JRC

no, that's an example of a crass and ill-considered interjection being challenged. That didn't happen on Sunday, it was as stage managed as PMQT. Jamie coul;d easily have given his opinion and backed it up with some argument, insight, logic, evidence, reasoning (or, and I'm not holding my breath, Keyes could have challenged him) - but instead he worked his way through an easily recognisable set of cliches; as John has said, in a bizarre character-shift manner, as well. Having an opinion doesn't make it valid in anything other than an empty, valueless way - it is the content that is important, and becomes valid by being validated, or at least supported or justified.

btw, did I imagine it, or did Goals on Sunday do a bit on Zonal the weekend before last. Peter Reid was, unsurprisingly, dead against it - which is a point in its favour, as far as I'm concerned. I think it was Spurs they were covering (so is Ramos introducing it there? Interesting to see how that goes down, as he is something of flavour of the month), but Paul Boardman threw in something like 'we've all seen how Liverpool have got it wrong with Zonal Marking...". Now if he was referring to recently, when we have conceded a surprising number of goals from set pieces, then he may have a point, but does that mean he acknowledged - implicitly or explicitly, I don't know, having only just turned over and only half listening - that for, what, the previous 2 years, we had got it pretty well right on Zonal? Or was he just rolling out the usual guff in defiance of the facts? And him being such a legend as an ex-Red as well...

Pretty facile response, that. There's a difference between having an opinion and the expression of it, or the arguments used to support it, or the logic whereby that opinion is justified or validated or confirmed (or refuted). And for sure, how nice a bloke he is, or good a player he was (I loved him, tbh), or how fit his wife is (and tbh...) counts for very little in that assessment. It's f** all about not being able to handle the truth, it's about a debate and a discussion and differences of opinion. So maybe I should be patronising and suggest that 'some of you can't handle the debate' - which is not really a good position to be in on a forum, unfortunately.

tbf, the various scenario you gave indicate more that Rafa assesses a set of competing parameters in making his decision - maybe too many, I'm not arguing that point - complex, rather than random. I suspect he doesn't use a bingo ball machine to decide who is playing. I do think, though, that some of the criticism of Rotation from the media is 'random' - the non-acknowledgement, and lack of criticism, of the extent to which Wenger, Ferguson, Grant et al do rotate, and in Ferguson's case, lose matches when their top players are rested; pundits sighing that Benitez has made 5 changes (against West Ham) again - without mentioning that the previous game had been Havant, when a) it was a game no-one could really object to rotation and b) we played cr*p to a man, so hardly anyone deserved to be picked for the next game. The line-up was not massively different to the previous League game, iirc. I suspect Wenger made many more than 5 changes both before and after the Spurs LC semi-final, but that's not party to the same comment. Same against Reading - lots of huffing and puffing from Alan Green about being unable to name Rafa's team prior to the game, yet he could have written Reading's down before he walked in: until someone pointed out that they had already used more players than us this season, which fact he just ignored and carried on as if the point hadn't been made. It's not that there isn't an argument to be made, it's that it's so shoddily made, accepted, set in stone an regurgitated unthinkingly.

I had to laugh when Gray claimed, after Gerrard played a pass to Babel but he made a different run, that it was down to rotation; yet his whole theme throughout the game was that Chelsea were giving the ball away far too much - more than us - and sloppy in possession. Which clearly can't be down to rotation, because they don't do it, of course. BTW, I don't think there is a specifically anti-Liverpool bias in the media, I don't question that they give the same kind of easy-shot, agenda-driven non-analysis to the other big clubs, depending on who is flavour of the month, or the latest object of the pack mentality, and we have put ouyrselves in a position to be shot at. It's just that I only CARE when it's about Liverpool, or can be bothered (or, tbf, have the detailed knowledge and recollection) to highlight the bias, oversights, limitations, illogicality or inadequacy of their positions. I'm not on here to fulminate in rage against them all, just to share my contempt with others who share most of my prejudices. And if you can't do that on an LFC forum etc. etc.

