Benitez .... prick

[blurred]

Don't care what you say 62M is a lot over 4 seasons to have spent net.

Even for a club of Liverpools standing.

I'd disagree, but there we go. With the TV income, Champions League income, Premiership prize money, merchandising and matchday income that Liverpool generate over a year, £15m isn't a huge sum in my eyes. Consider that Tottenham have spent a largely similar amount to Liverpool over the last 5 years or so, and Newcastle not a great deal less, and you'll see what I mean. Who's had the best return for their money?

Presumably the future spending Rafa wants is funded from the owners pockets. However, 2 points, one they're building a new ground so perhaps some sacrifices need to be made, two the situation with credit in America has changed their plans and they are now more cautious when borrowing money and increasing the clubs debt.

If Rafa can't accept these then perhaps he should be shunted out.

The stadium funding is a valid point, however the owners were aware that they were going to fund that when they took us over (it was largely the whole point of us being taken over). I'm not sure to what extent the American/global credit crunch has changed their plans for how much they are willing to invest in our team, but it just strikes me that this 'row' is largely embarrassing and quite simply solved. Managers are always going to be asking for more money, it's what they do.

[BWFC_Insane]

Don't care what you say 62M is a lot over 4 seasons to have spent net.

Even for a club of Liverpools standing.

I'd disagree, but there we go. With the TV income, Champions League income, Premiership prize money, merchandising and matchday income that Liverpool generate over a year, £15m isn't a huge sum in my eyes. Consider that Tottenham have spent a largely similar amount to Liverpool over the last 5 years or so, and Newcastle not a great deal less, and you'll see what I mean. Who's had the best return for their money?

Presumably the future spending Rafa wants is funded from the owners pockets. However, 2 points, one they're building a new ground so perhaps some sacrifices need to be made, two the situation with credit in America has changed their plans and they are now more cautious when borrowing money and increasing the clubs debt.

If Rafa can't accept these then perhaps he should be shunted out.

The stadium funding is a valid point, however the owners were aware that they were going to fund that when they took us over (it was largely the whole point of us being taken over). I'm not sure to what extent the American/global credit crunch has changed their plans for how much they are willing to invest in our team, but it just strikes me that this 'row' is largely embarrassing and quite simply solved. Managers are always going to be asking for more money, it's what they do.

Blurred on the radio the other day was a "financial expert" who knew Hicks (I think). He said that the credit crunch has affected their plans. The loans they were planning are now either not possible or are at double the interest of the previous ones.

Their financial situation has been affected most definitely.

I'd be interested to know how much profit LFC made in the past financial year.

[Batman]

You should have gone for the Dubai money, not the Yanks

[blurred]

Reasons to sack the manager...

Record in all competitions:

Played 22
Won 13
Drawn 7
Lost 2

Scored 47
Conceded 14

Goals being spread around the team - Torres has 10, Gerrard 8, Kuyt 6, Benayoun 5, Babel, Crouch and Voronin on 4.

Unbeaten in the Premiership, scoring 22 goals and conceding just 6, only 2 away from home in 7 games.

Anyone else think that this whole thing is just sheer lunacy?

[CrazyHorse]

Reasons to sack the manager...

Record in all competitions:

Played 22
Won 13
Drawn 7
Lost 2

Scored 47
Conceded 14

Goals being spread around the team - Torres has 10, Gerrard 8, Kuyt 6, Benayoun 5, Babel, Crouch and Voronin on 4.

Games unbeaten currently stands at 14

Unbeaten in the Premiership, scoring 22 goals and conceding just 6, only 2 away from home in 7 games.

Anyone else think that this whole thing is just sheer lunacy?

It isn't lunacy. Your owners expect nothing less than Rafa to win the Premiership.
Plus, you (and the rest of your deluded fans) told anyone who was interested and everyone who wasn't that this was your year to win 'the 19th'. It doesn't look like that is going to happen. By your own unrealistic high standards you're heading for a fall which is why your manager's job is currently on the line.

Actually it is lunacy but not for the reasons you state.

[blurred]

It isn't lunacy. Your owners expect nothing less than Rafa to win the Premiership.

Plus, you (and the rest of your deluded fans) told anyone who was interested and everyone who wasn't that this was your year to win 'the 19th'. It doesn't look like that is going to happen. By your own unrealistic high standards you're heading for a fall which is why your manager's job is currently on the line.

Actually it is lunacy but not for the reasons you state.

How you can say after 13 games that it isn't going to happen I don't know, when we're undefeated and have a game in hand that'd put us in 2nd.

Are you another one who's already given the title to Arsenal because they've had an easy start, then?

[blurred]

Oh, and Man City have apparently made a formal bid for Peter Crouch, according to Trashcan Sinatra.

Be interesting to see what comes of this.

Edit: Ha, the BBC have changed their tune and actually listened to what he's said, now, claiming that he's only 'hinted' about a bid. Bloody journalists

[CrazyHorse]

It isn't lunacy. Your owners expect nothing less than Rafa to win the Premiership.

