Jump to content

The Official Liverpool FC Thread


The Infamous

Recommended Posts

The 29-year-old also admits he would have liked Gerrard and Carragher to have taken a similar stand.

'I was probably one of the loudest objectors because I believed it was important the supporters knew I was with them,' he says.

'All I wanted the owners to do was sell up to people who could take the club forward, so I said so.

'The way I saw it, Stevie and Carra are the two principle members of our squad, the ones who the people love and if they had said something maybe it would have put Hicks and Gillett under real pressure.

'But in their view, it was more important to try to keep things as normal as possible.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2046871/Pepe-Reina-Liverpool-owners-stopped-joining-Arsenal-20m.html#ixzz1aEOYkIs4

Pepe >>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liverpool goalkeeper Pepe Reina claims the club blocked him from making a £20million move to Arsenal in the summer of 2010.

Reina admits he was tempted to leave Merseyside after returning from Spain's victorious World Cup campaign last year to find the Reds in a downward spiral.

Manager Rafa Benitez had been sacked, while director Christian Purslow was desperately seeking new owners to replace Tom Hicks and George Gillett as the club struggled under a financial crisis.

Blocked

The Spaniard's head was turned by the Gunners but says Liverpool rejected their £20m bid and stopped him from making a switch to North London because they feared his exit would dissuade potential buyers.

"I went from elation one minute to depression the next as the realisation dawned that Liverpool were going nowhere fast," said Reina in his new autobiography.

"Arsenal had made their determination to sign me clear by offering £20m, a phenomenal amount for a goalkeeper. Part of me felt that I was well within my rights to consider my future even if I did so with a heavy heart."

Pepe Reina

Quotes of the week

"When I signed my contract in April 2010 I hoped that better times were just around the corner, a feeling that was fuelled by the promises of improvement from people at the club.

"It didn't take me long to feel that their promises were hollow. I felt betrayed. Our owners were at war with each other, the club's debts were spiralling out of control and a change in manager had failed to dispel the feeling that we were on the road to nowhere.

"Arsenal had made their determination to sign me clear by offering £20m, a phenomenal amount for a goalkeeper. Part of me felt that I was well within my rights to consider my future even if I did so with a heavy heart.

"When Liverpool received the bid, they rejected it. This was not because I had been told that I was too good a keeper to leave. The reason I was given was quite different - and it left me feeling down. I was told that my continued presence was crucial to the sale of the club. I was simply a bargaining chip in the sales process.

"I still don't know what to think of Purslow because I understand he was there to look for new owners and to try to sell the club but ultimately he was making big football decisions that he was not qualified to make."

Reina made no secret of the fact he wanted Hicks and Gillett out ahead of Fenway Sports Group's takeover of the club last October.

The 29-year-old admits he would have liked fans favourites Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher to have joined him in getting behind the supporters' protests to oust the American owners.

Objector

"I was probably one of the loudest objectors because I believed it was important the supporters knew I was with them," he said.

"All I wanted the owners to do was sell up to people who could take the club forward, so I said so.

"The way I saw it, Stevie and Carra are the two principle members of our squad, the ones who the people love and if they had said something maybe it would have put Hicks and Gillett under real pressure."

"But in their view, it was more important to try to keep things as normal as possible."

skysports

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15269831.stm

Premier League clubs should be able to do their own television deals abroad, Liverpool's managing director has said.

Ian Ayre fears English sides will be left behind by their European rivals if overseas revenues continue to be shared equally between the league's 20 clubs.

Ayre said: "The other European clubs just don't follow that model. They will create much greater revenue to go and buy the best players."

The Premier League's foreign rights deal, worth £1.4bn, expires in 2013.

Under current rules, 14 teams would need to vote in favour of any new arrangements.

Ayre believes that Liverpool - along with Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal - deserve to receive an increased share.

In Spain, Barcelona and Real Madrid are able to negotiate their own deals, meaning that they are able to generate far more revenue than their smaller La Liga rivals.

And Ayre warns of the long-term consequences: "If we carry on sharing that international revenue equally, you are disadvantaging us."

