Amazing England hammer Slovenia in one of the World Cup's greatest ever performances!

In one of the most brilliant performances in the history of the World Cup, England's array of world class players easily dispatched Slovenia (population 2m) with a breathtaking masterclass of awe-inspiring attacking football, the quality of which surpassed even the magnificent World Cup-winning Brazil team of 1970. After such a mind-blowing, spectacular result, England must now be odds-on favourites to dominate the tournament and bring home the World Cup.

After two truly abject performances (admittedly against Algeria and the USA, two recognised giants of the international game), England had a point to prove, and prove it they did! Despite Slovenia's status as one of the toughest, skillful teams in world football, they were easily brushed aside by the staggering genius of Steven Gerrard, the imcomparable skill of Wayne Rooney, and the unmatched passing range of Frank Lampard.

Gerrard's prophecy that Rooney could 'make the world cup his own...like Pele and Maradona' started to come true as the Manchester United player dominated the game with an array of mind-boggling skills that Pele and Maradona could only dream about when they were in their prime.

Just consider the the magnitude of the achievement: England have beaten the amazing, previously unbeatable SLOVENIA, the smallest nation at the World Cup! Hard to believe, isn't it? How many teams can lay claim to such an achievement? And to finish 2nd in what is clearly a group of death is just...well, words fail me.

It is obvious that England are now the clear favourites to win the tournament. Forget the likes of Brazil, Argentina and Spain - England are in a different league, and with the world’s greatest players in Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Terry and Cole, it's theirs to lose.

After the game, Steven Gerrard - the most inspirational England captain in the history of the national team - summed up the mood in the England camp:

"We're not getting carried away, but we fear no one. Why should we? This is England. Beating Slovenia is a magic achievement, and the tournament is ours to lose now. The whole team is floating on air at the moment - Wazza was our Pele today, John was our Beckenbauer, and Frank was our Zidane, and as the tournament progresses, you will see our players surpass the greats of yesteryear and show that we are the greatest players ever to wear the England shirt".

Frank Lampard added:

"Stevie is the star of the World Cup so far; no one can touch him. He's world class, and you saw that today as he dominated the game like no player has ever dominated a game before. I was just privileged to be on the same pitch as him to be honest".

John Terry continued:

"The lads have had a really tough time being pampered over the last week. It has been unbearable - I mean, having so many lackys at our beck and call just gets tiring after a while. We just wanted to get out there and show the world how good we are. I don't think people really appreciate how hard it is to beat Slovenia 1-0. How many teams manage to score a goal against them? The fact that we scored proves that we're the best team in the tournament by far. We deserve this trophy, and we will win it. Football's coming home".

All across England, drunken fans were 'celebrating' in the streets, barely able to conceal their joy at the sheer enormity of England's achievement. The mood of the fans was matched by the British press, who lauded the Three Lions with typically understated headlines such as:

"England on the verge of winning the World Cup!" The Mirror

"Brilliant England show the world how football SHOULD be played!" The Daily Star

"Forget Argentina and Brazil - England are the true stars of the World Cup!" The Daily Mail

Prime Minister David Cameron called a halt to Parliamentary business for the day and decreed that the 23rd of June would henceforth become a national holiday to commemorate England's unforgettable achievement. Wiping tears of joy from his eyes, a clearly awed Mr Cameron observed:

"I can honestly say, without hyperbole, that England put in the finest performance I have ever witnessed by any football team anywhere. Today is a proud day for England".

RAFA BENITEZ: What was his best ever Liverpool XI?

Taking into account all players bought and sold over the last 6 years, what was former Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez's best ever XI?

My best Benitez XI:

Formation - 442

--------------------- Reina

Finnan ---- Carragher --- Hyypa ----- Riise


Garcia ------ Alonso ---- Gerrard ---- Benayoun


------------- Crouch ----- Torres

Subs: Agger, Bellamy, Kuyt, Hamann, Fowler, Skrtel, Pacheco, Aquilani

I don't think Gerard Houllier's back-four was improved upon during Benitez's reign. Carra/Hyppia is an untouchable partnership; Riise was far more consistent and *fitter* than the likes of Aurelio and Dossena, and I'd take Finnan over Johnson any day of the week.

I hate the modern footballing concept of having one dedicated holding midfielder (or in Benitez's case, two). I'd rather have the creativity and unpredictability of Garcia and Benayoun than the physicality and stamina of Kuyt and Mascherano, two players who epitomised Benitez's cautious, defensive-minded approach.

Torres is a no-brainer, but Crouch has to be there too. He was fantastic for Liverpool, and I have no doubt that if Crouch-Torres had been given a chance (i.e. a run of games over a season), it would've been wildly successful.

What's your best Benitez XI?

Care about the future of LFC? Throw your support behind 'ShareLiverpoolFC'

In its bid to make Liverpool FC the first Premier League club in the UK to be purchased by its own fans, the board of ShareLiverpoolFC has confirmed that it has managed to raise the funds required to underwrite the costs of organising and delivering a full share issue.

This is great news, and ShareLiverpoolFC's approach is infinitely preferable to the negative, confrontational and divisive approach of 'Spirit of Shankly'.

From the ShareLiverpool FC site:

It will require large numbers of LFC fans to buy a share for the plan to succeed, but set against the fact there are more than 4 million LFC fans in UK & Ireland alone, and uncounted millions more abroad, it is an achievable goal. If the sum raised is insufficient to take a majority stake in the Club, the board would seek to partner a suitable majority owner by purchasing a minority share which cannot be diluted by further share issues, with Club board representation and pre-emption rights. If in the end, ShareLFC is unsuccessful, the cash will be returned in full to everyone who put money in.

ShareLiverpoolFC Board member, John Aldridge said: “I’m delighted ShareLiverpoolFC is now able to push on and issue the share offer. We’ll need a tremendous response from the fans but I think millions of them are desperately worried about the current situation both on and off the field. At last, they’ve got a chance to actually to do something about it. Our fans have brought us ‘back from the dead’ in matches many times before: think only of the ‘miracle’ of Istanbul. They can do it again – this time at the heart of the Club itself.”

Long-time ShareLiverpoolFC supporter, John Barnes, said: “It’s excellent news to hear fans will get the opportunity to pool their money and buy a stake in the Club, whether it’s a majority stake or just a significant piece of the action, all under stringent financial regulation. No one who has ever played for Liverpool can be in any doubt that these fans are the football club: the unique, core ‘brand’, as they call it these days, of LFC. If they are it, why shouldn’t they own it too?”

Sign me up! I believe in this project 100%, and I will definitely be buying my share when the time comes. I would urge all Liverpool fans to do the same.

Note to SOS: This is how you run a fan-led campaign to change things at the club. No flag-burning; no embarrassing chants at parties; no xenophobic approach to the club's owners - just an intelligent, viable plan and the conviction and perserverance to make a difference in the right way, i.e. The Liverpool Way.

To understand more about how ShareLiverpoolFC works, please take a minute to read through the following information:

Executive Summary

Detailed Proposal

Who is Involved?

Frequently Asked Questions (Financing the stadium/generating transfer funds etc

LFC season ticket price rise: What's the big deal? Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal + Spurs are *still* more expensive

Liverpool FC has raised season ticket prices by 7%. Predictably, The Daily Mail (and other press vultures) have seized the opportunity to put a negative spin on the situation. Some fans will also (inevitably) use the news as yet another stick with which to beat the Owners. Seriously though, what's the big deal?

Liverpool's new season ticket prices range from £680-£785 for adults. How does that compare to other top-tier UK clubs?

