Sport Liverpool Football Club

[V3zna]

Cisse, there's a guy who doesn't let shit get him down.

Cisse, the bloke who this season called a public press conference to appeal to the fans to get off his back?!

[Poop who?]

Drogba was the other one I had in my mind but I was hoping nobody would mention him.

Cisse, in his second season (which was really his first) and playing as a winger he did more than Babel's done and that's a stone cold fact.

Rubbish

[Guest]

Cisse, who was awesome against his old team.

[larrydavidsanger]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jR3f-LN-Jbk

Hell of a player, and can play on the flanks if needed.

He's good. Chuwumbawumba are appalling.

[DC]

Cisse today

[ras el hanout]

Cisse, the bloke who this season called a public press conference to appeal to the fans to get off his back?!

Yeah, that one, the one who had the bollocks to call a public press conference to appeal for fans to get off his back. The fucking nuts on the guy! They must be like that.

[Takizawa]

He's good. Chuwumbawumba are appalling.

Agreed

[bradigor]

RIP 96

[a big boy]

Half of Cisse's goals in his second season came in CL qualifying games against the likes of TNS. In 49 Premiership appearances he scored a total of 11 goals (and some of them were penalties). You can defend him saying some of those are from the bench or playing on the wing, but Babel practically always has to come off the bench and always plays on the wing. He also happens to be younger, capable of understanding simple tactics and not a wife beater.

[V3zna]

Half of Cisse's goals in his second season came in CL qualifying games against the likes of TNS. In 49 Premiership appearances he scored a total of 11 goals (and some of them were penalties). You can defend him saying some of those are from the bench or playing on the wing, but Babel practically always has to come off the bench and always plays on the wing. He also happens to be younger, capable of understanding simple tactics and not a wife beater.

*Applauds*

[bradigor]

Please take a moment from today to read the following and to remember the 96 poor souls who lost their lives on this fateful day 19 years ago.

Compiled by Kinki from www.redandwhitekop.com

Hillsborough For Dummies.

A total of 96 fans died as a result of the hillsborough disaster. Here is a very brief analysis of how and why.

The Hillsborough stadium.

The disaster of 1989 was not the first time serious crushing had occurred at this stadium.

In 1981, Wolves played Spurs in the semi final at Hillsborough. Wolves fans were allocated the enormous kop stand while Spurs, despite having the bigger following were allocated the much smaller leppings lane terrace. The result was a massive overcrowding and crush. Police allowed affected supporters out of the enclosure. 38 supporters were injured. The Football Association were so concerned they moved the FA Cup Semi final matches away from the ground for six years until 1987.

This prompted swfc to alter the design of the terrace, dividing it into 5 pens, despite this, there is evidence of crushing in 1987, 88 and with fatal consequences in 1989.(see para 181 interim Taylor report)

In both the 88 and 89 semi final liverpool challenged the decision to allocate the smaller terrace section to their supporters. The first objection in 88 was due to the size of the allocation the 2nd objection was due to the complaints of crushing fans had experienced in 1988. The police refused to switch ends. (para 36 itr)

The Pens.

The official capacity of the central pens was estimated to be around 2000, however the Health and Safety Executive later found that this should have been reduced to around 1600 as the crush barriers did not conform to the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds 1986. It is estimated that the number of liverpool supporters in these pens shortly after kick off at 3.00pm was over 3000. This overcrowding caused the fatal crush.

The distribution of supporters in each pen.

It is widely acknowledged that the central pens(3&4) were overcrowed prior to kick off while the pens to the wings(1,2,6&7) were relatively sparse. john motson on BBC makes reference to the empty wing pen.

The police had also noted the uneven distribution and overcrowding and made a tannoy announcement for the fans in the central pen to move forward to make room for others(para 59 i.t.r)

At no point did Police attempt to close the central pens and filter fans into the wing areas.

Protocol for directing the fans.

This was David duckenfields first time in charge of handling a semi final. It had been common practice for the doors at the head of the tunnel to be closed once police estimated the central pen were full and for the remaining fans to be directed to the outer pens. On this occasion no such forethought to follow this practice was given as duckenfield gave the order to open the gate.

