Bird's eye view

Kenny Dalglish reminds Liverpool who and what they are

2011-01-22T20:06:00.000Z

I'm not usually a fan of the Guardian's football coverage, or the paper itself, but this guy gets it about right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/jan/22/kenny-dalglish-liverpool

"With confidence slipping, Dalglish saw the need to bring the team's under-achievers back up to the required standards, and used encouragement, his own charisma and a more positive tactical outlook to restore faith in and around the first-team squad."

Straight out of the Shankly School of Management then. Is right.

Article on Spirit of Shankly's plans for 2011

2010-12-30T00:19:00.000Z

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2010/12/27/spirit-of-shankly-continue-to-fight-for-liverpool-fc-fans-100252-27890157/3/

Would've been nice to hear more about SOS's plans on how fans could come together to take a meaningful stake in the club.

England not winning the Great Game and all that

2010-12-06T00:09:00.002Z

The reaction to Russia scooping the 2018 World Cup ahead of England is irritating in the extreme.

First, the blaming of the BBC and the Sunday Times for providing evidence of Fifa corruption begs the question of what would one rather have - a free press or a football tournament? I mean I'd rather live in a country where football wasn't 'coming home' (itself a phrase that smacks of self aggrandisement) than one in which journalists were routinely roughed up and occasionally murdered. Get some fucking perspective please.

Second, in all the talk of rampant cronyism at Fifa, not once have I seen it noted that our own FA is as much of an old boys' club as any institution in a country full of them.

Third, Fifa is a political and economic project. Why therefore would Fifa stage a World Cup in England, where football is near saturation level when one could exploit the growth opportunities that Russia has to offer? That so many thought we had a chance in spite of this hints at the attitude that we, as 'the birthplace of football', had some sort of divine right to host the tournament.

That is all.

Hope this kid stays in the picture...

2010-11-23T22:41:00.002Z

This video of academy talent Raheem Sterling is worth a watch. He looks an ace player. Potential to become our best winger since Barnes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbDxiKM0c8M

Not bad for a Manc

2010-09-21T23:24:00.001+01:00

Speech from hedgie Paul Marshall on why fans should back share ownership...

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/09/21/348626/something-rotten-in-british-football/

RBS and the Liverpool loan

2010-09-11T21:54:00.003+01:00

A lot has been written about RBS moving Liverpool's debt to a restructuring team, which has been interpreted as being as good as saying that the loan agreement won't be extended on 6 October. Let's hope so.

This from Bloomberg is encouraging as it would suggest that Hicks's and Gillett's efforts to secure £800m won't pass muster, which would, one hopes, rekindle the interest shown by the likes of Kenny Huang in the club:

"Prospective buyers were told they would have to pay off RBS debts in full, finance a new stadium and improve the squad. The people said RBS would now accept a down payment of between 100 million pounds and 150 million pounds with an agreement to pay the remainder of the loan down over a longer term.

Groups from India and Hong Kong linked with Liverpool have released statements saying they are no longer interested in bidding. Yahya Kirdi, a Canada-based Syrian investor, claims to represent a group interested in acquiring the team.

If you were a prospective buyer, I would call RBS and say I’m interested in buying your loan,' Schechter said. 'I would notify Gillett and Hicks that I’m the new lender and there will be no extensions, renewal or modifications of the loan: It is due and payable in full on Oct. 6. What that does is stop the game.'"

Fun and games from the Grauniad

2010-09-11T21:20:00.004+01:00

Exhibit 1: In which Guardian football journalist Barney Ronay argues that the reason Frank Lampard is so hated is because he is middle class: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/sep/11/frank-lampard-middle-class-barney-ronay

Sample quote: "I have my own theory as to why Lampard has attracted this kind of treatment, right from the swell of inarticulate outrage that surrounded him as teenager at West Ham United. Ancient fault-lines are in play, a scabrous irritation that seems likely to become more prominent as football continues its generational making over and primping up. Lampard, you see, is middle class. Or at least, he is perceived dimly to be middle class: and middle classness is the game's last great taboo, a social grouping that in football circles is employed as a term of unambiguous abuse, as though being middle class is in itself evidence of loyalty-shortfall and backbone-absence and fundamental personality-castration; rather than simply indicating a middling education, an urge to say 'thanks cheers' at least four times during any basic retail transaction and the likelihood at least one of your parents is a genial history teacher."

Exhibit 2: In which Guardian football journalist Marina Hyde tells us why we should all hate Frank Lampard based on his autobiography: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/aug/03/sport.comment3

Sample quote: "Consider Lampard's reflections after a fortnight spent on Roman Abramovich's yacht. 'I suppose people imagine that as a Premiership footballer, my life is quite special,' he hazards. 'I would agree, but those two weeks opened my eyes to another world.' Ah, a millionaire yearning to be a billionaire ... is there anything more charmless?"

Erm...

WELL RED MAGAZINE: The Power of Numbers

2010-08-22T22:07:00.004+01:00

Article for third issue of Well Red

On 4 June, the Spirit of Shankly supporters' union announced a new plan for fan ownership. At its heart, the plan involves the creation of a credit union to collect payments from supporters to buy a stake in Liverpool Football Club.

Spearheading it is Peter Furmedge, a member of Spirit of Shankly who was formerly a board member of Share Liverpool. Having become frustrated with the snail's-pace progress of Share Liverpool, and having had a merger proposal rejected two days earlier (further meetings took place in early June, with Share Liverpool agreeing to a merged structure. But, to date, the heads of terms remain unsigned by Share Liverpool), Spirit of Shankly chose to activate a contingency plan it had been working on for six months.

This plan is based upon that agreed with Share Liverpool prior to the launch of the £500 share scheme last July. However, there is a difference in that Spirit of Shankly wanted to make certain that any scheme to buy a stake in the club was as accessible as possible and, to achieve that aim, proposed the credit union model. The Spirit of Shankly, Liverpool Supporters Credit Union will allow fans to save towards the cost of a £500 share in a supporter-ownership bid by making regular deposits of as little or as much as they can afford once they state their intentions to buy a share. The Share Liverpool plan called on fans to make a one-off payment of £500 into a Share Liverpool FC-nominated account.

Money saved would remain in fans' hands until they sign it over to buy a share in the supporter ownership bid. If the scheme does not work, then fans will retain all of the money in their account plus any interest accrued.

Spirit of Shankly approached the Merseyside-based Partners Credit Union to see if they would be willing to allow a Spirit of Shankly credit union to operate under their umbrella in order to establish a viable means of holding fans' contributions to a share-ownership fund while money was collected and the terms of any bid agreed among those seeking to invest. The Partners Credit Union is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and is a member of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme so deposits up to the value of £50,000 are insured. It was established in 1993 and brings together many of Liverpool’s older credit unions and the City Council’s own employees' credit union.

It is expected that those on Merseyside should be able to start subscribing to the credit union from August. Following this pilot period, an expected change in the common bond rules required for Partners, which at present limits to those that live in Merseyside, will hopefully see those from elsewhere able to subscribe shortly after.

The proposal presents a significant step forward for three reasons.

First, being able to say to the media and commercial partners alike that there is X amount of cash sitting in a credit union devoted to the cause is far more compelling than saying you have X number of pledges. It is a very effective piece of propaganda. Members of Spirit of Shankly such as myself know that if we can convince the entire fan base to cooperate, then we have the financial and intellectual mite to have a marked impact on the future of Liverpool Football Club. Others are sceptical in the extreme. This will go a long way in helping to convert them.

