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 >>>

Gerrard exposes his lack of support for beleaguered Benitez

On the eve of Liverpool's most crucial game of the season, Steven Gerrard has stuck his oar into the ongoing problems at Anfield with pointless comments that arguably display his lack of support for Rafael Benitez.

Gerrard was never slow to voice support for Gerard Houllier or Steve McClaren when they most needed it, so why are his latest comments completely devoid of any kind of support for the Manager he has eulogised as 'the best in the world'?

Sticking his nose in during periods of club unrest is nothing new to Gerrard. In 2004, when speculation was mounting that Gerard Houllier was set to leave, Gerrard came out with ridiculous comments about how he would leave Liverpool if Houllier was sacked:

"If Gerrard Houllier left the club, I would have to consider my own future. I belive he is the man for the job. I love playing for him".

In another display of public support, Gerrard was even more emphatic:

"The criticism is very, very unfair. I'm not just saying that because he's my manager and made me captain - but because of where he has taken us and what he has won since he took over. He's brought the club forward massively.
"I'm sure he will be here for many years to come and will continue to take us forward and win things. Gerard's faith in me was one of the factors why I signed. He has improved me as a player and we are capable of winning trophies under him in the years to come. I want to be part of that."

The club is undergoing another period of unrest and the same thing is happening again, only Gerrard displays no public support for the Manager he recently described as 'World Class':

“It’s important that the players keep their focus. We realise that there is stuff going on behind the scenes but as a player you have just got to blank that out. As players we get judged on results so it's vital that we don't get distracted from what is going on off the pitch and keep on winning.”

First of all, did Gerrard need to focus yet more media attention onto ‘stuff going on behind the scenes’?! In fact, did he need to make any comment at all on the situation? What possible purpose do his comments serve? None whatsoever I would argue.

If Gerrard had to say something, he should have said something positive, along the lines of: ‘All the players are behind the Manager, and we support him 100%’. This is the kind of thing a captain *should* be saying, is it not?

Of course it is, as proved by Gerrard himself recently when he offered positive, emphatic backing for former England Manager Steve McClaren when speculation was rife about his job:

"I'm certainly backing the manager. I've got a lot of faith in him. I've enjoyed working with him and speaking to the other players I'm sure they feel the same”.

So why no similar display of support for beleaguered Benitez when there was every opportunity for a show of solidarity? On the eve of a game that could make or break Benitez’s career, a show of support would have done wonders for Rafa’s position. It would have also tallied with the overwhelming support of the worldwide fanbase and created a positive symbiosis of support.

Instead, Gerrard just states the obvious and talks about a ‘distraction’ in detached terms as if it’s happening a million miles away and has nothing to do with him or the team.

Gerrard knows exactly what he is doing, and if he wanted to support Rafa in public, he would have. The question is, given his ample public support of Houllier and McClaren in the past, why has Gerrard not supported Benitez?

I personally suspect that Gerrard is not worried either way if Rafa leaves, as it would give him the perfect excuse to leave Anfield in the summer, and no one would question his decision. After all, Gerrard has made no secret of the fact that he dislikes being played out of position – something that ‘detached’ Benitez has done regularly throughout his reign.

Indeed, there is speculation today that Gerrard would ‘consider his future’ if Rafa was to leave. This is clearly paper talk, but it would not surprise me if Gerrard is already planning his future away from Anfield.

After Gerrard cried wolf twice over Chelsea, he made a rod for his own back in the sense that he created a situation where by he could never publicly consider his future again, lest he incur the irreversible wrath of the fans.

In such a situation, what does Gerrard do if he wants to leave? There’s nothing he can do. He’s basically stuck unless he can find a situation where he can leave and be absolved of any blame.

The Benitez situation is the opportunity Gerrard has been waiting for. If Rafa is sacked, Gerrard can start making noises about his future again, and people will be more understanding because a new Manager will have to rebuild again, and Gerrard might not want to hang around during the transition period.

This would be far easier to accept that the dual Chelsea debacles, and given the fickle nature of fans, I have no doubt that the majority would support Gerrard if he gave that kind of reasoning for leaving.

Ultimately, as club Captain, Steven Gerrard should have come out with a show of support for Rafa. If he could muster up support for Steve McClaren, why could he not do the same for Rafa?

Read full article >>>

Beginning of the end for Benitez

Bill Shankly once said: "At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques".

At Liverpool, it’s more ‘deadly duo’ than ‘holy trinity’ at the moment, and Rafa is no doubt wishing that Tom Hicks and George Gillette would just sign the cheques already.

The spat between Benitez and Liverpool’s American owners is spiraling out of control, and the Spaniard is doing himself no favours by fanning the flames of adversity.

Tom Hicks’ unprofessional public outburst against Rafa was unacceptable, and represented conduct unbecoming a senior figure at Anfield. I would even go so far as to say that Hicks’ tirade represented the complete antithesis of everything Liverpool stands for and just proved that he has no real idea about the culture of Liverpool FC.

Rafa should have been the bigger man and responded in private. Instead, he has made things infinitely worse with a needless public outburst of his own. If Rafa’s petulant performance in Friday’s press conference was ill-advised, his latest public comments are tantamount to professional suicide. One thing you don’t do in any line of work is cast aspersions against your boss in public:

"They [Hicks and Gillette] don't understand what the transfer window means in Europe. They need to understand how difficult it is to sign players. I was trying to explain, now we try to keep focus and win games. They need to know and understand how to sign players who are free, that we have to do it early and quickly. They need to understand the way the market works”.

Rafa is of course right. However, he should never have made these comments. History has proven that spats between the boardroom and management only lead to one result. For a recent example, just look at the friction between Jose Mourinho and Roman Abramovich. Mourinho’s fantastic achievements and outstanding managerial ability counted for nothing in the end – all that mattered was the decision of the man in charge.

Given Rafa’s obvious intelligence and self-awareness, it strikes me as strange that he would attempt to use the media to exert pressure in this way. Indeed, it could be the case that Rafa has an overstated sense of his own importance to the club, and this has led him to believe he is immune from any consequences.

This is a fatal mistake, and combined with Rafa’s trademark stubbornness, will only lead to fatal consequences.

Rafa also made reference to the fans, in what appears to be an attempt to use his popularity as some kind of justification:

“I am trying to do what is best for the club, my fans know that and I will keep doing it.”

The fans may know it, but I suspect their adoration will not stop Hicks and Gillette from taking action. Mourinho was loved by the fans, but that didn’t help him, did it?

I don’t think that Rafa will be sacked straight away – that would be an insane decision and if taken, would expose the irredeemable stupidity of the club’s owners. However, I do feel that this situation is the beginning of the end for Rafa.

The damage is done and I am sure that neither party in this situation will completely forget what has happened. Rafa will not take kindly to fighting the same battles he faced at Valencia and Hicks and Gillette will not take kindly to their public belittling. Ultimately, something will have to give somewhere along the line, and it certainly won't be the club's new owners selling up and moving on.

Regardless of who is to blame, the whole mess reflects badly on Liverpool FC. It is divisive; counter productive and not the Liverpool way, and Rafa more than anyone should know that.

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 >>>