GWistooshort

Unfortunately I haven't seen him play since he joined Barca, but based on what I saw of him when he played for Sevilla (which was quite a bit) I think he'd still get exposed in that system He's got great energy & quick recovery speed, but he needs cover because of he is so attacking Come to think of it, Carra would be perfect for the role in that formation

We need someone who can cover for Torres if he is injured or play upfront with him if Gerrard is injured, but who is either able to play somewhere else in the side when they are both fit or is happy to back-up & able to perform to the required standard when called upon This is why (coupled with the fact he could be available as he's coming to the end of his contract & may be open to leaving Arsenal given their lack of a challenge over the past few years) I think Robin Van Persie would be a good signing - he can play upfront when Torres is injured/rested or with Torres when Gerrard is injured/rested or we want to play with 2 upfront & otherwise he can play on the left of 3 behind Torres with Gerrard in the middle of the 3 & ideally Joe Cole on the right of it I think the failed Keane experiment has shown hopefully once & for all that we shouldn't disrupt the Torres/Gerrard partnership & I can't see how Villa would fit in without doing that & he obviously isn't just going to be back-up for Torres

In effect tho, Stevie would be playing right mid, certainly he would need to be when we didn't have the ball or we'd be wide open down that side & we would suffer from a lack of width if he didn't when we had the ball as well (or Torres would get pulled out right rather than being in the box where we want him), which means that the arrival of Villa would disrupt the Gerrard/Torres partnership

"I am quite optimistic that I will be ready for the match versus Real Madrid and, if the ankle holds out, I will also be at Old Trafford for the Man United game. "I hope to be available for both of the matches because they will be two great games. The ankle injury has been giving me some trouble and the recovery process is taking longer than I hoped, but I think I will be ready. "I'm happy in England and I enjoy playing here...and after winning a title with the national team, I would love to win a trophy with Liverpool. This is my biggest wish right now. "My future is tied with Liverpool, because I still have four years on my contract. Therefore, should Rafa leave, I will stay on and fulfil my contract. My wish is that Rafa extends his contract with Liverpool." http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/200...15875-21175068/

In my view the priority for us this summer is (as last summer) to: 1. increase our attacking threat & 2. find at least one other player who will guarantee us 15+ goals a season We are hampered by a combination of having limited spending power & the lack of suitable players in the areas we could improve in - full backs, wide midfielder, another striker Rafa tried to address this last summer by signing more attacking full backs for each side, a better left sided midfielder & a 20 goal a season striker who should have had no problems in adjusting to the Premiership & whose signing would allow Gerrard to play centre-mid thereby in theory providing us with 3 players guaranteeing us 15-20+ goals a season each. Although there was a lot of concern about breaking up the Torres/Gerrard partnership, you can understand Rafa's approach, especially given the lack of suitable wide players that we could afford Unfortunately 3 of the 4 signed have so far been failures, with only Reira having had a positive impact, although he's only a squad player in my view I think the failed signing of Keane has shown that we shouldn't break up the Torres/Gerrard partnership so this summer I would like to see the following transfers: * Joe Cole signed to play on the right of 3 behind Torres (near the end of his current contract & hopefully tiring of the Chelski circus) * Robin Van Persie signed to play on the left of the 3 (also near the end of his current contract & hopefully open to a move with Arsenal failing to challenge again) * A decent injury-free right back signed to challenge Arbeloa * Dossena, Voronin, Degen, Pennant, Itandje & Leto sold/leaving * Lucas sold if a better back up centre-mid can be found as Lucas has shown this season he can't consistently deliver to the standard required

Thanks for that Watching the clips I can't wait to have last season's fully fit Fernando back again

Agree, I think Downing would struggle at Liverpool because of the higher level (greater expectation, more games & different approach from the opposition), not being an ever-present in the team & the lack of an arm around his shoulder

Daily Telegraph 06 Mar 2009 Liverpool 'over-priced', say Kuwaitis By Paul Kelso The Kuwaiti family negotiating to buy a stake in Liverpool have threatened to end talks with the club’s American co-owners unless they reduce their £500 million asking price. Telegraph Sport disclosed last month that the Al-Kharafi family was in talks with Tom Hicks and George Gillett, but the Kuwaitis have taken the unusual step of publicly talking down the price. It is understood that the talks centre on the Kuwaitis purchasing Gillett’s share with Hicks intent on staying on. Rafed Al-Kharafi and another potential investor, Abdulla Al-Sager, visited Anfield and the club’s training ground as part of the American’s presentations, but on Thursday Al-Sager said talks had deteriorated. “Things are going really badly because they’re asking for too much,” he said. “I don’t think anything will happen unless we get a better price, but we’re still talking,” he said. The Al Kharafis are among a number of potential Middle Eastern and American investors talking to Hicks about taking a third-party stake in the club to break the deadlock on the board and help reduce bank debt. Hicks and Gillett bought the club in 2007 for £220m and have a £350m bank facility against the club due to be re-negotiated in July. The relationship between the men has since soured. It has also emerged that the Al-Kharafis are being sued by former advisers Seymour Pearce for unpaid bills arising from a previous attempt to buy the club last July. Seymour Pearce chairman Keith Harris is suing the Al-Kharafis for £288,000 in unpaid fees due after he affected the introduction between the Americans and the family, and will increase the claim to cover a success fee if the club do end up under their control. Harris was allegedly left unpaid after the Al-Kharafis walked away from negotiations without explanation last July. Those negotiations had been started by Gillett, but the most recent talks are an initiative by the Hicks camp. Hicks is keen to retain a stake in the club and head the management team, with a view to ultimately building a new stadium. Plans to replace Anfield are on hold because of the financial crisis, though planning permission and designs have been agreed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...y-Kuwaitis.html