Second, the use of the credit union model is very much in line with the broader ethos of Spirit of Shankly. Like the union, credit unions are grassroots organisations based on communities working together in order to promote their financial well being. They are both democratic co-operatives run by and for their members. Credit unions allow people to borrow at affordable rates, they are set up to stop poor people being mugged by snidey loan sharks, Spirit of Shankly to stop fans being mugged by snidey suits. The model is also in line with the ethos of Spirit of Shankly in that it is all-inclusive, allowing those who cannot afford £500 upfront to hold a stake in the club they love.

Third, revisiting the point above on cheap borrowing rates, the credit union could enable Spirit of Shankly members to leverage their savings in order to provide more capital for the ownership bid. If fans wanted to contribute more in order to fund the purchase of a larger stake for the club, then after three months they could apply for a loan of up to three times the value of their savings, taking their total contribution to a potential £2,000 (the credit union offers life insurance on all loans and can also arrange cover against accident, sickness and cover). And, in the worst case scenario, should a supporter ownership bid not materialise, at least fans will be able to save and borrow for the likes of season tickets and European travel without resorting to expensive overdrafts and credit cards.

However, though not specific to the credit union model, three important issues regarding the fan ownership bid remain. Before I go into these, let me say that fan ownership is they only way we as fans can protect both the club's cultural heritage and its long-term financial health. I have every confidence that Spirit of Shankly will consult with its members on all of these issues in a democratic and transparent way.

First, the Spirit of Shankly model differs from that of Share Liverpool in that – though the union would prefer full ownership – it would settle for a shareholding that will offer supporter representation on the board. However, it needs to be clear to those that wish to contribute to the credit union and, hence, the shareholding, what the minimum share is that they would accept and what this would likely cost. Any decision on this must be based on how much of a stake we need to have to be able to force motions to improve the club, or block proposals that are to its detriment. (Furmedge has said that all investors will be consulted and vote on this and that, at the very minimum, the investment must give fans not only a seat on the board but, in his view, also pre-emption rights to the purchase of shares in any future sale or partial sale of the club.)

Second, at the extraordinary general meeting held in central Liverpool on 12 June, Fran Stanton, the chair of Spirit of Shankly, agreed with suggestions that Tom Hicks and George Gillett were vastly overvaluing the club at £600m. It was, he said, the view of the union that the club was only worth the value of its debt owed to the Royal Bank of Scotland as this was the amount that the bank would eventually sell the club for (it is part of Spirit of Shankly's strategy to pressurise RBS to force a sale). As of the end of the previous financial year, Liverpool's debts amounted to £378.6m, £234m of which was through bank loans, the vast chunk of which are with RBS, with the remainder owed to Hicks's and Gillett's Cayman Islands venture Kop Football Limited (which is charging interest at a rather unreasonable 10% per annum (the Bank of England's bank rate is 0.5%)). Given that the union would appear to value the club at £234m, it's necessary for Spirit of Shankly to determine the maximum they would pay. Even if what the credit union raised fell short of £234m, the union might be able to secure additional financing should fans support this. But would they raise their bid if another possible buyer put forth a higher offer? Would they form a deal with a commercial partner who valued the club at, say, £400m?

Third, as with the Share Liverpool scheme, it is unclear what Spirit of Shankly's stance is on what is , for me, the key factor in determining our financial health: the building of a new stadium (or perhaps the redevelopment of Anfield). An architect has approached both Share Liverpool and Spirit of Shankly with what Furmedge views as viable plans for the redevelopment of Anfield at a significantly lower cost than that quoted by Hicks’s associates in Dallas. The union is also intent on investigating several options for stadium financing, so there may be some more insight provided on this in the near future.

How blue is the elephant? Barca's debt

2010-08-22T21:19:00.006+01:00

The excellent Swiss Ramble has posted on Barcelona's much-hyped money woes. The post goes into a lot of detail about the accounts, and suggests that new president Sandro Rossell's accounting owes much to his distate of former chairman Joan Laporta, and to the politics of a club so much a part of the Catalan identity.

Swiss Ramble acknowledges that there is a cash flow problem, which has largely resulted from the perilous financial position of sports broadcaster Mediapro, and that the information in the public domain indicates some financial mismanagement over the past 12 months. However, the nub of the article is that Rossell's definition of debt is so broad as to amount to scaremongering, and that - while things need to change - Barcelona is more than capable of financing its debt.

It all makes for a fascinating read for nerds like me who get a kick out of thinking about what should count as debt and what shouldn't. But what I'd be equally interested in reading about is how the fans were hoodwinked. Surely fan ownership should stop this kind of deception. Of course, it's a grim irony that Laporta led Elefant Blau (Blue Elephant), the fan group set up to foster a more democratic, more transparent FC Barcelona.

Anyway, has anyone read anything on this topic or spoken to any fans?

The Champions League? It was me wot won it, says Houllier

2010-08-22T20:32:00.004+01:00

Was absolutely flabbergasted reading this interview with Gerard Houllier, which appeared in Evading Standards last month.

Doing his best impression of Mary-Ann Bighead, Houllier attempts to take credit for Istanbul, claims he dragged Liverpool into the 21st century, labels Roy Evans "nice but weak", and sticks the boot into Benitez for good measure. Hmm...

A few choice cuts:

On Istanbul/ Benitez...

After Rafa Benitez left this summer, one of the players sent me a message,” Houllier tells me. “He said, "Boss, he hasn't beaten you.'”

Houllier refuses to name the player concerned but relishes telling another story that emphasises the respect his old squad had for him.

It came in the aftermath of Benitez's greatest moment of glory in winning the Champions League in 2005 against AC Milan, coming back from 3-0 down at half-time to win on penalties.

Houllier takes up the story. “When I came into the changing room in Istanbul some of the players said: Boss it's your team.'

“Twelve out of 14 in Istanbul were players I had signed or developed. I left Liverpool with a team and in the Champions League. But when you finish seventh with Torres and Gerrard . . .”

On Roy Evans...

“I insisted on joint management with Roy,” he says.

“I was coming from outside and thought that it was good to work together. It didn't work for many reasons. Roy was too soft, nice but weak and, when there was a decision to take he would, well, Peter Robinson will tell you, leave me with a hot potato.

“Roy would have been a fantastic number two, not a number one.”

On dragging the club into the present...

"...he still believes his pioneering tenure made it easy for Benitez to follow.

“One, the pattern of getting a foreign coach was already accepted. Two, he had a Champions League-winning team. Three, the team were already in the Champions League. Four, we had built new facilities. And five, it was a different training routine, different attitude and mentality.

“I claim that we — Phil Thompson, Sammy Lee and the staff — definitely turned it round. The chairman, when I left, said: You put the club into the 21st century.'”

Rafa's mind games

2010-07-12T15:07:00.009+01:00

Yossi Benayoun’s portrayal of Rafael Benitez makes the manager sound like a right nasty bastard.

Benayoun told the News of the Screws (read the article in the Guardian) in an interview published Sunday that Benitez was the only reason he left Liverpool.

Benayoun said: “If I played well, I never felt he gave me credit.” Ok, fair enough, it must be difficult trying to keep the egos of 20-something multi-millionaires in check so I can sort of see why Benitez will have been reluctant to heap praise on his charges.

