Re: Rafa Post Match statement - Shock

[fred_plasticine]

it's no secret though that parry and rafa don't get along, is it? if rafa wants to get rid of parry then this is certainly the time. the only one - let's be honest about that - who was at least half honest with rafa about it was hicks. his reasons may be sinister i don't know about that. but the one who seemed to pull the strings was gillette. after all, he didn't even bother to deny it.

[PR350]

Rafa obviously hates being lied to or having his trust thrown back in his face. He is quite right in this, as it is how it should be.

Look at what happened with Pako.

If Parry had denied any involvement and it turned out to be true then he is in the wrong, unless he can say he was ordered not to disclose the meeting to Rafa, which he must comply with.

Rafa and Parry need to clear the air. There is still a season to be finished.

IMHO the only man I want to see left standing at the end of all this is Rafa. The rest can go.

[dww]

I want every member of the board out of the club. Firstly the Yanks, followed by Parry and Moores after a year of consolidation. I don't like the club being dragged through the mud, but I'd rather have it this way than us just sitting back and letting the club be run by some clueless morons who don't care one jot about the club.

The worst that can happen at this point in time is for the fans to think "Ah **** it, I'm fed up with all this media talk and just want it resolved for better or worse".

I maybe wrong but your comments seem to be leaning towards that. And that I don't agree with.

The worst thing that can happen in my opinion is we continue to bumble on with divided owners and no firm hand on the commercial rudder and Rafa or any future manager is not given the funds to continue improving the team.

I'm not sure that we can unequivocally say that all those involved are morons or unable to run the club. The first thing we have to accept is that anyone coming in is likely to care about the club as an investment and best case scenario in some peoples eyes as an advert for another country. What is important to me is that the club is run well and that we succeed.

Unlike you I think it is possible that one of the people in charge now if they get in funding streams, the right people and have sole control might be able to bring the club forward. I see no obvious difference between the parties internal and external who have all happily dragged the name of the club through the mud in the tabloid press. Caring little for supporters or the impact on the team.

If someone can propose an owner with a love of the club and the money and will to take it over I'm all for campaigning to get them in. However I see no reason that the fans should be another group getting the club in the news for the wrong reasons and offering no solutions. To my mind there is a real danger of us the fans cutting our nose off to spite our face in a campaign to dislodge our owners without any superior alternative.

Maybe DIC would be a boon to the club but their behaviour in the press and in general has done nothing to convince me they are the wonderful cure for all our ills some portray them as. They may be the best of a bad bunch though I accept but I don't think I'm in a great position to judge.

The idea that stability and unity throughout the ownership and managerial structure though seems to self evidently be what we need. I want to see this and to a certain extent at this point I want that to happen more than I want any of the options on offer in charge per se or indeed than I want to see any of those options out specifically.

So maybe I do fall into the 'ah **** it, I just want it resolved' camp but I would say that the resolution has to meet certain criteria that will make it and the very worst considerably better than it is now.

[Vermilion]

it's no secret though that parry and rafa don't get along, is it? if rafa wants to get rid of parry then this is certainly the time. the only one - let's be honest about that - who was at least half honest with rafa about it was hicks. his reasons may be sinister i don't know about that. but the one who seemed to pull the strings was gillette. after all, he didn't even bother to deny it.

Exactly his reasons, it's obvious TH wants Parry's Vote off the board.

[Vermilion]

Myself i would prefer another season of NOTHING. If it forced Hicks hand, made him sell up, & thus safeguard the LONG TERM future of LFC.

[Vermilion]

I would rather a season or two of nothing happening, if it forced Hicks hand, made him sell up & piss off, if that's what it takes to safeguard the Long Term future of LFC then so be it.

[el matador]

you have to give it to Parry. He kept his involvement in the meeting very quiet and didnt for one second give any indication that he was present when they met klinsmann.

As I have said before we need to get behind Parry - for now. The first step is to remove Jabba the hut as our owner and then send Parry back to the FA where he can **** up their organisation.

But Parry will get what's coming to him.

[Vermilion]

you have to give it to Parry. He kept his involvement in the meeting very quiet and didnt for one second give any indication that he was present when they met klinsmann.

As I have said before we need to get behind Parry - for now. The first step is to remove Jabba the hut as our owner and then send Parry back to the FA where he can **** up their organisation.

But Parry will get what's coming to him.

Thats why i don't see why Rafa had to go telling everyone about his intentions.....Keep it in House...THE LIVERPOOL WAY...have none of these people learnt anything.

Hicks will be sat there laughing his cock off at the in fighting he has started. Divide & Conquer.

[DannyMan2006]

The worst thing that can happen in my opinion is we continue to bumble on with divided owners and no firm hand on the commercial rudder and Rafa or any future manager is not given the funds to continue improving the team.

I'm not sure that we can unequivocally say that all those involved are morons or unable to run the club. The first thing we have to accept is that anyone coming in is likely to care about the club as an investment and best case scenario in some peoples eyes as an advert for another country. What is important to me is that the club is run well and that we succeed.