Liverpool and Newcastle could be paying a Ranson 2nd March 2009 Ray Ranson, the footballer turned businessman who transformed the finances of Coventry City, has emerged as a strong candidate for the chief executive roles at both Liverpool and Newcastle. Liverpool are searching for a replacement for Rick Parry who leaves at the end of the season, while Newcastle are expected to re-structure their club management operation this summer. Ranson's name has already been mooted at Anfield and St James' Park after his extraordinary success as executive chairman at Championship club Coventry, who had debts of nearly £40million when the former Manchester City player led a consortium takeover in December 2007. Since then Ranson has transformed the set-up at Coventry to the extent that the club are operating without a bank overdraft and have a promising young team under manager Chris Coleman. Ranson, also well known for developing the Pro-Zone tactics aid, said: 'It's flattering that other clubs are taking an interest in what we're doing at Coventry, but there's a long way to go.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1...ing-Ranson.html

This one seemed the most likely........ Ex-chief Morgan fights to head Redrow again By Karl West Last updated at 12:09 AM on 04th March 2009 Redrow chief Neil Fitzsimmons looks set to be ousted from the struggling housebuilder after founder and former chairman Steve Morgan told the board he wants to head the group again. Morgan is seeking an executive role after increasing his stake in the North Wales-based builder to 23.5 per cent from 17 per cent. The lifelong Liverpool football fan, who owns Midlands club Wolverhampton Wanderers, yesterday outlined his demands in a face-to-face meeting with Redrow chairman Alan Bowkett. Second coming: Wolverhampton Wanderers owner Steve Morgan is coming home to Redrow A source said: 'He (Morgan) wants to be the boss, and there is no point in having two bosses, there is just no room. So that would change. 'Neil Fitzsimmons is a grownup, he recognises that what shareholders want, shareholders must get.' The source said investors were rallying behind Morgan's second coming. Shares in Redrow closed up 15p, or over 11 per cent, at 150p. His proposal evokes memories of the return to front-line action of Sir Lawrie Barratt during the last major property downturn in 1991. He came out of retirement to guide Barratt - the builder he founded - through the turmoil. Redrow last week crashed to a first-half loss of £46.2million after being hammered by the housing market slowdown. Morgan has waited patiently for the best moment to strike. Last October, he snapped up 14.4million shares in Redrow from Toscafund Asset Management, taking his stake up to 16.24 per cent. It is thought this cost him around £24million. He topped up his stake this week to 23.5 per cent with another purchase from Tosca, run by former financial analyst Martin Hughes, known affectionately as the rottweiler. This is believed to have set Morgan back just short of £15million. Tosca now owns 20.5 per cent of Redrow. The founder also controls stock that would potentially increase his holding to 29.9 per cent. Morgan founded Redrow in 1974, floating it in 1994. He sold off 30 per cent of his holding in the float, making him nearly £100million. He sold a similar tranche in March 1997, netting another £93million. His third big share sale was in 2000 when he banked £115million after cutting his stake from 35 per cent to just 5 per cent after leaving the group. The businessman is estimated to have a fortune of about £430million. This includes money he made from Redrow, plus £90million from the sale of a stake in luxury hotels chain De Vere Hotels & Leisure group. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1...drow-again.html