That's what got me. Could he explain then why we were so poor in the early CL games, and played a weakened team at home vs Marseille, when we were doing pretty well in the League? Not that Keys would ever have asked that. And tossing Terry the bone - "And which would you prefer, the Premiership or the CL?" just to rub the point in begged the question about which would Roman prefer? Jamie may well believe every word he spoke, and he may well be right, but it was a you-toss-em-up-and-I'll-knock-em-out-of-the-ground kind of interview, happy to elicit the anticipated response.

I saw him on Sunday, and was surprised, not by the opinions - anyone who spends any time on here will have heard everything before - but the way he expressed himself. He started off as if he was going to be reasoned and analytical, but almost allowed himself to get worked up into something 'quotable' by Keys; like he saw the opportunity to shake off a reputation for being bland - although it's always easiest to take the kind of line he did when there is no-one there to take issue or dispute what you say - and neither Terry nor Keys were ever going to do that.

Agger & Skrtel = Hansen & Lawrenson. Only better. *Closes eyes really tight and crosses fingers on both hands

It only says 'Very unlikely'...mind games, perhaps? Straw clutching, I know...

Lucas shone away at Newcastle, at least until he tired later on, and allowed Gerrard to do some of his best stuff. That in a 4-3-3 that saw Dirk have his best game this season as well. He clearly has promise and potential to burn - but it's fair to point out that his on-pitch time here only allows us to get excited about what may be to come rather than what actually is at the moment.

Except that when he changed his mind about retiring, all the spin copming out of OT was that it was because he felt he hadn't done as well in the Champions League as he should, and he wanted to win it again to prove his credentials at the highest level; at which point he tried changing them round tactically to be more 'European', and they struggled. When Chelsea imploded last year and United took full advantaget to win the title - I'm not saying they didn't 'want' it, just that I suspect they thought Chelsea were likely to dominate for a few years, and the opportunity was somewhat unexpected - the tack changed to Fergie wanting to get past our record as his driving ambition. I'm sure that's true now, but the message has clearly changed due to circumstances - although he is allowing himself some treble talk again.

Isn't that self-contradictory?

I thought the idea may be to get Aurelio to push on, Lucas tuck in (after a nice goal from Left-side/Centre last week) and Stevie get forward behind Crouch and Torres, or beyond for Crouch's flicks even - but it certainly never flew; was Aurelio pulled because he didn't step up, or was he injured?

I wouldn't be surprised if Hicks promised to do that

As Chairman, didn't he still have a fiduciary responsibility to the other shareholders to let the Board consider the bid, independantly of his own decision as an individual who to sell his shares to?

Didn't it all change round while we were down in London for the West Ham game? Anyone up for believing in synchronicity, kismet, happenstance etc....?

Excellent post, and I think the above is the crux of the matter; what you think above may well be true, but the financing and the model do not preclude that they do in fact subsidise investment in players to a greater or lesser extent to ensure the continued increasing value of the asset. (Which is not to say they will, of course) Whilst HR's £70M my be disputed, what is true that they have so far sanctioned expenditure - whether covered by sales, increased revenue or not - that could otherwise have gone to paying themselves a dividend and covering their interest payments and more. I'm not lauding them for that, btw, just acknowledging it.

Actually, my post was predominantly supportive of your position...don't know why I bothered...I mentioned 'firesale' because someone is bound to bring up Leeds, but the point was that running the assets down, if they think it will be worth 5 times as much in 5 years, doesn't make sense

Or even - "hey, that means you're using MY money to buy YOUR business!" I don't see that this latest 'revelation' says anything different from what has been doing the rounds. G&H will take the dividend for themselves. Whether they use that to pay their loan interest or not is up to them. In fact, doesn't the statement explicitly say that any shortfall will be funded by them - again whether by cash, or loans or whatever, it's their problem, their responsibility. So the club is not liable for the loan, but whatever profit they can take as dividend will allow them to cover their own payments as far as possible. There is nothing new or different in that from what was being discussed and explained last week, nor, I suspect, from how DIC intended/intends to operate. The real issue, I accept, is whether G&H run the club in such a way to maximize their dividends on an annual basis - firesale of players, no purchases, price hikes - or take a longer view - invest in new players (ANY outgoing spend on players reduces their capacity to take a dividend, whatever the net spend figure or other income streams we have) to ensure 'success' (and I accept the concerns about what would constitute success to them) up to the point that new stadum revenues come through and the 'Brand' is valued at £1Billion or whatever they believe their goal is. Probably, tbh, somewhere between the two extremes, as running the asset down simply doesn't make sense, but their track record, Hicks' in particular, is not encouraging.

