Football 2012-2013

[strummer77]

If you look at the wording of the law, he has to have used it to have shown hostility to a certain group or race, or when it was likely to cause alarm, harrasment or distress.

It's possible to argue out of.

Edited July 11, 2012 by strummer77

[The Nal]

Edit: oh and the club got enough stick last year, so I think Liverpool should get some praise for this...

http://www.guardian....lgbt?CMP=twt_gu

[Benj]

Good reading (for Neil anyway;))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/10/manchester-united-accounts-share-offer

edit-oops forgot to add the actual link!

(how do you do a wink smiley these days? There's too many to choose from)

Edited July 11, 2012 by Benj

[eFestivals]

AND they're looking to get rid of Carroll.

now is probably the best chance they have of making the Carroll problem go away. Then again, I guess they won't be the first club to have a player they don't want who is on high wages on their books till his contract runs down.

And they've probably already got better value out of him than Utd managed with Hargreaves.

(yes, I know that was down to bad luck with injuries and not Hargreaves being as shit as Carroll is).

I'd still love to know whose doing that buy was - Comolli or Dalglish. While it's looked more and more of a bad buy as time has gone by, putting that aside it's still hard to see how he was ever going to fit in with Liverpool's traditional playing style - and a style that certainly didn't look like being abandoned with Dalglish's return as manager at around the same time as Carroll was bought.

In many ways, despite saying that, I understand why they bought him - they had to buy someone at the time they bought him, and there were very limited options for a striker (tho they should have screwed Chelsea for Sturridge). But the problem they have now with a player that doesn't fit the team, in hindsight, was something that was always likely to occur.

[The Nal]

now is probably the best chance they have of making the Carroll problem go away. Then again, I guess they won't be the first club to have a player they don't want who is on high wages on their books till his contract runs down.

And they've probably already got better value out of him than Utd managed with Hargreaves.

(yes, I know that was down to bad luck with injuries and not Hargreaves being as shit as Carroll is).

Edited July 11, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

More game time no question. Problem is though where Utd and others have had other players to cover for bum signings, Liverpool don't have any other strikers. Suarez isn't one and Kuyt is gone.

it looks like they might have another striker by the end of the week, which they've been needing for 2 years.

Will they take the 20 odd million hit? And then have to pay out a further 20 million odd for a replacement? Maybe two? They wont get £15m for him. Not from anyone with any sense anyway. Hence the interest from Big Sam at WHU!

I'd have thought that Liverpool would have already pretty much written off his transfer fee, but there's still the problem of his wages (£70k-£80k I believe). I doubt that WHU would pick up even half of that, and even then I'm not entirely sure that WHU would want him.

Then again, if Cole is back in the squad, and they can lose the italian geezer (I forget his name, 'little prince'), then I guess they'd be better off on the wages front than they were last season.

I still don't understand how they planned so poorly. Torres wanted to leave the summer before, the deal was almost done with Chelski then. Yet Liverpool are panic buying on the last day of the transfer window. They should have had someone lined up.

Comolli and Daglish both got sacked. Presume that was a factor.

I can only guess that the poor planning over Torres was because they believed they'd persuade him to stay.

Anything about the poor planning defo can't be laid at Dalglish's door, and I doubt that any list of targets would have been his either. His part in things is quite possibly limited to going along with the suggestions that were put in front of him - but as only a temporary appointee at the time that's really what he should have done anyway.

Given what the likes of Wenger and Levy have said of Comolli I reckon it's his doing, but I'd like to know for certain. Maybe Dalglish will spill the beans somewhere down the line, but given the loyal attitude he's shown to all clubs he's worked at (rather than just Liverpool) I'm not holding my breathe.

[thetime]

Maybe Dalglish will spill the beans somewhere down the line, but given the loyal attitude he's shown to all clubs he's worked at (rather than just Liverpool) I'm not holding my breathe.

[pink_triangle]

Then again, if Cole is back in the squad, and they can lose the italian geezer (I forget his name, 'little prince'), then I guess they'd be better off on the wages front than they were last season.

[eFestivals]

Was daglish kept on at liverpool in any capacity? or just thrown out?

Now hes at the end of his managing/coaching career you would have thought he would be ideal in a ambassador role like bobby charlton/bryan robson etc etc.

as far as i'm aware he wasn't kept on.

I could be wrong, but I think he had an ambassador role when he first returned to LFC, but was then promoted into more active roles (youth manager I think, before ending up as manager again).

[The Nal]

it looks like they might have another striker by the end of the week, which they've been needing for 2 years.

They just signed this Borini kid apparently. Total unknown though. In Liverpool terms anyway.

[eFestivals]

Sacked.

I thought he would be "moved" upstairs. Was a bold move from the owners.