Paul Tomkins deals with it in his latest article as well..... TOMKINS: END SHOCKING TRANSFER MYTH Paul Tomkins 04 March 2009 Okay, it must end NOW! I've reached breaking point. The shocking transfer myth must be put to rest, once and for all. I've tried in the past, but the media misinformation continues to gather pace like some ill-founded rumour. It's dangerous, because it causes unjust criticism. Let's make one thing clear: Liverpool have nowhere near the most expensive squad in the Premiership. No. Where. Near. Indeed, there are three clubs who have spent at least 50 per cent more on their current squad than Liverpool. Shocked? Well, you should be if you believe what's spouted out on TV. But it's true. And one of the clubs is not a name you'd necessarily expect. It doesn't help that some people – such as Jamie Redknapp last night – focus on Rafa's gross spend, rather than the net amount. Effectively, this means counting all the right-backs he's bought as one big outlay, rather than looking at how he's replaced one with another for roughly the same £2m fee. Working with just the gross spend, you add the £2m of Josemi to the £2m value of Kromkamp (even though it was a swap), to the £2.6m paid for Arbeloa. But none of these players were at the club at the same time, and each was traded to get to the point where an outright success was secured, as happened with the final purchase. So even though the total cost of getting Arbeloa was just the £2.6m paid, people will use a figure almost three times as high. That is illogical. (Another note, Jamie: Liverpool have three right-backs on the books, not just one; but the promising Darby, like Arbeloa, was injured and Degen has had a first season ruined by various ailments. So it's wrong to criticise the manager for an unbalanced squad and playing a midfielder out of position when three right-backs are unavailable.) It's like the housing market: you don't just go in and buy a mansion straight from school. (Okay, so maybe some footballers do, but not the normal people of this world. As someone stuck with renting, I'm speaking generally here!) You start with an affordable house; you then use the money from selling that to buy your next property. Most people can only get to own a big house having traded their way up over a number of years. Yet when someone asks how much you spent on your house, you don't add all the houses you've ever bought together, do you? If you own a £220,000 house, you don't say £470,000 because you add the £90,000 starter home and the £160,000 step up. That would be moronic. According to the excellent and reliable www.LFCHistory.net, Rafa's gross spend is approximately £188m, but his net spend is only £108m, given that around £80m has been recouped. (I'd hazard a guess that a large proportion of the £108m net spend has also been recouped through Champions League progress rewards, particularly with the Reds being the top-ranked team based on his five-year tenure.) So it's easy to pluck a figure of '£195m' from the air, live on air, and make it seem like that should make a team champions, or ultra-close challengers. But it's only the cost of the current squad that counts. Because that's all a manager can choose from; he can't go back in time and select a player he sold in order to trade up, just as you can't just turn up to one of your old houses and let yourself in. You simply cannot add Rafa having spent £5.8m on Sissoko to the £18m on Mascherano, because the two were never part of the same set-up; one was bought and sold for a profit, and as with a house, the money reinvested in a step-up. If Sissoko isn't bought and then sold, Mascherano probably doesn't arrive. Is that really too tough to grasp? From my own experience in writing 'Dynasty', I can attest that researching transfer fees is never easy, given the amount of undisclosed fees and various add-ons (for various things, like appearances, trophies won, national caps and the cultivation of unexpectedly daring hairstyles). But taking each fee as the most a club has expect to pay when add-ons are activated, I've calculated the cost of the most expensive squads in the league, and listed them below. (Note: while it's impossible to be 100 per cent accurate with the figures in the public domain, I'd say that overall it's at least 95 per cent of the true amount, and with rival teams I've actually been generous and excluded a couple of players whose cost just isn't listed anywhere I could find.) The most expensive squads (excluding players out on long-term loan) are as follows: Chelsea £207m Manchester United £206m* Spurs £188m Manchester City £140m Liverpool £127m (*£226m if Carlos Tevez's deal made permanent, given that it is initially a unique two-year £10m agreement, and very different from 99.9 of transfer deals. Effectively United are winning games with a £30m player.) So what does this tell us? Let's start with the leaders. United's squad contains the most home-grown players, such as Giggs, Scholes, Neville, O'Shea, Brown and Fletcher, who all arrived for free. So that shows that it is a long-established core supplemented by a lot of expensive signings added one by one to a unified collection. In other words, classic, spot-on building of a squad when already established at the very top. But it shows that even if you work with the unfair use of Rafa's gross spend, it still doesn't match what Ferguson has spent on his current squad, let alone those who have been bought and sold for record fees in the past. And this is utterly, utterly critical, and beyond the grasp of some people who cannot analyse things with common sense. After all, what does it matter how much Rafa has spent since 2004 if Ferguson is currently fielding players like Ferdinand (£30m) and Ronaldo (£12.8m) who were bought before then? Isn't Rafa – in the real world – competing with a team whose construction started well before he arrived? Unless Ferguson is banned from fielding players like Ferdinand and Ronaldo (which would be illogical), or forced to start from scratch in 2004 (again illogical), it is not a fair comparison, is it? – I mean, come on, use your brain for a second here. After all, how much as Harry Redknapp spent since he took over at Spurs? I make it almost £50m. How much has Rafa spent since Harry Redknapp took over at Spurs? Nothing. But only a nutter would compare the two in this deeply skewed way. Rafa has been in his job about five times as long as Harry, so you obviously wouldn't dare compare their teams. And yet Ferguson has been in his job about five times as long as Rafa, and yet the Spaniard is expected to have Liverpool as champions by now. Chelsea and Spurs are actually the more interesting examples in many ways. I knew Spurs had spent a lot, but to have a current squad that cost almost £200m shocked me. Add together the cost of Bentley, Pavyluchenko, Palacios, Bale, Defoe, Bent, Keane and Modric and you more-or-less end up with the cost of Liverpool's entire squad. I could be sarcastic – or media-style sensationalistic – and say that with that much spent, any manager should be able to win almost all of his matches, but it wouldn't be fair or logical. It's far more complex than that, and even a good manager like Redknapp has his work cut out. Chelsea and Spurs have had seven managers between them since 2007. This means different men making expensive signings and ending up with a mixed squad. Based on expenditure, both of these clubs are massively underachieving this season. Almost certainly to blame for that is the hierarchy having itchy fingers when it comes to firing managers. Of course, this analysis doesn't include wages, either. You don't get the very top players in the world without also having to pay them a king's ransom. Michael Ballack must be most expensive free transfer ever, with wages reported to be around £130,000 a week, or about £30m over five years. Again, Liverpool are no way near the highest payers, either. So there you have it. By all means print it out and pass it around; 'pass it on', as the saying goes, including to those in the media who could do with reading it. By all means quibble over some of the finer details, as there is a tolerance of a few percent on the accuracy of the figures, but the overall gist is very much sound and robust. Note: as all good schoolteachers tell you to do, my workings are there to see, and will be available to view on my website. http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N...090304-1429.htm