Unlike you I think it is possible that one of the people in charge now if they get in funding streams, the right people and have sole control might be able to bring the club forward. I see no obvious difference between the parties internal and external who have all happily dragged the name of the club through the mud in the tabloid press. Caring little for supporters or the impact on the team.

If someone can propose an owner with a love of the club and the money and will to take it over I'm all for campaigning to get them in. However I see no reason that the fans should be another group getting the club in the news for the wrong reasons and offering no solutions. To my mind there is a real danger of us the fans cutting our nose off to spite our face in a campaign to dislodge our owners without any superior alternative.

Maybe DIC would be a boon to the club but their behaviour in the press and in general has done nothing to convince me they are the wonderful cure for all our ills some portray them as. They may be the best of a bad bunch though I accept but I don't think I'm in a great position to judge.

The idea that stability and unity throughout the ownership and managerial structure though seems to self evidently be what we need. I want to see this and to a certain extent at this point I want that to happen more than I want any of the options on offer in charge per se or indeed than I want to see any of those options out specifically.

So maybe I do fall into the 'ah **** it, I just want it resolved' camp but I would say that the resolution has to meet certain criteria that will make it and the very worst considerably better than it is now.

The board was divided in January yet Rafa still got the transfer funds. The club has NEVER been good at the commercial side of things so another year will have little impact.

If you would be happy for one of the current owners to remain in charge then fair enough. But I am not happy with the constant lies they have fed us. I understand that some of the rubbish PR has come about due to the current owners feeling they had been forced to answer certain questons in the media. No doubt this came about because of actions done by one of the other parties involved.

I could argue that DIC got involved in the media due to being forced to do so. If you remain in the dark whilst you are being attacked it doesn't help you when you are trying to win the fans over. They have no doubt pulled out for the time being because they are involved in something they never wanted in the first place - a PR war.

I will not tell you that DIC will be the ideal owners, because like you I don't know enough about them. But the Yanks have had their chance. They have failed to do anything for our club as yet.

Neither has spent any of their own money on the club, they have lumped huge debts on the club and I fail to see this stadium they promised would be built with immediate effect once they came in. And that's after a whole year in charge.

I see NO positive reason as to why either one of them should remain in charge, other than it would keep us out the papers for a bit. At least until it came to repaying of a loan anyway.

[Vermilion]

The board was divided in January yet Rafa still got the transfer funds. The club has NEVER been good at the commercial side of things so another year will have little impact.

If you would be happy for one of the current owners to remain in charge then fair enough. But I am not happy with the constant lies they have fed us. I understand that some of the rubbish PR has come about due to the current owners feeling they had been forced to answer certain questons in the media. No doubt this came about because of actions done by one of the other parties involved.

I could argue that DIC got involved in the media due to being forced to do so. If you remain in the dark whilst you are being attacked it doesn't help you when you are trying to win the fans over. They have no doubt pulled out for the time being because they are involved in something they never wanted in the first place - a PR war.

I will not tell you that DIC will be the ideal owners, because like you I don't know enough about them. But the Yanks have had their chance. They have failed to do anything for our club as yet.

Neither has spent any of their own money on the club, they have lumped huge debts on the club and I fail to see this stadium they promised would be built with immediate effect once they came in. And that's after a whole year in charge.

I see NO positive reason as to why either one of them should remain in charge, other than it would keep us out the papers for a bit. At least until it came to repaying of a loan anyway.

And put so much more eloquently than i could have managed today. I echo your thoughts. I wish Rafa had just called Parry into a little quiet room & punched him on the nose, rather than have the Media involved.

As for any of these two becoming sole owners, i can only PRAY it never happens.

[Manofthebog]

Jurgen Klinsmann: Liverpool FC officials met him TWICE
Apr 14 2008 EXCLUSIVE by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo


THE ECHO today learned that Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks held two meetings with Jurgen Klinsmann with a view to the German replacing Rafael Benitez as manager.

The first meeting was held in New York at which he was joined by co-owner George Gillett, chief executive Rick Parry and other members of the Liverpool board.

The second was held at Hicks’ holiday home in California during Thanksgiving weekend when Parry was not present.

Parry today said he was prepared to meet Benitez to discuss his involvement in talks with Klinsmann.

The 53-year-old responded to Benitez’s demands yesterday afternoon for talks to clear the air about what went on at the meeting with Klinsmann last November with an offer to sit down with him at the earliest possible opportunity.

Though he has known about the meeting with Klinsmann for several months, Benitez insisted he was surprised by revelations that Parry was also present.

The Spaniard was already aware that Hicks and co-owner George Gillett had met the German in November to discuss the possibility of him replacing Benitez as manager at Anfield.

But Benitez has admitted to friends he was shocked to see revelations from Hicks in the national media that Parry was present at that meeting and is now demanding answers.

Parry today responded to the latest crisis by telling the ECHO: “I am more than happy to sit down and talk to Rafa about this.”

Yesterday, Hicks revealed: “Rick [Parry], George and Foster Gillett participated with my son, Tom Jr, and me. Rick allowed that controversy to build without taking any responsibility.”