Chelsea: £550 to £1,210
Man United: £513 to £931.
Arsenal: £855 to £1,825
Spurs: £650 to £1,175

Liverpool's top season ticket price is much lower than the top price of any of the other elite clubs in the Premier League, and the lowest prices also compares favourably.

Do Liverpool FC not have a commercial duty to remain competitive? The price rise is justifiable and fair, especially in comparison with other teams in the Premier League.

Clearly, it is Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs fans who are at most risk of being ripped off when it comes to season tickets, not Liverpool fans

'Empire of the Kop' posts baseless 'story' about Dalglish + Purslow

According to alleged Liverpool website 'Empire of the Kop', Kenny Dalglish has just been 'turned down' for the manager's job, and lo and behold, the evil mastermind behind this treacherous decision is the scheming, machiavellian agent of destruction, Christian Purslow. How convenient! The latest senior figure at Anfield to be the target of a baseless fan-led smear campaign just happens to diss a club legend. I'm sorry, but this is just utter lies, and a blatant attempt to whip up more anti-Purslow sentiment.

According to EOTK:

"From what I heard, Kenny went up to Christian Purslow and told him that he felt that he was the best person qualified for the job. Purslow turned Kenny down and instead informed him that they were going to offer the position to Hodgson instead".

Right. Clearly, Dalglish 'went up' to Purslow in a crowded room and got his point across with a microphone just to ensure that everyone could hear what he was saying. If such a meeting was to take place, it would've been done behind closed doors. EOTK then went into full anti-Purslow mode with the following spurious lies:

It is really puzzling why Purslow and the gang would chose Hodgson over Dalglish...Without a doubt Kenny is devastated by the news, he has given most of his life to the club he loved. It is shameful that they turn down like this and I will not be surprised if he resigns from the club following this.

Gosh, that all sounds really tragic, doesn't it? Dalglish is 'devastated' by Purslow's 'shameful' decision, and now he's set to resign from the club.

This is precisely the kind of misinformation I've been highlighting over the last month. EOTK's post is a deliberate attempt to increase fan-hatred against Purslow. Anyone with the slightest intelligence can see the straight through this agenda-driven nonsense.

This is how it goes though; fans will read that and five seconds later they'll spreading it around as if it was fact. *typical ignorant fan response* = 'God, did you hear about Purslow dissing Dalglish. If he leaves, we're f**ked. What a C*nt" (or variations thereof, repeated ad infinitum).

Fans complain about the media slagging off Liverpool but it is, regrettably, alleged Liverpool fans (via sites like EOTK) that do the most damage.

EDIT 1: I should have known: this garbage originally came from RAWK, and was reposted (i.e. stolen) by Empire of the Kop. It really is the blindly ignorant leading the blind.

If you want to witness how some fans are completely devoid of any ability to think for themselves, just read this thread: RAWK thread. Everyone just blindly accepting it; no one with the critical faculty to *question* the information. And why? They're all so desperate for anything that will support their agenda that the truth doesn't actually matter.

EDIT 2. Just because Dalglish might be interested in the job doesn't change the act that the story was baseless. As the article shows, the aspect of the EOTK article I was attacking was the idea that Dalglish had been turned down by Purslow, and was consequently devastated and on the verge of resigning. And as you can see from the comments below, I even noted the fact that Dalglish might be interested in the job. That's not even news - of course he moght be interested; but there's a big difference between that and trying to turn Purslow into a figure of hate by saying he's callously snubbed Dalglish and caused him to want to resign.

In any event, there are no quotes from the man himself, just media speculation based on what alleged 'friends of Dalglish' have said. Hardly reliable or persuasive.

The 'spade in the ground' myth: PROOF that Hicks + Gillett did not lie about the stadium

When it comes to over-used, inaccurate Liverpool fan clichés, the ‘spade in the ground’ argument against Tom Hicks and George Gillett is the worst. You can guarantee that during any discussion of the Owners, someone will say ‘but they promised a spade in the ground in 60 days!’ Apparently, the fact that the stadium was not started in that timeframe means H+G are liars, and forever deserving of criticism and ridicule. The truth is, neither Hicks nor Gillett lied about the stadium, and I will explain why.

George Gillett made the following comment in February 2007:

"The first spade will start going into the ground on that [stadium] project by March [2007]."

Despite the way the rabid anti-Owner brigade portray it, the 'Spade in the ground' comment was not an absolute promise. It was a sincere and honest statement of intent. Why would it not be? What possible motivation was there to lie? What did the Owners have to gain from lying?

At the time Gillett made the comment, a stadium plan (led by Rick Parry) was already in place, and the ‘spade in the ground’ comment was made in the belief that the existing plan was ready to go.

However, the architects brought in to examine the plans discovered that stadium design was already obsolete. As such, it had to be redesigned, and that meant restarting the complex redesign/approval process.

Here is an email I received from Tom Hicks last year explaining this:



If H+G are guilty of anything, it is misplaced optimism, and failing to thoroughly check the existing stadium plans before making the ‘spade in the ground’ statement. Factor into that the recession and turmoil in the financial markets, and it becomes very clear why the stadium has been delayed.

In the meantime, the club has continued extensive work behind the scenes on the new stadium, and over 50m has been spent on the complex design and planning process. Why would all this money be spent if the Owners had no intention of making the new stadium a reality? The club accounts verify the progress of the stadium over the years, and here are snippets from the accounts to illustrate this:

2007
2008
2009

So – there are very clear and legitimate reasons why the stadium has not been started yet. However, despite these reasons, fans (spurred on by the deliberate misinformation campaign in the media) are hell-bent on twisting the truth and ignoring the facts. Quite incredulously, that includes denying the impact of the worldwide credit crunch (!), which according to some fans, should have made no difference to the building of the stadium (!).

For obvious reasons, it would have been madness to start building a stadium during a recession. And if the building work had been started (and the club began hemorrhaging money as a result), fans would be castigating H+G for such a reckless act.

What is the big deal anyway? H+G were perhaps a little optimistic with their original estimate but why should they be labelled 'Liars' for ever more as a result of that? The insane zeal to hanging onto *anything* that might place the Owners in a bad light is really something to behold.

Yes, Gillett got confused when later asked about the stadium - he denied making the 'spade in the ground comment'. So what? That doesn't change the fact that what he originally said was declared in good faith. Gillett was being 'interviewed' by a confrontational SOS member - is it not possible he just misremembered? Why would he deliberately lie about something that could be verified in 5 seconds flat?

As a comparison: A few months ago, Rafa Benitez publicly guaranteed that Liverpool would finish in 4th place. That didn’t happen. Should we now label him a liar for the next three years?! No. At the Benitez made that statement, I’m sure he had an honest personal belief that it could be achieved. Same goes for H+G and the stadium.

In any event, the timeframe was clearly unrealistic anyway: show me one club that has announced and started the stadium building process in 60 days. It has never been done. As a comparison, consider Arsenal's new stadium.

* The new stadium announcement was made in 1999
* The projected completion date was 2003.
* Arsenal missed the deadline by THREE YEARS.

Does that mean Arsenal fans were lied to?

NO.

H+G have been at the club for a little over 3 years; Arsenal's stadium took 7 years to complete.

H+G did NOT lie about the stadium. The only lies about the stadium come from fans and the media. Designing, planning and building a stadium is a very complex process; it takes time, money and the mutual agreement of lots of competing stakeholders.

The worst thing is the fans who robotically repeat the ‘spade in the ground’ accusation without having any knowledge of the context or history behind the comment. As long as it’s something to throw at the owners, it’s mission accomplished, it seems. The details and the truth don’t seem to matter.

