BoboS

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

<br /><br /><br /> indeed, only mention is broadly what UK press have too, no update on what PC might or might not want (since he wanted to stay at inter) - remains in the balance I think: we've offered EUR 8m, Southampton EUR 11m, they wanted EUR 15m, might reluctantly sell for EUR13m to chase other targets, inc belhanda http://www.gazzetta.it/Calciomercato/23-01-2013/inter-paulinho-prezzo-aumenta-coutinho-southampton-rilancia-913953049876.shtml

This content is not viewable to guests.

sop://broker.sopcast.com:3912/127835

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

sop://broker.sopcast.com:3912/132348

I think that's exactly it on Rafa - it's one thing to deal efficiently at a much smaller club (eg. wigan) where bringing in young early stage talents for very low fees, developing a fair few through while coping with early career inconsistency (due to lower expectations) and then selling on at a profit is one skill. Dealing efficiently at a higher level of performance, bringing in semi-established players and picking enough winners to remain competitive and maintain "efficiency" in the transfer market is a totally different game. And one where Rafa, supported by his tactical acumen, is pretty much unsurpassed with the possible exception of Wenger, who's hardly a candidate and seems to prioritise efficiency over competitiveness a little TOO much for anyone's taste (other than the owners') anyway... while rodgers, martinez etc. have potential and some partial success at the first task, what FSG need is the 2nd skill set - and it's either a major gamble or Rafa. Saying that, I'm now expecting AVB, and concur with the comment on here that being the least worst "risky" option is encouraging most of us to rationalise the decision. Doesn't alter the fact that Rafa is a perfect fit for what FSG and we need at this point, as well as hopefully a couple of years without having to pay any incoming or outgoing manager compensation!

http://www.football365.com/f365-says/7723185/Let-s-Not-Re-Write-Hodgson-s-Red-History first article i've seen that's at least partly right!

This content is not viewable to guests.

I know it's been said before, but do you really think using this type of language makes you sound eloquent? Do you know what wholesomely means because that sentence doesn't make sense? The whole approach does mark you out immediately as a WUM. It's annoying on a match/ tactics thread, far worse given the points at issue here. "Spot on" is very much overstating things! We don't need to have a list of facts about ferguson to clarify a little more concerning our prior position to make us not seem to have been wrong and just slow to catch up with the media's correct view of things throughout the episode, which is the current perception. To be disgusted at a shambolic defence (not taking it seriously early, putting emotional petty stuff in our statement, not clarifying the facts of the case when misrepresented in the press) and an appalling outcome is fair enough. Our strategy and it's fundamental weakness has achieved: a) LS being perceived as racist by all & sundry (when even his accuser didn't think it at the beginning) b) A thoroughly tarnished 'brand' despite far too late and ineffective damage limitation c) Kenny of all people being considered out of touch, stubborn and of questionable moral character despite it being a million miles from the truth. d) Kenny being publicly ordered from above to apologise to the Murdoch media, of all people. e) A lengthy ban almost certainly knocking 4th & a good chunk of next year's budget on the head f) After the latest turn, maybe not even having reliably secured the loyalty of LS out of it. g) despite all the above concesssions, we've secured zero goodwill from either the media or FA created, in fact the opposite We have been weak, inconsistent and achieved a worse result than I would have thought possible at the beginning. To be "disgusted" with that isn't an outrageous or naive position.

That's exactly what I don't agree with, to be honest. everything we do now in isolation looks terrible on us because of what went before and how it was viewed. including this apology. Yet Barnes gets interviewed and every time in 2 mins recaps and explains where we are coming from and why we've behaved as we have. The message isn't that complicated but goes nowhere. Continuing to 'PR' apologise in isolation to try and salvage the brand just doesn't work when the whole incident has made us look this bad and we've fecked up at every turn. We need to go back to the beginning and explain or we continue to look a step behind, we hang luis out to dry and the brand damage limitation is mostly ineffective. That's what I don't understand - we're continuing to make the same mistake again and again - yet Henry and Ayre are no idiots. I don't get it and can't see us continuing to lie down as we have.