Wenger may have rebuilt, but succession planning is his responsibility, and when Benitez started, Wenger was just coming off an unbeaten season as champions, so it is somewhat surprising that he has, to date, finished behind Benitez on 2 out of 3 completed league seasons = a win to Benitez.

You just couldn't contain yourself and stick to tactics, could you? Take a break and play some CM or something.

Glad you added the caveat 'league'. After Burnely, there was a lot of talk about how he didn't get the FA Cup - he put that right the next year, and also made significant changes that gave us our best League total for many a year. It's tempting to infer from the League performances under Benitez that he 'doesn't get it'; but it's not necessarily true (or, admittedly, necessarily false), as there are numerous other factors and parameters to factor in. He may well 'get it' completely, but it wouldn't guarantee the title, or even a better showing. In fact I struggle with the concept that a proven manager of quality, highly analytical, who has shown himself capable of winnning a league competition, and of sending teams out to beat the cream of Europe - Italian, French, Spanish, German (and English), cannot somehow come to terms with the English League, and, in effect, the English League alone. Indeed, the league itself is changing year by year in terms of styles, approaches, influences. It is not just some monolithic, unchangeable entity. Come to that, does Wenger still 'get it'? When Benitez started here, Wenger had just gone unbeaten for a year, yet Benitez has finished ahead of him 2 years out of 3 . Even the best managers don't work out with the best clubs, for a multitude of reasons, and the time may well come when we have to accept that ia the case with Rafa. But we should recognise that were he to leave, he would almost certainly be snapped up by a big club somewhere else, and we could very well end up watching him lift trophies with different colour ribbons on it; that we would have failed to succeed (in the League at least) despite having one of the brightest, most highly prized and most respected coaches in place ought give us pause.

The upheaval has to be factored in this year. Such disruption in the way the club is run, much of it directly impinging on Benitez, rarely passes without having an effect. Whilst there were inconsistencies earlier in the season, our real poor form has come since ther end of November; when we beat Newcastle and Utd lost at Bolton, we were still well in contention - it's gone mainly downhill since then. Can anyone say with certainty that the strange decisions at Reading were not partially down to the pressure - whether explict, implicit, external or internal - that was on Rafa re the Marseille game, given what we now know, or are led to believe, about what was going on. Whilst it's true that without the G&H farrago, more attention would be getting paid to Rafa's performance, we can understand how that self-same farrago may have conributed significantly. I also think - certainly in may case - that the lack of respect shown to Rafa and his acheivements from pundits and other fans automatically generates a defence mechanism. I've seen it argued (by Mancs) that he was lucky at Valencia - Cuper's team, Real and Barca in temporary decline. That's right - 2 lucky La Liga titles and a UEFA Cup in 3 years; followed by a lucky CL and FA Cup win, another lucky CL Final. Jeez, I wish he'd give me his lottery numbers. The lack of reasoned, or even moderately well-informed, analysis about rotation, zonal marking, quality of signings, money spent etc in favour of received sound bites and accepted wisdom has been well documented here. Sadly, there are vocal elements amongst our own prepared to repeat them in public, often with as little understanding, at the slightest excuse. I'm NOT saying there isn't cause for debate, especially on here, or genuine reasons for believing Rafa can't win us the PL, but I'm always ready to stand up for him in public against Mancs, bluenoses, know-nothing journalists and educationally sub-normal ex-players, and that includes making my support clear at the game.

Except that was exactly one of the issues that boohog has covered and asked for a response to (i.e. the cash equivalence, or immateriality of the source of Kop Holdings indebtedness). If it's a key detail (OK. not a nuance), it needs to be understood, and boohog is attempting to see that it is. I'm not saying he's right, but I've yet to see anyone refute him (or her) - instead he has been reviled, or his arguments avoided - and we're told the detail doesn't really matter.