He told BBC Radio Merseyside: "It is a debate that needs to be had on a more collaborative basis between the clubs of the Premier League.

"I am certain that if you are a Liverpool fan living in Liverpool, you subscribe to Sky because you support Liverpool, and if you are a Blackburn fan you subscribe to watch Blackburn.

"So it's probably right and proper that the money in this country is shared the way that it is.

"But if you go further afield then it is a myth that the Premier League is huge.

"It is popular but the clubs that are really popular are the cubs like Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal.

"We saw that in Malaysia in the summer. We were 5,000 miles from home and we had 80,000 fans watching us play and 40,000 turning up to watch a training session."

And he said that if foreign revenues continue to be shared equally, the bigger clubs in countries like Spain will leave English clubs behind.

They will create much greater revenue to go and buy the best players.

"While we must be careful to maintain the integrity of the Premier League we have to maintain our position in Europe as well."

Last month Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson called for more revenue from the overseas broadcasting deal, but he was in favour of the status quo in terms of how the money is split.

Ferguson told BBC Sport: "We are being shown in 212 countries at the moment so whatever we are being paid, it is not enough.

"There is a negotiation to be had there next time around. [individual rights] is the big issue in Spain at the moment but I've no great feelings about that.

"We'd love to have our own but I don't think it should happen that way. It's quite fair to have all equal shares."

SMH :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesnt work like that tho....

if united and pool sold there own deals and the money wasnt split fairly the league would get MUCH weaker and therefore be less appealing and bring less money in on a whole.

its a stupid idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesnt work like that tho....

if united and pool sold there own deals and the money wasnt split fairly the league would get MUCH weaker and therefore be less appealing and bring less money in on a whole.

its a stupid idea.

Liverpool care about this because?

It's potentially selfish, yes, but there is nothing wrong with looking at ways to maximise your revenues. As a Spurs fan you must see your chairman do this constantly...

discussed this in The United room after Fergie had a random outburst at Sky's Power of the game,

thought it was the first move in the chess game that would end in a way most of us would fear,

it would kill the premier League and be a pre-curser to that European super league shit,

it'd be good for the clubs involved in the short term, but i honestly dont think they've factored in the long term factors.

thank God 14 teams have to be in agreement otherwise certain clubs, well 2 possibly 3 depending on how gassed Chelsea were at the time wouldve done this already.

slippery road imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/oct/13/john-w-henry-liverpool-boston

John W Henry toasts the employees in the Boston Red Sox ticket office for their eighth straight sold-out season at Fenway Park. Photograph: Rick Friedman/Polaris

In his apartment on the 11th floor of Boston's five-star Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Liverpool's principal owner, John W Henry, and chairman, Tom Werner, watched on Fox Soccer Network what could be Liverpool's most significant match of the season, last month's 4-0 demolition by Tottenham Hotspur. For Henry, Werner and their 17 partners in the Boston-based Fenway Sports Group, their takeover of Liverpool, a year ago this Saturday when the team face Manchester United at Anfield, has been marked mostly by progress and feel-good optimism.

The club's £200m bank debt was paid off as Fenway's price of buying the club, Damien Comolli was appointed director of football, the Kop's king, Kenny Dalglish, made manager, £110.5m has been spent on new players. Above all, Henry and Werner are basking in their overwhelming quality, of not being Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

Henry, naturally optimistic as a spectator – constantly believing his Boston Red Sox baseball team would turn games round throughout their record-breaking September collapse – anticipated a win, to launch Liverpool towards the cherished, lucrative, Premier League fourth place. What happened, however, was not in the prospectus: Liverpool froze, Luka Modric scored after five minutes, Charlie Adam was sent off for two bookings, Martin Skrtel followed him, Spurs were comprehensively superior.

