JRC

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.

I don't fundamentally disagree in terms of objecting to G&H's conduct overall - which boohog also does - except when refutable and evidently untrue (or at least ill-informed or misrepresented) arguments about the nuances of the financing package are used as a prime plank in the arguments against them; it weakens those arguments, diminishes the opposition and demeans those who maintain it.

Why the dichotomy? How about rather educate us than allow mis-information and ill-founded speculation form one of the platforms of the the campaign against them? The real issues remain, but predicating protests on a fug of ignorance serves no-one well - well maybe a few. If one of our prime complaints is that they are liars and dissemblers, when did clarity and information - and 'education' - become barriers to combatting them? Or is this now the New 'Liverpool Way'? Unless boohog is making it all up, or has got his details wrong - which I haven't seen anyone try to claim (as opposed to ad hominem arguments) - why the apleen?

As they own the club, in a sense it is their own money. And they didn't HAVE to spend, or sanction the spend of, anything, even having sold all the players we did - if turning a quick buck was their sole aim. They would now be sitting on £70M more profit (as it would not have yet impacted our income, except the CL knock-out phase money) - not far off what they could get by selling to DIC, apparently. The scenario - sell and don't buy is hardly unique, and what the more pessimistic are suggesting will have to happen within a few years anyway - i.e. do a Leeds. I am not enamoured of these 2, but a natural contrarian, and HR's stuff in the past few pages is, to me, not as imperceptive or illogical as some of those who are trying to denigrate or wilfully misrepresent him.

But surely that would always have been the case; however they funded the purchase, if the debt was not on the club directly, they would have taken annual dividends out of the club to recover their initial investment (and more). Maybe that arrangement is more flexible and less onerous than being in hock to a (currently nervous, risk-averse and trigger-happy) bank - I'm not sure the extent to which their potential dividend is limited by our profits, for example, and they have the option to not pay themselves a dividend, or a lower one, in any year - but if we were a long way from making sufficient profits to pay their dividend year on year, I don't see - and didn't 12 months ago - G&H just shrugging their shoulders and saying 'C'est La Vie, carry on spending anyway'.

Especially when hundreds of their fans did make it up from Luton by their own steam. Still can't believe they weren't made to forfeit that match. Not that I'm bitter. B*stards.

...Merseyside Police banned the Liverpool players from having their Xmas party at Garlands again for fear of a Pink Riot...

He's not been at his best all season, I agree, but I think you can also point to very good performances at Newcastle and Marseille in the past month alone; and he was far from our worst player on Saturday - certainly didn't deserve the abuse he got round by me.

And Carragher was playing at Full Back prior to 04-05 - he has only become a World Class Central Defender under Benitez

In the Main Stand, Kuyt was getting the dog's abuse from the off - clearly the latest scapegoat (along with JAR), because I thought he had a pretty effective game. Not just that backhanded compliment of 'work rate' - always a given with Dirk - but intelligent movement and running, linked up well with Torres, always pushing, probing and harrying their defence. It didn't stop the muppets behind me loudly wishing he would get sent off, or get injured, then getting apopleptic that he was still on the pitch when Yossi got taken off.

It may well prove to be true, but confirmation that Bascombe sometimes has decent information on potential targets - which is to be expected given his history - offers little or no validation for his contacts and info pertaining to financial issues, raising loans, G&H relationship with Rafa etc., as he did not seem to have an 'in' with G&H even when at the Echo. Congratulations to Big Wayne, btw, whose parody of how Bascombe would spin Benitez still being in a job by Christmas was startlingly accurate. Is he perhaps Bascombe's nemesis?

Absolutely agree - what he did in terms of the runs he saw and made (plus his finishing ability) was unteachable. He just had a natural genius for it that I have never seen in any other player - he saw the end point of his run from 50-60 yards away, even though he was a limited player in other areas. Fortunately we also had players with similar visionary capacity to make use of it - Dalglish especially, but also Souness, Kennedy etc. Whenever he played for England, with mediocrity around him and a less fluid role, he looked like a journeyman midfielder. Favourite goal in a stellar collection? Away at Aberdeen where he simply ran over a pass that looked like it was meant for him - not a dummy, just ignored the ball - allowing David Johnson to knock it first time into the space behind the defender as Terry carried on running, followed by an exquisite angled chip on the run. Truly a genius.

erm, don't want this to look like an argument, but I responded and pointed out that - imo - Lawrensons analysis was nonsense. Cut & Pasted because I don't know how to quote from other threads, sorry.. "Absolutely, it was a ludicrous argument. The foul occurs at the point of contact, which was outside the box. By Lawrenson's logic, if Peter Crouch had the ball at his feet some 3 yards outside the area but fell face forward with his arms outstretched, and then a defender jumped in and caught his ankle as he lay on the ground, it would be a penalty if his fingertips were just brushing the line of the penalty box. Nonsense." I would have cited that piece of punditry as an example of dumbing down. At least someone could have argued whether Lawrensons's interpretation is correct, because it is no way obvious that it is, but all Stubbs offered was that 'the line constitutes part of the area', as if that was the relevant point. (The point was also made that the virtual graphic didn't accurately correspopnd with the live pictures, rather defeating the MOTD argument anyway)

Neither do I, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate informed and detailed technical analysis by people who know what they are talking about; if you can enjoy David Llloyd talking over a slo-mo breakdown of Steve Harmison's arm action as he delivers the ball, or Richie Benaud providing insight into a captains field positionings or declaration decisions, I'm sure there are enough coaches or experts around who could illuminate football technicalities in much the same way, and be both entertaining and informative at the same time.