LS obligatory apology and Ayre statement are really terrible, would've been appropriate if yesterday's handshake incident was all there was to the matter. It's not, it's been going on for months and we've a lot of air to clear. That's just pathetic and makes us look in the wrong, yet fecking again.

Absolutely agree - sending Kenny out yesterday would've been mental, unfair on him and guaranteed to fail. I had in mind something more on our own terms. Someone earlier mentioned that setting it up as a standalone 'facts' like briefing would go down badly, I'm not sure. One thing we need to show is that we recognise the seriousness of the subject matter, just don't agree at all with the facts that are being reported - for very good reason. This to me means not doing it as part & parcel of the normal football schedule - analogous to suarez t-shirts = racist or naive club blindly supporting its own; suarez anti-racism t-shirts = an altogether different and less clearly press twistable message. more thought, more recognition of the seriousness of the issue. For the difference between PR and telling the truth (or rather what's lacking from our approach) is just lining up the whole truth and putting it well, not getting riled, not going after the interviewer as they're an a****** we don't respect (clearly correctly but looks bad) not stretching the difficult points which undermine us (e.g. evra's track record, equating this handshake to the vieira one that had a totally different cause, much less important in the 'current climate'), not leaving any 'but if only you knew what we know' statements out there that make us seem duplicitous, putting the positive out there too (about the club, about suarez, about the values we've had ample demonstratino of in the past). Snippets of badly put truth amongst a sea of negative nonsense isn't doing it. For LFC to be getting a four month long lecture on socially responsible behaviour from the daily mail/ rag and coming out Ferguson to be citing barnes' is just unimaginable - but it's the current reality.

I was interested in this after the initial S. AMerican response, concerned that the standard line is now so established here that most European journos wouldn't go any further and it'd just be parrotted. In fact, looking at the Italian press (my only linguistic option!) today it's exactly that - corriere della sera and gazzetta dello sport both report the handshake, game incidents and ferguson interviews exactly as the UK press would have it. "Ugly gesture" from suarez to refuse to shake; ban was for "having racially abused evra" (no uncertainty or questions); "Evra was obviously visibly upset" etc. Obviously much less focus on the peripherals and more on the game itself, but otherwise relatively standard bullsh*t. disappointing but not surprising they're not going to dig too deep when none of ours are (although how digger continues to nail it every single time in <2mins of airtime shows it isn't that complicated or the total 'lost cause' we all seem to be assuming - a bit of sense and eloquence doesn't take all that long to put this festering mess the right way up again). Anyway, only interesting bit is the comments, which show public opinion is pretty pro-suarez. Sure the english press would put this down to a soft stance on racism and these backward european nations not being as advanced as we are (and I would have had some sympathy for this comparison before I've become so gobsmacked at how backward we remain ever since this incident broke out...), but a lot of it isn't too far off the mark, at least pointing out the hypocrisy and witchhunting nature of the UK press coverage. Not sure if we should be encouraged by this or just concerned that it'll hasten his departure, mind. Agree with all the sentiments that the club needs to do something definitive now - why we're continuing to underestimate this in the face of all the evidence is bewildering. Can we be clear it's not blowing over yet? I hate PR as much as anyone, but we're getting absolutely crucified without any grounds whatsoever and doing feck all about it. Let's get henry, barnes and a (briefed!) kenny and suarez out there somewhere and go over the whole damn thing. Just don't see what additional harm this could do - at the very least it creates some doubt over the current ubiquitous interpretation. When we have digger being referenced by fecking ferguson to assert his moral superiority that's got to be it, surely!?

only worth rolling this debate out again when there's any choice to make - CC final is one game when a league commitment gets moved. So there's no prioritisation decision anyway - we'll give it our best shot and it'll have negligible impact on the chances of getting 4th. FA cup might be a different story but still nothign like the distraction of a CL or worse UEFA run is it? Reckon the chances of getting 4th'll be pretty well defined by the next 3 results. Get through this tough run and stay in touching distance and it's definitely on, lose ground now and it'll be really tough. we get the new andy, the old luis, and stevie and agger stay fit and it could click nicely!