Henry watched the Red Sox's 8-5 defeat to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays later that day with quiet but vocal despair and Werner would struggle to contain his angst. But theygreeted the football hammering mostly in affronted silence. When Skrtel crashed into Gareth Bale for his second yellow card, with Bale on the halfway line facing his own goal posing no threat, there was no eruption of fury from Liverpool's owners at so needless a dismissal. Henry, joking, said: "Well, we played a little better for a while with 10 men, maybe we'll play better with nine." Watching Liverpool crumple and the new, expensively-bought midfield of Adam, Jordan Henderson and Stewart Downing outplayed, Henry and his party, all fans of baseball, a game charted by numbers, seemed to need some statistical handle on it. "How many yellow cards we got?" somebody asked. (Answer: at least four too many.) At the Red Sox games, I had been similar; appreciating the skill and speed, recognising great athleticism and obvious bungles, but still grappling with the rules, so a lifetime short of understanding the sport's pattern and rhythm.

With Liverpool 3-0 down, Henry mused admiringly: "Boy, did you see how far [Andy Carroll] headed that ball?" He seemed to have a touch of Dalglish's propensity to query refereeing decisions, struggling to see why Adam's downward lunge on Scott Parker merited a second yellow. I began to offer an appreciation of the officials' skill, pointing out how an assistant referee was exactly in line with the last defender, to judge the Spurs forward's position precisely when the ball was played – then I suddenly thought: I am watching a match with the owners of Liverpool Football Club, and I am coming perilously close to explaining the offside rule.

Told relentlessly about the Premier League's huge following internationally, and that soccer is breaking through in America, you can believe it – until you actually go there. In Boston, football barely breaks into consciousness. Widely played by schoolchildren, as a spectacle it is drowned out by the giants of American sport: baseball, American football and basketball. Henry believes Americans want regular decisive action, so struggle with a game that can deliver 0-0 draws. Manchester United's 3-1 defeat of Chelsea later that day was the most watched Premier League match ever in the US – 886,000 people tuned in live, 0.3% among a population of 307m.

Henry acknowledged that, a lifelong American sports fan aged 60, he knew "virtually nothing" of Liverpool or the Premier League before buying the club. That drilled home how extraordinary it is that American businessmen, from the singular huge country with its own sports, still largely oblivious to football, have bought five of English football's greatest clubs, Manchester United, Liverpool (twice), Arsenal, Aston Villa and Sunderland. These owners' collective contribution at the big three has not been positive: £473m drained out of United in interest, fees and bank charges by the Glazers' leveraged United takeover; Hicks and Gillett almost costing Liverpool its solvency; Stan Kroenke paying more than £300m to Arsenal's English shareholders but promising, as an article of faith, no investment in the club.

His interest sparked by an email from a Liverpool-supporting Fenway employee last August, Henry fixed a meeting to hear about the club with Philip Hall, of Inner Circle Sports, New York-based merchant bankers. Inner Circle previously acted for Hicks and Gillett when they bought Liverpool and became Fenway's financial advisers on their Liverpool acquisition. During that meeting, Werner did not pay too much attention, believing he and his quintessential American partners would not venture into English football.

But Henry, as he listened to the club's prospects, found it revelatory. "A number of parallels emerged with the situation that existed in Boston when we arrived," he explained. The Red Sox and Liverpool were both historically successful clubs which had lost their dominance, and both had beloved old grounds not up to modern money-making standards. Henry began to feel Fenway could apply the same strategies at Anfield as they had to winning effect in Boston, and also make an ambitious move into international sport.

There was more to it than just wanting to win. Central to Henry's and Fenway's fascination was English football's, and Liverpool's, huge worldwide support, compared to the US-restricted following for American sports. Several Fenway executives recounted, with awe, that the Super Bowl, American sport's most prestigious event, is watched by around 20m viewers outside the US, whereas Liverpool's 3-1 defeat of Manchester United last season attracted an estimated 500m global audience.

Hall outlined how United, under the Glazers, have made money via international sponsorships, explaining that Liverpool have room similarly to profit. They found it very attractive that, as Hall explained, in the Premier League, individual clubs keep the money they make from such worldwide sponsorship. In baseball, the teams are franchises, their income is taxed by MLB and shared, to maintain reasonable competition between big city teams such as the Red Sox, and smaller teams. Thus the underdog Rays were well-equipped enough this season to dramatically deny the Red Sox a place in the play-offs. Werner told the Guardian he resents the amount of money the Red Sox have to share with smaller teams.