Earlier that afternoon Chief Inspector Creaser asked Superintendent Murray whether the pens should be filled one by one successively, but was told that they should all be available and the fans should find their own level. (para 58 itr)

The decision to open access gate c and the consequences.

The decision to open the gate undoubtedly relieved the congestion outside the turnstiles. Police claim they couldn't have forseen the consequences of opening the gate, allowing the supporter to walk undirected towards the already central pens. Two witness refute this, stephen mitton a liverpool supporter saw mr jack stone, a club steward, tell the officer that there'd be a crush if the gates were open. Mr stone eventually handed over the keys to the officer saying this is your responsibility not mine.(report by peter davenport and David sapsted).PC mark long, the man who opened the gate is currently serving time for fraud. SYP''s lack of forethought, communication and decision not to follow protocol was critisized by lord Taylor throughout his report - however the decision to open the gate and not direct the fans to the empty wing pens was described by Taylor as 'a blunder of the first magnitude'(para 231 itr)

The notion of 'inrushing' supporters on the central pens

Its commonly held belief that ticketless liverpool supporters who entered via gate c rushed into the all ready full central pens and the affect was the liverpool supporters at the front were crushed to death.(see daily politics show as latest example) CCTV shows that while the gate was open for 5 minutes, supporters walked into the ground and without direction headed unknowingly straight for the already full central pens via a 40 foot long, dark tunnel.

40 of the 96 victims died in the tunnel.

Controlling the crowds

Both SYP and Liverpool Supporters believe that a loss of control contributed to the disaster. The reasons why control was lost is where the two groups differ.

South Yorkshire Police make the admission of a loss of control on their part but accuse liverpool supporters of being late, drunk, ticketless, aggressive and unruly leaving the police with little option to allow them entrance to the ground and central pens.

The first allegation made against liverpool supporters came from Chief super intendant David Duckenfield. As the disaster unfolded he declared liverpool fans had forced the gate open and there had been an inrush of fans (BBC TV camera filming the outside of the stadium proved this was a lie.) (para 283 itr)

The alleged aggressive behaviour was inferred by a line of police officers formed on the halfway line as if to segregate liverpool supporters from forest supporters. As fans spilled onto the pitch Mr Motson, the BBC commentator, recognised and said, well before the match was stopped, that the trouble seemed to be overcrowding and not misbehaviour.

Further inferences were made public via TV, radio and press. Police federation officer Paul Middup was interviewed by ITV later that evening stated that the fans were worse for drink, were ‘hell-bent on getting in’ and ‘500 plus’ were without tickets. Analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive Analysis and eye witness accounts however showed that there wasnt a high number of ticketless fans. The HSE gave three figures based on their analysis, the first fig, was 9267, their 'best estimate' was 9734 and their third figure was a 'maximum estimate' of 10124. Even their 'maximum' estimate shows there were only 24 people more than the 10100 allocated. (see 5.8 of hse report OR para 200/1/2/3 itr)

Irvine patnick went a step further in his damning allegations to the Sun newspaper saying some liverpool fans pickpockted from the dead, some fans urinated on the dead, some fans beat up brave pc giving the kiss of life. Irvine patnick was the only conservative mp in south yorkshire, he wasn't the mp for hillsborough he was mp for Sheffield hallem, he wasn't at the game or witnessed any of the above but his comments were widely used in the press - not a single witness at the enquiry supported any of those allegations(para 257 itr)

The day after the disaster PM Margaret thatcher and her press secretary were shown round the stadium and visited the fans in hospital. Bernard Ingham later said:"‘ I know what I learned on the spot. There would have been no Hillsborough if a mob, clearly tanked up, had not tried to force their way into the ground." Later on in emails to me he admits he never spoke to a single liverpool supporter nor sought their opinion regarding what happend/went wrong.