Something with some balance from the Guardian today Hughes the poorer after offloading Jo Robbie Keane's Liverpool exit attracted the critics, but Mark Hughes's equally hasty decision to ship out Jo to rivals Everton could carry a higher cost You may have noticed that Liverpool manager Rafael Benítez copped quite a lot of flak for offloading Robbie Keane. Jilting a £20m striker after just a handful of games and with no obvious replacement to hand? Lunacy, mocked many. The Spaniard has been so widely lambasted for the decision that it would be no surprise if he convened a press conference this afternoon to read out another prepared denunciation of a rival manager. His carefully scripted statement, which giddy media goons would no doubt insist on describing as a rant, might go something like this: "Manchester City's Mark Hughes is tonight so desperate he's contemplating throwing Valeri Bojinov, who's played one minute of Premier League football in the last year, into the fray against Aston Villa because he's without the injured Craig Bellamy, Robinho, Benjani Mwaruwari … and an £18m striker whom he jilted in January after just a handful of games. Yet no one gives him grief about letting Jo go. That is a fact." City choosing to let Jo go on loan to Everton was stranger than Liverpool's sale of Keane, but has attracted little criticism. At some point after signing Keane, Benítez changed his mind about the formation he wanted to play this season and the Irishman, whose performances probably prompted that volte face, no longer fitted in. Hughes, by contrast, has been crying out for a tall centre-forward off whom Bellamy could feed. He lamented after the recent defeats at Stoke and Portsmouth that City desperately needed "a physical presence up front". Jo was not Hughes's signing per se – the move was in place before the Welshman's appointment, even if the club maintained he could have vetoed it if he'd wanted to – but it is interesting to recall how he described Jo on his arrival: "He is technically excellent and we feel he has the physical presence to cope with the trials of a Premier League season." If that description was accurate, as opposed to just some puffery the manager felt obliged to proffer, then 21-year-old Jo could be classed alongside Micah Richards as a youngster who has regressed under Hughes. Maybe all Jo needed was time or better nurturing to settle into his new environment. After all, that's what critics insisted Keane needed at Anfield and he is a Premier League veteran not a youngster playing in this country for the first time. Jo may have scored only a modest three goals in his 12 starts at City and rarely shown the power required to thrive but he has pedigree to suggest he could have come good – in Brazil, after all, he is regarded as reliable back-up to the monstrous Adriano; in Russia he was exceptional for two seasons and, of course, he looked like a splendid target man on his Everton debut under David Moyes. So Hughes's judgment may have been rash, or maybe there are lifestyle issues we don't know about. What is certain is that City seem to have been prematurely convinced that none of this was going to matter because Roque Santa Cruz would soon arrive from Blackburn. Jo has only gone out on loan, of course, and City may consider his stint at Goodison part of his adaptation process. But that brings us on to the main curiosity about the move: lending him to another English team in the hope that he will come back more battle-hardened (or increase his value) makes sense, but why give him to direct rivals? Keane's Spurs pose no threat to Liverpool, but at the time the loan deal was done it was perfectly conceivable that Everton and Manchester City would find themselves competing against each other for the last Uefa Cup berth. They still are, in theory, though Everton now seem to have secured a spot above seventh (currently the qualification cut-off point, although that could change depending on events in the FA Cup). Think of Andrea Dossena. Now think how much closer Liverpool might be to Manchester United if Sir Alex Ferguson had allowed Gabriel Heinze to join Liverpool (answer: a little, probably). The Argentinian was no longer needed at Old Trafford, but United were prepared to go to court to prevent him from defecting to rivals. City, by contrast, gifted David Moyes a solution to Everton's striking problems. And now have none to their own. Money may be too trite to mention around Eastlands, but Hughes could soon discover that transfers can still carry a high cost. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/20...ty-everton-loan

Mascherano played at right back for the first time in his career last night as Rafa Benitez sought a new temporary solution to fill that position as the Reds boss again had to make do without injured duo Alvaro Arbeloa and Philipp Degen. The Argentinian midfielder reckons it was only a one off but insists he is happy to play anywhere required for the good of the team. “The boss told me that he needed someone to play in that position so I tried to do my best,” he said. “I don’t know if I was good or not but I tried to give the team as much as possible. “Everyone knows that I am a central midfielder but sometimes I have played on the right hand side for the national team but never before at right back. “It was a new experience but I hope that I helped the team because that is the most important thing. “I always try to think about the team and if the team needs me to play in that position I will try to do my best. “I know that I am at my best in the centre of midfield but you never know what can happen and if we have some players with injuries – like we did tonight with Arbeloa and Degen – then I do not have a problem with filling in for them.” http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-f...252-23061652/2/

It's not like he's getting any experience of work tho, is it

The core is great - it's the edges (ie the wide midfielders & full backs) that need improving At the moment we don't have any players in those positions that are the same level of quality as the core players - most of them (Arbeloa, Aurelio, Insua, Riera, Kuyt, Benayoun) are useful squad players & we could probably accomodate 2 of them in the team at any one time if our other 2 players in those positions were the same level of quality as the core players I agree that we are probably only 2 Torres-type signings (in terms of quality, impact & cost) away from being where we need to be. The question is, as always, who are these players?