As I’ve outlined above, there are legitimate, unambiguous reasons why the stadium didn’t go ahead. Endlessly moaning about the 'spade in the ground’ comment is like grown adults complaining to their parents that they were lied to about the existence of Santa Claus.

No doubt, I will be accused of being a 'Yank stooge' or whatever. The intelligent, non-brainwashed fans out there will see that I am - as always - concerned only with fairness and the truth.

As I have stated over and over again, I want Hicks and Gillett to leave the club like everyone else, but I will not be part of campaign that seeks to achieve that goal with lies, deception, misinformation and deliberate twisting of the facts.

Attack the Owners with facts and evidence, not lies. Don't just perpetuate a lie because it fits in with your overall negative view of the Owners.

As fans, we should be better than this, shouldn't we?

Mascherano on Benitez: Truer words were never spoken...

Javier Mascherano has made a brazen ‘come and get me’ plea to former Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez, who seems to be on the verge of taking over at Inter Milan. One particularly illuminating comment stands out amid the Argentinean’s glowing eulogy.

“With Benítez at Liverpool I experienced three incredible years. His football is my football.”

Of course it is! Mascherano is the living embodiment of Benitez’s footballing philosophy: defensive caution above all else. And no wonder Mascherano loved it under Benitez; the whole team was geared towards the style of football he enjoys the most.

This is precisely why Benitez, Mascherano and Italian football are a match made in heaven. Cautious, defensive-minded manager + ultra-defensive midfielder + defensive league = the perfect combination.

I’ve argued for the last two years that Mascherano should be sold to the highest bidder. He is eminently replaceable, and – in my view – not really integral to Liverpool’s success on the field. Take last season, for example: his alleged defensive genius didn’t stop the club losing 19 games, did it?

Mascherano’s heart is elsewhere. He wanted to move to Barcelona last year, and when that fell through, Benitez revealed that he was ‘disappointed’ to be staying at Anfield.

"We told Javier he was so important for us and we wanted to keep him. We were not talking about any price. He was a bit disappointed as it was a fantastic opportunity with a big club”.

That was the final straw for me. If a player is disappointed to be playing for Liverpool (which, last time I checked IS a big club), then he should be shown the door at the earliest opportunity, not paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to stick it out.

Last season, I offered 13 reasons why the club should sell Mascherano. His latest comments just underline my belief that he needs to go.

Benitez's football may be Mascherano's football, but as last season showed, it definitely is NOT the kind of football expected of, or wanted at, Liverpool FC.

The future is BRIGHT for Liverpool FC. Ignore the 'Doom and Gloom' agenda

According to the relentlessly depressive doom and gloom brigade, no decent manager will want the Liverpool job vacated by Rafa Benitez. Liverpool FC is (apparently) a ‘poisoned chalice’; a footballing ‘Chernobyl’ that has been irradiated by the nuclear impact of Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Any fair-mined person can see it’s all baseless, overwrought misinformation, spread (mainly) by fans pushing the Anti-H+G agenda. Despite the ridiculous hyperbole, the Liverpool job remains one of the most cherished and attractive in football.

In my view, there is absolutely no persuasive argument to suggest that the Liverpool manager’s job is no longer attractive. There is no evidence to back-up such a contention either. With their short-term outlook, a section of fans and the media are wrapped up in misguided tunnel vision when it comes to the state of the club.

What is needed here is a long-term outlook. Yes, the club is in debt, but as I’ve proved in previous articles, it’s nowhere near as bad as the anti-H+G cult make out. Focusing on the here and now is fine to an extent, but at some point, you have to try and see the path ahead, and look to the future in a rational manner.

The Hicks and Gillett era is a necessary evil. By the time they leave, the club will have been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. Crucially, it will be on a superb commercial footing, which is an essential part of the club’s future growth and prosperity.

Yes, H+G have made mistakes, but whether people like it or not, they have done good things for the club too. Amongst other things, record turnover for two years running is ample proof of that.

This is what prospective managers see when they look at LFC. They see a club on the rocky road to recovery; they see a club with immense potential just waiting to be fulfilled; they see a sleeping giant stirring and ready to wake up.

Prospective managers are not hamstrung by the powerful emotions that cloud the judgment of many Liverpool fans. They can see how H+G are a necessary evil; they can see how the club is on the path to the Promised Land. They can also accept that it won’t all be plain sailing.

Frankly, it’s a gigantic insult to the club to suggest that no manager would want to come in and take the reins. In my view, the opposite is true. Guus Hiddink’s agent summed it up recently when he responded to speculation re the possibility of Hiddink taking the Liverpool job:

“He [Hiddink] respects Liverpool as a legendary club with a great future ahead”

The key phrase here is ‘Great future ahead’.

It is true: LFC *does* have a great future ahead, which is why the manager’s job is still hugely attractive to top managers across the globe. The likes of Hiddink and Rijkaard have turned down the job because they are already contracted to other clubs, not because of some trepidation over taking on the role.

I would urge fans to start taking a long-term view. Sometimes, things have to get worse before they get better. Under Benitez, things did get worse, and the club’s debt problems have been exaggerated beyond all recognition as a result of misguided loyalty to the former manager, and irrational hatred towards certain members of the club’s hierarchy.

I personally have never felt this confident about the future of Liverpool FC. The club is currently nearing the end of a long process of rebuilding, a process that started with Gerard Houllier, NOT Rafa Benitez.

Both Houllier and Benitez played their part in moving the club forward, and as I mentioned earlier on, the same goes for Hicks and Gillett. The aforementioned all had/have their flaws - and there has been collateral damage along the way - however, when all is said and done, the club *has* moved forward in the last 12 years, and that is the most important thing.

Houllier

* Professionalised the club on and off the field after the ‘Spice Boys’ era.
* Restoeed discipline, pride and a sense of dignity.
* Put Liverpool back on the path to European respectability.

Benitez

* Built on Houllier’s work, and made Liverpool a European force once again
* Firmly restored Liverpool's European reputation.
* With the odd exception, established Liverpool as a top-4 team

Hicks + Gillett

* Improved the commercial side of the club.
* Brought Kenny Dalglish back to Anfield.
* Made shrewd senior appointments that have benefited/will continue to benefit the club.
* Laid the groundwork for the new stadium.

Houllier’s time passed. He did his job in moving the club forward and the time came for him to move on. The same happened with Benitez – he reached a point where he could no longer move things forward. He made his contribution, and the time came for him to move on too.

Under Moores, the business and commercial potential of the club was not being realised. Hicks and Gillett are, first and foremost, businessmen, something that jars with many fans, who demand that anyone associated with the club has an 'emotional connection'.

H+G have laid the groundwork for future commercial success, but they too must now move on, and with the club up for sale, that is precisely what they plan to do.

It’s now time for another manager to come in and make their contribution to moving the club forward. In the short-term, that contribution will be maximizing the potential of the current squad; re-establishing Liverpool in the top 4, and taking the club back into the CL.

I truly believe that this will only take one season. The impact of the right manager cannot be underestimated – just look at Harry Redknapp at Spurs. Before he arrived, Spurs were flirting with the relegation zone; a year later, they’ve taken Liverpool’s place in the Champions League.

There’s no point obsessing over the current financial situation. It will play itself out, and everything will resolve itself in time. Liverpool will not wither and die; the club will not end up like Leeds (!); the team will not slip into mid-table obscurity.

I know it’s hard to see right now, but the future is bright. To see this, you just have to stop buying into the agenda-driven doomsday scenario, and ignore the sensationalized media reports. Stick to and demand facts; ignore emotive generalization; question everything; always look for the agenda in everything you read/hear about LFC.