However, Benayoun then goes on to say: “On two occasions early last season, against Fulham and Lyon, the fans booed when I was subbed. They thought I was playing well but Benitez told me he was surprised the fans booed because I was not good enough.” I really don’t understand the rationale for this. Shankly created a culture in which his starting eleven felt as though they were each the best player in their position in the world. Benitez on the other hand, created one in which Benayoun believed his own manager was deliberately trying to destroy his confidence. “Benitez tried to break me like he broke Riera,” he said.

He is a clever man, and this tactic would make no sense. But it is not as though it is the first time we heard Liverpool players say this sort of thing. Pennant was similarly scathing. Carragher has also portrayed Benitez as a boss given to heaping criticism on those under his charge. It seems as though the manager was intent that the players at all times knew at all times who was boss to an extent where his behaviour verged on bullying.

Now I prefer the Shankly style of leadership: do such a good job of coaching your players that you can heap them with praise without feeling as though they will start to take liberties. When other clubs were trying to coax a teenage Denis Law away from Huddersfield Town, Shankly said to him: “I didn’t make you son, and Andy Beattie [Shankly’s predecessor] didn’t make you. But I will tell you something, we helped.” That night Law signed a professional contract with Huddersfield.

Could you have that sort of approach now that footballers are paid millions, treated as demi-gods and many surround themselves with a posse of yes-men? I don’t know. Creating a harsher climate may be more necessary now than it was in Shankly’s era. However, having watched Liverpool under Benitez’s stewardship, it was clear that he did not get the best out of many of the, for want of a better phrase, “flair” players that he bought. By the sounds of it, the mind games had more than a little to do with this.

Help Save Liverpool FC campaign posters

2010-05-31T20:35:00.005+01:00

What's your favourite colour Fernando?

2010-05-29T20:42:00.002+01:00

If you love Liverpool, but don't give a fuck about what Torres's favourite colour is, then read this.

UEFA's new financial fair play rules

2010-05-29T11:55:00.003+01:00

The full UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, edition 2010, are not out until June. However, the powers-that-be at UEFA on Thursday agreed on the following:

Clubs will be assessed on a risk basis, taking into account debts and salary levels, as well as the following main pillars:

• Break-even requirement – clubs must not spend more than they generate over a period of time
• No overdues payable during the season – towards other clubs, employees and/or social/tax authorities
• Provision of future financial information – to ensure clubs can meet their future obligations

The independent Club Financial Control Panel, chaired by Jean-Luc Dehaene, will be responsible for the monitoring process in terms of assessing the documentation submitted by the licensor and, if necessary, requesting additional information.

Two questions immediately spring to mind:

How would this enable clubs to make big investments for the long term? For instance, if a club wanted to finance a new stadium how could they do so under the new rules? Would UEFA ok proposals for a new stadium so long as the club could present compelling evidence that the initial financial losses could be more than offset by the long-term gains?
Will the rules herald a shift from benevolent billionaires investing in European clubs and instead looking to Asia or the Americas?

UPDATE
This post pretty much answers my first question. Under the UEFA rules clubs will be encouraged to invest in long-term infrastructure - stadia, youth set-ups and the like.

However, it has raised another. Apparently Platini and the powers-that-be are unperturbed by debt per se, rather that club's debt levels become unsustainable. Does this mean that under the new rules any borrowing undertaken by football clubs would have to be undertaken at fixed, rather than flexible, rates? And that rolling over debt, as has been seen at Liverpool with the RBS loan, would be outlawed? Otherwise, what seems sustainable in the short-term could become unsustainable should financial markets take a turn for the worse.

WELL RED MAGAZINE: Who do we want as the next owners?

2010-05-29T11:14:00.005+01:00

My article for Well Red

With Liverpool up for sale, fans can dream of the day that the club eventually rids itself of Hicks and Gillett. But who will take the reins? Could it be a chance for fans to take control of the club they love?

The news that Liverpool is up for sale has met with cheer from fans. Rightly so. Tom Hicks and George Gillett have failed miserably to meet the two criteria essential to successful ownership: a secure financial footing and a respect for the culture of the club.

It is on these two criteria that their potential successors should be judged.

The financial future of the club has long hinged on a new (or bigger) stadium. Matchday income accounts for the largest chunk of revenue of Manchester United and Arsenal. And it closely follows broadcasting revenues for Liverpool and Chelsea as the most important source of income.

All of the top five clubs in Deloitte's annual football rich list have stadia with a capacity of pretty much 60,000 or more, with the two top earners, Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, having capacities of more than 80,000. Arsenal's move to the Emirates raised average matchday revenue by 97% to £3.1million (Liverpool's is an estimated £1.3 million a game; Man United's £3.6 million, Chelsea's £2.3m).

Even after interest payments for the financing of the stadium are accounted for, the club is still £20 million up for the year. The revenue stream also seems relatively resistant to economic downturns with supporters preferring to make a host of other sacrifices to secure their season ticket.

Without a new stadium, Liverpool will quite simply lack the financial might to compete at the top level. The relationship between purchasing power and success is not as causal as some suggest. You can compensate, as Wenger and FC Barcelona have done, by having an excellent youth set-up (although you still have to pay high wages for the best kids). But there is enough of a correlation between revenue and success to say that it matters.

It is on this pledge, to build a new stadium, that Hicks and Gillett have most crucially reneged. The discord between the fans and the owners may owe something to cultural cross-wires – American sports teams are often run as franchises and, for the club's owners, fans' attachment to the club's heritage as an integral part of the city's history must've come as something of a shock. But ultimately, the roots of the dispute stem from the lack of promised investment. Saddling themselves with debt in the build-up to the crisis meant that Hicks and Gillett were unable to secure financing for a new stadium without fresh capital. Liverpool fans must recognise that this is the key reason why they must go.

In terms of preserving the club's culture, the well-run and financed share-ownership model is as near to the Platonic ideal as you can get. The history of FC Barcelona should leave no-one in any doubt of that. The ruling ideas in a society stem from those who own the means of production. As owners of the club, the fans would dictate the culture. FC Barcelona serves to cement the Catalan identity, building its success on the tribal nature of a region desperate to assert its independence from Madrid. There is not so much at stake in terms of regional politics, but Liverpool Football Club is an integral part of the city of Liverpool's heritage. It must remain thus.

The traditional ownership model seen in British football, one which was successfully adopted by Liverpool for the bulk of the last century, that of the local businessman making good and buying the club, can also preserve the club's culture. It was under this model that Shankly thrived. But there is one crucial distinction: the local businessman can sell, the fans cannot.

There may be those that seek the succour of a billionaire businessman. However, the fate of Dubai's Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, whose wish to buy the club has been scuppered by the emirate's debt troubles, highlights the dangers of relying on the financial fate of one individual.

In the interests of preserving the culture of the club, all fans should back share ownership. However, though the governance structure strikes me as sound, there are financial elements of ShareLiverpoolFC's proposals that warrant closer inspection and questioning before anyone stumps up their cash.

ShareLiverpoolFC acknowledges a bigger stadium, as “a necessity for LFC”. However, it notes that “the financing of a new stadium or extension isn't that complicated.” This view is completely disingenuous and displays a worrying lack of insight into the current conditions of global credit markets.

During one of the biggest credit bubbles in history, Arsenal – chaired by the well connected, Eton educated Peter Hill-Wood – initially struggled to secure funding for the Emirates. We're now living in the aftermath of the bursting of that bubble. Yes, the balance sheet is likely to be a damn sight healthier under the fan-owned model as there would be no debt, which would make financing easier. But there's a big difference between easier and easy.