Understanding how compelling Fenway found these individual financial arrangements, it is no surprise that Ian Ayre, whom Fenway appointed Liverpool's managing director, said this week they want to break out of the collective overseas TV deal, the only income football shares. Henry, asked if the American owners will ultimately want their clubs to do their own TV deals, as Real Madrid and Barcelona do, replied: "These people [the American owners] understand media and the long-term global implications. They're going to want to reach their fans in the new media landscape. The Premier League was created in response to changing media. Audiences will drive leagues rather than the other way round."

Hall's presentation included a comparison demonstrating that Liverpool, a big "EPL" club with a worldwide following, could be bought for better value than US sports teams, with their "limited global potential". Ed Weiss, Fenway's general counsel (in-house lawyer) who would help mastermind the bloody legal fight that Liverpool's three-man board won, selling the club to Fenway against Hicks' furious opposition, explained Liverpool's appeal: "So much internet clutter competes for mindshare now. Big sports clubs are one of the few things which can cut through and capture mindshare. We have one of the great baseball teams, but its ability is geographically limited. The Liverpool numbers blew us away. We believe there is a significant amount of monetisation we can do, on a worldwide basis, which is not occurring now."

Henry was extremely taken. Just six weeks later, after rapid due diligence and that bitter court battle, he emerged blinking in the media's spotlights outside his London lawyers' offices, having bought Liverpool. Fenway had been forced to increase their price to £200m, due to the higher bid from the Singapore businessman Peter Lim. Weiss said before that they had been planning to leave some debt in. The takeover undoubtedly put Liverpool immediately in a dramatically better position – undoing the previous US takeover's damage, so putting the club almost back to where it had been in February 2007, before any takeover at all.

Fenway, like the Glazers and Kroenke, do not intend to spend their own money freely on Liverpool. Henry is firmly attached to Uefa's financial fair play rules, which require clubs to move towards breaking even, rather than make huge losses bankrolled by indulgent owners such as Chelsea's Roman Abramovich or Manchester City's Sheikh Mansour. "We wouldn't have moved forward on Liverpool except for the passage of FFP," he said. He is worried Uefa will not enforce the rules strictly, so that clubs with investing owners will remain wealthier. Henry and David Ginsberg, the enthusiastic Fenway partner who spends most time in Liverpool – a week a month – say they have put some partnership money into Liverpool, "to help with cash flow", although they would not say how much. Certainly, they clarified, it had not come from the 19 Fenway partners putting more money in, but from the group's existing reserves.

Fenway's significant first move was to appoint Comolli, the former director of football at Tottenham, into a similar position at Anfield, working with Roy Hodgson, the manager, who Fenway would replace with Dalglish in January. Henry confirmed there had been no wider recruitment process for this most plum of jobs; Comolli was appointed following the recommendation of Billy Beane, the former general manager of the Oakland Athletics baseball team, with whom Comolli had struck up a friendship. "Billy became passionate about the Premier League and he became my initial adviser about the football side of Liverpool," Henry recalled. "Billy was adamant – 'There is one person who you have to hire – Damien Comolli. He has the same philosophy Theo [Epstein, the Red Sox general manager], you and I share.'"

This was not, as some have simplified it, Comolli's use of player performance statistics, although Henry says Comolli is famous for that; all clubs use such data now, mostly the Prozone analysis. "What Billy meant is we are all dedicated to finding and using every advantage no matter how small," Henry said. "We don't rest. We'll look at stats no one else will look at, employ scouting in a way that has a compelling organisational context, question everything and everyone and ensure we have the best player development curriculum and protocols."

Dalglish, as Ayre enthused this week, was the key appointment that instantly lifted the Anfield mood, embodying for Liverpool fans the "spirit of Shankly" they felt Hicks's and Gillett's misrule drained out. "I wasn't convinced when we arrived that Kenny should be back managing," Henry reflected. "Kenny and Damien were calculated gambles. They both have the advantage of being passionate about their work and are both very clever. We didn't feel we had a lot of time to wait, and we hope things turned around."

