Couldbe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...amp;ito=newsnow public war now .. Hicks is really one bitter fecker

Exactly !! Some edge of the seat signing that was.

What intrigues me about Benzema is why Houllier when in charge at Lyon never bent his ear about Liverpool or suggested him to us 2 years ago .... anyway Alves is going to AC Milan

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story...mp;lid=tab2pos2 Respect. Something players habitually expect and referees rarely receive. And the buzz word for the FA's latest agenda. And, seemingly, the reason for Javier Mascherano's premature departure from the match that matters most to both Liverpool and Manchester United. Respect, or indeed a lack of it, is the stuff of playground squabbles and gangland conflicts, when one over-reaction prompts another and consequences are felt for months. It should not be the determining factor in one of the most significant matches in world football. But it was. Mascherano, certainly naive and in all probability, stupid, lost his discipline and incurred a second yellow card for what was perceived as dissent. But referee Steve Bennett was guilty of a similar lack of control, reaching with remarkable speed - perhaps the product of practice - for his red card. It ensured Mascherano misses the Merseyside derby and Liverpool's inability to take three Premier League points off United continues. And it was a particularly untimely failure to show respect, the Argentine paying the price for Ashley Cole's sins (or one of the many, anyway) and the current climate where referees are encouraged to act. As Sir Alex Ferguson said: 'With the whole thing that happened during the week with Ashley Cole, there is a focus on dissent. He's been booked and he kept going on at the referee. We talk about dissent and that was dissent.' For all Ferguson's recent complaints that Cristiano Ronaldo is afforded too little protection, Liverpool felt that Fernando Torres was subjected to some hefty challenges. The Spaniard's reaction to a Rio Ferdinand foul brought him a booking before Mascherano, already cautioned for a rather Scholes-esque tackle on Paul Scholes, approached Bennett. Rafa Benitez, bellowing from the touchline, was trying to tell the Argentine to back away, advice he should have heeded. But - something amateur lip-reading appeared to corroborate - Liverpool's version of events hardly suggested a verbal assault from the midfielder. Benitez explained: 'The player [Mascherano] told me and Ryan Babel was there [agreeing], he was asking what has happened. Mascherano is a fantastic professional and has been for years, playing at the maximum level. The player knows he made a mistake but he was really, really surprised. But in this sort of game, just for asking to leave one team with 10 players is a difficult decision to understand.' It was, and it would be beneficial if any official explanation was proffered. But there remains a lack of accountability among referees as well as too great a tendency to err, no matter how difficult their job is. Two statements pertain. The first is that there is too much dissent towards referees with certain clubs - Chelsea the most obvious example - persistent offenders. The second is that the standard of officiating in the Premier League is nowhere near high enough. How much one is a product of another is a matter for debate. Especially on this occasion. Bennett is from the school of referees who officiate in the manner of strict but invariably wrong headmasters children fear. Some will question whether he deserves respect. The odds are that half of Merseyside would decide he doesn't. The FA would argue that the uniform itself merits it, regardless of the occupant. What is certain is that, as the Liverpool manager said: 'With 10 players, the game was finished.' Even with 11, United led and given Liverpool's lamentable record against them in the Benitez era, would probably have won. But the outcome was determined before half-time and Jose Reina's decision-making, like Bennett's, comes under the microscope.

From Alan Hansens article in todays independent, speaks sense, Bennet did not control the game well, shock horror !!! Disaster As for Mascherano, some might say it was a great day for English football, while others might argue it was a disaster. It is one thing observers on the touchline lecturing players what to do in the heat of battle but, if a decision goes against you in a high-intensity game like Manchester United v Liverpool, then sometimes you will want question it. And if you cannot question a decision during a game, then football is in trouble. However, Mascherano hardly helped himself. There are two rules when you are on a yellow card. One: Stay on your feet. Two: Don't go anywhere near the referee. He broke the first rule once and the second about 10 times. Nevertheless, Steve Bennett's booking of Torres which triggered the whole event appeared completely wrong. Torres did not approach the referee in a hysterical manner, he appeared to ask a question. And if referees meet questions from players with yellow cards, nobody is going to be left on the pitch. A strong referee would have dealt with the incident completely differently. He would have gone to Gerrard, as the Liverpool captain, and to Mascherano and indicated that one more example of backchat would see the player dismissed. And the pity is that Bennett got most of the decisions of a big afternoon right, but it is the one he got wrong that he will be remembered for. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

And another thing , Cole english speaking launches a torrent of abuse at the ref and gets away with it but Torres and Macherano get booked for dissent, 2 spanish speaking players with a basic command of english, sorry but they got booked because they were easy targets for the ref, hate to say it but would Gerrard have got booked if he was persistently asking Bennet what is going on ??? The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

it was 2 yellow cards not a straight red , the FA cannot change teh rules to follow whatever moralistic rubbish / bandwagon from teh sports media

Don't agree in the best team usually wins the CL over the course of the season, last year Milan won it because they could put the ball in the net while we couldn't plus that extra motivation of 2005 carried them on. You could see from QL on that Milan were the team to beat last year.