On the 21st of April, Douglas herd, inferred in the house of commons that 19 police officers had been assaulted at hillsborough and that south yorkshire police were collating the information to pass on to the inquiry. On the 3rd of may 1989, he was unable to state how those injuries were sustained upon questioning. No mention of these 19 injured officers was made in the interim Taylor inquiry. During the disaster, 18000 photographs were taken and 71 hours of film footage. In not one picture or in any video footage can be found to support such notions of police officers being physically assaulted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liverpool supporters attribute the disaster to a failure of police control and lack of communication and organisation. (para 223/4/5 itr)

The first criticism aimed at the police was there refusal to switch the allocation and give the larger crowd the larger section of ground. The refusal meant 24'256 liverpool supporters had to enter via 23 turnstiles, for the leppings lane, there were only 7 turnstiles for 10'100 supporters. In contrast Forest fans were given an allocation of 29,800 and 60turnstiles.(para 187 itr) Taylor believes that if the allocation was switched the outcome could have been the same for forest supporters(para 272 itr)

The interim Taylor report makes several reference's to the awarded allocations, the information on the tickets, the confusing layout of the stadium, the poor sign posting as contributing to the large crowd outside the turnstiles.

Supporters also criticizes the decision not to pre filter the fans ahead of the turnstiles. The procedure was used in the 88 semi final allowing fans with seated and stand tickets to be filtered and given direction. Taylor also criticised the decision to open the gate as opposed to delaying the kick off. Two police officers are noted as informing duckenfield that they couldn't get all fans inside the ground by 3pm and to delay kickoff. Their objections were noted but rejected. (para 62&65 itr)

Taylor also criticised Sheffield Wednesday Football Club, their safety engineers and the local authority which had failed to issue an up-to-date licence for the stadium. But he directed his most damning conclusions towards South Yorkshire police.

Most importantly the interim Taylor report systematically dismisses theories of bad behaviour, drunkenness, ticketless liverpool supporters as a contributing factor to the disaster and the reason why the police lost control.

The police response to the disaster

As the disaster unfolded - David duckenfield said he 'froze'. Vital minutes that could have been used to save lives were wasted during this period.

In the police control room - the officers overlooked the leppings lane terrace, they had access to 5 TV screens which were capturing live CCTV images. The cameras all had zoom ability and were fully functional on the day.(para 50 i.t.r) They also had available the option of radio communication with officers around the stadium (para 53 i.t.r)

Just as supporters questioned the lack of control and organisation prior to entering the ground, in the midst of the tragedy, fellow syp police officers, st johns ambulance men, doctors, medics also criticised the lack of communication and organisation to treat the injured.

The liverpool supporters response to the disaster.

Liverpool supporters took the initiative - they tried to help, those in the upper area reached down to help pull those out of the central pens. They used advertising boards and tried to resuscitate the injured. (see TV footage) Taylor describes the efforts of these supporters as magnificent.

The lack of criminal proceeding against syp.

On the 4th of august 1989 the interim report of Lord Justice Taylor was published. He found that there were a number of causes for the disaster, the immediate cause being the failure, when gate C was opened, to cut off access to the central pens which were already overfull. He criticised senior officers for “failure of control”.

Mimi inquests were held to ascertain how each victim died. Inquest restricted to who the deceased was, and when and where they died. No cross examination was afforded as no live evidence was given. In every case pathologists said that death was sudden and pain free. Coroner imposed a cut-off time of 3.15pm stating that victims deaths were sudden and all would have received their fatal injuries by this time. Therefore, no inquiry into emergency response or lack of. Inquest jury returned a majority verdict (9-2) of accidental death.

The dpp, Alan green, said there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal proceedings against any individual. No reasons were given for this decision. Alan green later resigned from his position having been arrested for kerb crawling.

Police Complaints Authority told SYPA to make disciplinary charges against Murray and Duckenfield. Murray faced one charge of neglect of duty, Duckenfield four charges of neglect of duty and one of discreditable conduct. Duckenfield was allowed to resign for health reasons and it was felt to be unjust to continue charges against the other officer. The discipline procedure was dropped.

The victims relatives try to overturn the verdict of the inquest but the highcourt refuse. In their final judgement they refer to the biggest sporting disaster as occurring at a semi final between liverpool and sheff wed.