They did, dramatically, even before the January transfer window in which Liverpool sold Fernando Torres to Chelsea for £50m, signed Luis Suárez for £22m – a high-quality arrival for which Dalglish has credited Comolli – then Carroll, for that £35m Dalglish still finds himself defending, quite impatiently, after every match. In the summer Liverpool spent again, £20m each for Downing and Henderson, £7.5m to Blackpool for Adam, £6m for left-back José Enrique, which many believe to be the best deal. Because of Comolli's presence, many have inferred there must be some statistical shrewdness to these signings, but Henry said it is not so simple. "Everyone is fixated on Moneyball or sabermetrics [an approach to using baseball statistics, which the book documents]. But football is too dynamic to focus on that. Ultimately you have to rely on your scouting."

Many in football remain staggered that Liverpool, with new owners famed in the US for analytical rigour, paid Newcastle so much for Carroll who had at the time played 18 Premier League matches. Some believe that huge fee sent a signal that Liverpool were now flush, and raised the prices for Henderson and Downing, while Adam, a fine playmaker in Blackpool's energetic 4-3-3 last season, faces a challenge adapting in Liverpool's four-man midfield. Asked if Liverpool did overpay for Carroll and the other players, Henry suggested the new owners did, to reassure fans: "There was a lot of criticism in Boston that we weren't going to spend money on the Red Sox after we did the Liverpool transaction," Henry explained. "Then there was the fear we wouldn't spend in Liverpool. Hopefully the fans of both clubs will eventually see what we see clearly – that there is nothing to fear from the existence of the other club."

Asked about Carl Crawford, the expensive Red Sox signing who attracted most criticism for poor performances this season, Henry said Crawford had only "had a bad year". But he then acknowledged: "Choosing players in any sport is an imperfect science. We certainly have been guilty of overspending on some players and that can be tied to an analytical approach that hasn't worked well enough."

At White Hart Lane, the new signings were outclassed principally by Parker, who cost Spurs £5.5m. Liverpool recovered with a 2-1 victory over Wolves in which the central midfield again did not dominate, against Karl Henry and Jamie O'Hara. Then against 10-man Everton in the Merseyside derby – Jack Rodwell, who was effectively cancelling out Adam, having been incorrectly sent off – it was still only after Adam and Downing went off , andwere replaced by Steven Gerrard and Craig Bellamy that Liverpool finally made their breakthrough, Carroll scoring his first goal of the season. A thorough assessment of the players signed, Dalglish's return to management and his partnership with Comolli, which Henry said works "remarkably well," has a long way to go.

The same can be said of solving the Anfield stadium conundrum, the reason why the former majority shareholder, David Moores, and then chief executive, Rick Parry, said they needed to sell Liverpool in the first place. They disastrously opted for Hicks and Gillett, who made no progress, but whose £174m purchase made Moores £90m personally for his shares. A year on since their takeover, Fenway are not a great deal closer than any Liverpool hierarchy has been in the near 15 years since Moores and Parry decided a new stadium on Stanley Park was the only option. They were terrified of United, slapping extra tiers up at Old Trafford, whose 76,000 capacity Ayre referred to this week.

Fenway arrived, though, saying they wanted to stay at Anfield, believing they could do at Liverpool's home what they did with Fenway Park, a stunningly high quality and shrewdly lucrative refurbishment. Henry is clear that building a new stadium, for perhaps 15,000 more seats than Anfield, at a price currently estimated at £300m, is an expense to be avoided if possible: "If you build a 70,000-seat stadium it will cost much more than double to build than a 35,000-seater. The higher the seat the more expensive it is to construct."

They have, though, been confounded, as their Anfield predecessors were, by the neighbourhood facts: Anfield is hemmed in by houses. Weiss, and Ginsberg, have now understood that expanding would mean Anfield requiring a larger footprint, which would mean acquiring dozens of houses and knocking them down. Not all residents, defiantly maintaining family life in a desperately run-down neighbourhood pockmarked by boarded-up terraces – some, historically, bought by Liverpool and left empty – will want to sell. There is also "right to light", preventing a bigger stadium shutting out its neighbours' light.