Exactly. Not being concilatory does not in any way equal racist (or even abusive whilst referencing colour), other than in this particular 115 page definition of confirmation bias. There's a massive gulf between conciliatory and abusive that seems to have fallen by the wayside, which is ultimately perfectly acceptable in terms of intent in the context - if subject to misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise)...

Stitch up clearly worked better than anyone could have possibly imagined, and sadly that's massively down to the press whether we like it or not, and however disdainful we - or even kenny - are of them. Those prepared to engage with the actual issues here are just a tiny tiny minority (even a minority amongst our fans), it's a done deal without any logic or precedent, and as of new year's eve the club was fecked whatever it did. I'm still shocked about the climbdown though and think it leaves kenny and even more so luis in an impossibly bad position. Tactically, it clearly makes sense, strong-willed guy though he is if everyone else was downbeat last night then Luis's mental state must have been a mess - so taking a couple of games of ban this week when he wasn't going to be in a position to perform normally anyway is sensible. The statements make a decent fist of it but can't get away from the sense that Luis has been sh*t on by the worst side of our culture and not protected effectively by the club at all. If Kenny pulls this round and we have a fully functioning luis and upbeat team 8 games from now it'll be an absolutely monumental achievement I feel.

It does look having read the whole thing that we were a bit naive in the approach to the hearing, not fully appreciating severity of the circumstances early enough etc. However, this point about not challenging all the manc players' testimony being an acceptance of it and lending truth to evra's version - it's mentioned repeatedly in the report and it really bothers me. Their testimony was of what evra said to them in their changing room after the game. How the hell are any of our side meant to challenge that - they weren't there. Or how does their lack of challenging it lend anything to evra's story being true. Its STILL one version against another, with no witnesses. Ridiculous. The whole report is an attempt to be "procedurally correct" (with the exception of the timing of statements, access to footage etc) but utterly insane in the leaps of logical faith it makes throughout and horrifically selective use of subjective circumstancial testimony to manufacture objectivity. And having done so, to discard the huge amounts of inherent doubt to then make an unprecedented statement punishment out of it as if the case were cut & dried. Really really intrigued to see what the club's next move is - an utter clusterf*ck of a situation we now find ourselves in.

And that pretty much sums the whole thing up, spot on. I genuinely thought attitudes towards racism were a bit more developed than thus sorry episode has shown so clearly... posturing and ignorance driven pc all round, intent doesn't matter, no intent is basically all that f*cking matters!

more thoughtless blinkers from F365: Liverpool Look away now if you care about how football portrays itself because a great institution is falling on its irresponsible sword. There is no opprobrium too great to be levelled at Liverpool because at the heart of this sorry episode - bad enough to begin with, worsening by the day because of the club's not-sorry sorry response to a shame of their own escalation - is their absolute refusal to remember who they are. Remove the tribalism for a moment and all football fans should be able to agree that Liverpool are a great institution within the game. Now put those blinkers back on because it's all that Liverpool - a great institution turned blind by their own one-eyed irresponsibility - deserve. If they don't want to see the wider responsibilities a great institution is beholden to uphold then nobody else ought to adjudge them from a neutral perspective. If they want to see everyone out to get them then let them see it. There's a 'hear no evil, see no evil' line in here somewhere because the first pitiful retort to the playing staff's misguided show of support for Luis Suarez before the game at Wigan is the reminder that, as per the club's own statement, not one of them heard the exchange between Suarez and Patrice Evra. No matter. He's one of them and the other isn't. Case closed. Truly, did nobody at the club stop to consider what sort of message their Suarez shirts sent out? Can it really be true that nobody at Liverpool Football Club remembered that their name lists Football as well as Club? Was it really so hard to spot the benefits which would have been accrued for all concerned - including the club, including Suarez himself, including the game - if the entire playing staff had lined up in anti-racism shirts? Apparently not. And here's the message that Liverpool, a great institution turned in on itself without a single dissenting thought for a wider perspective, spelt out last night: English football has turned absolutely tribal.