New Home Secretary, Jack Straw, orders “Scrutiny” of evidence by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith. The judge was allowed to sit in private, therefore, once again no opportunity to cross examine. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith had pre conceived ideas of the disaster when arriving late to visit the families he said “late like the Liverpool supporters on the day”. later it emerged that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith circulated, in advance, a draft of the report to parties who were likely to be criticised. They were allowed to comment on the draft report before it finally went to print. The final report shows little criticism of syp. For example Lord Justice Stuart-Smith was concerned that witness statements had been altered to edit out any comments which were adverse to South Yorkshire Police but comments adverse to the supporters were left in. There was no mention of this concern in Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s final report.Jack Straw accepts findings of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith stating that there were no grounds to order fresh inquiry.

In 1998 the home office make available the police officer statements from the day. The statements show the extent to which they were edited.

Hillsborough Family Support Group start private prosecutions against Duckenfield and Murray in June 1998 alleging two charges of unlawful killing and wilful misfeasance in public office. A further charge of perverting the course of justice was alleged against Duckenfield in relation to his lie about Liverpool supporters forcing open Gate C. After much legal wrangling the case is finally put to a jury in Leeds, south yorkshire. On the 24 July 2000, the jury announced that they could not reach a verdict on Duckenfield. Mr justice Hooper refused to order the retrial on the grounds that Duckenfield would not get a fair trial. He said he had watched how he had suffered during the seven weeks in court.

Anne Williams is currently persuing a case in the European courts challenging the 3.15 cut off point with evidence that her child, Kevin, was still alive after this time and could have been saved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are thinking about discussing or referring to the subject of the disaster please do justice to the subject matter by first of all acquainting yourself with all the facts briefly mentioned above.

For further reading.

Ground safety and public order: Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, report of Joint Working Party on Ground Safety and Public Order (Report/Joint Executive on Football Safety); Joint Working Party on Ground Safety and Public Order; ISBN 0-901783-73-0

No Last Rights: The Denial of Justice and the Promotion of Myth in the Aftermath of the Hillsborough Disaster; Phil Scraton, Ann Jemphrey and Sheila Coleman ISBN O-904517-30-6

Hillsborough: The Truth; Phil Scraton; ISBN 1-84018-156-7

'Death on the Terraces: The Contexts and Injustices of the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster' Phil Scraton in P. Darby eta al (eds) Soccer and Disaster: International Perspectives ISBN 0-7146-8289-6

Scrutiny of Evidence Relating to the Hillsborough Football Stadium Disaster (Command Paper); Home Office; ISBN 0-10-138782-2

Sports Stadia After Hillsborough: Seminar Papers; RIBA, Sports Council, Owen Luder (Ed.); ISBN 0-947877-72-X

The Day of the Hillsborough Disaster; Rogan Taylor (Ed.), Andrew Ward (Ed.), Tim Newburn (Ed.); ISBN 0-85323-199-0

The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, 15 April 1989: Inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor (Cm.: 765); Peter Taylor; ISBN 0-10-107652-5

The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster: Inquiry Final Report (Command Paper); Home Office; ISBN 0-10-109622-4

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/inform...ugh_summary.pdf

Official Website of the Hillsborough Family Support Group (HFSG)

Official website of the Hillsborough Justice Campaign (HJC)

Memorial page (official Liverpool FC website) including list of victims (accessibility page, not normal page)

BBC News On this Day

'Hillsborough' television drama at the Internet Movie Database

Stand Up Sit Down, Organisation to introduce safe standing areas in top flight English football

BBC news report about offensive Eastenders Episode

How the Hillsborough disaster was reported - videos

or just try wikipedia and google.

[Chewylegs]

A terrible event that I can't believe happened 18 years ago. I was 11 at the time and can remember the scenes on tv vividly. To be there must have been one of the worst experiences of anyones lives.

R.I.P to all the fans that died that day.

[Twyford]

RIP the 96.

[Kelthink]

Oh, before the day is out...JFT 96. Rest in Peace, You'll Never Walk Alone.

[Commander Jameson]

Indeed. Rest in Peace to the 96.

[Guest]

Indeed. Seems like it was just yesterday. I remember it was all so confusing at the time.