Doom sells – stop being a consumer.

SOS-led Liverpool 'fans' burning the US flag outside Anfield = An utter embarrasment

A new LFC low was reached last night as a small minority of rabid Liverpool 'fans' burned the American flag outside Anfield. Led like sheep by the divisive, agenda-driven extremists of 'Spirit of Shankly', a series of flags were burned in an embarrassing display of misguided loyalty (to Rafa Benitez) and irrational hatred towards the club's owners.

What a fantastic advert for Liverpool fans. What next, an assassination attempt on Hicks and/or Gillett?! Spirit of Shankly and the brainwashed fanatics who blindly follow them are increasingly turning Liverpool fans - and the club - into a laughing stock.

In my view, Liverpool fans everywhere should condemn this cheap, classless, childish stunt. Fans should also continue to shun Spirit of Shankly, who keep fanning the flames of discontent with their incessant misinformation/smear campaign against the club, its owners and anyone in the hierarchy who doesn't share their agenda.

With help from its supporters in the media (like Paul Tomkins and Tony Barrett) SOS is hell-bent on manufacturing a Liverpool FC 'doomsday scenario' in an attempt to convince fans that the club is on the verge of the apocalypse. They don't care how much damage they need to do to achieve that, or how badly their 'efforts' reflect on the club. SOS also don't care how the reputation of Liverpool fans is being irreparably tarnished.

SOS and its supporters care only about one thing: removing Hicks and Gillett, and if that means trashing the good name of the club in the process, they will do it without hesitation.

In my experience, Liverpool-based superfans (many of whom hang out on 'Red and White Kop - the home of LFC extremism, where this protest was planned) generally believe that anyone who doesn't live within a mile of Anfield is not a real fan. I have no doubt these superfans were the orchestrators of the protest, and they proved once again that they don't give a damn about the worldwide fanbase.

The burning of the US flag outside Anfield is the antithesis of everything the club stands for. Not only was it a gigantic insult to all American Liverpool fans, it was a slap in the face to ALL non-UK fans, and a slight upon the superb achievements of players and staff of many nationalities who helped build Liverpool's success over the years.

I don't know about anyone else, but images of narrow-minded Liverpool 'fans' behaving in a disgracefully xenophobic manner doesn't make me feel proud; or empowered.

It makes me feel ashamed.

And every fan who cares about the club above any individual should also feel ashamed, and condemn this pitiful display of undignified extremism.

EDIT: SOS claim that they had nothing to do with the protest. Right. Just like they had nothing to do with the Munich chants at their end of season party last year.

The fact is, SOS peddled their xenophobic 'Yanks Out' campaign for ages before being forced (by this site and many outraged *sensible* fans) to scrap it.

You reap what you sow: SOS created the anti-American hatred against the Owners that inexorably led to last night's action. They may or may not not have been the main organisers of the protest, but they are clearly still responsible.

CLUB STATEMENT: Liverpool FC officially confirms the departure of Rafa Benitez

Liverpool has released an official statement confirming the departure of Rafa Benitez:

The Statement

"Liverpool FC today confirmed that Rafael Benitez is to leave the club by mutual consent. Mr Benitez relinquishes his position as team manager after six years and the Board of Directors would like to place on record their grateful thanks for his services and wish him all the best in his future career.

"The Board has now asked Managing Director Christian Purslow, with the assistance of Club Ambassador Kenny Dalglish, to begin a formal search to identify and assess potential candidates for the managerial position. No timescale has been placed on the process and Liverpool FC will make no further statement until a new manager is appointed.

LFC Chairman Martin Broughton said:

"Rafa will forever be part of Liverpool folklore after bringing home the Champions League following the epic final in Istanbul but after a disappointing season both parties felt a fresh start would be best for all concerned.'

Rafael Benitez said:

"It is very sad for me to announce that I will no longer be manager of Liverpool FC. I would like to thank all of the staff and players for their efforts. I'll always keep in my heart the good times I've had here, the strong and loyal support of the fans in the tough times and the love from Liverpool. I have no words to thank you enough for all these years and I am very proud to say that I was your manager. Thank you so much once more and always remember: You'll never walk alone."

EXCLUSIVE: Rafa Benitez vs. Aston Villa (O'Leary/Martin O'Neill) - Transfer spending comparison (2004-2009)

In the 6th article of a 7 part series, I take a look at how Rafa Benitez's transfer spending between 2004 and 2009 compares to Aston Villa's spending over the same period.

SERIES GOAL

* To accurately report the gross/net spend of the UK's top clubs since 2004.

* To dispel the myth, exaggeration and misinformation surrounding the transfer spending of the UK's top clubs.

* To finally bring clarity and accuracy to this area so that future debates about transfer spending can be based in fact, not generalisation and biased opinion.

SOURCES

Transfer spending is accounted for in club accounts.

Liverpool Transfers

2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9

Aston Villa transfers

2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9

NOTES

* Liverpool and Villa have slightly different accounting years:

Liverpool: 31 July - 31 July
Spurs: 31 May - 31 May

* I have omitted transfer activity (both teams) for accounting year 2009-10 as neither clubs' accounts for that year are available until 2011. Consequently, there is no way to be 100% sure about the figures.

* The transfer of Xabi Alonso took place after the 2008 accounting deadline, which is why it's not included here. I will update the transfer spending table when the 2009-10 accounts are released.

* This series is NOT an attack on Rafa Benitez. The comparisons to be undertaken are regularly requested by visitors to this site.

* These stats have never been compiled before online.

Rafa BENITEZ vs. Aston Villa Managers 2004-2009



* These figures can finally put to rest the ridiculous misinformation spread by Pro-Benitez fans that Villa have somehow spent more money than Liverpool.

* Benitez has spent more than twice as much money as O'Leary and O'Neill in the last 5 years.

* Villa were in a significantly worse position that Liverpool in 2004, as their league positions during that period attest.

* Given the comparative resources available to O'Neill (Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Man City have all had much more money available), he has taken Villa as high as it's realistically possible to go in the league.

* When O'Neill arrived, Villa were 2 places outside the relegation zone. In his first season, he stabilised things and stopped the rot (moving the club 5 places up the table); in his next 3 seasons, O'Neill solidified Villa in the top half of the table, with three sixth place finishes in a row. Given Villa's resources/second-tier status/ability to attract second-tier players, 6th is arguably the best the club could hope for.

* In 2009-10, Villa finished above Liverpool.

* O'Neill creates *stability* at clubs he manages. For example: At Villa, he has bought 28 players; 24 of them are still at the club.

SEE ALSO:

Part 1: Rafa Benitez vs. Alex Ferguson: Transfer spending comparison (2004-2009)

Part 2: Rafa Benitez vs. Arsene Wenger: Transfer Spending comparison 2004-09

Part 3: Rafa Benitez vs. Man City: Transfer Spending comparison 2004-09

Part 4: Rafa Benitez vs Chelsea: Transfer Spending comparison 2004-09


Part 5: Rafa Benitez vs Spurs: Transfer Spending comparison 2004-09

Why Martin O'Neill is the right man to replace Benitez at LFC

Jaimie Kanwar

LFC needs a *motivator*, and MARTIN'O NEILL is the man to replace RAFA BENITEZ

On the 30th May 2004 (before Rafa Benitez was appointed), I wrote a post on ThisIsAnfield.com arguing that Martin O Neill should get the Manager's job ahead of Rafa Benitez and Jose Mourinho. 6 years later and my view has not changed; and now that Benitez is finally leaving, the need for a manager who is able to inspire and motivate is more pressing than ever.