Not durng the game, I agree, but I'd love to spend a post-match hour with Rafa - or Wenger, or Mourinho, or even Ferguson (maybe Queiroz) - as they analyze every match detail, work through the ProZone stuff, watch and rewatch videos of every position, tactical switch etc, or listen to them work on some small aspect of an individual player's technique etc. Some of that knowledge could be exhibited on a watchable Football programme. All professional sports have this depth of expertise now (mixed in with a healthy dose of pretentious bulls**t) - remember the American Football guy brought in by Clive Woodward to improve Johnny Wilkinsons place-kicking, and nothing else? Apparently he identified 16 different technical issues in his action, and put them right. Imagine what he could do with Momo...

Very true. And despite my class consciousness over this, Sky's Rugby League manages to nail it technically and analytically, even with apparently brain-damaged ex-players. Football is equally as amenable to technical, detailed analysis as Cricket - by all accounts, that's what expected of pundits in Italy (e.g Capello!) - as well as glamorous female presenters in low-cut tops and short skirts. Works for me.

I'd say there was time when Sky threatened to raise the bar in analysis as well as coverage - when Gray first had his magic pens and screen and a seperate 'analysis' program, often on a Monday, for example; and the BBC raised their game to meet them - more Hansen and O'Neil air time. ITV tried with the Tactics Truck, but that was so p*ss-poor, I think the other two just relaxed and reverted to quantity (Sky - more games, more divisions, Kamara and Goals on Sunday) or bland chumminess (BBC)

It's not their opinions I'm bothered about, it's when their arguments are founded on palpably false premises, or lack any logical or rational construction, or they are evidently self-contradictory or easily refuted by reference to readily available statistics or empiricl evidence. Many lack the skills or self-awareness to distil the undoubted knowledge they have of the practical aspects of the game, from having played it, into reasoned, supported, considered and well-thought out positions. Of course they don't - often - know the minutae of interior life at every club in the way that obsessives like us aspire to with Liverpool, so often they fall back on prejudice and regurgitating received opinion without any assessment of the merit or validity of it. We are apallingly ill-served by the quality of punditry on the box for what is our national game. There is an almost pathological aversion to intelligent discussion of the nuances and intricacies of the beautiful game - an aversion not present for 'middle class' sports like cricket, golf or rugby, notwithstanding their own proponents of dumbed-down muppetry - predicated on the supposition that we are all too thick to realise it (although 606 sometimes proves their point...) Last Sunday, I despaired as Warnock and Beagrie - the former supposedly a fully qualified Referee, and certainly not unprepared to tell them how to do their job - struggled and failed to analyse an Off-Side decision (Stoke-Watford...how sad amI?) - and not even a 'new interpretation' decision either. As 'Experts', a current manager and an ex-pro, their total ignorance and lack of knowledge of the basic Laws was shameful and embarassing, and we - ALL football fans - deserve better.

Rushaian is a very well informed source, to be sure, but I fail to see anyone present at the supposed Board Meeting * that could/would have informed him of it's content, as he doesn't seem to be an ally of Parry. Although - if it was actually constituted as a Board meeting, as opposed to just an executiev heads down (and partner/friend/family one, as has been pointed out), there may have been someone ther other than the 5 mentioned (I suspect Moores doesn't get to attend the serious ones, his is a non-exec/figurehead role) acting in the Company Secretary role; but their job would now be well and truly on the line if anything substantive got out to the forum community, as they would be the only name in the frame for the leak. * BTW - even if there was a formal Board Meeting, that could just as likely have been about essential financing/ground decision stuff, the fact of it being 'late night Board Meeting', if there was one, doesn't necessarily imply that the 'Rafa Situation' was on the Agenda, of course.

Except that 'Twelve Days of Christmas' theme will no longer be appropriate after Sunday, and the only song I can think of with Fifteen in the title is 5:15 by The Who, and that doesn't really work as a Christmas song

Nothing about it on the BBC Liverpool or Echo sites. Manc disinformation?

But that way madness lies, becasue the effect of a goal can go either way just as easily - a couple of seasons ago, when we beat them 3-1 Everton were claiming this kind of stuff when Beattie had a goal disallowed, saying how it would have changed the game if it had been given etc....but they actually did score about 2 minutes later anyway, so they were effectively in the position they would have been if it had been allowed; and it certainly changed the game, because the way we responded to conceding was by raising our game and scoring about 5 minutes later to make it 3-1 (OK, a minute after half-time, but only 5 minutes of game play). All you can really extrapolate from these 'if that had or hadn't' scenarios is on an 'all other things being equal' basis. And on that basis, if they hadn't been given their pen and we had been given both ours (and scored both), we would have won 3-2. But that wasn't the case, and it shouldn't have come down to that, but hey......sh*t happens.

Absolutely, it was a ludicrous argument. The foul occurs at the point of contact, which was outside the box. By Lawrenson's logic, if Peter Crouch had the ball at his feet some 3 yards outside the area but fell face forward with his arms outstretched, and then a defender jumped in and caught his ankle as he lay on the ground, it would be a penalty if his fingertips were just brushing the line of the penalty box. Nonsense. Although that was better than Stan Collymore's efforts on Five Live - he refused to criticize the Reading penalty decision because 'you make your own luck' - even after just 18 minutes, a couple of crosses and a single shot on goal. When it was later suggested to him that both Torres incidents could have been given, he argued that 'common sense' should prevail, and the ref should only give a penalty when there was 'no ambiguities', like 'when it's a nasty challenge or the forward definitely has a chance to score'. Bizarre (lack of) logic.

Fernando Torres is so good that the Main Stand don't moan about him...yet

...and I'd give them a lift and pick them up...