[V3zna]

Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has slammed chief executive Rick Parry's tenure at Anfield, labelling it a 'disaster'.

Last week, Hicks issued a letter to Parry calling for him to step down as the boardroom wrangling went public.

And in an exclusive interview with Sky Sports News, Hicks has blasted Liverpool's failure to compete commercially with their Premier League rivals.

"If you look at what has happened under Rick's leadership, it has been a disaster," he exclusively told Sky Sports News.

"We have fallen so far behind the other top clubs. The new stadium should have been built three or four years ago.

"We have two sponsors, maybe three. We should have 12 or 15. We are not doing anything in Asia the way Manchester United and Barcelona are.

"We have a tremendous number of fans in Asia. So we have got the top brand in the world of football, but we just don't know how to commercialise and get the money for it to use to buy great players.

"Rick needs to resign from Liverpool football club. He's put his heart into it, but it is time for a change."

Hicks is 100% right although I'd be interested to know why we still haven't a single spade in the ground in Stanley Park.

[dogsout]

He is right. There's no doubting that. What does draw doubts is his agenda. All of this has been plain as day for an age. It has been clear to me for years now that Parry is a lazy, self serving bastard. The thing that worries me is, there's a good chance that Hicks is aligning himself with Rafa in an attempt to win favour with the fans. Since all of this mess started it's been made clear to him that the fans are with Rafa. The vast majority of fans don't trust Hicks and want him gone. All of this is just talk, as always. He opens his mouth in an attempt to get what he wants and cares not a jot about the effect his words will have on the team, the manager and the fans.

As far as I'm concerned he's done nothing but talk shit since he came here. He's broken his word on many occasions and what's to stop him doing it again? He can offer Rafa a new contract and say he's going to back him all he likes. Once he's got Gillett and Parry out of his way he's free to do what he likes, including going back on his word and sending Rafa on his way.

We're still no closer to a new stadium than we were when they took over. The team is stronger thanks to him sanctioning deals for players with the club's money and that's about the only semi-positive thing I can say about him. We're loaded with debt that wasn't there before he came in, and we've had non-stop speculation to put up with for most of his tenure. It's madness.

[ras el hanout]

He is right. There's no doubting that. What does draw doubts is his agenda. All of this has been plain as day for an age. It has been clear to me for years now that Parry is a lazy, self serving bastard. The thing that worries me is, there's a good chance that Hicks is aligning himself with Rafa in an attempt to win favour with the fans. Since all of this mess started it's been made clear to him that the fans are with Rafa. The vast majority of fans don't trust Hicks and want him gone. All of this is just talk, as always. He opens his mouth in an attempt to get what he wants and cares not a jot about the effect his words will have on the team, the manager and the fans.

As far as I'm concerned he's done nothing but talk shit since he came here. He's broken his word on many occasions and what's to stop him doing it again? He can offer Rafa a new contract and say he's going to back him all he likes. Once he's got Gillett and Parry out of his way he's free to do what he likes, including going back on his word and sending Rafa on his way.

We're still no closer to a new stadium than we were when they took over. The team is stronger thanks to him sanctioning deals for players with the club's money and that's about the only semi-positive thing I can say about him. We're loaded with debt that wasn't there before he came in, and we've had non-stop speculation to put up with for most of his tenure. It's madness.

The vast majority of fans are idiots who act on what they read in the paper.

You're still going on about the debt even though DIC would do the exact same thing.

[dogsout]

The vast majority of fans are idiots who act on what they read in the paper.

I don't get what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that any opinions fans may have on this matter are null and void because they haven't been privy to board meetings? The only source of information the fans have is the media and that's exactly where this whole mess is being played out. He's doing TV interviews, briefings with local and national papers and providing press releases. It's only natural that people are going to remember some of the things he has said, notice that they've been a pack of lies, and then form a dislike of the man for it.

You're still going on about the debt even though DIC would do the exact same thing.

I'm still going on about it because it remains a concern. DIC have enough financial clout to service any loan taken out, whilst improving the team and getting the stadium built. Hicks does not. Surely that was the point in selling to these two in the first place?