The Times March 2, 2009 Liverpool will never embrace future with one foot in past Oliver Kay, Football Correspondent "Life at Anfield was quiet. A few people might mill around during the week, trying to spot a star or snatch an autograph, but it was only on match days that any real crowd gathered. Go to Old Trafford any day of the week and you will see . . . crowds gathering, buying tickets, drifting around the souvenir shop, queuing for the museum or simply gawping at the stadium. Old Trafford is supermarket football.” The above paragraph could easily have been written last week, but in fact it was written 15 years ago in Stephen F. Kelly’s biography of Graeme Souness. Kelly went on to portray Manchester United as a corporate monster and Liverpool as a cosy corner shop, but he suggested that things were changing, that the Merseyside club were evolving into “a multimillion-pound business staffed by well-paid executives in Marks & Spencer suits and where success is imperative on and off the field”. How did that go, then? In one sense it sounds like a bygone age and in another it feels as if nothing has changed. As United close in on Liverpool’s proud record of 18 league titles — it was 18-7 when the Premier League was launched in 1992 — the instinct among the Merseyside club’s supporters may be to bemoan the disharmony in the boardroom, Rafael Benítez’s contract saga, injuries to Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard or even just to blame Lucas Leiva, but the reality is that Liverpool are just about punching their weight on the pitch while falling dramatically short in all other departments. On the pitch, Liverpool have a team capable of beating Real Madrid away from home in the Champions League. As a club, though, they are so dogged by infighting and inertia that it is difficult to see what happens next. Everywhere you look, it is a collision of cultures, the old guard at odds with the new — with Rick Parry, the chief executive, ousted and David Moores, the former chairman, contemplating stepping down from his honorary role as life president — and even the new at odds with the new. Parry’s departure has been portrayed as a move towards unity and, in the view of Tom Hicks, the co-owner, towards dynamism, but, barring a change of ownership or an enormous injection of cash, the underlying problems will remain. Every home match at Anfield generates about £1.5 million, meaning that their match-day revenue over an average season is likely to be about £37.5 million. United, their stadium full to its 76,000 capacity and their corporate lounges heaving every week, earn more than £3 million every time they play at Old Trafford. Last season their match-day revenue topped £100 million. It is one reason why their accounts for the financial year ending June 30, 2008, will see a turnover in excess of £300 million, the largest recorded by a British club. Liverpool simply cannot compete with that and, while a lack of dynamism or commercial vision has been a factor in their efforts to break away from the corner-shop mentality, it is not the biggest one. Ultimately it comes down to location, location, location and, whereas Old Trafford always had potential for expansion Anfield, hemmed between rows of Victorian terraces, remains every bit the corner shop. Much of the blame for that has been laid at Parry’s door, not least by Hicks, who has described the chief executive’s tenure as “disastrous”. As a global brand, Liverpool are woefully underdeveloped — incredibly, they were the last Premier League club to have their own website and did not even have a commercial director until the appointment of Ian Ayre in 2007 — but the shortfall in commercial revenue (£41 million in the 2006-07 campaign, against United’s £56 million) does not begin to reflect match days. Parry cannot be accused of hiding from that fact. Almost as soon as he had taken office, he identified the need to relocate. But all their efforts over the past decade have been hampered by planning issues, a lack of funding, rising construction costs and now the global economic climate. Moores sold the club to Hicks and George Gillett Jr on the premise that they would provide the money to deliver the new stadium while supplying Benítez with funds to strengthen his squad. Instead they have delivered discord and wrangling, not just with Parry and Benítez but with each other. It is an utter mess, with Gillett desperate to sell his stake but seemingly intent on being obstructive for as long as he struggles to find a buyer. It is why the feeling persists that Benítez has made Liverpool about as competitive as they can expect to be in the Premier League while somehow making them one of the most feared teams in Europe. That will not prevent the inevitable gnashing of teeth on Merseyside when United draw level with their total of 18 league titles in May. But, for as long as Liverpool remain at such a competitive disadvantage, it cannot be classed as underachievement. If Parry could turn the clock back to 2007, he would not allow Hicks and Gillett anywhere near the place. If he could turn it back ten years, he might approve a full-scale redevelopment of Anfield. As it is, he will leave the club in May much as he found it and as Moores found it when he took over as chairman in 1991 — in need of investment, in need of direction and, above all, in need of the nineteenth league title that continues not just to elude them, but to pass them by completely. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle5827985.ece