Plus, you (and the rest of your deluded fans) told anyone who was interested and everyone who wasn't that this was your year to win 'the 19th'. It doesn't look like that is going to happen. By your own unrealistic high standards you're heading for a fall which is why your manager's job is currently on the line.

Actually it is lunacy but not for the reasons you state.

How you can say after 13 games that it isn't going to happen I don't know, when we're undefeated and have a game in hand that'd put us in 2nd.

Are you another one who's already given the title to Arsenal because they've had an easy start, then?

Wow, that was even easier than I thought....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying:
a) Arsenal shouldn't be top because they've had a piss easy start
b) you'd be 2nd if you win your game in hand.
Therefore Liverpool are really top and will stay top all season and win the league. Oh aye; forget about Man U and Chelsea and the annual wild card (this year played by Man City) and the fact that you're all going to slip up sooner or later and just claim that the trophy is in the bag.

Let's also gloss over the fact that you're still in the CL by the skin of your teeth whereas Arsenal had the next round it in the bag weeks ago. Or did they have a easy start in that competition too?

[H. Pedersen]

This "net" spending is a red herring. Consider the case of Craig Bellamy. Signed for £6.5 million, sold for £7.5 million. Net profit, £1 million. But what of the opportunity cost? What if Liverpool had signed a better quality forward for more money in the beginning? If Rafa's net spending is low, it's probably because he signs average players and sells them when they don't work out, which is not something he should be lauded for.

[blurred]

This "net" spending is a red herring. Consider the case of Craig Bellamy. Signed for £6.5 million, sold for £7.5 million. Net profit, £1 million. But what of the opportunity cost? What if Liverpool had signed a better quality forward for more money in the beginning? If Rafa's net spending is low, it's probably because he signs average players and sells them when they don't work out, which is not something he should be lauded for.

It's not something that he has an alternative to, because it's not like Liverpool have got the revenue of Man United or the chairman of Chelsea to be able to spend much more on players - or the revenue that they do have has had to be split between a number of positions on squad rebuilding. United have spunked huge sums on a lot of players in the recent past, as have Chelsea, Liverpool are now starting to catch up.

And the 'net spend' is not a red herring in that it shows Liverpool are living within their means and not doing a Leeds, or a Chelsea.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Blurred,

I'm not fishing here, I'm genuinely intrigued. I read somewhere recently (there's helpful; if pushed I'd guess it was the Guardian, possibly last Saturday) that Gillett & Hicks have taken out a new loan; if memory serves, £150m was mentioned. Is that true - and if so, is it worrying for you - or just badly written?

[blurred]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying:
a) Arsenal shouldn't be top because they've had a piss easy start
b) you'd be 2nd if you win your game in hand.
Therefore Liverpool are really top and will stay top all season and win the league. Oh aye; forget about Man U and Chelsea and the annual wild card (this year played by Man City) and the fact that you're all going to slip up sooner or later and just claim that the trophy is in the bag.

Let's also gloss over the fact that you're still in the CL by the skin of your teeth whereas Arsenal had the next round it in the bag weeks ago. Or did they have a easy start in that competition too?

Ok, I'll correct you. No, I'm not saying Arsenal shouldn't be top, I'm saying the reason they are is a home/away ratio that reads 8/5, when Man United's is 7/7, ours is 6/7 and Chelsea's is 6/8. When all of these are somewhere near alignment come late December (Arsenal getting 5 of their next 7 away will redress this) then we'll see a truer reflection of things. Also Man City have an 8/6 ratio, meaning a more favourable start for them, and possibly going some way to explaining their decent early form (of course there are other factors, but this is one of them, as having got only 5 points from 6 games on the road it's clear to see that if their start had been 6/8 instead of 8/6 they wouldn't find themselves in such a lofty position).

And no, I'm not saying we're really top, I'm saying we're 5th but assuming we despatch West Ham at home (our game in hand) then we'll be 2nd, only 3 points behind the current league leaders about whom there is some inexplicable media wank-fest because they've beaten some mug sides at home, and ahead of both United and Chelsea. I'm not saying that means we'll win the league, but to dismiss any of United, Chelsea, Arsenal or ourselves at this stage of the season, especially when all 4 have made decent starts to the season and are covered by a maximum of 8 points is just frankly ludicrous.

I'm not glossing over our CL performance - we're in the shit and need a win in Marseille, which is hardly an ideal scenario but something that is far from beyond us at the same time. I was, however, talking about the league situation - the CL is a different kettle of fish, obviously.

[blurred]

Blurred,

I'm not fishing here, I'm genuinely intrigued. I read somewhere recently (there's helpful; if pushed I'd guess it was the Guardian, possibly last Saturday) that Gillett & Hicks have taken out a new loan; if memory serves, £150m was mentioned. Is that true - and if so, is it worrying for you - or just badly written?

Could've been this in the Telegraph? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... ins329.xml

The loan is a refinancing of the original ones used to buy the club, at preferable interest rates.