[DeNeo]

The concern now is that all this talking has got us absolutely no where. Hicks and Gillett are still in power, and aren't talking to each other - so we've got all their debt on the club, with no decisions able to be made because they'll just vote against each other. Which will no doubt leave Benitez in limbo over the summer when it comes to transfers. Parry won't go, so as Hicks rightly points out our commercial operations will continue to drag behind those of other clubs, and we'll probably drag our feet in any transfer deals. And the new stadium shows no signs of being started.

The only way I can see this resolving itself is if DIC buy the club outright. Hicks and Gillett will never sell to each other now. But then I can't see Hicks selling to DIC either. So this is just going to carry on

In the short term, as long as we keep Benitez and back him with transfers, we should be ok on the pitch. But god knows what we'll be like in the long term.

[Warszawa]

Hey people,

Remember when a line of defence for Gillett & Hicks was that they'd put the money in to buy us players like Torres. Remember when I said that, actually, the debt had been put on the club and that we'd actually spent less in real terms than we usually did under Moores?

Well, the truth is seemingly even worse than that....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle3768457.ece

Fernando Torres future under threat as banks keep watchful eye on Liverpool

Oliver Kay

Liverpool must repay £31.5 million to banking institutions in little more than a year or risk having to sell Fernando Torres and Ryan Babel.

The Times has learnt that Liverpool borrowed the money to sign Torres, the Spain forward who has scored 30 goals this season and has already become a firm favourite on the Kop, from Atlético Madrid last summer. The club then refinanced that debt on January 25, at the same time as they secured a £350 million refinancing package.

Liverpool entered into an 18-month loan agreement with interest of 9 per cent — £2.8 million a year — with a letter of credit to pay back the £31.5 million at the end of the period.

Should Liverpool be unable to pay back or refinance the loan, banks could force the sale of Torres and Babel, who was also included in the smaller refinancing package.

It is unusual for Barclays Premier League clubs to buy players in this way. Deals are normally funded using television income. Liverpool have to pay £30 million a year in interest payments on the £350 million loan, the terms of which end in July 2009. There was no official comment from the club last night.

The revelations came on a day when the turmoil at Anfield reached a nadir after Tom Hicks attempted to strengthen his grip on the club during an interview in which he demonised his enemies inside and outside Anfield. However, the Liverpool co-owner has only six weeks to raise the funds he needs if he is to achieve his goal of buying the club outright.

Having continued his assault on Rick Parry by calling his tenure as chief executive “a disaster”, Hicks admitted that his joint-ownership venture with George Gillett Jr had proved unworkable, but he is looking for the funds that would help him to buy Gillett’s 50 per cent stake and to “fix the entire financial structure of the club” while overseeing the construction of a new 70,000-capacity stadium in Stanley Park.

Gillett responded last night with a strongly worded statement in which he accused his co-owner of destabilising the club. “I am saddened at this latest outburst from Tom Hicks,” he said. “If Tom wanted a serious discussion on the issues to help the club move forward, he should bring his views to the board.

“Here we are, a few days away from a vital Champions League semi-final match and Tom has once again created turmoil with his public comments. Tom should stop. He knows that Rick Parry has my support and that airing his comments in this way will not change my position.

“Tom needs to understand that I will not sell my shares to him.”

Hicks was typically bullish about his prospects of raising the money — or, perhaps more realistically, finding the financial backing — but while he continues to explore his options with Merrill Lynch, his latest financial adviser, the clock is ticking.

Hicks has denied rumours in the City that he is under pressure to refinance his Hicks Sports Group, which holds his stakes in various sports franchises in the United States, but a deadline is looming to buy Gillett’s stake, which is the subject of a rival bid from Dubai International Capital (DIC), the private-equity investment arm of the Dubai Government.

Under the terms of their takeover 14 months ago, Hicks has pre-emption rights on Gillett’s stake in Liverpool and vice versa. That option is understood to expire 90 days after he was informed of DIC’s £200 million offer to Gillett, which was made on February 27. That period would expire on May 27, six days after the Champions League final in Moscow.

