A theory I've had about Rafa and Klinsmann etc...

[Johnny]

i avoided the place yesterday thought it'd be hysterical

You were right.

[barnes10]

amazing the difference a good result makes isnt it:

i think its all just a conclusion to their spat and that they knew and know rafa is a better and cheaper option than klinsmann or pretty much any other manager for that matter. they (hicks) still however don't like rafa and at ready to jump on him if he gets public again as it discredits them and they won't tolerate it. no surprises here really.

for me this hicks release about klinsmann is just about 'having the last word on the matter' as far as i can see just to show who's boss. yes it was a dig at rafa but it could have been worse i think. he didnt actually say 'we were looking to replace rafa cos he overstepped the mark'. he hinted that it wasnt far off and that for me is basically just a public slapdown.

I don't expect to hear more. will rafa take it? only time will tell but there's 5 months of the season to run yet and i don't think this is enough to make him leave. as long as he's backed with transfers he'll stay. and skirtel points in the right direction.

sure rafa thinks hes a cunt and vice versa but they don't have to like each other for the club/team to be successful. if rafa agrees to shut the **** up and they agree to ensure the communication is properly dealt with and that the handling of transfers is done effectively so we don't miss out on players then all are satisfied arent they.

owners already have the cheapest and 'best value for money by far' option managing the club and keeping schtum about non match related affairs and rafa gets his transfers and answers to his questions.

if either side of this bargain fails to live up to their promises then we reach the end of rafa at lfc. otherwise, lets hope the players are no longer unsettled.

I was thinking last night about this strong team against a weak opposition. very un rafa no matter what the situation. my thoughts were that if he spends the rest of the season largely sticking to his best 11, i think it means he'll be off. i think its him seeing what the best team he can put out was capable of.

conspiracy theories eh, don't you just love them...

[badpiggy]

posted this on another thread 2 days ago but i think it got a bit lost:

graeme hunter was on newstalk (irish radio) this morning and said that he'd just spent a couple of days with bayern at a traing camp in the south of spain. he was told that talks had reached a very advanced stage between klinsmann and H&G to the extent that klinsmann was basically getting his backroom team together. he was certain that the job was his. bayern stepped in late, offered him big money and said they wanted to unveil him immediately as the new bayern boss. klinsmann agreed.

i don't really know what the **** is happening here but the liverpool i support now is a pale imitation of what made us great in so many ways. apparently rushie was on somwhere and said that we are in danger of us becoming a laughing stock. well any footie fans i meet seem to be treating us with a level of sympathy and "jesus - you are rightly ****ed" kind of attitude. how i ever thought that some ****in texan mate of george cuntin bush would make a good owner for us i'll never know.

ally this to my basic belief that rafa won't win us the premiership... support a lameduck manager or support the owners to get in a better manager? some ****in choice. my heart is with rafa but only because those other two ****wits are the obvious enemy at this stage.

[dawmdt]

A theory I had knocking around was that maybe they were looking at Klinsman as an insurance option to be a caretaker until the end of the season. That would certainly tie in with the insurance policy stuff and might also explain why they went to a manager with such limited club experience - purely to keep us going.

We have no idea what was in any possible contract and I wouldn't be surprised if he would have been officially only caretaker manager until the end of the season at which his achievements (or lack of) would be have been assessed before deciding to get rid of him or get somebody else in.

Like I say just a theory. I'm not an easily trusting person but there's something about that Hick's interview that just seemed more valid and robust to me than previous statements. I know they've not proven themselves to be trusted but I have a gut feeling (that I'm certain isn't that dodgy kebab I had for dinner) that this one seems to ring true