I have posted variations of this article several times over the years, and my message remains the same: There is only one candidate for the Liverpool job, and that is Martin O'Neill.

Regular visitors to this site over the years will know how passionately (and regularly!) I have argued in favour of his appointment, and I know that he is the preferred choice of the Anfield hierarchy. O'Neill is also the bookies current favourite to take the job.

The key point here about O'Neill is this: wherever he has managed, he has taken the team as far as it is realistically possible to go (taking into account players at his disposal, transfer budgets etc).

What O'Neill's detractors fail to accept is context: You have to consider the quality of teams he's managed; the money available; the quality of player the team is able to attract; the status of the team etc. The, you need to ask an important question: What is the best his teams could hope to achieve? (Given their relative status/resources etc). Looking at things fairly, you will see that O'Neill has regularly done the best it is possible to do at every club he's managed.

Wycombe Wanders

Took them out of non-league football and into Division 2 (via successive promotions) in under 4 years. For a club of Wycombe's size, the best they can ever realistically hope for is Division 2, which is borne out by the fact that since O'Neill left, they have never risen higher than that.

Leicester City

Promoted to the Premier league in his first season, after which they finished ninth in 1997, tenth in 1998 and 1999, and eighth in 2000, outstanding results for a newly promoted team, and the highest that Leicester City could ever hope to climb in the top league. In fact, their league positions were arguably an overachievement.

O'Neill also took Leicester City to the League Cup final 3 times in 4 years, winning twice along the way, a by-product of which was European football in the UEFA Cup.

Liverpool fans may scoff at the league cup, but as I stated earlier, you have to consider the context, quality of the team/players, and the resources available.

Celtic

In O'Neill's first season, Celtic won the domestic treble. He was the first Celtic manager to take the team into the revamped Champions League, something he achieved three times. He also took Celtic to the 2003 UEFA Cup Final in Seville, which was lost in extra time to a Porto side coached by...José Mourinho.

In his five seasons at Celtic Park, O'Neill won three League titles, three Scottish Cups, and a League Cup. He also oversaw a record 7 consecutive victories in Old Firm derbies, and in season 2003-04 Celtic created a British record of 25 consecutive victories.

Very impressive stuff. Yet people will tear this down by saying 'but it's only Scottish football'. Nonsense. As Celtic Managers post-O'Neill have discovered, you can't just turn up and expect everything to click into place - it takes managerial expertise, something O'Neill has in abundance.

Once again, O'Neill took a club to the very maximum of what they were capable of achieving. Is it realistic to expect a club like Celtic to win the Champions League? No. It hasn't happened in over 40 years, so there's no shame in Celtic's failure to win or reach the latter stages under O'Neill. The best a club of Celtic's stature/resources can hope to achieve is exactly what O'Neill achieved.

Aston Villa

Villa had the longest unbeaten start of any Premiership side in 2006-07 (9 games), not losing a league game until 28 October. Villa's final points tally was 50, an improvement of 8 over the previous season.

Villa just missed out on a UEFA Cup spot on the final day of the 2007-08 season by finishing 6th. They scored 71 goals, (their best ever tally in the Premier League and best tally since winning the title in 1981), gained 60 points which was Villa's highest points tally since the 1996-97 season, and were the 3rd highest goalscorers.

After 25 games of the 2008-09 season the club was third in the table on 51 points, 2 points above Chelsea on level games and 7 points above Arsenal in 5th place and on course for a place in the Champions League for the first time since 1983. Villa eventually finished 6th for the second season running with 62 points, 2 more points than they finished with the previous season.

In the season just finished, O'Neill continued his great work at the Villa, leading them to 6th place...ABOVE Liverpool.

Given the cash available to the top 4 clubs in England, is it realistic for Villa to establish themselves in the top 4? Arguably, no. So far, O'Neill has taken Aston Villa almost as high as it is possible for them to go in the league.

Villa: A second-tier team

Whether O'Neill's detractors choose to accept it or not, Villa is a second tier team, in the same bracket as the likes of Everton, Birmingham, Spurs and Manchester City. Villa cannot attract the like of Torres, Drogba, Arshavin etc - it can only attract lower grade players, the likes of Carew, Petrov etc. That is nothing to do with O'Neill, it is just the way Villa is perceived.

For over 25 years (until O'Neill arrived) they have been a mid-table team, even flirting with relegation on occasion. Why would the world's top players ignore man United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool to go to Villa, who has never qualified for the Champions League?

As such, O'Neill operates within certain restrictions. However, despite this, he has still managed to take Villa above Liverpool in the table.

What I am trying to get at here is this: O'Neill has a knack of taking every team he manages to apex of what they are able to achieve, and he uses the style of football that is inherent in that team to achieve success. Look at it another way: Given the expectations/resources available, could any other manager have done any better at Leicester, Wycombe, Celtic, or even Aston Villa?

At Liverpool, I have no doubt at all that O'Neill would take the club to the apex of what it is able to achieve. He would bring three magic ingredients to the party that Benitez (IMO) seriously lacks: Effective man-management, motivation skills and the ability to INSPIRE.

Liverpool does not need to rebuild; the club does not need to throw tens of millions at the problem. First and foremost, what is needed now is a manager who will maximise the massive potential of the current squad, whilst adding 2-3 astute, quality additions to enhance areas of the team that are currently lacking.

Liverpool has not had a motivator in the hotseat since Kenny Dalglish. Graeme Souness definitely wasn't a motivator; Roy Evans did his best but was a bit of a pushover; Houllier and Benitez were/are definitely not motivators. There is definitely a correlation between Liverpool's lack of league success and not having a motivator at the helm.

If Liverpool miss out on O'Neill this time then he will inevitably be snapped up by Manchester United at some point, and that will signal another period of domestic dominance for them. The club cannot allow this to happen!

I truly believe O'Neill would rather come to Liverpool anyway. At United, he would have the intense pressure to continue their success. If he won the league there, it would be expected, and he probably wouldn't get the credit for it anyway as people would say it was Ferguson's squad/influence etc. There is (arguably) a greater challenge in *creating* success than simply maintaining it, something that I think O'Neill would find attractive.

At Liverpool, O'Neill would have the chance to really make his mark on a top club. The challenge is greater and arguably more rewarding, especially given the club's failure to win the league for 20 years. And if you look at his career, he tends to gravitate towards clubs that have gone stale and are in need of serious rejuvenation.

That is Liverpool to a tee.

Granted, O'Neill is not a name that sets pulses racing, but was Bill Shankly? Bob Paisley? Joe Fagan? What had any of those three achieved in football (managerially) prior to managing Liverpool? Every time we've had a manager who comes with a big reputation the result has been (comparative) league failure: Souness, Houllier + Benitez. The exception is Dalglish, who had a big reputation as a player, but no managerial experience.

On a related note, Both Ferguson and Wenger were not big names that set pulses racing either when they joined their respective clubs. Ferguson was in the SPL; Wenger was in Japan (!) And what about Spurs with Redknapp - he'd never managed a 'big' club before, and look what happened.

The Redknapp case proves - IMO - the impact a motivator can have at a club. Before he arrived at the club, Spurs were flirting with the relegation zone. One season later and they're in the CL. They don't have players of the class of Torres, Gerrard, Reina, Mascherano etc - they have a decent squad, but Redknapp deserves all the praise - he motivated that team and look where it took them.

The same will happen with O'Neill at Liverpool, of that I have no doubt.

The Liverpool FC revolution began in 1959 with the ultimate motivator at the helm. Fifty years later and the true spirit of Shankly has almost been eradicated. It's time for rejuvenating change; it's time for Liverpool to drop the dry, joyless 'tactical' approach; it's time for the true spirit of Shankly to return.