The Telegraph 29 Feb 2009 How Rick Parry walked alone after relationship with Rafael Benitez fell apart By Rory Smith The seeds of Rick Parry's demise were sown long before Tom Hicks and George Gillett had heard of Anfield or Rafa Benitez cast his eye over Gareth Barry. Instead, the Liverpool chief executive was a marked man from the moment one million Liverpool fans who thronged the city to celebrate the miracle of Istanbul started to disperse. In the immediate aftermath of that remarkable night, the club's captain and heartbeat, Steven Gerrard, declared he would reject Chelsea's overtures but Parry prevaricated over a new deal. Benitez came within a whisker of losing the man central to his plans to make Liverpool great again. Interference from those above him is a subject close to the Spaniard's heart. His clashes with Jesus Garcia Pitarch, the sporting director he could not work with at Valencia, have made him suspicious of the efficacy of those above him, of their intentions and agendas. From the moment Parry almost lost Gerrard, Benitez was on alert, waiting, watching. By the end of the summer of 2005, Parry's failure to agree a payment schedule with Benfica over the £10 million transfer of Simao Sabrosa had cost Benitez his main transfer target with the player's medical completed. The manager was furious. A year later, Parry could not seal an £8 million deal to sign Daniel Alves, the Sevilla full-back. Benitez knew Liverpool were not cash-rich when he joined from Valencia but, in the days before the club's current custodians arrived with pockets full of credit notes, it was less Liverpool's financial power than Parry's inability to close a deal which concerned the Spaniard. The manager who complained at the Mestalla that Garcia Pitarch bought him a lamp when he asked for a table found himself at a club where they knew what furniture to buy but could not remember their pin number. When Parry and Moores, in return for a substantial bonus payment and guarantees over their own futures, sold the club to Tom Hicks and George Gillett in February 2007, money was not supposed to be an issue. That, of course, proved to be a false dawn. After that year's Champions League final, Benitez complained the club had to back him in the transfer market if they were to remain at the top of the European game. Hicks and Gillett responded, signing Fernando Torres and Ryan Babel for a combined fee of up to £40 million, but it did not take long for the cracks to appear. In November that year, Benitez, furious the club's owners would not give him a concrete response to his detailed plans for the forthcoming January transfer window, revealed in a stormy press conference he had been told to concentrate solely on coaching his current squad. Behind the scenes, the club was in chaos. Benitez had threatened to leave for one of his long-time Italian suitors, including Inter Milan, if he was not given the requisite funds. In the tumult, Parry helped set up a meeting at Jurgen Klinsmann's California home, which he, Hicks and Gillett attended. The German was offered Benitez's job should the Spaniard quit. When details of the meeting became public the following April – contradicting Parry's earlier statement that he had known nothing of it – Benitez knew the situation could not continue. Sources inside Anfield suggest it was at that stage that the manager's relationship with Parry broke down irretrievably. That led to a clear division within the fractured power structure at the club. Hicks and Benitez became allies as the Texan, himself unimpressed by Parry's commercial performance, tried to oust the chief executive, who was saved only by Gillett. By the time of last summer's Gareth Barry debacle, yet another transfer failure from Parry, the die was almost cast. Hicks spoke in April of Parry as a "disaster" for allowing Liverpool's famous name to fall behind Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea in terms of sponsorship, merchandising and brand value. Parry, believing the club could be sold in the summer, clung on, believing he could survive as both Hicks and Gillett fell. As Benitez's contract negotiations started last year, it became obvious Hicks was going nowhere, actively seeking new investment to replace Gillett. The reality that Gillett would leave the club, leaving Parry a sitting duck, slowly dawned. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...fell-apart.html

