Rafa, you should have kept your mouth shut. Now, you’re just another clown in the circus.

Last week, Rafael Benitez implored his team to ignore the embarrasing off-field crisis afflicting the club, and stay focused on matters on the pitch. This was good advice, and the team showed against Blackburn that they had taken his words to heart. So why is Rafa not following his own advice? His latest public comments just add fuel to the fire, and could ultimately put him in a precarious position.

In an interview with The Independent, Rafa made it clear he was unhappy with recent reports that Rick Parry had met with Jurgen Klinnsman:

"It was a surprise to me to read about some meetings. I will talk with the board about this as soon as possible, today (Sunday) or tomorrow.

“I want to clarify everything. I was surprised with some meetings with another manager. I was surprised by the people who were at the meeting. It is not the first time I heard about the meeting but about the people who were at the meeting. My position is being undermined.

"I don't want to speak to one specific owner. I want to speak to all of them. They were all in a meeting together and I want to know something more. I want to speak to all the owners, preferably all at the same time."

What I don’t understand is this: After his public spat with Hicks in November and with everyone else at the top making a mockery of the club by airing their grievances in public, why does Rafa feel he has to do *exactly the same thing*?

He didn’t need to say any of the above in public; it doesn’t help anyone and just makes the club seem like even more of a laughing stock, especially since it now appears that every level of management within the club is involved in public civil war.

And these comments are not just off the cuff and harmless – Rafa *demands* to speak to the owners and publicly states that his position is being ‘undermined’. He even has the audacity to try and dictate the format of the meeting, demanding that all the owners attend.

Now, I agree that Rafa should seek clarification from Parry, Gillett and Hicks regarding the Klinnsman situation, and I can understand his anger, but why talk about it in public in such strong terms? What does he gain? What does the club gain? What possible benefits could flow from his statement?

Rafa was doing so well, and was handling the turmoil around him with the dignity expected of a Liverpool Manager. Now, he has just become part of the problem yet again, proving that he hasn’t learnt a single thing over the last six months.

Furthermore, his latest public demands will no doubt antagonize Hicks, who made it clear after ‘Rafa vs Hicks’ debacle that he would take a dim view of any further public outbursts.

Perhaps Rafa thinks that because the team is doing so well, it puts him in a stronger position, which allows him to push his luck. I can’t help thinking that if Liverpool had been knocked out of the CL and 4th place in the league was at risk, Rafa would have kept his mouth shut.

In response to Rafa, Rick Parry has released his own statement, claiming that he is ‘more than happy’ to meet with Rafa and discuss the Klinnsman claims.

And on it goes, with each person who is supposed to have Liverpool FC’s best interests at heart perpetuating the pathetic and damaging tit-for-tat.

Sadly, Liverpool FC is becoming more and more unrecognizable by the day.

Read full article >>>

David Moores feels ‘let down’ by Hicks and Gillett? He should be apologizing for selling Liverpool out for £8million

David Moores has spoken today of his ‘heartbreak’ at how his beloved Liverpool is becoming a ‘laughing stock’ and how he feels ‘let down’ by the public spats currently shaming the club. No wonder he feels so bad – Liverpool’s Honorary Life President is partly to blame for the current fiasco and is probably feeling immense guilt over selling out to the mighty dollar.

That may sound harsh, but the reality is that if Moores and his boardroom cronies had not succumbed to greed 14 months ago, the shameful events that have transpired over the last year would never have happened.

In his interview, Mr Moores bemoaned the current state of affairs:

"It's heartbreaking. I'm almost lost for words about the damage that's being done to the club at the present time. As a fan, and as someone who loves the club, it is totally unacceptable to see this being played out in the public arena. When things are played out like they are at present it virtually makes the club a laughing stock.

"All I can say is I feel very sorry that it has come to this. I do feel let down. With everything that's going on, I have to feel let down. This is not how I foresaw it and I'm sure it's not how the fans foresaw it".

Given the seemingly rudimentary due diligence carried out on Tom Hicks and George Gillett, I fail to see how Moores could have expected to foresee *anything*, but I'll come back to that later.

Moores says that he feels ‘let down’ but I submit it it is he who has let everyone down. If he had just gone with the DIC deal, then the Gillett/Hicks debacle that has shamed the club would have been avoided.