And that means having a motivator and an inspirer in charge at Anfield.

Jaimie Kanwar

Rafa Benitez's departure: I revealed it would definitely happen a month ago

The news that the club wants to pay off Rafa Benitez to leave the club has been leaked to the press tonight, but I revealed that Benitez was definitely on his way out of Anfield a month ago, on the site's Facebook page.

Even before last season ended, certain influential members of the board had completely lost confidence in Benitez. He retained slim support from one particular board member (I cannot name this person for obvious reasons), but that support has completely vanished over the last few weeks.

Over the last month, the hierarchy at the club has been trying to negotiate a way for Benitez to leave the club that didn't involve having to pay off a huge chunk of his existing contract. There was never any serious possibility that Benitez was going to stay, despite what the media has been reporting. This is the message I have been pushing on the site's facebook page during my absence from the site.

On May 4th, Benitez's agent released a statement saying that 'Benitez's aim was to stay at the club'. Due to information I had received, I knew that this was not going to happen, and I was emphatic about this in my facebook post that day:



re the idea that Benitez was going to say, I stated: "Thankfully, unless there is a serious mistake, that is not going to happen".

The 'serious mistake' I referred to there was any potential derailing of the negotiations going on behind the scenes at the time. I'd been led to believe that everything was progressing as planned, so the only way things would change is if there was a serious mistake in the strategy. Clearly, there wasn't.



I also stated that if Benitez was going to be compelled to leave, it would be in June (above). Then, around the time that Benitez was having meetings with Martin Broughton, I posted the following:



Again, note the emphatic language: WHEN Benitez leaves. The confidence in Benitez ultimately leaving this summer came from the knowledge I had of what was actually going on behind the scenes. And as I've proved time and time again, the information I receive is accurate, and is almost always proven to be accurate.

Since I made these comments on Facebook (principally the first of the three), countless people have challenged me over them, just waiting for the new season to start with Benitez in charge so that they can accuse me of being wrong.

Well, I was not wrong. I was emphatic for a reason: I knew that the club's ultimate endgame was to facilitate the departure of Benitez. And that is now (finally) going to happen.

I very rarely reveal when a point I'm arguing is based on information I've received from someone connected to the club. Sometimes I do, but only when its related to financial information (i.e. club debts etc), and that's mainly because most of the information is already in the public domain.

This explains why I am often so forthright about certain LFC issues - I'm like that because I've often heard it straight from the horse's mouth.

Anyway - Despite what my detractors try to argue, my criticism of Benitez has never been personal; I have only ever been critical of his professional role as manager of LFC.

I will always be the first to admit that Benitez has done some great things for the club in the last 6 years, however, there is no room for sentiment - Liverpool need a change, and Benitez's time us up.

Don't buy into the doom and gloom that will inevitably saturate the media over the next couple of weeks. There will be plenty of top managers lining up for the privilege of managing Liverpool.

Yes, the Ownership situation still needs to be resolved - Like Benitez, the time is right for Tom Hicks and George Gillett to leave the club, and that will also happen in good time.

The future is bright, and we can now approach next season with renewed optimism.

Jaimie Kanwar

EXCLUSIVE: Rafa Benitez vs. Tottenham (Jol/Ramos/Redknapp) - Transfer spending comparison (2004-2009)

In the 5th article of a 7 part series, I take a look at how Rafa Benitez's transfer spending between 2004 and 2009 compares to Spurs' spending over the same period.

SERIES GOAL

* To accurately report the gross/net spend of the UK's top clubs since 2004.

* To dispel the myth, exaggeration and misinformation surrounding the transfer spending of the UK's top clubs.

* To finally bring clarity and accuracy to this area so that future debates about transfer spending can be based in fact, not generalisation and biased opinion.

SOURCES

Transfer spending is accounted for in club accounts.

Liverpool Transfers

2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9

Spurs transfers

2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9

NOTES

* Liverpool and Spurs have slightly different accounting years:

Liverpool: 31 July - 31 July
Spurs: 30 June - 30 June

* I have omitted transfer activity (both teams) for accounting year 2009-10 as neither clubs' accounts for that year are available until 2011. Consequently, there is no way to be 100% sure about the figures.

* The transfer of Xabi Alonso took place after the 2008 accounting deadline, which is why it's not included here. I will update the transfer spending table when the 2009-10 accounts are released.

* This series is NOT an attack on Rafa Benitez. The comparisons to be undertaken are regularly requested by visitors to this site.

* These stats have never been compiled before online.

Rafa BENITEZ vs. SPURS Managers 2004-2009



Like Chelsea, Spurs' figures make a mockery of the lame net-spend argument used by many football fans (I'm talking about how the argument is used generally, not specifically by those who support Rafa Benitez):

* Spurs have a a much higher net spend over 5 years than Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea AND Manchester United.

* According to the net-spend cult, this apparently means that Spurs must be the most successful team in the Premier League (!). After all, they spent more money than Chelsea and Man United so it it makes logical sense, right?

Obviously WRONG.

There is no persuasive correlation between net-spend and football success. It's pure fantasy - an excuse dreamed up by desperate football fans to try and justify ineffective performance in the transfer market. The net spend argument is, without doubt, the most ludicrous football 'theory' I've ever come across. And despite the fact it keeps being discredited, the net-spend cult persist with their delusion that it is the ultimate indicator of football/transfer success.

SEE ALSO:

Part 1: Rafa Benitez vs. Alex Ferguson: Transfer spending comparison (2004-2009)

Part 2: Rafa Benitez vs. Arsene Wenger: Transfer Spending comparison 2004-09

Part 3: Rafa Benitez vs. Man City: Transfer Spending comparison 2004-09

Part 4: Rafa Benitez vs Chelsea: Transfer Spending comparison 2004-09

Jaimie Kanwar

Glenn Johnson: How exactly have Liverpool benefited from his £18m signing?

When Rafa Benitez signed Glen Johnson last summer, I argued at the time that it was a waste of money. Many fans - including me - also questioned the wisdom of spending such a large amount of money on a player that Liverpool (arguably) didn't need. I keep hearing from fans how Johnson was such a great signing; how he enhanced the team etc, but I truly don't see how that's the case. Given the catastrophic failure of last season, I'm struggling to see what positive, consistent, specific, measurable impact Johnson has had on the team.

Here are the facts:

* Johnson arrives, then Liverpool have their worst league season since 1994 (In terms of league placing)

* In 2008-9, 2 games were lost *all season*. Johnson arrives, and he features in 12 defeats in 35 games (over one third of all the games in which he appeared). Coincidence?

* In his 35 appearances last season, the team conceded 30 goals. His defensive frailty was exposed time and time again across the season, not only for Liverpool, but for England too.

* Despite Johnson's much vaunted attacking prowess, he managed only 3 goals and 3 assists all season. Then again, that's hardly surprising given that in the 7 years prior to joining Liverpool he averaged a paltry 1 goal and 2 assists a season. Johnson couldn't even beat his his career-best figures for Portsmouth in 2008-9, where he got 3 goals and 6 assists in 37 games. Is this the level of return expected from a 18m player who is, apparently, amazing going forward?

* Johnson was directly at fault for several important goals over the season, including (amongst others) both goals in the 2-1 home defeat to Arsenal, and Christian Benitez's equalising goal for Birmingham in the 2-2 draw at Anfield

Like many fans last season, I argued that Johnson should be converted into a right-winger; I still feel this should happen. Then ironic thing is Benitez plays everyone else out of position (unsuccessfully), but ignores the one person who would benefit the team by being played out position (!). In my view, if Liverpool persist with Johnson as a right-back, the team will continue to be defensively compromised.