The Guardian Saturday 28 February 2009 Boardroom shuffle at Anfield leaves Hicks holding the winning hand Andy Hunter • Gillett's weakened position behind the ousting of Parry • Texan determined to meet Benítez's contract demands There is a machiavellian side to Rafael Benítez and yet there is truth in his insistence that Rick Parry's departure does not constitute a personal victory for the manager of Liverpool. There is a winner from the first round of bloodletting in Anfield's internal power struggle, however, and the man with his arm aloft is Tom Hicks. While the chief executive's influence over transfers at Anfield has long been a cause of frustration for Benítez, who blames Parry for failing to land such players as Simao Sabrosa, Daniel Alves, Nemanja Vidic and, of course, Gareth Barry, it is the club's co-owner who has found the 54-year-old a more fundamental obstacle to his ambitions for Liverpool. The obstacle's decision to step aside suggests Parry sees Hicks' authority increasing - or at the very least, remaining - in the months ahead. Parry is not only chief executive of Liverpool, he is on its board of directors. Unbeknown to Hicks and Gillett when they bought the club in February 2007, he and former chairman David Moores were able to block their plans to burden the club with the full cost of the £218.9m takeover later that year. The clock has been ticking for him ever since, while it is now the future ownership of Liverpool, rather than the devil in the detail over transfer policy, that is Benítez's greatest concern ahead of signing a new contract. Hicks is determined to meet Benítez's contract wishes and Liverpool will attract a better asking price if a manager who guarantees Champions League riches is tied to the helm until 2013. The Texan's relationship with his chief executive, by contrast, is nonexistent and has been so since he called for Parry's resignation last April and labelled his tenure "a disaster". In a parallel to yesterday's announcement, it was just 48 hours after a momentous Champions league win, then over Arsenal in the quarter-finals, when Hicks sent a three-page letter to Anfield calling for the chief executive to resign. Two days after Liverpool's defeat of Real Madrid, he finally got his wish. Parry sat alongside Gillett for that Arsenal game and it was Hicks' assertion that the chief executive had sided with his co-owner in the battle for power that increased his determination to drive him out. Parry's admission early last year that the divided regime of Hicks and Gillett "is certainly not conducive to long-term planning and managing the club", was prescient and further provocation for the Texan. Hicks's resignation request outlined Parry's poor working relationship with Benítez and a failure to exploit Liverpool's commercial potential to the full as principal reasons for why he should go. So aligned were Parry and Gillett against Hicks at that time, however, that the chief executive simply issued a swift and defiant retort, telling his employer, in the politest possible terms, where to stick his resignation request. Unlike now, the pre-credit crunch Gillett was still plotting his own course to wrestle majority control from Hicks when the resignation issue erupted. Without the compliance of Gillett, who holds a 50% stake in Liverpool and has so far refused to sell even 1% to Hicks for fear of the increased debt his business partner would saddle on to the club, Parry's position was safe. It is arguably the change in dynamics at the very top of Liverpool, more than Benítez's insistence on obtaining more power from Parry over transfers, that has encouraged the chief executive to negotiate a way out of the club he supported as a boy. Gillett is now under greater financial pressure to sell his stake than Hicks and he is the partner facing the greater struggle to repay the personal loans involved in their £350m refinancing package, a deal that has to be repaid in July. Benítez has been promised a £30m transfer kitty this summer if that deal is refinanced. Stories that Gillett and Parry fell out over Wednesday's rumour that Benítez was about to lose his job are untrue. But with Gillett determined to find a way out of Anfield and no longer resisting Hicks to the same degree as the July deadline approaches - allowing Hicks to grant Benítez more of his contract demands than he would have liked, for example - Parry's support base has weakened. Then there is the increased probability that Hicks, as he has always pledged to do, will remain at the helm for the long term and insist on Parry's departure whether he becomes the majority shareholder or as conditions of diluting his holding. That prospect renders Parry's position untenable, but will also temper the relief among many Liverpool supporters that one part of the internal division at Anfield has been removed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/fe...-rafael-benitez

IRB? Jury's still out on whether he means Rafa or right back

I don't think Rafa was too happy about it, as you'd expect............ Journalist: Your injury problems meant you had to put Martin Skrtel at right-back against Middlesbrough. Could you explain why you didn't use Jamie Carragher in that position, and did you feel Martin struggled? Rafa: We had to do it for this game, so we did it. Journalist: Do you think he maybe had a tough time in that position? Was it a bit unnatural for him? Rafa: I was really pleased with him because he wanted to play in this position. It was good for the team. http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N...090303-0901.htm

A few interesting snippets in Oliver Kay's take on Parry's departure............ Analysis: Rick Parry departure strengthens position of Tom Hicks and Rafael Benitez Liverpool have been rocked yet again by news that Rick Parry, the chief executive, is to leave the club. Oliver Kay, The Times's Chief Football Correspondent, explains the significance of the latest development at Anfield First of all, what does Rick Parry’s departure mean for Liverpool? It could mean a variety of things, simply because of the number of different characters and agendas that he leaves behind at Anfield. Rafael Benitez might regard it as another battle won in his power struggle, or at least the removal of an obstacle from his path. Tom Hicks will regard it as a triumph, having first demanded Parry’s resignation last April. George Gillett Jr may find himself out on a limb, with Parry having been his ally in the boardroom. And why has it happened today? Well, it has been on the cards for a while. Parry has known for some time that his days were numbered. Hicks has been highly critical of the club’s lack of commercial success in the decade that Parry has been at Anfield, while Benitez has questioned Parry’s method of negotiating transfers. When Hicks demanded his resignation last April, Gillett blocked it, but Parry knew that the arrangement had become untenable in terms of working under Hicks. There are strong suggestions that Gillett finally relented after a disagreement with Parry over the rumours about Benitez’s position earlier this week. Was Parry was one of the good guys? He is an extremely good guy. His problem is that he, along with David Moores, the former chairman, made a poor decision to sell to Hicks and Gillett in February 2007 and they have regretted it ever since. Parry has tried to rise above the mudslinging that has been rife at Anfield ever since and tried to preserve something of what he calls “the Liverpool way”. But the whole affair has been ugly, meaning that little or nothing could get done. Something had to give and, sadly for Parry, it was him – to be followed, I strongly suspect, by Gillett’s departure. Does this mean Benitez has got what he wants? I think it’s important to look at the power struggle at Anfield as a war, not just one battle. Things at Anfield really have been that bad for the past 18 months. Benitez didn’t have a good working relationship with Parry, which was the source of a lot of problems for both of them. Unlike a lot of other fraught relationships at Anfield, it was purely a professional, rather than a personal, conflict, but I am pretty certain that Benitez will feel his own position is a little clearer this morning. What was the problem between them? Benitez often complained publicly about transfer deals or contracts that weren’t tied up quickly enough. He blamed Parry for that. Benitez’s view is that, with a different chief executive, he would have signed Nemanja Vidic, Daniel Alves, Gareth Barry and others. Parry’s view is that any “delays” were merely the kind that exist in any corporate structure. He would also argue that, with a different chief executive, Liverpool would not have invested large sums on Andrea Dossena, Lucas Leiva and others. It is a question of whether or not the manager should be accountable to his chief executive over transfers. There were reports this morning that Liverpool wanted to replace Benitez with Jose Mourinho. Well, if Liverpool sounded out Mourinho’s advisers, however tentatively, I suspect that had less to do with Hicks or Parry than with Gillett, who was the architect of the infamous talks with Jurgen Klinsmann in the autumn of 2007. But that is a big “if”. Contrary to this week’s rumours, Benitez’s position has been secure and will become increasingly so. So what happens next? Benitez will sign his contract soon – not purely because of today’s developments but because he was going to do so anyway. Parry is expected to stay on until the end of the season while a replacement is found. If an interim is needed, I suspect it will be Ian Ayre, the commercial director, or Philip Nash, the finance director. Either of those two, who were appointed by Hicks, could end up getting the post, but the word already from Anfield is that they will advertise the position in the hope of getting a top-quality candidate from outside the club. And what happens with the owners? Hicks, having been very open to selling last year, is going nowhere. He has built up a strong power base over the past six months or so and his alliance with Benitez has become powerful. As for Gillett, he has been looking to offload his stake for more than 12 months and today’s news leaves him with even less reason to stay around. There were strong rumours yesterday that an announcement today would be about Gillett finding a buyer and selling up immediately. In the end, the story was a different one, but I am sure Gillett’s departure will not be too far away. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle5814391.ece