But perhaps, by prompting a response to a code of conduct where Mascherano runs amok and the cameras catch Gerrard mouthing the words "you're taking the f***ing piss" to Bennett in the later stages, the game's significance will belong to the longer term. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/footbal...ent-799829.html So Gerrard should get a match ban as well ??? Please all we need is moralistic rubbish from sports journalists refing the game from their columns. Whatever about the Javier incident the core of the problem is rubbish ref's in the permier league. If this match was a Champions league game , Giggs would have been yellow carded for kicking at Torres ankles and javier wouldn't have needed to protest that Bennet was not protecting Liverpool players

Hmmm don't think so, if they did Liverpool would have strong case to go to courts

Personally would prefer technically skilled players unlike genuine speed merchants mentioned, in that regard experienced technically players who could play up front or off a front man like Robbie Keane , Goran Pandev (still with Lazio) and Luka Modric already playing in a 4-3-2-1 system. Also considering any of the above would chip with their share of goals , eg as not Robbie Keane scored 21 goals this season in all competitions ?

We all know his opinion is biased but why is so important to us that we get his 'approval' that we are a good team etc, much prefer that the club use this bias as a motivation factor to win the CL and premier league and then shove their words down their mouths.

See Jimmy Bullard (former target by Rafa) as scored the equaliser for Fulham, good comeback from a bad injury, pennant should shake himself up ... probally one to go this summer

Really don't see how Hicks is going raise any extra finance to either fund the new stadium or buy gillets shares in these market conditions ...from the financial times Credit sell-off intensifies There is a hierarchy of precedents for financial crises. In August, as things began to unravel, the initial comparisons were with the 1998 collapse of Long Term Capital Management. That is, a freak event in which the sins of a few egg-heads temporarily hit confidence. Then, as it became clear that banks were in pain, the comparator became the 1980s and 1990s Savings and Loan crisis which saw bank losses worth 3 per cent of US 1990 economic output. Now, after a very nasty week in markets, the whispers are that it might even be the big one: the worst crisis since the 1930s. Signals of distress abound: Friday’s non-farm payroll data were awful, the US auction rate market is closed, banks’ shares are collapsing, interbank rates are back in the danger zone and debt spreads are ballooning. Even sovereign borrowers like Italy are being hit. Meanwhile credit funds that made silly bets are dying. This week Carlyle Capital, a $21bn vehicle with net debt/book equity of 3,150 per cent as of December, missed margin calls. Not really. As William Poole of the St Louis Federal Reserve pointed out on Thursday, in 1934 perhaps up to half of US mortgages were delinquent. Today only 6 per cent are. While individual banks, such as UBS and Citigroup, face capital shortfalls due to their toxic credit exposures, industry write-downs so far of $200bn compare with total US and European Tier 1 capital of about $2,000bn. Spreads in the cash market for corporate bonds are back to the levels of 2000 rather than 1930. It is striking that Jean-Claude Trichet, European Central Bank president, said the fall in Italian bonds was a “wake-up call” to its profligate government, not an aberration. There is even some evidence of bottom fishing, for example in municipal bonds. The outlook is certainly ugly: a US recession, rising corporate defaults and perhaps banks in trouble. But it would take a substantial further deterioration before things get scary. Article 2 A deepening sense of financial crisis on Friday spurred the US Federal Reserve into new emergency action to try to ease strains in the credit markets – and convinced investors that another major interest rate cut is on its way. The Fed said it would increase to $200bn the amount it lends to banks in one-month funds through two different channels. The action will make it much easier for banks to raise cash against illiquid securities. Bruce Kasman, chief US economist at JP Morgan Chase, said: “It now looks like we are in a recession.” But Carlos Gutierrez, US commerce secretary, told the Financial Times: “This should be our worst quarter for the year.” Meanwhile, Boston Consulting Group released a survey that showed more than half of US executives believe the country is either in recession or will be within six months. The Fed increased the size of its loan auctions to commercial banks from $60bn to $100bn and unveiled another $100bn in new one-month repurchase operations primarily for investment banks. By doing so, the US central bank is effectively absorbing some of the liquidity risk facing the markets – taking relatively illiquid assets on to its own books and offering cash in return. However, Fed policymakers have become alarmed at turmoil in the market for mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises that play a central role in US housing finance. Investors appear less willing to hold these securities, given the risk of falling house prices. The Fed move triggered some modest easing of market strains, with a slight decline in interbank borrowing spreads and the spread on 10-year Fannie and Freddie bonds. But the cost of buying insurance on US investment-grade companies hit a new record after the payroll report article 3 A palpable sense of crisis pervades global trading floors. Not since the meltdown of the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund in 1998 have interest rate and derivative markets suffered such a breakdown in confidence. In the past decade the scale of bond and derivative trading has expanded enormously, as global banks have provided easy access to trading for hedge funds and other investors. . As investors have purged mortgages from portfolios, interest rate swap spreads – a barometer of bank credit risk – have surged more than a percentage point above Treasury bond yields. In the credit derivatives market, the cost of buying insurance against corporate default has hit highs in the US, Europe and Japan. The Federal Reserve’s response on Friday – a boost in short-term lending for banks this month to $100bn (€65bn, £50bn) from $60bn – provides more cash for banks in return for posting mortgages and other assets as collateral. But there are fears the benefit will not percolate beyond a small circle of banks. “As the nation’s financial risk and lending has become concentrated in ever fewer money centre banks, the Fed finds itself more powerless than ever to control the spreading conflagration in the credit markets,” said Bill O’Donnell, strategist at UBS. Banks have tightened lending standards in the repurchase market, where cash is borrowed against assets by hedge funds and others. This has forced some funds, such as Peloton and Carlyle Capital, to sell assets bought using borrowed funds. As assets are sold, prices fall further, prompting banks to keep tightening lending standards. Many expect the turmoil to go on for much longer than the 1998 crisis. “LTCM was such a transitory event compared with today,’ Mr O’Donnell said. “This is not just about the collapse of one entity, this is about millions of homeowners who are underwater.” Until home prices stop falling and foreclosure rates cease rising, investors will keep shying away from holding mortgages. On Thursday, Citigroup said it planned to reduce its US mortgage assets by $45bn during 2008. Unlike past housing crises, the banking sector is far less well equipped to cope with the fallout because of the wave of banking consolidation in the last decade, said Mr O’Donnell. This means the pain has become concentrated among a small handful of institutions, all of whom play a crucial role in keeping all markets liquid. “As each of the mega-banks begins to suffer from housing-driven balance sheet stress, they simultaneously pull credit lines from other fully-functioning markets,” he said.