By and large the stuff in the papers about the finances is a load of bollocks, because it's written largely by sports journalists and not financial experts. There's a couple of good posters on RAWK who are involved in finance professionally (ttnbd is one in particular) who's good at cutting through all the various budgets and finance deals. Could dig up some salient points about the stadium on there if you were interested...

[H. Pedersen]

blurred, you do seem to be in something of a no-man's land: not enough money to outbid the likes of United, Chelsea, or Madrid, but enough money that clubs are happy to bilk you for £5.5 million on Benayoun, £9 million for Kuyt, etc. But I think an element of this is self sabotage by Benitez. As I said earlier, he spreads the money thin to maximize the chance of cup victories, thinking (knowing?) that Liverpool can't realistically challenge for the title . . . I'd guess he sees this as the way to hold into his job. He's gambled a bit with increased spending this summer but I still don't see Champion-level quality beyond a handful of players.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Blurred,

I'm not fishing here, I'm genuinely intrigued. I read somewhere recently (there's helpful; if pushed I'd guess it was the Guardian, possibly last Saturday) that Gillett & Hicks have taken out a new loan; if memory serves, £150m was mentioned. Is that true - and if so, is it worrying for you - or just badly written?

Could've been this in the Telegraph? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... ins329.xml

The loan is a refinancing of the original ones used to buy the club, at preferable interest rates.

By and large the stuff in the papers about the finances is a load of bollocks, because it's written largely by sports journalists and not financial experts. There's a couple of good posters on RAWK who are involved in finance professionally (ttnbd is one in particular) who's good at cutting through all the various budgets and finance deals. Could dig up some salient points about the stadium on there if you were interested...

Up to you. I saw it, raised an eyebrow, and thought "I'll ask Blurred". Don't go out yer way though.

On the subject of the title race, I've only just realised Arsenal will keep Adebayor during the ACoN 'cos Togo didn't qualify. That's gotta hurt (you)...

[blurred]

Up to you. I saw it, raised an eyebrow, and thought "I'll ask Blurred". Don't go out yer way though.

On the subject of the title race, I've only just realised Arsenal will keep Adebayor during the ACoN 'cos Togo didn't qualify. That's gotta hurt (you)...

Yep, but they'll be losing Eboue and Toure which is good enough for me (we'll be losing Sissoko I think). Chelsea are the hardest hit of the big clubs, 4 of theirs are disappearing. Obviously it'd be better if Adebayor was going, but never mind.

And if I come across anything decent on RAWK about it I'll try and remember to copy it across thisaway.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Up to you. I saw it, raised an eyebrow, and thought "I'll ask Blurred". Don't go out yer way though.

On the subject of the title race, I've only just realised Arsenal will keep Adebayor during the ACoN 'cos Togo didn't qualify. That's gotta hurt (you)...

Yep, but they'll be losing Eboue and Toure which is good enough for me (we'll be losing Sissoko I think). Chelsea are the hardest hit of the big clubs, 4 of theirs are disappearing. Obviously it'd be better if Adebayor was going, but never mind.

And if I come across anything decent on RAWK about it I'll try and remember to copy it across thisaway.

Ta. Toure's the big miss for them, Eboue will be covered by Sagna/Hleb (depending where you see Eboue as playing nowadays). They've got Senderos to replace Toure, but he always makes me suspect there's a Swiss village somewhere advertising for a new idiot. As you say Chelsea will miss a lot of raw power, especially without Mikel and Essien in midfield; Ballack and Sidwell aren't exactly the worst replacements but it'll be a tricky month for the poor tossbags, sorry, lambs.

[blurred]

Ta. Toure's the big miss for them, Eboue will be covered by Sagna/Hleb (depending where you see Eboue as playing nowadays). They've got Senderos to replace Toure, but he always makes me suspect there's a Swiss village somewhere advertising for a new idiot. As you say Chelsea will miss a lot of raw power, especially without Mikel and Essien in midfield; Ballack and Sidwell aren't exactly the worst replacements but it'll be a tricky month for the poor tossbags, sorry, lambs.

It's where squads and, dare I say it, rotation come into play. We're well stocked in central midfield with Mascherano, Alonso, Gerrard and Lucas to cover for Sissoko's absence, but whether the other sides have such strength in depth is another thing entirely. Think that Toure and Essien are much bigger misses for their respectively sides than Momo is for us. I don't think it's a massive difference, but every little helps, and if it means either of them draw a game they'd otherwise've won, then that's 2 points in our favour.

Going to be a fascinating season - no idea who I'd have my money on at the moment, to be honest.

[bobo the clown]

Blurred ... sorry, but, apart from for tomorrow's game when it's directly relevant to Bolton Wanderers ... I DON'T CARE !!!

[blurred]

Blurred ... sorry, but, apart from for tomorrow's game when it's directly relevant to Bolton Wanderers ... I DON'T CARE !!!

Fair enough, a similar sentiment can be applied to the relegation battle and me, except when we're playing sides down the bottom of the table.