Personally I reckon that quite a lot of Rafa's signings were only ever intended to be short-term signings to fill a position for a limited period of time until they could be replaced by better quality. I think he adopted this strategy because of the sheer number of players in the squad that needed replacing when he took over & the budget available to him has meant that he hasn’t been able to spend large amounts on most players, unlike our rivals (illustrated by the fact that Liverpool only have four £10m+ players, less than half those of both Chelsea & Man Utd). If these short-term signings prove they are worthy of a longer-term place in the squad, great – if not, they are sold on, almost always at a profit with very very few sold at a loss. Rafa has significantly increased the overall quality of the squad over time he has been manager & his long-term signings – players such as Reina, Agger, Skrtel, Mascherano, Torres – have the potential to provide a very strong spine for Liverpool for the next 5 years+.

Oliver Kay in the Sunday Times today reckons that Voronin is in Rafa's plans for next season http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle5741362.ece

The Times February 16, 2009 Rafael Benítez still holding out over future of academy Manager awaiting confirmation he will have control over the youth academy before signing a new contract with Liverpool Oliver Kay, Football Correspondent Rafael Benítez is close to ending the uncertainty over his future at Liverpool by signing a new long-term contract, but, having seemingly won his power struggle with the club’s hierarchy, he is awaiting confirmation that he will have control over the youth academy before he finally puts pen to paper. Benítez has succeeded in persuading Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr, the club’s owners, to redefine his responsibilities outlined in his new contract, giving him overall control of the club’s transfer budget, as well as securing a pay rise to about £4 million a year. But he is determined to land one final concession, having requested that he is allowed to oversee the running of the club’s youth academy, which at present is managed by John Owens, with Piet Hamberg and Malcolm Elias as technical manager and head of recruitment respectively. Hicks and Gillett are urging Benítez to sign the contract in recognition of their willingness to accommodate his demands, but the Spaniard, having been frustrated by the club’s delay in opening talks until the past few months, is happy to wait until his terms have been met. The impending resolution of Benítez’s future comes after a series of key appointments at Liverpool — with Ian Ayre now established as commercial manager and Philip Nash taking over as finance director — and, with Gillett looking to offload his stake, Hicks has been eager to shape the club his way, despite persistent doubts about his ability to deliver the new stadium that is crucial to Liverpool’s future plans. It is not only his own future that Benítez is eager to have resolved, with Daniel Agger, Dirk Kuyt and Álvaro Arbeloa foremost among several players who have little more than a year left on their contracts. All three figure in Benítez’s provisional plans for next season and so too, perhaps more surprisingly, does Andriy Voronin, the Ukraine forward, who has impressed while on loan at Hertha Berlin this season and scored two goals to send Hertha to the top of the Bundesliga with a 2-1 victory over Bayern Munich on Saturday. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle5741362.ece

Bascombe in today's NOTW says Portsmouth's Glen Johnson & Gareth Barry "remain high on Benitez’s agenda" with Liverpool needing "to increase its quota of English players" after only having a 23 man squad for the CL knockout stages, with 2 unfilled places for locally trained players (which had been filled by Robbie Keane & Jermain Pennant in the group stages) http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/1768...PEY-EXODUS.html