So why exactly did Moores pull out of the deal with DIC? There was nothing ostensibly wrong with the deal; and - as DIC chief executive Sameer Al Ansari, explained at the time - it would have offered the same benefits as the Hicks/Gillett deal,

“We have worked very hard over a long period with Liverpool to come up with the best possible offer for shareholders and for the long term of the club. Our deal is not just about buying some shares; it is about financing the stadium, getting the stadium built and making money available for players."

On December 4th, 2006, Rick Parry stated the following:

"DIC is a potential investor with the resources and philosophy that we believe could make them an ideal partner. Already they have demonstrated a full understanding of, and respect for, the club's heritage and values.

"We also believe they share our passion for success. In particular, DIC believes in investing in the businesses it acquires. This is very important in terms of the proposed new stadium, which is key to plans for the regeneration of the local community."

A few months later, Parry had changed his tune, publicly stating that DIC tried to ‘bully’ the club into accepting their offer:

"DIC gave the club 12 hours to make a decision but the chairman was not prepared to have Liverpool Football Club bullied like that".

DIC refuted the accusation that they had issued an ultimatum:

“There was no ultimatum given, but we did make it clear we needed to know quickly if the press conference was going ahead on Monday because DIC officials needed to know if they should book their flights".

The ‘bullying’ excuse was and is an insult to the intelligence of all Liverpool fans. It is clear that by the time Parry made that statement, Liverpool were in bed with George Gillett, and were looking for any excuse to get out of the deal.

Anyway, Even if an ultimatum *was* issued, who could blame DIC after Liverpool stabbed them in the back and started negotiating a secret new deal with Gillett?

DIC were understandably enraged at Liverpool’s unprofessional conduct, and they had every right to be, especially since the club did not even bother to keep the group informed about what was happening. At the time, Sameer Al Ansari commented:

“Liverpool Football Club has been looking for years and years for an investor, going through numerous suitors. They came to the conclusion DIC were the best people. We’ve been working closely with advisors for the last six to eight weeks, and spent a lot of time preparing a deal.

“We heard from the press that George Gillett had made another bid. No-one from Liverpool told us this, and when we asked what was happening they said they didn’t know why a bid was made other than to muddy the waters.

“Then we read a formal statement from Liverpool announcing Gillett’s bid. Again, DIC were informed by a journalist.

"We expected the board meeting to accept our proposals. Instead, we found out the board was discussing George Gillett’s offer, once again through the press.

“We could get no answers from Mr Moores and Mr Parry. The people back in Dubai thought they weren’t being told what’s going on. Once word got back to Dubai that there were no answers from Liverpool, the word from on high was this is bad for our reputation and it all stops right now".

So again, I pose the question: Why did Moores back out of the DIC deal? Rick Parry offered another lame excuse:

"Clearly things with DIC took longer than we expected and we thought we would have things wrapped up before Christmas, but it was taking significantly longer than that”.

So – the due diligence process took a few weeks to complete. Big deal! Due diligence is an important aspect of any big business deal; it *should* take a long time to complete, especially when hundreds of millions of pounds are at stake. Besides, why was it so important than things got wrapped up at Christmas anyway?

George Gillett breezed in and completed his due diligence in...three days.
Three days?! What about Moores' due diligence? Rick Parry assured everyone that Moores was on the ball:

“You can be certain that he [Moores] has done his homework carefully and will make a decision in the best interests of the club."

Homework? Well, according to Moores in his statement today, everything was in 'good faith':

"It was in total good faith. I believed these fellas, I believed everything they said to me. They talked about putting the money in and the new stadium and having no debt on the club”.

What are we to make of this? It sounds like Moores was just took everything Hicks and Gillett said at face value! Why bother checking them out properly when everything is in 'total good faith'?

I can't believe that Moores proceeded on that basis, but if he did, then he deserves extreme criticism.

A simple google search of Tom Hicks reveals some concerning things about his business dealings in the past - things that should have set the alarm bells ringing, such as empty promises about building stadiums that later fell through**

So what caused Moores to take his eye off the ball? After DIC withdrew their bid, Rick Parry stated:

"We have a duty as directors to consider a very interesting bid from George Gillett”.

Translation: The DIC bid was done and dusted but then Gillett came back with a deal that made us all more money, so we decided to go with that instead.

There can be no other conclusion than this: David Moores and the Liverpool Directors had dollar signs in their eyes, and instead of sticking to their deal with DIC, they saw an opportunity to make more money and took it.

