on the ball. The fact that he has not played the lone striker role much this season cannot have helped in the situation and it was obvious that Benitez was trying to get fresh instructions to him to help him cope. At the end of the day he had a poor game but it is worth remembering that substitutions can often prove counter productive with the substitute struggling to get into the game. I did not seem much from Robben or Duff (the latter in particular) which would have delighted Chelsea fans. In my totally biased view they were as bad as Cisse was for us.

It was the fact that the Valencia board delayed discussions on the renewal of Rafa's contract (which had a year to run) coupled with: a) the president/director of football's refusal to commit to a further 2 years (apparently said to Rafa on the day they won La Liga!); and b) approaches to other candidates including Claudio Ranieri before negotiations over a new contract commenced, that persuaded Rafa that his future was elsewhere. I am sure that the fact that he was offered a 5 year contract by us was a material factor in his decision to take the job. The fact that we are talking about extensions after less than 2 years clearly sends the message to Rafa that we value his services highly. Throw in the fact that his family seem settled and happy and the special bond that exists between players, manager and fans of LFC, Rafa probably feels that there is no better job available and the factors that caused him to sever ties with Valencia are completely absent here. I think Rafa, like Wenger, believes in honouring contracts he signs and therefore if he has signed an extension, it is a clear statement to prospective suitors that they are wasting their time looking at him.

If I remember correctly Mourinho's quotes were before Houllier was sacked! Houllier left Liverpool on 24 May 2004, Porto played in the Champions League Final on the 26th (when it was obvious that Mourinho was going to Chelsea) and Mourinho was actually installed at Chelsea on 2 June. Rafa resigned from Valencia on 31 May. I suspect that Mourinho's inability to keep quiet mean't that he could not be approached until after Houllier left and by the time the position became available he was committed to Chelsea. It is hardly surprising that Mourinho would have preferred the Liverpool job since it presents a far greater challenge to an ambitious manager than having to manage football's equivalent of the Harlem Globetrotters. For Mourinho, Chelsea are merely his current employers and nothing that has happened in the last couple of years leads me to believe that he has any other attachment to the club. I suspect the same was true when Rafa first joined Liverpool but I am fairly certain that the bond has got stronger and that there is now at least some emotional attachment to the club.

I think it was common knowledge within European football circles that Rafa was having difficulties with the Valencia board and that he was putting on a brave face (but really unhappy) during his last year there. Mourinho was touting for the job before he won the European Cup and we were still in the UEFA Cup. If we had beaten Marseilles and reached the final who is to say that Houllier would have been sacked? By the time the position became available, Mourinho had got ino bed with the Russian and Rafa resigned at Valencia. We were extremely fortunate that things turned out the way they did but I doubt anyone at Liverpool thought that Rafa was going to be the next manager when Mourinho was mouthing off. You have to remember that Houllier was the first manager we had sacked in over 45 years!

I actually quite liked him. He seemed to be the sort of ref who is prepared to allow a degree more physical contact in challenges than others and the game flowed better as a result. Of course he makes mistakes which are then magnified on television and he seemed to adopt a different approach in the second half but I generally preferred him to the card-happy brigade who see football as a non-contact sport.

I saw virtually all of Souness' career at LFC and he was simply untouchable. There were many occasions when it looked like we had 13 or 14 players on the pitch. It was his consistent domination of midfield that played a large part in this. The players around him were good but, in my opinion, no better than the players alongside Gerrard today. Gerrard is capable of performances at the same level of Souness but does yet not do it for the full 90 minutes or as consistently as Souness. Souness also had a vicious streak which would not have gone down well in today's game but which was a necessary prerequisite in the late 70s and 80s. Gerrard simply cannot afford to include this in his game and therefore to compare the two of them is probably unfair.

I actually think that Mourinho was trying to avoid being drawn into the debate about Robben's behaviour and wanted to focus on the significance of a victory over the team that many of the press in his audience had held out as his closest rivals. Whilst his style is not to my taste and I do not detect any great passion for his club, Mourinho is a good manager who knows how to get under the opposition's skin. We would be hypocrites if we start to criticise his behaviour against us when we praised similar behaviour when he was managing Porto against United. In my view a classy manager would have criticised Robben or joined in with Rafa's joke (which was also designed to deflect the questions away from an issue which could have landed Rafa in trouble with the FA). What saddens me is that there is no manager who is prepared to publicly criticise a player who so obviously has feigned a foul/injury to secure an advantage for his team. I may be old fashioned but the general acceptance that Robben's behaviour yesterday is now part of the game sickens me. Before I get accused of LFC bias, I feel that Sissoko and even Gerrard (to name but two) go to ground far to easily and that football is now rapidly becoming a non-contact sport. It would have been a great statement if Wiley had sent off Robben and/or Gallas for their reactions to Reina's behaviour. I would like to see a team which: (a) does not surround the ref every time the opposition get awarded a free kick or, even worse, when an opponent commits a bad foul on one of our team; and (b) do not audition for the local amateur dramatic society every time an opponent comes near them. It is the fact that Chelsea players are regularly guilty of both of the above that makes it so hard to acknowledge how good a side they are. The fact that Mourinho is inactive in stamping out these distractions causes me to have no respect for him.