Hicks, though, maintains that he will be in charge of Liverpool for the long term, which would be bad news for Parry. “What has happened under Rick has been a disaster,” Hicks told Sky Sports News. “We have fallen so far behind the other clubs. We have still got the top brand in the world of football, but that’s no good if you don’t know how to commercialise it. Rick needs to resign. You have to be able to work with the manager and Rick has proved he can’t do that.”

Parry, who responded with a rigorous defence of his record, will not resign and is under no pressure to do so, given that only two of the club’s six directors want him to go.

Hicks said that, if he succeeds in buying Liverpool outright, he will offer Benítez a one-year extension to his contract, which expires in 2010, but, despite his newfound alliance with the manager, he remains unpopular with supporters.

So yeah.

Our options seem to involve selling Torres to whoever gets in first out of Man Utd & Chelsea or selling Gerrard or selling about seven or eight other players, all without making a single purchase in the summer.

[ckny]

We all know that absolutely nothing will come of that story and everything will be just fine. Seriously.

[Warszawa]

We all know that absolutely nothing will come of that story and everything will be just fine. Seriously.

Oliver Kay knows people in high places so I don't doubt its truth. And it is an interesting one. Gillett and Hicks still haven't put a penny into the club but have to make a massive repayment on the debt they've placed on the club as well. And it's assumed they'd suddenly put £31.5m on the table for something as trivial as keeping players...?! When they haven't contributed a single pound, dollar, whatever to Liverpool Football Club?

We'll find a way to keep the players - probably - but long term the future looks beyond bleak if we aren't bought out soon. And it would be in our best interests to not purchase a single player this summer to avoid further debt at this rate.

[ras el hanout]

I think they have put money into Liverpool, haven't they? I mean, they've put up large amount of their own personal money as personal guarantees. I mean, there is a reason YOU couldn't have bought the club, you know. People are talking like they've stolen the club for nothing when in fact they just bought it as anybody but Roman Ambrovich would have bought it.

You buy a house you plan to let, the rent you receive pays the mortgage. There's nothinhg underhand there. Haven't they just done this on a massive scale?

My point earlier about fans being idiots was regard to the Parry thing. Taking that to it's logical conclusion Hicks CAN'T do anything right.

He wants to get Parry out because Parry's an idiot and a big part of why the hated Hicks is there in the first place and the fans are in uproar, cheering Gilette on for digging his heels in even though it damages the chances of getting a more capable person than Parry in. The next thing he does we all agree with we'll probably all go "Bah, he's just doing it to twist things and try and get the fans on his side, I'm not falling for it."

What about if he does something which genuinely needs doing? He'll just get slagged.

We get Torres our most expensive player ever and then that's all fucking doom and gloom because Hicks never paid for the player out of his own pocket. Personally I'd prefer it if a club paid for its players. It wasn't really fair what Chelsea did if you ask me, it was kind of like cheating although really I don't care how we get these players as long as we get them. It doesn't really matter if we're in debt, loads of successful businesses take on debt.

The way I see it Hicks and Gilette have been unlucky with the old credit crunch. Gilette seems to be the less able of the two. Sure he looks friendlier but I think of the two I'd rather Hicks was running the show. Hicks isn't going to sell, apparently, he wants to keep Liverpool. There a few reason for that but part of the reason must see he sees potential in Liverpool. He's obviously not worried that he won't be able the service the debt and have to give Torres back, otherwise he would have snapped DIC's hands off.

So, you know, I think if Hicks gets Gilettes shares then we should give Hicks a chance.

It's like there are probably some Man U fans grumbling about the Glazers.

[bowser123]

It's like there are probably some Man U fans grumbling about the Glazers.

HMM.

Personally I think the selling Torres thing is garbage, it's miles more likely he'd be off if the manager went.

There's a million and one cuntish things they've (the Glazers) have done, not least of all making £500 season ticket over a grand and forcing you to pay for every single cup game, whether you can attend or not. Funniest of all, some people with one year season tickets (for which they've paid an absolute premium) that are forced to buy cup games all season, guess what happened to them for Arsenal in the Cup and Barca at home? Go on, guess. That's right, for the biggest cup games of all they don't get a cup ticket... hmm, I wonder where those tickets went.