DIC were offering £4,500 a share and the deal was all but done. Gillett comes in at the eleventh hour with an offer of £5,000 a share, and suddenly it’s all change.

Quite simply, with Gillett’s offer, Moores stood to make £88million compared to £80million from DIC’s offer.

So, for the sake of £8million, David Moores sold Liverpool out to a couple of cowboys who have proceeded to make a mockery of everthing Liverpool FC stands for.

Rick Parry et al can go on and on about needing to make the best deal for the club and satisfying the shareholders, but the question is this: Has the last year of hassle been worth the extra £8million that Moores received?

Of course not, and I am sure Moores would agree with that.

It is arguably a certainty that if Liverpool had continued with the DIC deal, there would have been no hint of public or private unrest over the last year.

Once again, there was no concrete, believable reason for Liverpool to pull out of the DIC deal, and the excuses the club have come up with are pathetic in the extreme.

Moores is clearly sincere when he speaks of being ‘shell-shocked’ over what has happened since he sold the club, and he has been a fine servant over the years. However, he should acknowledge the mistakes he made instead of just blaming everything on Hicks and Gillett.

The fact is, if it wasn't for Moores, there would be no Hicks and Gillett!

You reap what you sow, and right now, Liverpool are paying the consequences for the board’s shameless greed.

And that is something Moores (and everyone else who lined their pockets at the expense of making the right decision) will have to live with.

**I would expand on this but I'll save it for another article.

Read full article >>>

Is it time for Liverpool fans to consider giving Tom Hicks a second chance?

Ask any Liverpool fan's opinion about Tom Hicks and the chances are you'll be greeted by a tirade of rasping criticism. But is this entirely fair? A closer examination of the whole Tom Hicks saga reveals that he may not be the ogre he's portrayed as by fans and groups like 'Spirit of Shankly'. According to Liverpool-Kop's new writer John Wallen, it's time to consider giving Hicks a second chance.

The present controversy over the ownership of LFC is really quite mind-bending. First fans were happy with the American owners, believing that a new era of high investment into the club was just beginning.

However, after the volte-face over the too expensive stadium, the highly publicised argument with Rafa, the tete-a-tete with Klinsmann and the putting of debt directly onto the club in the refinancing of the loan they used to buy the club, most fans now want them out.

Demonstrations continue inside the ground on a regular basis and “SOS” or “Spirit of Shankly” have even recruited the great man's grand-daughter as a vocal supporter of their “Americans Out!” policy.

Meanwhile, pie-in-the-sky plans are developed for the supporters to buy the club. If this was such a good idea, why didn't they do it when Moores was selling a year or so ago? They could have got it a lot cheaper than is possible now. In fact, Hicks' valuation of the club at around a billion dollars effectively scuppers this plan.

The necessary pledge has already risen from five thousand pounds to eight thousand pounds a person and, as we all know, the promise of money is different to the giving of money.

This plan is, quite frankly, a non starter and supporters who are thinking of pledging (in some cases) their life's savings, should be aware that the whole business is almost sure to end in bitterness and recrimination.

DIC: Friend or Foe?

What about DIC then? Lots of supporters seem to be putting their faith in this Dubai based company and their smart talking go-between Amanda Staveley who, bizzarely enough, used to be Prince Andrew's girlfriend.

The truth is that this mega-company has acted very strangely during the last year. We now hear that they are prepared to pay the world for Liverpool Football Club, yet just a year ago they backed down in the face of the Gillet-Hicks offer, declaring that they weren't prepared to pay over the odds for the club.

Now they are happy to value the club at five hundred million pounds! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that their behavior has been more than weird. Anyone who knows a little about the way Arab companies do business will feel concern about the inconsistencies in the DIC position.

Perhaps Sameer really is a fan, but he will have to go to the Sheikhs every time a big decision is needed. As Hicks said when pulling out of the recent talks, DIC involvement would mean control by committee: interminable delays in getting the money needed—for players in particular.

Furthermore, this deeply conservative organization is said to want Rafa out and their own man in place as a condition of their involvement. Surely, this is unacceptable to most fans?

A second chance for Tom Hicks?

What then, about the one remaining possibility? Should everyone give Tom Hicks a second chance?