Any bank lending for the new stadium would likely have to be secured on the club, which ShareLiverpoolFC want to buy for £350m but which could be valued at far less. The new stadium is expected to cost £400m to build, meaning that even at ShareLiverpoolFC's valuation, the club would still need to find £50m for an unsecured loan. This is no mean feat. This is not to say it couldn't be done. But there needs to be more on this in the ShareLiverpoolFC prospectus. Would they, like Arsenal, consider a bond issue? Would interest payments be secured at fixed, not flexible, rates?

As fans, we owe it to the club to ensure that it does not once more fall into the hands of the likes of Hicks and Gillett. We cannot afford again to get seduced by false promises of new stadia from people with finances leakier than Everton's defence. We must make fan ownership work and that means becoming financially literate and asking awkward questions. ShareLiverpoolFC, for one, must provide the answers.

Wellredmag.co.uk

Hicks in the bankruptcy courts after Texas Rangers goes bust

2010-05-26T18:41:00.002+01:00

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1da493c-6795-11df-a932-00144feab49a.html

It sounds as though Tom Hicks has been making as much of a mess of sports teams (franchises surely no?) Stateside as he has been here.

Hicks' 12-year ownership, which the Financial Times - not a paper prone to hyperbole - describes as "turbulent", is to end in the bankruptcy courts after he opted for a voluntary Chapter 11 filing.

In a nutshell, he spent a wad of cash that largely wasn't his on buying the world's best/ greediest baseball players and failed to win the World Series and so couldn't pay said cash back.

According to the Financial Times Hicks had been exploring a possible sale for about a year, but creditors holding about $500m of debt initially opposed the sale, hoping for a higher offer from another bidder. Hmm, holding out for a too-high bid for a highly-indebted club in some of the worst financial conditions since the advent of industrialisation? That sounds strangely familiar.

So it goes.

Liverpool in the red...

2010-05-07T19:46:00.001+01:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/8668320.stm

Bulk of loss owing to interest payments. Parry's severance package thought to be worth £3m...

Red devils' takeover

2010-03-02T22:42:00.003Z

Nice piece here putting the planned takeover of Utd into perspective.

Some background on the debt issue.

Festive cheers

2010-01-01T14:24:00.006Z

Six points out of six for Liverpool over the holiday season has left fans with renewed hope that the team can clinch the fourth spot. The Christmas period also brought welcome news on the plans for the new stadium, the building of which will -- according to the head of Liverpool City Council -- start in the spring.

Watched the first win, a 2-nil victory against Wolves, at Anfield on Boxing Day. The breakthrough goal came after 60 minutes or so, soon after Wolves were down to ten men. Showing the grit and determination seen throughout his career, Gerrard towered above two of their defenders to get his head on a decent cross by Insua.

The sense of relief was palpable. Up until that point, frustration abounded around the ground as move after move went awry with some of the players' efforts appearing increasingly lacklustre as the game wore on. Liverpool dominated and, contrary to what the pundits said, Wolves offered little in the way of attacking intent. They were poor, their only chances coming from our back four's unwillingness to talk to one another. Aquilani offered some glimmers of hope, particularly earlier on in the second half when he pinged the ball 40 yards from the left flank to find Benayoun on the right side of the 18-yard box in space. However, his and other players' inconsistent passing in the final third looked likely to cost us a win until Gerrard's goal, followed ten minutes later with a Benayoun strike.

The same problem prevailed at Villa Park a few days later. Villa might've scuffed a couple of good chances, meaning that the highlights told a different story. But we largely dominated the game. Yet, again, our sloppy passing (and, to give Villa their due, solid defending) meant we were unable to muster many decent efforts until they gifted Torres his goal in the 92nd minute.

Despite pundits' negativity (good wrap-up here), to me it's blisteringly clear that Aquilani has the raw ability to fulfil his remit as the team's fulcrum, providing more potential for goals. His passing accuracy will undoubtedly improve with more match fitness.

What's more of a concern is Johnson's injury. Skrtel's late tackle on the edge of the 18-yard box moments after coming on underlined how much of a liability he is. With Johnson out for the next month and Carragher likely to provide cover at right back, neither Skrtel nor Kyrgiakos look up to the job.

New dawn fades....again

2009-12-21T13:09:00.001Z

Liverpool's loss at Portsmouth means the team has failed to muster back-to-back wins in the League since September and snuffs out the hope that we had managed to turn a corner with the Wigan win.

Again, a number of tactical anomalies accompanied today's loss.

Benitez opted to start with Lucas Leiva and Javier Mascherano, two players who essentially perform the same function, rather than dropping one in favour of the seemingly perennial benchwarmer Alberto Aquilani. Always susceptible to being more of an asset than a liability when he's not playing his best, Mascherano was sent off five minutes before half time for a daft and needless tackle. At least Mascherano's consequent four-match ban may allow us to see Aquilani get a run in the team.

Andrea Dossena started ahead of player of the season so far Yossi Benayoun. Starting a player with as little attacking guile as Dossena against the bottom team of the league reeks of a lack of ambition. Benayoun must be wondering what he has to do to get in the starting line-up.

Rafa has won La Liga, the UEFA cup, the Champions League and the FA Cup. He must have some inkling about how to get the best out of players and what his best team is. But I just can't fathom his reasoning.

Henry handball a selfless act

2009-12-06T20:27:00.002Z

Interesting snippet in this weekend's Financial Times written by Tim Harford, aka the Undercover Economist, which notes that from an economic perspective Theirry Henry's handball was a selfless act. Why? Because, though his teammates and France fans will gain from going to the World Cup, Henry is likely to suffer financially. losing out on lucrative endorsements after having tarnished his image.

I think Harford's right. And, as The Political Economy of Football has said, if Henry's mooted move to the New York Red Bulls goes ahead, the incident is likely to have even more of a hand in denting Henry's bank balance owing to the US sports audience's preference for sublime athleticism to be coupled with moral flawlessness (see Tiger Woods).

Barca's interactive catalogue

2009-12-05T21:50:00.005Z

Barca is trying to sell its wares through an interactive catalogue.

The catalogue looks great, it's easy to navigate and makes good use of the features that the medium allows, such as video. But I can't wholly understand why they've gone to the effort of creating this. If you want to buy, say, the club's home shirt, then you can do so easily enough already through either the official site or a load of other retailers. Using the catalogue just adds another step to the selling process as the 'Click to buy' icon merely leads you to the right page on the online store. I guess the club hopes the catalogue will entice you to buy merchandise that you never knew existed. It might work. But Barca could do so as effectively through good navigation and considered product placement on its online shop.

Yet the catalogue is effective in cementing the Barca brand's image. The team is admired throughout the world by fans of other teams owing to their reputation as a stylish, creative outfit, and for players such as Messi and Xavi. The catalogue is in line with that image and perhaps will impact revenue indirectly as a result. People won't bother to buy through the catalogue but it might just sway them the next time they're looking to fork out on a second football shirt.

Why Aquilani didn't play

2009-12-05T18:25:00.005Z

Aquilani's non-appearance against Blackburn is bound to stoke rumours of a bust-up between the Italian and the manager. But Benitez says here that the reason why he has avoided fielding him in recent weeks is because playing someone who is not fully match fit in a tight game is a risk to both player and team.

Hope this is true and that we'll see Aquilani in the Champions League on Wednesday. However, there is a flaw in Benitez's logic here. With seven minutes to go and the score at 2-2, Aquilani came on for Lucas against Birmingham last month. Wasn't the same supposed risk that would've justified keeping Il Principino on the bench today equally applicable against Birmingham?