I'm sure you'll say "Transfers! What about the transfers"!, or something. They pulled a brilliant stunt in the summer signing everybody quickly and in one go, makes them look like they've spent. What wasn't as widely acclaimed was the subsequent sales that recouped over half what was spent, including the scandalous sale of Rossi. Season before? Made a profit on transfers. Season before that? About £10M spent.

As a PLC, Utd were cuntish, but they spent miles more and didn't behave anywhere near as scandalously as now. Only plus is they've largely left Ferguson alone, but that's more down to not being as stupid as your incompetent two.

That's the sort of thing I'd expect at the very least at Anfield.

Ramone- why did he pick the week after the Cup game and the same week as Hillsbrough to launch this onslaught? Why did he leak it to the media before the dude had seen the letter? Why back it up with a subsequent Sky interview? I'm shocked you can't see through his crass and ill timed attempts to win support from the fans.

[ras el hanout]

Ramone- why did he pick the week after the Cup game and the same week as Hillsbrough to launch this onslaught? Why did he leak it to the media before the dude had seen the letter? Why back it up with a subsequent Sky interview? I'm shocked you can't see through his crass and ill timed attempts to win support from the fans.

Well, I mean to me it isn't a big deal. If he'd asked Parry to resign and he'd resigned then that would have been it. It's not a big deal at all. Nobody would have cared. People would have been happy, in fact. The way things are set up now means nothing can get done. That's shitty but I don't see how you can blame that all on Hicks when he was trying to do something for the good of the club, whatever his real motives or how he really acted, which we don't know.

Even people on here are going "Oh yeah, Hicks is right but..."

I mean you're going on like winning supprt from the fans is a bad thing to try to do, a devious thing. If Hicks does everything from now on to win support from the fans then I'll be quite happy with that.

The whole thing is fucked, obviously, but Gilette just seems to be being awkward and acting out of pure spite. Hicks at least wants the club and has expressed concerns at how it was run. Give the guy a break, I reckon.

You're all ignoring the fact that Rafa wants Parry out. Maybe it was Rafa's idea to do it now, how would you guys feel then.

[Chewylegs]

why did he pick the week after the Cup game and the same week as Hillsbrough to launch this onslaught? Why did he leak it to the media before the dude had seen the letter? Why back it up with a subsequent Sky interview? I'm shocked you can't see through his crass and ill timed attempts to win support from the fans.

Here fucking here.

A rare thing for us to agree on something.

And Ramone - Seriously its not a big problem to you that he brings all this up with a Champions League semi final coming up and the memory of Hillsborough fresh in our minds. It just goes to show how little he understands of our club.

[ras el hanout]

And Ramone - Seriously its not a big problem to you that he brings all this up with a Champions League semi final coming up and the memory of Hillsborough fresh in our minds. It just goes to show how little he understands of our club.

Does it though? I don't understand. If Parry had done the decent thing and resigned would it matter when it happened?

When do you want him to do it? After the season when it's too late? Because we'll always have had/be having a big game coming up, hopefully culminating in Moscow.

If this had happened and there was nothing in the paper about it then we wouldn't have cared, and that's the point really.

So if this was Rafa's decision, which it very well could be, how would you feel about that? It's entirely possible that Rafa has asked Hicks to get rid on Parry and understanbly asked Hicks not say it that way.

[Chewylegs]

Well, I mean to me it isn't a big deal. If he'd asked Parry to resign and he'd resigned then that would have been it.

How the hell would you feel if a colleague at work mentioned to you that "oh by the way they want to sack you, there's a letter on your desk about it" ? ? ? He isn't able to make Parry resign, only the board can. He is part of the board, not the whole fucking board. He should do things in the right way, talk about it in the board meeting.

It doesn't matter what you think about Parry, the way Hicks is going about things is awful. He's dragging the club through the press with no consideration for anyone but himself. I'll be looking forward to May 27th when his ability to buy out Gillett ceases to exist and someone better for the club can possibly come in. Unfortunately by then Liverpool FC club could well be a laughing stock and not lifting the Cup due to all this mess.