No-one is going to suggest that Hicks has made it easy on himself. He was drafted in at the last minute by George Gillet to give his own bid for the club credibility.

Since that time, Hicks has succeeded in alienating both his business partner and the Liverpool fans. However, the picture changes somewhat if we look at it in a more step by step manner.

First of all, Hicks knew little about “soccer” when he first joined the partnership. In particular, he knew little about English soccer. He didn't realise just how important the team is to so many Liverpudlians. Hicks assumed that soccer in Britain was much like sport in the US: no more than an entertaining family activity for the weekend.

It would seem that Hicks is now aware of his mistake in this regard and even wants to see some of his US franchises acquire the kind of fervent support that Liverpool has.

Of course, Hicks also knows that he has bought into a great brand. Liverpool FC is the most successful team in England and the name itself brings back memories of the mop topped foursome who conquered America not so many moons ago (even though John, Paul, George and Ringo were actually Evertonians!).

Hicks is a businessman and he knows that Liverpool will make money. In order to facilitate this process, he needs to spend money himself in the shorter term. We will take a look at this in a moment—but let's first finish off looking at Hicks' gaffes to date.

Most importantly, he and Gillet argued with Rafa Benitez. This was not a good move, but you can also see his point of view. At the time, Rafa seemed to have blown success in both the Premier League and success in Europe, in spite of the acquisition of Torres, Babel and Benayoun in the summer.

Nevertheless, he was still asking for another 18 million pounds for Mascherano who was tied up with the club until the end of the year anyway. Perhaps in the circumstances, we can forgive Hicks for telling Rafa that the club needed to wait a bit before making the Argentinean's deal permanent.

As for the heated words that were exchanged around this time, Rafa was as much to blame as Hicks; particularly insensitive was his apparent belief that he could only get the Americans to act by speaking out against them publicly.

Rafa was naive in this regard and no large company would allow its public relations to be handled in that way. It is perfectly possible that Hicks did genuinely believe Rafa might leave the club in the lurch around that time and, for this reason alone, joined Gillet in sounding out Jurgen Klinsmann for the job.

As I understand it, the whole thing was totally conditional. The Americans didn't say to Klinsmann “Do you want a job?”, but “Would you consider taking a job in certain circumstances?”.

There is a world of difference between these two propositions and the second action might not be considered unreasonable given the situation at the time.

Financial issues

There is also the fact that Hicks and Gillet have used the club to guarantee the loan they've taken out recently and also revised their too costly plans regarding the new stadium.

The first point to make here is that Hicks cannot predict the state of the global financial market. There has been a downturn and this has made the old stadium plans unviable. As for putting debt on the club, this has only been done through the subsidiary company “Kop Holdings” and only to the tune of 105 million pounds.

Again, financial realities can change earlier plans and we are all well aware of that from our own lives. Perhaps then, Hicks' actions don't quite suggest the ogre that SOS and others have portrayed? Are there, in these circumstances, other less well publicised factors which might suggest that Hicks has not done a wholly bad job for the club?

Firstly, Hicks has got a company to design and present a new stadium design which is very similar to the original and better than the earlier plans. In my opinion, Hicks' credibility depends on either building this stadium or selling out.

If he has any problems in raising the capital surely he will sell up rather than see his investment deteriorate in value.

Secondly, Hicks has backed Rafa in the transfer market. I don't think Moores and Parry would have sanctioned the signing of Torres for more than twenty million pounds, whatever finance had been raised by the selling of other players. Since the summer, Skrtel has also been signed.

Furthermore, Hicks seems to have accepted that he made a mistake in publicly arguing with Rafa. Now he sends congratulatory emails and has even sanctioned the 18 million pound signing of Mascherano.

Surely, these are the actions of an owner who trusts his manager and is determined to see the worth of his assets increase?

Torres has been a sensation and I'm sure that Hicks appreciates the probability that the removal of Rafa would result in a mass exodus of the Spanish contingent from Anfield—and no-one, including Hicks, is ready to say goodbye to Fernando Torres just yet.

Hicks + DIC: A recipe for disaster?

Finally, what about the DIC angle? Would they be better owners than Hicks? There is certainly no clear reason to make that assumption. Hicks is right in believing that the figure-heads like Sameer and Amanda Staveley are only the front men and women for the real decision makers who would need to OK every detail.