[dww]

The board was divided in January yet Rafa still got the transfer funds. The club has NEVER been good at the commercial side of things so another year will have little impact.

If you would be happy for one of the current owners to remain in charge then fair enough. But I am not happy with the constant lies they have fed us. I understand that some of the rubbish PR has come about due to the current owners feeling they had been forced to answer certain questons in the media. No doubt this came about because of actions done by one of the other parties involved.

I could argue that DIC got involved in the media due to being forced to do so. If you remain in the dark whilst you are being attacked it doesn't help you when you are trying to win the fans over. They have no doubt pulled out for the time being because they are involved in something they never wanted in the first place - a PR war.

I will not tell you that DIC will be the ideal owners, because like you I don't know enough about them. But the Yanks have had their chance. They have failed to do anything for our club as yet.

Neither has spent any of their own money on the club, they have lumped huge debts on the club and I fail to see this stadium they promised would be built with immediate effect once they came in. And that's after a whole year in charge.

I see NO positive reason as to why either one of them should remain in charge, other than it would keep us out the papers for a bit. At least until it came to repaying of a loan anyway.

I would say that he got funds in January because they were basically part of earlier planning in happier times. It is certainly true or Skrtel in that there was clearly the money earmarked for Heinze in the budget and you have to assume that when we loaned Mascher with a view to buying that was also accounted for in both owners future plans. A genuine worry for me is the delay in starting the new stadium which appears to have resulted from the ownership quarrel.

The things we may well have always been poor commercially but in terms of the debts we have it is important that we do maximise these areas and to be fair it is also good for fans. It is also along with the new stadium the main reason anyone would fight to own us in that there is clearly more money to be made out of us than has ben done so in the past.

Despite disliking being lied to I think we both agree what is important is how the club is run. For me I do believe Hicks could potentially run us well even though it would be slightly distasteful. I guess only time will tell. Hopefully in the future whoever ends up in charge we will only have to care about what happens on the pitch because all is being handled well off it.

[Guest]

I would say that he got funds in January because they were basically part of earlier planning in happier times. It is certainly true or Skrtel in that there was clearly the money earmarked for Heinze in the budget and you have to assume that when we loaned Mascher with a view to buying that was also accounted for in both owners future plans. A genuine worry for me is the delay in starting the new stadium which appears to have resulted from the ownership quarrel.

The things we may well have always been poor commercially but in terms of the debts we have it is important that we do maximise these areas and to be fair it is also good for fans. It is also along with the new stadium the main reason anyone would fight to own us in that there is clearly more money to be made out of us than has ben done so in the past.

Despite disliking being lied to I think we both agree what is important is how the club is run. For me I do believe Hicks could potentially run us well even though it would be slightly distasteful. I guess only time will tell. Hopefully in the future whoever ends up in charge we will only have to care about what happens on the pitch because all is being handled well off it.

And he ain't got the financial nous to sustain us in the long run.

[Vermilion]

I would say that he got funds in January because they were basically part of earlier planning in happier times. It is certainly true or Skrtel in that there was clearly the money earmarked for Heinze in the budget and you have to assume that when we loaned Mascher with a view to buying that was also accounted for in both owners future plans. A genuine worry for me is the delay in starting the new stadium which appears to have resulted from the ownership quarrel.

The things we may well have always been poor commercially but in terms of the debts we have it is important that we do maximise these areas and to be fair it is also good for fans. It is also along with the new stadium the main reason anyone would fight to own us in that there is clearly more money to be made out of us than has ben done so in the past.

Despite disliking being lied to I think we both agree what is important is how the club is run. For me I do believe Hicks could potentially run us well even though it would be slightly distasteful. I guess only time will tell. Hopefully in the future whoever ends up in charge we will only have to care about what happens on the pitch because all is being handled well off it.

Do you believe the delay on the stadium is down to ownership & not money, The only way Hicks can build the stadium is by putting the club in Hock for how ever many decades. I can see why the others see the safer option for the good & Security of LFC is to now sell to DIC.

Especially now we know the truth, which is that these two were NEVER wealthy enough to own the club.

[DannyMan2006]

The things we may well have always been poor commercially but in terms of the debts we have it is important that we do maximise these areas and to be fair it is also good for fans. It is also along with the new stadium the main reason anyone would fight to own us in that there is clearly more money to be made out of us than has ben done so in the past.

Despite disliking being lied to I think we both agree what is important is how the club is run. For me I do believe Hicks could potentially run us well even though it would be slightly distasteful. I guess only time will tell. Hopefully in the future whoever ends up in charge we will only have to care about what happens on the pitch because all is being handled well off it.

Three points to make here, in order:

1. It is vitally important at present as the Americans do not have the cash to pay for transfers and build a stadium. Whoever Hicks or Gillet bring in it will only be as a replacement to the other. I wouldn't expect anyone with a massive amount of cash being brought in. Hence they would still sruggle.

2. I would like to know how you came to this conclusion. It would certainly make me feel better if you could show me in case he does win the war. At the moment, looking at our club and the others he owns or has owned, then I would suggest the evidence shows otherwise.

3. Damn right.