Why left is best

2009-12-01T22:56:00.005Z

Made up to hear the news that Lionel Messi has scooped the Ballon d'Or, making left footers like myself the world over proud. For me, Messi is the Platonic ideal of the left-footed footballer - tricksy, pacy and so elegant that he's able to make opponents look so cumbersome that they could be mistaken for troglodytes.

The reason I started watching football and following Liverpool was because of another quintessential left-footer - John Barnes, then Liverpool's number 10. A class act, even in the tights and gloves that he used to model Barnes was the most beautiful man I'd ever seen, graceful in the extreme. Looking back, he was not quite of Messi's calibre, but he still possessed many of the characteristics that make the Barca player the world's best, particularly his ability to change a game with a mazy run.

The economics of emotion

2009-11-29T00:02:00.000Z

Let’s start with the facts.

The owners of Liverpool Football Club and Everton Football club are saddled with debt.

Both are keen to build a new stadium.

Liverpool’s owners have proposed a 60,000-seater stadium to be situated in Stanley Park, which lies between Anfield and Goodison. However, the highly-leveraged nature of their business model is no longer tenable in the current economic environment, funding is no longer available and the plans have been shelved.

Everton have had plans for a 50,000-seater stadium located in Kirkby, which was part funded by Tesco money, rejected by the government.

Having new stadia is of fundamental import to the economic health of both clubs.

Now some opinion.

The events of the past week involving Dubai (as well as events of the past month in Greece) point to the fragile nature of the global economic recovery. Both clubs are going to struggle to find alternative investment for the next few years. We are in for a long period of anaemic growth with low levels of investment.

Both clubs would find it easier to source funds if they were willing to share a stadium in Stanley Park, planning approval for which would likely be forthcoming.

The fix has many practical advantages:
• The area is near to the existing grounds so the infrastructure is already there;
• Both teams play in Liverpool on alternate weeks meaning that the fixture calendar would easily allow for it;
• The San Siro, the joint home of Inter and Milan, shows that a stadium can be shared to great success.

Will it happen?

I hope not. As a fan, the idea is anathema. The tribal nature of football support has been well documented and nothing cements a tribe like having a base to love and to defend. Fortress Anfield.

I love going to Anfield. There’s no way I’d love going to a ground that we shared as much. We wouldn’t have the same sense of ownership, sense of belonging when we go there.

Conclusion.

The economics of emotion: the clubs have to spend twice as much and perhaps wait twice as long to build the stadia they so desperately need.

But having a new stadium of our own to match Anfield in atmosphere and spirit? Priceless.

No longer sheikhing Liverpool?

2009-11-28T22:57:00.000Z

It has underlined the tremulous state of the global financial markets and led to billions of dollars being knocked off stocks listed on exchanges across the globe. But on a more significant note Dubai’s decision to impose a standstill on its debt repayments looks like leaving Liverpool stuck with Gillett and Hicks for the foreseeable future.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai who was interested in buying Liverpool, had led the emirate’s rapid expansion into tourism and finance which resulted in unsustainable levels of debt. Though one suspects oil-rich Abu Dhabi will most likely step in to ease Dubai’s financial strains, one cannot see it agreeing to £500m purchases of football clubs anytime soon.

If the Sheikh had succeeded in his bid to buy the club, we may well have found ourselves in a similar position as we are in now – with highly-leveraged owners unable to finance the construction of a new stadium.

Xabi inteview

2009-11-28T22:25:00.000Z

An interview with Xabi Alonso appeared in the Guardian today.

Here's a link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/nov/28/xabi-alonso-liverpool-real-madrid-barcelona

The interview doesn't reveal anything that wasn't already well known - that Rafa tends to be distant, magnanimous with the players under his watch.

Here's what Alonso had to say: "Our relationship was totally professional, the way it had to be between a manager and a player, nothing more than that," says Alonso, before being asked if Benítez preferred to operate with a distance between himself and his players. "Yes, he is that way, that's the way he behaves. He was successful in that way at Valencia and he's been partly successful like that at Liverpool. You have to accept him that way. He is a very good manager and I have always been very grateful for the chance that he gave me five years ago. I respect him a lot."

Everton CEO in the Financial Times

2009-11-24T22:37:00.001Z

Interview with Everton's chief executive here talking about how vital a new stadium is: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61383caa-d899-11de-b63a-00144feabdc0.html

It notes here that Liverpool City Council has tried to put a stop to the complex in Kirkby, saying that the shops threaten to drag customers from Liverpool town centre. This is pretty shocking given that Liverpool has had a billion bucks of Grosvenor money invested in the past few years and that Knowsley is one of the most deprived boroughs in the country. Shame on you Liverpool councillors.

On a funnier note, 21,000 of Goodison's 40,000 seats have restricted views, meaning that 16,000 of the 37,000 bluenoses that regularly turn up can't see the game properly. Blind devotion or what?

Babel's babble

2009-11-24T22:20:00.000Z

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i2-4jrh9fnUlUJlrBCSeT1_wYH5w

Unhelpful comments made by Babel on Tuesday ahead of the Champions League game (to the Sun of all newspapers) saying that he wants to leave and that Rafa doesn't understand him.Words were obviously had after his early exit from the Citeh game after he got a knock following a collision with Gerrard.

Rafa will they sack yer?

2009-11-24T21:50:00.000Z

Out of the Champions League in the group stage. Liverpool's MD - the archetypal suit - is saying that the club "won't make managerial decisions made on two last minute goals." Which sounds as though they're willing to give Rafa a while yet. However, he also said Liverpool will be "financially neutral" if the club have a good run in the Europa League so you'd be foolish to take anything the guy says too seriously.And Rafa had a pallor that screamed nervous wreck the post-match interview.

It's horrible to know we're not in the last 16 and that's partly down to Rafa's tactics against Lyon at home, where we tried to cling on for a 1-0 win. Our inability to put more than one past Debrecen shows how much we are missing Alonso's creative passing. And, more importantly for the manager, a multi-million revenue stream has run dry.

But, as I've said before, Rafa should be judged on the performance of the team once Aquilani has started playing. Liverpool have a history of patience with managers. Long may it continue.

2009-11-22T21:43:00.000Z

A very handy cut-out-and-keep guide to all Rafa's transfer dealings, which I found here and have reproduced below in full.

I'm glad someone put in the effort to do this. Shows that Rafa is often unfairly maligned for his transfer dealings.

A few criticisms however.

Stephen Warnock is more than a good squad player. He's now Villa's first-choice left back and rightly so. It was a mistake selling him. I also think Danny Guthrie is a good squad player, though perhaps not first-team material.

What does seem to be a failing of Rafa's is his inability to turn promising talent into the real deal - see Babel, Lucas, and to an extent Agger and Skrtel as well. Wenger and (one must admit) Ferguson have an excellent record here.

But the list does underline that Rafa's done well when he has spent big. From the £10m-plus group only Robbie Keane has been a notable failure and there are question marks as to how much say Rafa had in that deal. The jury's still out on Babel - though if the Citeh game is anything to go by he looks as though he can't be bothered. And Mascherano, Torres and Alonso have all been big successes. Johnson and Aquilani look like following in their footsteps.