Anyone who has done business in the Middle East knows that there are often long and totally avoidable delays while go-betweens wait for decisions from Sheikhs who are often too busy enjoying themselves to pay a lot of attention to business decisions.

Eventually, a terse refusal might arrive—or perhaps the delay itself will result in a lost opportunity. Either way, fans should open their eyes and realize that DIC is just like Hicks and only wants to make money out of Liverpool FC.

I should finish by saying that I am not an unconditional supporter of Tom Hicks. However, I feel he can deliver the things that Liverpool FC most needs: a new stadium, money for transfers and a quick decision making process.

We should give him the chance to get on with doing his job.

Read full article >>>

Sandon Liverpool fans are a disgrace to the club

The regrettable mob mentality that has haunted English football for decades reared its ugly head again at the weekend, as a minority of pathetic so-called Liverpool ‘Fans’ brought shame on the club and its worldwide fanbase by allegedly intimidating and spitting at Tom Hicks’ son in a pub after the Middlesborough victory...

According to The Times, Hicks Jr was subjected to ‘anti-American chants’ and was later ‘spat at’ by one particular fan. Rabid fans also attacked Hicks Jnr’s car, causing over 1000 worth of damage.

And what was Hicks Jr’s heinous crime? He had the sheer audacity to enter the Sandon pub outside Anfield and attempt to have a drink.

Such behaviour makes a mockery of the oft repeated assertion that Liverpool fans are ‘the best in the world’, and it saddens me to see a small minority of thuggish fans taint the club and the rest of its fanbase with such reprehensible behaviour.

Irrespective of what’s happening at the club, such loutish behaviour is unacceptable. End of story. It doesn’t matter if Hicks Jr was unwelcome, or his decision to go to the Sandon was ill-advised; it’s a free country and Hicks Jr is not his father.

No doubt, there will be many who support what happened – chief among those will inevitably be the Scouse ‘Superfans’, who believe that anyone that lives more than a mile away from Anfield is not a real fan.

They will go on about how much they ‘love the club’ and how 'it’s their life’, as if that is a justification for what went on. Please – homegrown Reds do not have the monopoly on love for the club.

And to put things in perspective, if it wasn’t for the worldwide fanbase and the contribution of non-Liverpudlians throughout the club’s history, THERE WOULD BE NO CLUB.

Then there will be the fanatical, xenophobic, anti-yank brigade – the same people who believe that only Liverpudlians should be allowed to sit on the Kop.

Many pundits, ex-Liverpool players and news outlets will be conspicuous by their indifferent silence on the subject. Then, there will also be those, like Tony Barrett in the Liverpool Echo, who clearly agree with what went on and barely make any effort to hide this in their articles.

It just makes me sick that these idiots act like this – the laughable thing is, they probably believe that they speak for every Liverpool fan, when the reality is THEY DON’T.

Everyone connected with Liverpool FC - from the staff, players and management, to the worldwide fanbase - should condemn these moronic fools masquerading as fans. They do not represent the club and they do not represent the millions of decent, civilized fans across the world.

Anyone condoning such this behaviour under the guise of ‘but Hicks and Gillette have lied and blah blah blah’ should also be condemned.

To his credit, Hicks Jr took it all in his stride and responded in the best possible way: “I went to Sandon with some friends because I have wanted to go for quite some time to see the birthplace of the club.I also wanted the opportunity to have a direct talk with some of the supporters.

He added: “I respect that some patrons have major disagreement with us, but that comes with the territory. I did have several constructive conversations in my short visit and look forward to following up with them next time I am in Liverpool.”

I personally feel the same as lots of other Liverpool fans in that I want Hicks and Gillette out of the club. However, There are ways and means of expressing discontent, and acting like brainless Neanderthals is not the answer.

Read full article >>>

Drop the excuses, Stevie. Rafa and the players are to blame for the on-pitch shambles, not Hicks and Gillette.

Steven Gerrard wasted no time passing the buck after Liverpool’s pitiful home draw against Aston Villa, claiming that off-field events were affecting the team, and that it was, in some cases, ‘impossible’ to ignore the problems.

Gerrard whined:

‘It’s not just this week. It’s been going on for some time and it’s certainly not helping the players’. We know what’s going on, but as players you’ve got a job to do on the pitch and you try to put what’s going on off the pitch to the back of your mind. But sometimes it’s impossible, when it is every day.”