I really doubt the validity of this report from AP, its an edited version of an earlier story with the insertion of the 49% / 51% split which is what Hicks was muddying the water about earlier, just believe its his PR dept fighting a good fight to counteract DIC media spinning to the UK press

Don't see Gillet selling 1% to Hicks plus can't imagine DIC going for it , unless Gillet has agreed to hold on to his 1% for now

Just an opinion but anything from AP seems to be leaked from the Hicks camp to counteract the off the record briefing by DIC to teh English media , guardian , bbc etc ... all part of the negotiation process I suppose

I doubt Hicks will sell any of his share currently but he could be foreced to in 18 months by the banks . As regards Hicks buying Gillets share the banks won't give him any loans for that so he is looking for an american investor to back him for Gillets share , why an investor would do that is doubtful as they will have to then personally back the clubs debts plus finance the second tranche of funding for the stadium, alot of capital investment in a time of a capital crunch for a return that is long term and high risk, better investments opportunities out there for them to consider. Reckon DIC will sweat him out, bit like the old medieval castle sieges, DIC will starve Hicks out by starving his cashflow up so that he will have to sell up, could take time though.

Gillet and Hicks are NOT talking to each other, blame each other for the mess they got into with Liverpool, DIC are saving them from a serious financial meltdown, so the above is going against everything that has being said for the last 6 weeks, sounds rubbish

I would imagine its the overseeing of the construction of the stadium, the new stadium is the cornerstone to his 1Billion company evaluation, he need to get as much of it built in the next 12 months to maximise his return if he is forced to sell out due to being unable to service the debt

shock ! Horror ! Couch and Torres works as a partnership ... with a goal each what are the odds Kuyt will play the next game

jesus wept a goal

I don't think the majority of players have any faith in Rafa any more, the majority of them are not playing for him anymore or the club

Liverpool FC fans in buy-out sensationJan 30 2008 Liverpool Echo A NEW group is preparing a plan to buy out Liverpool FC's US owners. It is understood the group comprises high-profile LFC fans, legal experts and people in senior public positions. They are believed to be proposing a Continental-style model where fans own a huge stake in major clubs. The ECHO understands the group plans to raise £500m to buy the club AND finance a new stadium. I know hindsight is a wonderful thinga and every thing but why did not Moores and Parry take this route at the start 5 years ago when the search for an investor started ? Why did they not propose a new holding company taking over liverpool and offering shares at £2000 to supporters limited to a maximum of 5 or 10 to each individual. Moores and the other shareholders would have had their allocation diluted or taken over by the new company, say perhaps 60:40 in favour of the new company.This capital would have then been used to fund the stadium and squad development. It would have taken time and alot of effort, and a bit of imagination but it could have been made to work.

Pandev from Lazio would be a good signing now... but looks like he is going to Bayern as Lazio need to sell