Johnson's arrival coincided with the club's worst overall season (all competitions) in decades, which included failure to get out of the group stage of the CL; a horrible 7th place league finish (and the consequent failure to qualify for next season's CL). With that in mind, I seriously pose the question: How have Liverpool benefited from the signing of Johnson? How has the 18m been worth it?

Generalisations like 'he's great going forward' just won't cut it. If he's so great going forward, how come he only managed 3 assists all season? I'm looking for specific, measurable examples of how Johnson actually improved the performance of the team, and how the money spent on him was worth it.

EXCLUSIVE: Rafa Benitez vs. Chelsea (Mourinho/Scolari/Hiddink) - Transfer spending comparison (2004-2009)

In the 4th article of a 7 part series, I take a look at how Rafa Benitez's transfer spending between 2004 and 2009 compares to Chelsea's spending over the same period.

SERIES GOAL

* To accurately report the gross/net spend of the UK's top clubs since 2004.

* To dispel the myth, exaggeration and misinformation surrounding the transfer spending of the UK's top clubs.

* To finally bring clarity and accuracy to this area so that future debates about transfer spending can be based in fact, not generalisation and biased opinion.

SOURCES

Transfer spending is accounted for in club accounts.

Liverpool Transfers

2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9

Chelsea transfers

2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9

NOTES

* Liverpool and Chelsea have slightly different accounting years:

Liverpool: 31 July - 31 July
Man City: 30 June - 30 June

* I have omitted transfer activity (both teams) for accounting year 2009-10 as neither clubs' accounts for that year are available until 2011. Consequently, there is no way to be 100% sure about the figures.

* The transfer of Xabi Alonso took place after the 2008 accounting deadline, which is why it's not included here. I will update the transfer spending table when the 2009-10 accounts are released.

* This series is NOT an attack on Rafa Benitez. The comparisons to be undertaken are regularly requested by visitors to this site.

* These stats have never been compiled before online.

Rafa BENITEZ vs. Chelsea Managers 2004-2009



Chelsea's figures make a mockery of the lame net-spend argument used by many football fans:

* Chelsea spent £325m between '04 and '09, including £100m+ spent each season from '04-'06.

* Despite this huge outlay, Chelsea's average net-spend is only £2m more than Liverpool over the 5 years (!).

* Does looking at the net spend provide a true indication of Chelsea's spending power? Of course not. It's ridiculous to even suggest it.

* The only way to gauge the depth of Chelsea's spending power (and consequent value of their squad) it to look at their gross spend, which is significant.

* The net-spend cult still persist with the idea that net spend = the true gauge of a manager's ability in the transfer market. They'll try and tell us that Chelsea's squad only actually cost £80m; that in 2004, Mourinho didn't actually spend £100m - he spent £41m.

Net spend is quite clearly a non-credible excuse that football fans use to try and justify dubious transfer performance. 'But he only has a net-spend of [insert figure here] per yer' and blah blah blah. Utter nonsense.

SEE ALSO:

Part 1: Rafa Benitez vs. Alex Ferguson - Transfer spending comparison (2004-2009)

Part 2: Rafa Benitez vs. Arsene Wenger - Transfer Spending

Part 3: Rafa Benitez vs. Man City spending

Jaimie Kanwar

Yossi Benayoun: Yet another victim of the 'BENITEZ EFFECT'

With his unfortunate man-management skills, Rafa Benitez has misused and/or alienated a whole host of players during his reign, including Peter Crouch, Sami Hyypia, John Arne Riise, Stephen Warnock, Robbie Keane, Yossi Benayoun, Ryan Babel, Xabi Alonso, Albert Riera and Alberto Aquilani. With his transfer to Chelsea seemingly imminent, Benayoun is the latest player to finally succumb to the ‘Benitez Effect’, which means the loss of yet another important player.

Benitez Effect (noun) – Negligent misuse of - and/or - alienation of Liverpool FC football players (to the detriment of the team), resulting in demotivation, recrimination and, ultimately, a desire to (prematurely) leave the club.

Characteristics of the 'Benitez Effect' can include some or all of the following:

* Inexplicably (and regularly) being dumped on the bench.
* Inexplicably (and regularly) being substituted for no good reason.
* Inexplicably (and regularly) being dropped after scoring/creating goals.
* Regularly being sidelined despite having a consistent positive impact.
* Regularly being played out of position.

* Never being given a fair run in the team. Consequently:
* Not being allowed to build an effective understanding with team-mates.
* Being treated shabbily at the end of an LFC career (i.e. Riise/Hyypia)
* Occasionally being subject to unfair public criticism.
* Regularly being ignoring in favour of Benitez's on-field yes-men - i.e. 'athletes' who run 50 miles a game; do what they're told to the letter but contribute next no nothing for large stretches of the season.

At the beginning of last season, I highlighted how Benayoun was being mishandled, and at the end of the article, I wrote:

If Benitez continues to treat Benayoun with such disdain I have no doubt that, like Alonso, he will leave in the summer.

Look what's happening now: Benayoun - a skillful, technically gifted, hugely experienced player - is almost certain to leave Anfield.

I’ve written about the 'Benitez Effect' many times before in great detail. Examples:

Alonso: The alienation of Xabi Alonso by the demoralizer, Rafa Benitez...

Keane: I'm sorry, Rafa, but Robbie Keane's failure at Liverpool is mostly down to you

Crouch: PETER CROUCH: Suffering the effects of the 'Benitez Effect'

Aquilani: The 'BENITEZ EFFECT' strikes again! (and this time it only took 4 months)

Babel: RYAN BABEL: Yet another victim of the 'Benitez Effect'

Benayoun: Yossi Benayoun - Feeling the full force of the 'Benitez Effect'

I've further explained how Benitez has misused Benayoun in this article, so I won't go over the same things again now.

Like so many others before him, Benayoun obviously cannot stomach another season of being regularly dumped on the bench/subbed off whilst the likes of Lucas and Kuyt are perennial starters despite contributing nothing for large stretches of the season.

How many more good quality players must be alienated by Benitez to the detriment of the team? Just imagine how much stronger our squad would've been last season if some or all of the following players had still been at the club:

Alonso, Keane, Hyypia, Crouch, Warnock, Riise.

Benayoun is a top quality player, and he's proved this over and over again. He reminds me of LFC legend Peter Beardsley, and if Benitez didn't have such an aversion to creativity and actually utilised him *properly*, Benayoun could've have a Beardsley-like impact for Liverpool.

Alas, with Benitez's preference for stamina, strength and defensiveness over guile, creativity and individuality, it wasn't meant to be.

Another one bites the dust. Who will be next?

PRESS LIES about LFC: 28 May 2010 - The Daily Mail and Rafa Benitez's alleged £5m transfer budget

Water is wet; the sky is blue; the UK press repeatedly lies about LFC. It's expected. If a (non)story can be manufactured, twisted, exaggerated or blown out of proportion you can rely on the UK's peerless football writers to do it. I thought it would be fun to highlight the worst cases, so today I'll start off with our old friends at that bastion of football journalism: The Daily Mail

Story: ln the Red! Liverpool boss Rafa Benitez handed measly £5m summer transfer kitty

The lies

1. "Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks’ pledge to hand Rafael Benitez a ‘substantial transfer budget’ was in question last night after it emerged that the manager has no more than £5million to spend".

Source? NO
Proof? NO

It 'emerged'?! Classic journo speak for 'I made it up'.

2. "Opinion is split over whether it might make financial sense to cash in on at least one of the stars if it allows the club to make several new signings".