2004/05

£2m - Josemi: peanuts and was moved on in a swap for Kromkamp 18 months later
£1.5m - Antonio Nunez: part of the Michael Owen deal and filled a gap for a while. Peanuts.
£10.7m - Xabi Alonso: Massive success and sold for £30m+ in the summer when he wanted to leave
£6m - Luis Garcia: Massive success and sold to Athletico Madrid for £4m
Free - Pelligrino: Stop gap that allowed us to rest Sami for league games, benefitting us massively in Istanbul. Now on the coaching staff.
£6.3m - Fernando Morientes: Pretty much everyone made up when we signed him, top class, but never settled. Sold for £3m to Valencia.
£1m - Scott Carson: One the most highly rated young keepers around. Lost out through injury and signing of Reina when Dudek left the club. Sold for £3.25m.

Total bought: £27.5m

Free - Marcus Babbel: Released to Stuttgart at the end of his career.
£2.5m - Danny Murphy: Xabi Alonso signed to fill the role Murphy had in the side
£8.5m - Michael Owen: Wouldn't sign a new contract and sold before he left on a free. He's done nothing since that is a masterstroke with hindsight.
Free - Stephane Henchoz: Released to Celtic at the end of his career

Total sold: £11m

A total of £16.5m net spend in his first year at the club, with the vast majority of that being spent on Xabi Alonso.

2004/05 net spend: £16.5m

2005/06

£240,000 - Antonio Barragan: Kid for the future. Sold for £675,000 to Deportivo a year later.
Free - Boudewijn Zenden: Signed for nothing and released for nothing. Did a job for us.
£6m - Pepe Reina: In the top 3 or 4 keepers in the world now and still young. One of Rafa's best signings.
£5.6m - Momo Sissoko: Brilliant for a few years, had that eye injury and sold to Juventus when his form dipped for £8.2m. Replaced by Mascherano.
£7m - Peter Crouch: One signing I did question but proved to be a great bit of business. Turned him from a laughing stock into an international. Sold for £11m.
Unkown - Miki Roque: Kid bought for peanuts. Sold again for an unknown amount.
£150,000 - Jack Hobbs: Highly rated 16yr old signed from Lincoln. Didn't progress as hoped and sold to Leicester for a reported £1.5m, although figure not confirmed.
£190,000 Besian Idrizaj: No idea who he is
£1.5m - Mark Gonzales: Cheap player to provide back up for the left wing. Sold for £3.5m to Real Betis.
Exchange - Paul Anderson: Swapped for John Welsh. Sold for £250,000.
Exchange - Jan Kromkamp: Swapped for Josemi. Later sold for £1.75m
£5.8m - Daniel Agger: Blighted by injuries but potentially top class and great signing for the money.
£250,000 - David Martin: Young reserve keeper
Free - Robbie Fowler: Pay as you play deal and no risk involved. Scored a few goals. Released in the summer.

Total bought: £26.73

Free - Vladimir Smicer: Out of contract and released. Played a small part in Istanbul.
£3.5m - El Hadji Diouf: The best £3.5m Rafa has ever recieved.
Free - Pellegrino: Filled the gap in the last 5 months of the previous season, not good enough and released.
£2m - Alou Diarra: Sold for £2m. One of Houllier's buys.
£2m - Antonio Nunez: Bought for £1.5m and now sold for £2m when didn't work out.
£6.5m - Milan Baros: A Houllier signing sold at a profit. He's done nothing since.
Exchange - John Welsh: Swapped for Paul Anderson
Exchange - Josemi: Swapped for Kronkamp.

Total sold: £14m

2005/06 net spend: £12.73m
2006/07

£6m - Craig Bellamy: Good signing and later sold for £7.5m to fund Torres deal.
£2m - Gabriel Palletta: Played a few league cup games, not good enough and sold for £1.2m
Free - Fabio Aurelio: Very injury prone but a good player when fit. Great signing for nothing.
£6.7m - Jermaine Pennant: Second choice after missing out on Alves. Ran his contract down and released. Attitude stank.
£9m - Dirk Kuyt: Has his critics, but has been brilliant for the money. 15 goals last season from wide and vital to the way we play. Ultimate pro. Great signing.
£200,000 - Nabil El Zhar: Few cameos last season and improving. Injured now. Promising still. Peanuts.
£750,000 - Astrit Ajdarevic: No idea who he is, and released on a free to Leicester.
Loan - Daniele Padelli: Reserve keeper, made one appearance and never seen again.
Undisclosed - Jordy Brouwer: Young reserve.
£2.5m - Alvaro Arbeloa: Bargain signing, great service for a few years and sold for £3.5m when running his contract down.
Loan - Javier Mascherano: Rescued from West Ham, now one of the best defensive midfielders in the world and will probably be sold to Barca this summer for a massive profit. Paid £18.6m for him a year later at end of loan deal.

Total bought: £27.15m

£200,000 - Zak Whitbread: Youngster
Undisclosed - Bruno Cheyrou: Houllier flopped, sold for a reported £1.5m.
£3m - Fernando Morientes: Didn't work out. Cut his losses.
Free - Didi Hamann: Great servant, released at the end of his career
£675,000 - Antonio Barragan: Paid £240,000 for him.
£2m - Djimi Traore: Houllier signing and daylight robbery getting £2m for him
£500,000 - Neil Mellor: Signed as a kid and did a job for a while. Not good enough and released.
£1.75m - Jan Kromkamp: Nunez bought for £2m, swapped for him, who then sold for £1.75m. Stop gaps at minimal expense.
£525,000 - Darren Potter: Acadamy lad, not good enough and robbery getting that much for him.
£1.5m - Steven Warnock: Probably sold to cheap and looks a mistake with hindsight. Good squad player.
Free - Salif Diao: The clearout of Houllier's flops continues.

Total sold: £10.15m

2006/07 net spend: £17m

2007/08

£5m - Lucas Leiva: Brazilian player of the year when signed. Could still go either way but a lot to prove.
Undisclosed - Krisztian Nemeth: Promising youngster currently out on loan in Athens.
£270,000 - Mikel San Jose Dominguez: Youngester plays in the reserves.
£1.8m - Sebastian Leto: Left winger signing but refused a work permit. Sold for £3m.
£20.2m - Fernando Torres: Bargain of the century
Free - Andriy Voronin: Free transfer to strengthen the squad. Plays well in Germany, garbage over here.
£5m - Yossi Benayoun: Took a while to settle but now a key player. Superb signing and an absolute bargain.
£11.5m - Ryan Babel: Highly rated dutch international. Absolute waste of space. Bad signing on reflection, but nobody knew how he'd turn out. Still got potential but he can't be arsed.
Undisclosed - Charles Itandje: Back up keeper signed for peanuts. Now released.
£1.3m - Emiliano Insua: Youngster who is now a full Argentinian international and massive potential. Bargain.
£6.5m - Martin Skrtel: Been off form this season so far, but brilliant last year and a good signing for the money.
£18.6m - Javier Mascherano: Completion of loan deal

Total bought: £70.7m

£2.7m – Florent Simana-Pongolle: Houllier youngster sold wanting first team football.
£100,000 – Daniel O’Donnell: Kid sold
Free – Jerzy Dudek: Released at end of contract
Free - Zenden: Released at end of contract
Free – Robbie Fowler: Released at end of contract
£4m – Luis Garcia: Wanted to return to Spain. Great service.
£6m – Djibril Cisse: Houllier signing sold to part fund Torres deal.
£7.5m – Craig Bellamy: Sold at profit to part fund Torres deal
£3.5m – Mark Gonzales: Signed for £1.5m and sold when didn’t work out.
£1.2m – Gabriel Palletta: Bought for £2m but never worked out. Young defender.
£3.5m – Chris Kirkland: Houllier signing. Injury prone and wanted first team football.
£8.2m – Momo Sissoko: Great signing, good service, sold when lost his form at a profit.