Awww. My heart bleeds for you, Steven. And I suppose your wallet is too small for your fifties and your diamond shoes are too tight?

It’s so nice to see another shining example of Liverpool’s so called ‘inspirational’ Captain lifting the mood amid behind the scenes turmoil.

Gerrard’s comments are tantamount to shirking responsibility for a season blighted by staggering inconsistency. 'Captain Fantastic' basically concedes defeat, handing every other team Liverpool face this season a psychological advantage in the process.

I appreciate that Gerrard was asked a direct question, but what happened to being positive, and inspiring the team and the fans with fighting talk? Isn't that what captains are supposed to do...?

Gerrard may privately think that the team is suffering, but what purpose is served by saying it in public?

In any event, it is utter nonsense to suggest that off-field problems are to blame for Liverpool’s failure to mount a serious title challenge. Blaming loss of form on behind the scenes shenanigans is just an easy excuse and a coward’s way out.

How exactly does Liverpool’s ownership situation ‘affect’ the players? Anfield's cosseted playboys are still getting paid their grossly exorbitant salaries. None of the players are at risk from any proposed take-over, and regardless of what happens, none of the them are going to be out of a job.

I keep hearing how the players ‘must be affected’ by the off-field problems, but it’s all just meaningless, empty sound-bytes. I’ve yet to read one convincing argument detailing how the current situation actually impacts the players.

In fact, I would argue that footballers in the top division couldn’t care less about who owns the club. As long as they are getting paid, that’s all that matters.

When Liverpool's players step onto the pitch, they should be 100% focused and concentrated on the job in hand. To suggest that the players are thinking about off-field battles whilst they are playing is, quite simply, an insult to the intelligence.

Hicks and Gillette have NOTHING to do with Liverpool failing to win 12 of their 22 league games this season.

Off-field strife has nothing to do with 10 league draws, endless tinkering, ineffective rotation, poor home record, sup-par performances, ridiculous team selections, outlandish formations, playing players out of position, lack of creativity, inability to break teams down and an ultra-cautious approach.

Rafa and the players are to blame. No one else.

They are paid obscene amounts of money to behave in a PROFESSIONAL manner. That means being dedicated to their jobs and having the mentality to withstand the comparatively tame impact of boardroom power-struggles.

If players like Gerrard or anyone else can’t hack it, and it’s too difficult for them to give their all on the pitch, then replace them with players that Liverpool FC deserve, i.e. mentally tough PROFESSIONALS.

The thing that makes an absolute mockery of Gerrard’s moaning is Luton Town’s lionhearted performances against Liverpool in the FA Cup. Now there is team with REAL problems off the pitch. The pressure on Luton’s unpaid players is infinitely greater than anything the mollycoddled Merseyside millionaires are facing.

You don’t hear Luton’s players moaning about it though, even though they have far more reason to that Liverpool's players. And Luton's recent performances against Liverpool were bursting with passion and energy despite their dire situation.

Quite frankly, Luton’s strength in adversity makes Gerrard’s whining and Liverpool’s regular capitulations look embarrassing.

And let’s not forget that the Liverpool’s season was on the rocks BEFORE everything exploded between Benitez and Tom Hicks. The start to the season was fantastic, but it quickly tailed off into a depressingly predictable mess, as Rafa’s flaws and the team’s creative limitations came to the fore.

Were Gillette and Hicks to blame for the miserable draws against Portsmouth, Porto and Birmingham in September 2007? The woeful home defeats to Marseille and Besiktas in October? Rafa’s continual failure to play his best team? Rafa’s never ending tinkering with team formation and personnel?

No.

The problems on the playing side have been there all season, and have been brewing ever since Rafa took charge of the club, and no amount of spin or passing the buck is going to change that.

Hicks and Gillette have been turned into Hollywood bad-guys by the press, and sheep-like Liverpool fans have followed suit, with a misguided outpouring of pseudo-emotional hand-wringing.

Liverpool’s owners have arguably brought shame on the club with their rampant unprofessionalism and ill-advised public statements. However, blaming them for everything is dangerous, as it removes the focus from the real problem: Rafa’s inability to get the best out of the players at his disposal, and the team’s defeatist, cautious mentality.

And if DIC take over the club, things will not just magically disappear; The same tiresome problems will still exist and they will inevitably continue.