Source? NO
Proof? NO

Whose opinion is 'split' exactly? The sly implication here is that the Anfield hierarchy is actively considering selling one of Torres or Gerrard. There's no proof of this at all, it's just a sneaky way to introduce further anxiety into the minds of Liverpool fans.

3. "Benitez is believed to be working to a budget of £4-5m".

Source? NO
Proof? NO

Again, consider the language: Benitez is 'believed to be' working with a budget of 4-5m. According to whom? Upon what is this belief based? The writer offers no evidence; no source; no credible reasoning for arriving at such a figure. The only possible conclusion is the figure is made up.

Factual truth rating = 2/10 (Well, they got the date right)

Jaimie Kanwar

EXCLUSIVE: Rafa Benitez vs. Manchester City managers - Transfer spending comparison (2004-2009)

In the third article of a 7 part series, I take a look at how Rafa Benitez's transfer spending between 2004 and 2009 compares to Manchester City's spending over the same period.

SERIES GOAL

* To accurately report the gross/net spend of the UK's top clubs since 2004.

* To dispel the myth, exaggeration and misinformation surrounding the transfer spending of the UK's top clubs.

* To finally bring clarity and accuracy to this area so that future debates about transfer spending can be based in fact, not generalisation and biased opinion.

SOURCES

Transfer spending is accounted for in club accounts.

Liverpool Transfers

2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9

Man City transfers

2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9

NOTES

* Liverpool and Man City have slightly different accounting years:

Liverpool: 31 July - 31 July
Man City: 31 May - 31 May

* I have omitted transfer activity (both teams) for accounting year 2009-10 as neither clubs' accounts for that year are available until 2011. Consequently, there is no way to be 100% sure about the figures.

* The transfer of Xabi Alonso took place after the 2008 accounting deadline, which is why it's not included here. I will update the transfer spending table when the 2009-10 accounts are released.

* This series is NOT an attack on Rafa Benitez. The comparisons to be undertaken are regularly requested by visitors to this site.

* These stats have never been compiled before online.

Rafa Benitez vs. Manchester City Managers (04-09)



SEE ALSO: Rafa Benitez vs. Alex Ferguson - Transfer spending comparison (2004-2009)

Rafa Benitez vs. Arsene Wenger - Transfer Spending

Jaimie Kanwar

LIVERPOOL FC transfer fees - Top 10 myths/inaccuracies

Given the confidential nature of player contracts, real transfer fee levels are rarely released into the public domain. This leads to guesswork and supposition on a grand scale, which leads to lots of inaccurate figures floating around. Here are the some of the glaring inaccuracies currently accepted as gospel by Liverpool fans.

The incorrect figures quoted here have been compiled from several LFC sites, (including LFCHistory.net). The correct figures come from the club's official accounts.

EDIT: People are already ridiculously suggesting that these snippets might not be real (!) The level of denial in some people is amazing. The accounts from which these snippets were taken are readily available online. You can buy them here:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/5b1241ecc13be4440f1661590aeb67b7/wcprodorder?ft=1

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

MYTH 1: Xabi Alonso (£10.7m), Luis Garcia (£6m) + Antonio Nunez (£1.5m) bought for £18.2m

Reality: Combined cost = £13m.



More: The REAL cost of Xabi Alonso and Luis Garcia

MYTH 2: Xabi Alonso sold for £30m
Reality: Sale fee = £24.3m (£29.7m minus fees for Voronin + Dossena)



More: The truth about Xabi Alonso's alleged 30m transfer fee

MYTH 3: Jan Kromkamp was free as part of a player exchange with Josemi
Reality: Kromkamp cost £4.3m.



More: The REAL cost of Jan Kromkamp's transfer to Liverpool

MYTH 4: Alberto Aquilani's fee is to be paid in installments.
Reality: The full amount has already been paid.



It's true that Roma posted a breakdown on their website of how Aquilani's fee was to be paid in installments. However, as the accounts clearly show, that arrangement changed at some point and the full fee was paid up front.

MYTH 5: Gabriel Paletta was sold for £1.2m.

Reality: Actually sold for £500k *but* the club made a £1.5m loss on the sale as a result of a £2m impairment charge.



MYTH 6: Albert Riera cost £8m
Reality: He cost less than £7m



MYTH 7: Liverpool sold Robbie Keane for £16m
Reality: The club made an £8m loss (at least)



MYTH 8: Andrea Dossena sold for £4.7m
Reality: Actual sale fee was 4.2m Euros, which is £3.5m (approx)



MYTH 9: Dirk Kuyt cost £9m
Reality: He cost £10m



MYTH 10: Patrice Luzi was a free transfer
Reality: He cost a couple of million (approx)



Most sites report Salif Diao's transfer fee as anywhere between £4.5-£5m (LFChistory has it at £4.7m). If those figures are correct, then Luzi cost between £1-£2m.

MYTH 11: Kirkland, Traore, Barragan, Mellor and Kromkamp were sold for a combined £8.4m.

Reality: The Club received a pitiful £4.5m for the lot, ahich represents quite a significant loss on the original combined outlay.



Jaimie Kanwar

Fabio Aurelio: 18 months of injuries in 4 years. LFC - Please STOP SIGNING injury prone players!

Perpetual crock Fabio Aurelio has turned down a pay-as-you-play deal and is now set to leave Liverpool. Given his injury history over the last 4 years, this is definitely the best thing for the club.

The plain fact is this: Aurelio (aka Mr Glass) is injury prone. He may have a great left foot and (allegedly) be fantastic at set-pieces, but what difference does it make if the team doesn't benefit because he's regularly injured?

Let's take a look at the facts:

Oct 2006 - Injured: Out for 1 month
Jan 2007 - Injured: Out for 6 weeks
Apr 2007 - Injured: Achilles tendon. Out for 5 months

Apr 2008 - Injured: Adductor muscle - Out for 4 months
Nov 2008 - Injured: Out for 5 weeks

Jul 2009 - Injured: Playing football with kids - Out for 2 months
Oct 2009 - Injured: out for 4 weeks

Feb 2010 - Injured: out for 10 weeks

That is 18 months of injury time in 4 seasons (!)

Some more facts:

* Averaged 18 appearances per season for Valencia between 2000 and 2006

* Averaged 18 starts per season since coming to Liverpool.

* Averaged 1 goal and 3 assists per season for Liverpool.

NOTE: These figures are approximations based on several conflicting sources

Aurelio had a history of injuries at Valencia, and despite averaging a paltry 16 games a season over 6 years, Benitez still brought him to to the club. The club has also suffered from buying other injury prone players over the years (Aquilani/Degen etc).

Just imagine the impact Aurelio et al could've had for the club if they'd been fit most of the time? Perhaps the impact of our injury crisis last season may not have been so severe.

I find it kind of disturbing that despite sitting on the sidelines for 18 months at Liverpool, Rafa Benitez still wanted to keep him at the club. How this can be justified is beyond me. It was even more disturbing to find LFC linked to the perpetually injured Louis Saha last season (!).

This is nothing personal - Aurelio is clearly a nice guy who has been very unlucky. However, there is no room for sentiment, and when injuries start impacting the team, it's time for a change of approach. Buying injured players has proven to be a curse for Liverpool over the years. The simple solution is surely NOT TO RISK IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

In my view, Liverpool should institute a new transfer policy whereby:

1. The club does not buy *any* players with a significant injury history.

2. The club only buys players that are injury-free for two years prior to purchase.

I don't know about other fans, but I'm sick of money/wages/signing on-fees being wasted on perpetually injured players.

Jaimie Kanwar