Total sold: £36.7m

2007/08 net spend: £34m

2008/09

Free – Philip Degen: Garbage, but free.
£7m - Andrea Dossena: Italian international left back. Hasn’t settled. Bad signing.
£3.5m – Diego Cavalieri: Reserve keeper. Only played league cup games so far.
£1.5m – David N’gog: Young French striker. Promising.
£19m – Robbie Keane: Everyone made up when we signed him. Didn’t work out and sold back to Spurs for £16m.
£8m - Albert Riera: Spanish international. Started well but jury still out.

Total bought: £39m

£4m – John Arne Riise: Good servant but form tailed off. Snapped their hands off at £4m.
Free – Harry Kewell: Harry who?
Undisclosed – Anthony Le Tallec: Houllier youngster finally released. Fee not known.
£11m – Peter Crouch: Laughing stock bought for £7m. Great signing. Wanted first team football.
£2.25m – Danny Guthrie: Youngster from Acadamy thought not good enough.
£3.25m – Scott Carson: Injury prone and Reina now first choice. Sold at profit.
Undisclosed – Steve Finnan: Sold for a fee believed to be £1m
£16m – Robbie Keane: Didn’t work out.
Undisclosed – Jack Hobbs: Young defender that didn’t progress. Sold for believed to £1.5m.

Total sold: £36.5m

2008/09 net spend: £2.5m

2009/10

£17.5m – Glen Johnson: Big fee, but has been brilliant so far.
£17.1m - Alberto Aquilani: Injured so far but meant to be a class act. Highly rated in Italy.
£2m – Sotirios Kyrgiakos: Last minute signing to fill Hyypia’s shoes. Only money we had to spend.
£160,000 – Daniel Ayala: Young defender, played a few times this season and looked promising.

Total bought: £36.76m

£250,000 – Paul Anderson: Youngster that didn’t progess.
Free – Jermaine Pennant: Out of contract. Poor signing.
Free – Miki Roque: No idea who he is. Bought for peanuts.
£3m – Sebastian Leto: Signed for £1.8m but didn’t get a work permit. Had to sell.
£3.5m – Alvaro Arbeloa: Wanted to leave and out of contract in the summer.
£30m – Xabi Alonso: Wanted to leave. Bought for £10.7m. Great signing.

Total sold: £36.75m

2009/10 net spend: £10,000

Total Players Bought: £228,976,000
Total Players Sold: £145,100,000

Total Net Spend: £83,876,000

Cold feet

2009-11-22T00:07:00.000Z

The relatively temperate nature of autumn has meant that I had yet to feel the chill of the British winter until I went to watch Brentford versus Gateshead in the first round of the FA Cup last Tuesday.

Standing in the away end with a crowd of about 40 diehards, after half an hour I couldn't feel my toes. It was fucking freezing. When I think back, I've never been as cold as when I've watched football - a Newcastle Reserves game in the week between Christmas and New Year standing out as a particularly icy encounter. I went to Stockholm in January once when it was -12 degrees centigrade, but you were walking around so it didn't seem so bad. I've watched football matches where I've felt as though my feet would drop off they were that cold.

Anyway. Brentford won 5-2. They were by far the better side, largely because they were a lot quicker with the ball at their feet and had a lot better movement off it. They probably should have won by an even greater margin. Still Gateshead managed to steal a couple through their number nine. Incidentally, I have never seen two goals so alike. Both the assist and the shot were virtually identical. So it goes as Kurt Vonnegut would say.

Henry: damaged goods...

2009-11-21T23:52:00.000Z

For those of you still smarting from the Henry handball this snippet from http://www.footballeconomy.com/ might provide some consolation:

"Thierry Henry could pay a heavy price for his hand ball that gave France victory over Ireland. Henry has been earning £15m a year from sponsorship deals. He has been the face of global brands including Renault, Nike, Gillette and Pepsi. Between 2001 and 2006 he earned a reported £14m from Nike, a company he ditched in 2006 to sign with Reebok for a signing-on fee believed to be over £19m. With a certain irony, Reebok use him in advertising campaign entitled 'Play Responsibly'. He replaced David Beckham as one of the faces of Gillette and this earns him around £2m a year. The company said it picked Henry because he embodied 'true sporting values'. He also earns £3m a year from Pepis-Cola, as well as promoting the Thomas Hilfiger fashion label. However, now his brand has suffered serious reputational damage. It may affect his attempt to follow Beckham into the lucrative US market through his proposed move to MLS side New York Red Bulls next season. Fans and therefore sponsors in the US tend to care more about the moral standards of their sporting heroes."

As will the following pic...

Awaiting Il Principino

2009-11-21T23:12:00.000Z

It was a shame that we didn't get to see Alberto Aquilani today against Citeh.

We've only seen him play 20 minutes of first-team football, but his talent is so evident that once (or if given his injury record?) he's playing week-in week-out I think we'll start doing a lot better.

Given the season we're having, some could see my confidence in an injury-prone player with no Premier League pedigree as clutching at straws. It's not. Both his passing and his first-touch are first rate. He is a flair player who will serve us well.

And Liverpool fans shouldn't be too harsh on Rafa until we see Aquilani playing often. Alonso's departure, for me, revealed Rafa's 's weakness in man management. Yet it looks as though he's bought a quality replacement. Both the Citeh and the Birmingham games underlined the need for a creative passer who can find the right ball in the final third. Il Principino can do just that.

Brasil vs England - Barnes goal

2009-11-15T19:37:00.000Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SCyXGiJ-jc

Can't stand England but love this.

Aaaargh!

2009-10-31T17:06:00.000Z

Just lost 3-1 to Fulham at Craven Cottage.

Frustration amplified by two very odd substitutions.

Number one. Torres is replaced by Babel. Ok, so at this point it's 1-1 and with Torres not being fully fit and the Lyon game looming this one is sort of understandable. Still, we badly need the win and Torres should've stayed on. Soon after, Fulham score a second.

Number two. When Liverpool are 2-1 down with ten minutes to go, Benitez replaces Benayoun with Nathan Eccleston, an 18-year-old striker with not a second of Premier League experience. Benayoun is fuming and so are the travelling support. Benayoun has been one of our best, most creative players this season. Taking him off for an untested teenager seems like madness, regardless of the Lyon match.

It's soon followed by the harsh sending off of Degen. Down to ten men and without our two most prolific players. It gets worse. Minutes later Carragher is off and Fulham soon seal the win with a third goal from Clint Dempsey.

Fulham are an ok side and managed to snatch wins at the Cottage from the Mancs and Arsenal last season. But we were just too slow in attack, our passing lacked incision.

Wonder goal from Jan Molby

2009-10-28T23:50:00.001Z

Against Manchester United @ Anfield in 1985...

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/eseason/Features/Molbys-famous--14859.php3

Il Principino

2009-10-28T22:43:00.000Z

Plenty of signs of promise tonight (against Arsenal in the Carling Cup at the Library) from Alberto Aquilani.

Aquilani came on 75 minutes into the game and quickly got himself involved in Liverpool's attempts to fashion an equaliser. He had one shot on goal, which was saved easily enough. The highlight was a 45-yard cross field pass, pinging the ball from our side of the centre circle, down the right flank and into the path of Degen, who also impressed. Showed signs of being an excellent successor to Xabi, who has been sorely missed of late.

Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated...