Liverpool may be in turmoil off the pitch, but the turmoil *on the pitch* is far worse. Instead of shirking responsibility, Rafa and the team need to start taking personal responsibility for their ineptitude, and that means knuckling down, being positive, trying harder and dispensing with the destructive negative attitude.

Self-pity is not what Liverpool FC is about, and if Anfield’s current crop of pampered players can’t hack the pressure of representing the club in times of adversity, then as far as I’m concerned, they’re not fit to wear the shirt.

Read full article >>>

Liverpool FC hit by the 'Texas Hicks-Saw Massacre'

Consummate clowns Tom Hicks and George Gillette are turning Liverpool FC into the footballing equivalent a three-ring circus, and Hicks’ latest ill-advised public comments are yet more evidence that this particular Texas Cowboy has no idea what being the owner of Liverpool FC means.

In a completely unnecessary, undermining public interview, Hicks has revealed the worst kept secret in Liverpool’s recent history: Jurgen Klinnsman was approached to replace Rafa:

‘In November, when it appeared we were in danger of not advancing in the Champions League, weren't playing well in our Premier League matches, and Rafa and we were having communication issues over the January transfer window, George and I met with Jurgen Klinsmann to learn as much as we could about English and European football”

Indeed, yes. The obvious man to teach the Texas Cowboys about English football is someone who lives in California, has never managed a club team and has no contact whatsoever with the modern English game! Is this not the flimsiest, most tenuous reasoning imaginable?! Hicks continued:

"He is a very impressive man. We attempted to negotiate an option, as an insurance policy, to have him become our manager in the event Rafa decided to leave our club for Real Madrid or other clubs that were rumoured in the UK press, or in case our communication spiralled out of control for some reason”.

So – our illustrious owners allow the notoriously biased and sensationalist British press to dictate their major decisions?! Basically, they’re saying that The Sun said Real Madrid was interested in Rafa, so we decided to look for his replacement. Absolutely pathetic! If this is a snapshot of their business awareness and acumen, I genuinely fear for our club.

Of course, the reality is it’s just another excuse masking the reality: They wanted Klinnsman to replace Rafa. Hicks further added:

"Rafa has both of our support, and our communication has greatly improved”."Foster, Rick Parry and Rafa now have regular meetings at Melwood on Monday mornings. The two families always try to have a telephonic meeting on Monday afternoons, so we all are on the same page. We all want to win more games."

We all want to win more games? To coin a uniquely American phrase - no shit! If winning games is Hicks’ only criterion for success though, then Rafa might as well pack his bags right now.

Hicks’ simplistic attitude will be a problem for any Manager taking the hotseat – winning games is great but taking the long term view and considering the club’s progress in the proper context is more important. It can’t just be ‘We aint winnin’games so it’s ‘bout darn time for a new coach’.

Before Hicks arrived in a blaze of glory, the club had gone 115 years without the ignominy of internal strife being splashed across the media. There had never been a situation where the Chairman had criticised the Manager in public. The possibility of a Chairman engaging in public warfare with a Manager was an alien concept.

In just ten months associated with the club, Hicks has destroyed this long-standing harmony with key involvement in a very public spat and endless negative interviews splashed across the worldwide media.

Hicks has taken a Chainsaw to Liverpool’s exemplary media practices and turned the club into a laughing stock. As such, in my view, the Texan cowboy is not fit to run Liverpool FC; he is not deserving of the honour and privilege of owning the club and he is woefully bereft of the personal qualities needed to be an effective leader and ambassador.

Criticising the Manager and the team in public is a cardinal sin. Discussing potential Managerial changes in public is destabilizing. Hicks should have learned from his mistakes after the recent public debacle, but his latest comments prove that he has learned NOTHING.

Come back, DIC! Buy-out these clowns and give Rick Parry his marching orders whilst you’re at it, so we can all quote John McClane and shout 'Yippee-kai-ay...

You know the rest.

Read full article >>>

Shut up, Hicks. You're making a mockery of everything Liverpool FC stands for.

In yet another childish display of one-upmanship, Tom Hicks has dragged his rift with Rafael Benitez back into the public domain, accusing the Spaniard of ‘pouting’ during the recent public spat.

Hicks dredged up the row over transfers, which saw Benitez publicly accuse the American duo of failing to understand the European transfer market. Hicks said:

"We wanted to see what we could do with the players we had already bought," said Hicks. "We just wanted to see if the team was going to gel. Then he (Benitez) went to a press conference and kind of pouted and answered in the same way 20 times: 'I'm focusing on my team.'

