Billy Talbot

I'd love to come on a sub...

In summation sez Lord Chief Justice jr_ewing I have heard both accounts from the accusatory party and those in defendant. I can say that both have their legal merit. If not their moral. On the one hand a Football club whose fortune relies many a good persons' demeanour not to mention the livelihood of thousands who live and work in the vicinity, the locale and those who consider themselves part of a worldwide fan club. On the other we have Mr Hicks and Mr Gilette. Surely the fairest way (which is what justice is supposed to be a representation of) to decide this... is to let the sale go through...

He'd a probably spent the last week cramming for his law exams.

Aye, the lawfulness of the decision to sell depends on the Directors clause - nothing else. If Broughton is correct and only he can change the board then the sale will go through as it's been voted for by a majority. And - as Broughton says - now they're in default, the directors must act in the best interest of the major creditors not in the best interest of the shareholders. If RBS screwed this up - and Hicks still has the right to change the board - then the sale will not go through as there's no majority decision. So the ruling has nothing to do with the lawfulness of the sale. All to do with who can change the board. If Hicks can get a ruling on that in his favour and stump up the cash from somewhere to pay RBS before the 15th. There'll be f*** all anyone can do about him being in charge. If he gets the ruling and doesn't pay RBS - RBS will be able to put us into admin and force a sale.

Not only that - but I don't think he realises that it's a style that relies on the opposition underestimating how well drilled you are and how quick you are to counter. We don't get that at Liverpool. The opposition invariably raise their game against us as they usually know they have to in order to get a result. Either that or the moment they see us as fragile we're a big scalp there for the taking. Every game is either a big game for us, or for the oppo. He didn't have to consider these things at Fulham at all. He did at Blackburn and look how that ended.

That's exactly how it reads. He doesn't see himself as part of the team whilst we're doing badly. He's doing his best to disassociate himself from it. I bet if "the team" were doing well it'd be all we and us. At the moment it's they and them.

Yep. He gave all that out in the pre-match too when asked about his "approach".

Yep - and they give insights into which part of his personality allowed him to become a great football manager. I'm pretty sure they weren't the sort of traits RH get's it in the neck for. The ones that should be ignored whilst he's judged on results...

Yes - but in order to be successful, there'd be part of his personality that would be suited to him being a successful football manager. I'd find it very, very f***ing odd if those traits which allowed him to be a success, didn't express themselves in other ways. Similarly, I'd find it odd if personality traits which expressed themselves in other parts his life, didn't effect his capability to be a successful football manager. If not - he'd have to be some kind of psychopath.

Ok Wayne. So why not redefine everything to suit your argument? That would make things much simpler Who cares if it's personality, man management or whatever. Which part of his personality does his management stem from? Is that a different part than the persona he presents to tv cameras? Is there any overlap? I expect a psychologist's report on my desk by Wednesday morning.

Ok - so you weren't being facetious? I don't think complaining about his conduct his in press conferences and his inability to come to terms with what is expected of him as the most public of faces of the club can be shot down by "only judge him on results". Especially when the results have s****. It's natural to connect his persona to results when both have been so bad.

Yeah - cos a manager's personality has no bearing at all on results.

For the record I'd just like to say I never wanted Roy Hodgson as manager. I repeatedly posted such. I said we'd start worse than we were last season and then not get any better. It was his away record with Fulham I had problems with. And his as Blackburn. If he hadn't have had that cup run last season he'd have never have been considered. That's one cup run in 35 years... He always was a bad appointment - very, very unlikely to succeed in any way acceptable to most Liverpool fans. I saw it coming. I never thought for one second we'd be challenging for 4th. If the majority of posters on here were happy with his appointment - which I don't believe by the way - and saw us challenging for 4th, it would just be a sad indictment of the forum, who I generally think, for the most part - with greater access to relevant information than those who just read the papers and watch SSN, to have a greater chance of forming a well rounded, considered view. That's because we've gone from having a manager who was clearly good enough - to a manager who clearly isn't. Board support or not.

Well I agree, but what if their alternative was to watch another 2 bids be turned down and us go into admin - and then be sold on anyway. At least this way in this scenario - they can win. Doing nothing might have been an inevitable loss.

That's what I'm thinking too. Either that or the plan is to give RBS a premise to foreclose and send us into admin. Whilst at the same time taking G&H's eye off the ball in terms of refinancing. The alternative being not finding a buyer in time and increasing the chance that RBS roll the debt over. Which surely they can't do now.

Although both are / were operating in the same circumstances they are judged and to some extent have been employed with different criteria. Rafa's job was win leagues and cups. Hodgson's job is / was to get more out of an "underachieving squad". Which one has been most successful?

I'd maybe add Hamsik - Am looking forward to watching him - more than am watching us in the Napoli game. By Luis you mean Luisão? Saurez? Muller (never would happen) I'd like at least one "marquee" signing. Someone who I've heard of who I know a bit about and would give me something to judge a new manager on how he plays him. I just want the hodge to hodge the f*** off. And yes. I'd like Aquilani back.

I'm still having a running debate with a Bournemough fan who thinks we've got the best man. He thinks we should get rid of the players before we get rid of Roy. He reckons Roy is as good as Rafa.

generally you need pace to play wide in a 4. Unless you can bend it like d****ead. Jovanovic strengths to me seem like his dribbling and niggling. The closer to goal he is, the more impact he'll have on the game.

changing the direction of the pitch would be a good idea anyway. The sun get's in our goalies eyes if we want to attack the Kop 2nd half for long stretches of the season now KOs aren't 3 oclock so much.

Kev, this line of questioning makes no sense at all. You're asking "so you think such and such is true, so IF such and such did such, then you'd think such and such was the same as the other?". Of course that's true - it's tautological. As a relevant question though it depends on the IF. Which is unknowable. Do you think Rafa after playing 4-2-3-1 for the last few seasons, would sign a player who plays on the left in that sort of 3, or on the left of a 4-3-3 for his old club, where he won player of the of the season, and where he played for his country in the world cup, would then play him tucked in on the left of a 4-4-2? Do you think Rafa would have us playing 442 at all? IF so... Anyway... I think there's 3 things with Jovanovic. 1) He's still adpating... 2) He's been played out of position 3) We won't know if he'll be really useful to us or not until either or preferably both of 1 & 2 become less important factors.

Surely not after so many of them felt the community shouldn't be deprived of it's historical victorian parkland.

Come home!

The Boston Rod Sex is indeed a lovely little cherry on a lovely big cake.