2009-10-28T19:11:00.000Z

Only when N'gog's goal went in did the party really begin; the relief palpable. Up until Wash (N'gog – geddit?) neatly placed the ball the right side of the right-hand post of the Kop-end goal after five minutes of too-long stoppage time did the victory seem assured.

Despite having played the Mancs off the park, when even your own beach balls are against you, a last-gasp equaliser always seems on the cards, however undeserved.

Coming up from London on the train on the Friday night before the match, got a text that I had a ticket for the game. Is right.

Got to the ground at least an hour before kick off, paranoid that I would get stuck in traffic and miss the start of the game. See the end of the protest calling for Yank$ out.

Seat's in the front row in the Main Stand in between the Kop and the halfway line. Air full of trepidation. Crowd pessimistic on the news that Gerrard will watch the game from the stands. Still, Torres is playing and Benayoun gives us a fighting chance at least.

Flood of beach balls fall to the pitch from the Kop in the build up – humour and self-deprecation judged the best way to soothe nerves. Makes me glad to be a Liverpool fan that we know how to take the piss out of ourselves.

Game begins. Our players look like they're up for it. Insua looks like he's giving Valencia too much freedom at left back. But we seem to be on top of things. Lucas and Mascherano are managing to boss the midfield and Benayoun is looking lively.

Vidic is aggressive from the off, kneeing Torres in the back as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Carragher is managing to snuff out any opportunities that the Mancs have – special mention for his clearance from a Carrick chance in the box. After the opening 20 minutes, everyone in the ground seems to relax a little. This certainly isn't going to be a humiliating experience. The right Liverpool have turned up.

At half time though, it's still edgy, the feeling among many being that the Mancs will sneak it.

But the second half begins and we're bossing that as well. The Mancs are high up the pitch, Torres has got between Ferdinand and Vidic, and Benayoun has the ball. He curls it past the defender, into Torres's path, everyone gets to their feet, looks as though Torres has taken a touch too many and that Ferdinand is going to get the better of him. But then bam, he manages to smash the ball with his right foot above Van der Sar, who's on his knees. Ground goes mad. That's the only proper chance Torres has had all game but he nails it.

Gary Neville begins to warm up and gets a round of abuse from the crowd but that's nothing compared to what greets Michael Owen, who's hounded with cries of traitor, Judas. Guess joining United is kind of akin to being a scab, but it seems a little harsh and he looks a bit shocked by the extent of the venom.

It looks as though he might have a chance of scoring the equaliser when he comes on but is pulled back by Carragher to much controversy. Minutes later, Vidic brings Kuyt down and he's off. Deservedly so as he'd been out to cynically bully the Liverpool attack from the start and was already on a yellow.

It's a nervy final ten minutes and when the ref says there will be five minutes stoppage time, it only adds to the sense of dread. But then the Mancs overcommit and Lucas threads it through to N'gog.

And with the final whistle, Liverpool are back in the title race, blah, blah, blah and the fans, emotionally exhausted by such an emphatic win against our fiercest rivals, are left to wonder why we can't raise our game like this week in week out. Making it difficult for ourselves seems to be our stock in trade.

The protest before the game served to remind how much of a mess the club is in. But if you're going to paper over the cracks and rise Lazarus-like after four defeats on the trot, then you couldn't beat the spectacle of Sunday's game.

Alonso's replacement

2009-08-05T00:49:00.001+01:00

Good article on who should fill Xabi's boots here

Aquilani sounds the best bet, though I also think Arteta could do an ace job. Just hope we don't get Cattermole...

The LFC refinancing and skinny dipping

2009-07-27T19:18:00.000+01:00

So Messrs (would messers be more apt?) Hicks and Gillett have managed to refinance their Liverpool Football Club loan, as was expected.

There appears to be some good news. This story from Bloomberg says that Hicks and Gillett will be required to pay back £60m of the debt in order to secure the refinancing arrangement. This will reduce the amount of debt outstanding to £230m (the original credit facility was for £350m but only(!) £290m of this was spent).

However, there is a lot about this new arrangement that is far from ideal. Most of the press stories I have read suggest that a statement on the refinancing from Kop Holdings, the parent company through which Hicks and Gillett own the club, is unlikely, which leaves fans very much in the dark as to how much financial stress this could potentially place on Liverpool Football Club. We do not know, for instance, how much interest Hicks and Gillett will have to pay on the loan. Or to what degree Liverpool Football Club will be used as collateral for the arrangement.

But given what is known about the original arrangement and that we are living through the worst credit crunch since the Great Depression, it would appear reasonable to be pessimistic about the new terms of the loan.

Today's Bloomberg story states that the most recent accounts show that the club had to pay £36.5m in interest during the past financial year. Another Bloomberg story published on 24 June says that a company filing shows Kop Holdings was paying 3.5 percentage points above the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor, which is the rate at which banks tend to borrow from one another - a side note, this measure has veered wildly as a result of the financial crisis, meaning that Hicks and Gillett have probably had to pay a higher rate of interest than they had originally anticipated). The Bloomberg article implies that 3.5 percentage points above Libor is the kind of deal offered to high-risk, low-rated companies from which banks are none too sure that they'll ever see their money returned.

Now the RBS loan for £296.5m was agreed in February 2007, when Hicks and Gillett bought the club and long before any murmurings of a credit crunch. Wachovia upped the loan to £350.5m in January 2008, after the beginning of the credit crunch but way before the global financial system was left on the brink of collapse by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in the autumn of last year.

Since then, RBS has for the most part been taken into state ownership and Wachovia has been forced into a US government-ordered sale to Wells Fargo after taking a big hit from subprime mortgage loans which turned sour. What this is likely to mean is that if the existing rates of interest for Messrs Hicks and Gillett looked high, the borrowing costs for the new arrangement could be astronomical.

Gillett's sale of his stake in the Montreal Canadiens is likely to work in the pair's favour. But Hicks Sporting Group's default on $515m-worth of loans in April may have soured their reputation in the eyes of the bankers.

From reading into Hicks's and Gillett's other sporting ventures and their business careers to date, it would appear that they did what, to be fair, many others did and borrowed heavily during the boom when credit was cheap. But now they're having to de-leverage fast as it becomes more and more difficult to finds banks willing to lend.

The famed investor and so-called "sage of Omaha" Warren Buffett has said: "You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out." It would appear that Messrs Hicks and Gillett are among the many who the credit crisis has caught with their pants down.

New nadir for Newcastle

2009-07-25T23:30:00.000+01:00

I went along to Newcastle's game at Leyton Orient today. Despite some touches of flair from individual players - notably Nolan, Guthrie and Lua Lua - as a team effort it was as woeful as the 6-1 scoreline suggests. Communication between the players appeared to be non-existent, with passes often misplaced. It served to underline how crucial a good manager will be in securing Newcastle's return to the top flight.

Leyton Orient looked sharp and took advantage of pretty much every chance they got on goal. But they did not dominate the game by any means, with Newcastle having a lot of possession but failing to find the right ball in the final third. The 6-1 drubbing seemed fair though, simply because Newcastle were so lax at the back in spite of fielding first-team regulars like Taylor, Coloccini, Enrique and Beye.

The scoreline was all the more humiliating given that something like 1,000 Newcastle fans made the trip to Brisbane Road. And the match is likely to add to their ire with owner Mike Ashley. It was telling that by far the most popular chants of the 90 minutes were the splenetic renditions of "Stand up if you hate Mike Ashley". The Geordie Nation has long been in agreement that this guy has got to go and the scoreline only served as a grim foreboding of the perils that the club could face in the coming season if he sticks around.