Quite why he feels the need to drag the club’s good name through the mud again when the matter was apparently resolved is a mystery. Such behaviour is petulant, unprofessional and destabilising in the worst possible way.

Hicks’ latest comments starkly illustrate that he still holds some resentment towards Rafa over the recent rift, which is bad news for the Liverpool boss, as it means that the situation has not actually been successfully resolved.

Even if Hicks’ comments were innocent, and he was merely commenting in response to a direct question, he should have the intelligence to answer the question in the right way, i.e. a positive way. He should understand how his comments may be perceived by the media and the fans. The fact that he is seemingly unable to do that is disturbing.

Hicks also had the gall to criticise the team’s approach to the recent defeat by Manchester United:

"Our team played like they mentally didn't think they were good enough to win. They played tight."

They played ‘tight?!’ What exactly does that mean? Nothing is the answer. Such ‘analysis’ is typical of someone who obviously has no knowledge of ‘soccer’ whatsoever.

Hicks has barely been in the country since he bought the club yet he seems to think he knows enough about the game to pass judgement on the mentality of the team?!

Hicks is clearly right about Rafa’s pouting; In fact, he is arguably right about the negative approach of the team. However, he should not be saying these things in public!

Before Hicks arrived in a blaze of glory, the club had gone 115 years without the ignominy of internal strife being splashed across the media. There had never been a situation where the Chairman had criticised the Manager in public. The possibility of a Chairman engaging in public warfare with a Manager was an alien concept.

In just ten months associated with the club, Hicks has destroyed this long-standing harmony with key involvement in a very public spat, which he has now needlessly reignited.

As such, in my view, Tom Hicks is not fit to run Liverpool FC. He is not deserving of the honour and privilege of owning the club and he is woefully bereft of the personal qualities needed to be an effective leader and ambassador.

He just doesn’t understand what Liverpool FC is all about, and his behaviour over the last two months proves that.

Criticising the Manager and the team in public is a cardinal sin. If Hicks has anything negative to say it should be said behind closed doors. He should have learned that after the recent public debacle, but his latest comments prove that he has learned NOTHING.

David Moores had his faults, but he never criticised the Manager or the team in public. Indeed, Liverpool’s most successful chairman, John Smith, would never have dreamed of denigrating the team or the Manager in public.

That is the mark of a good owner.

Hicks would do well to take a look at Mr Smith’s conduct during his tenure as Chairman and try and learn something about grace, professionalism and humility - concepts of which he clearly has has no understanding.

Read full article >>>

Hicks' raps Rafa in unprofessional public outburst

In an astoundingly unprofessional display of one-upmanship, Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has delivered a stinging public rebuke to Liverpool Manager Rafael Benitez.

There are clearly differences between what Rafa wants and what the Americans are willing to provide, and given what could be perceived as a veiled attack by Rafa in Friday’s press conference, it is understandable that Hicks may be slightly perturbed.

However - Hicks' response shows a dispiriting lack of class and tact. There is NO EXCUSE for making critical public comments such as the following:

“After the Champions League final in Athens, Rafa made certain demands of us and we responded to those demands in the summer. We brought in some good players and spent more money than has ever been spent before at this club.

“We now have some crucial games coming up in the Premier League and the Champions League and we want to see if we can win these games with the players we have.This was the message we gave to Rafa recently and I think during the international break he must have grown a bit frustrated about this.

“We told him to concentrate on the games coming up and nothing else and I guess he didn’t like that. But, for the time being, we just need to be focused on what happens on the pitch.

“George and I will be over in mid-December and that is the time to talk about other issues. It is really time for Raga to quit talking about new players and to coach the players we have.”

With some crucial games coming up in the next two weeks, such comments will have nothing but a destabilizing impact on the club. If Hicks had a problem, he should have discussed it with Rafa IN PERSON and behind closed doors.

Public attacks of this nature are not the Liverpool way, and choosing to ‘deal’ with the situation this was hugely amateur mistake on Hicks’ part, who seemed intent in stamping his authority and showing everyone in the world who was boss.

I happen to agree with Hicks’ contention that Liverpool should be getting the best out of the players already on the books. However, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that washing your dirty laundry in public will only make things worse.

Read full article >>>