I'm not surprised that he was removed from the club entirely, it's always difficult for any manager to have a club legend hanging over them - it was an issue for Rafa, and it was an issue for Woy too. And similar has happened with other clubs.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him return in an ambassador role a few years from now, but at a point where the club is doing well again, and where he's of an age where he's no threat to the manager at that time.

I don't actually think too many years need to pass before he's not considered a threat to the manager (as would be likely to be the case for another manager in the same position at another club), simply because he's not been a 'jobbing manager' thru his career as most managers tend to be. He'll pass the 'too old' threshold sooner than others because of that.

And of course if he did return in any role, there probably wouldn't be the same clamour from fans to have him back as manager as they'd been before - they've been there and done that now, and all but the most daft should recognise that they need to move on.

He seems to have left the club on good terms (as good as they get when sacked), given the statement he made shortly after being sacked. He knows enough about football and the club to realise that they didn't do well enough with him in charge even if he didn't have all the responsibility for the decisions which made them do as badly as they did.

Edited July 11, 2012 by eFestivals

[LondonTom]

I'd have thought that Liverpool would have already pretty much written off his transfer fee, but there's still the problem of his wages (£70k-£80k I believe). I doubt that WHU would pick up even half of that, and even then I'm not entirely sure that WHU would want him.

[strummer77]

Yeah Kenny's gone for time being but he'll be back in an ambassador role in a while I'm sure. I think he'll just take some time off.

As for the price on Carroll, I think that was what Comolli got sacked for. The Newcastle CEO certainly suggested it was his negotiation tactics they exploited.

Not convinced Carroll will go this summer yet mind...

[Benj]

Not convinced Carroll will go this summer yet mind...

[eFestivals]

I can't see it either, it did feel like his form was turning a bit, so it seems strange to write him off now having spent so much. You'd think they'd give him at least till Xmas, unless Rodgers really has no interest in him.

his form defo seems to have turned for the better, but I can't ever see him fitting with a Rodgers style of play particularly well.

So if they're able to - and like you I have my doubts - then now would be a great time to move him on if they're able to. They'll probably find it harder to do that in the future.

[kaosmark2]

I'd have thought WHU would waste the money. Particularly given the success of Nolan getting Carroll's knock-downs at Newcastle. Glad to see us playing better football last season though, even if I'd been worried about getting rid of our 4 best performers from that 1st season back.

[thetime]

It's all been a bit slow on the transfer front as of yet, thought there would be a lot more activity in the last week

Although Chelsea seem to be going for it and everyone is holding the breath for van persie.

[pink_triangle]

I can't see it either, it did feel like his form was turning a bit, so it seems strange to write him off now having spent so much. You'd think they'd give him at least till Xmas, unless Rodgers really has no interest in him.

[The Nal]

I dont think its his form, more whether he feels that he fits the system. The fact Rogers even mentioned a potenital loan move suggests he is looking to cut his losses.

[strummer77]

Thing is the money has been wasted now. It isn't coming back so Rogers has to treat it not as £15/20m lost but as £15/20m he can spend on players that fit his system.

[The Nal]

Thing is the money has been wasted now. It isn't coming back so Rogers has to treat it not as £15/20m lost but as £15/20m he can spend on players that fit his system.

Edited July 11, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

The fact Rogers even mentioned a potenital loan move suggests he is looking to cut his losses.

I'm not sure it's necessarily that. It's probably words that had to leave his mouth in response to questioning by journos.

I caught a little of what he said on TV, and most of what he said about players going out on loan was general stuff, with Carroll only a small part.

That doesn't mean he doesn't want to get shot of course, but I don't think he was trying to publicly tout Carroll as available for a loan in the way it's being reported.

[The Nal]

I'm not sure it's necessarily that. It's probably words that had to leave his mouth in response to questioning by journos.

I caught a little of what he said on TV, and most of what he said about players going out on loan was general stuff, with Carroll only a small part.

That doesn't mean he doesn't want to get shot of course, but I don't think he was trying to publicly tout Carroll as available for a loan in the way it's being reported.

[eFestivals]

Not sure if Fenway will agree?

at thew end of the day whether Fenway agree or not doesn't count for much. Even they can't polish a turd.

The Robbie Keane deal. What went on there? Rafa wanted Barry and they you Keane instead when the Barry deal fell through was it?

I could be mistaken, but I thought the idea was to have both Barry and Keane, as Rafa felt for some reason that they'd be a perfect fit as players.

He got Keane but not Barry, which meant he had a player that didn't fit with the team ... and while it might have been embarrassing for him to do it, he cut his losses pretty quick.

In some ways that's quite admirable - there's plenty of other managers who'd have put up a pretence about how fantastic the player was until he could find someone to mug just as that manager had mugged himself. I think I know someone with a long history of doing that.

[Benj]

Not sure if Fenway will agree? New manager and I'm sure hes been given a clean(ish) slate but they still have to balance the books.