Fenway and Liverpool have spent a year "mapping" both alternatives, and are finding the uncertainties, of potentially being stalled at Anfield, great. They seem somehow surprised that English planning laws protect neighbouring residents so firmly; in America, Weiss believes "eminent domain" laws would be more favourable to a top-level sports team, which local authorities are usually desperate to satisfy. "Approvals are needed, and it is much more complicated," said Weiss. "If all the problems of redeveloping Anfield could be made to go away, we could have a different discussion. But we started out thinking we could refurbish, now we think maybe it will have to be done the other way. But at the moment we don't have a path to Stanley Park."

Fenway's multimillionaire partners do not intend to spend their own money building a stadium; they will borrow cash and ticket prices will inevitably rise to pay for it. Hence the search, so far unfulfilled, for a naming rights partner, whose sponsorship they hope would pay a substantial chunk of the building costs. "I'd like to tell you how it will play out," said Weiss, "but I can't."

It was, therefore, baffling that Werner last week stated publicly they would not consider a shared stadium, an obvious potential solution, because, he said, fans would not stand for it. With Everton, a mile across the park, also wanting a new ground, the income from two clubs' matches and events, and any contribution Everton might make to the construction, could make the difference. Fenway have conducted no poll of fans, nor boldly set out any arguments for a shared stadium, but based this dismissal mostly on already-fixed opinions on fans websites.

The new American owners, who saved a great club from the last American owners, have unquestionably lifted Liverpool's mood, spent partnership money to ballast the club, appointed Dalglish and sanctioned huge spending on players. But a year on it remains difficult to see quite how Liverpool are better off than in February 2007, before any takeover. Then the club had little debt and was heading to another final of the Champions League, which it won in 2005, but faced the same conundrum: how to finance a stadium.

Henry, a disarming money man, softly-spoken, viewing the world through thick spectacles and a lifelong love of baseball, still "rarely" visits Liverpool, given his commitment to the Red Sox. Fenway bridge the Atlantic, he said, by delegating, to Ayre, Dalglish and Comolli, the running of Liverpool, and Fenway do not "override football decisions". Henry knew "virtually nothing" about the world's most popular game before buying one of its greatest names, and he always said it would be a learning curve. He and his partners, dealing with the wreckage of a calamitous September collapse for the Red Sox, must hope buying Liverpool does not turn out to be a curveball. Read part one of David Conn's exclusive interview with John W Henry online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liverpool captain Steven Gerrard admits he feared his recent groin injury could have ended his career.

Gerrard made his first start in six months following surgery on the groin injury in last weekend's 1-1 draw with Manchester United.

The England international, who marked his return to action with a goal, admits the last six months have been the hardest of his career and that at times he feared he might never get back to playing.

"It's only natural that you have doubts," Gerrard told the club's official magazine. "Different things cross your mind from time to time.

"When I got the injury I knew it was going to be a serious one, something that I wasn't used to. I'll admit that I was down, as low as I've ever been as a footballer.

Niggles

"Before the operation I'd been getting niggles and having injections to play. I knew I wasn't right. I was trying to put my body on the line. But it wasn't the real me and I wasn't the player I want to be.

"I was missing training sessions and coming in the day before a game trying to get that last session in, or having injections to play the next day.

"You can only do that for a certain amount of time before your body gives in, and my groin packed in on me.

"When it happened I was down and it took time before I got back in to a positive frame of mind. It probably wasn't until a couple of weeks after the operation, when I got off the crutches, that I started being really positive again.

"Without a doubt the last six months have been the hardest of my career."

MADNUSS

Had no idea this happened to him. So glad to have the most influential captain in the prem back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delighted with the lads against Utd. Although they came for the draw we remained mentally strong other seasons we would have fucked it up and they would have left with the points

We were definitely the more dangerous team although I'm really concerned with Kennys insistence on playing Carragher. Agger is back now heard he played against Rangers in a friendly which Lucas and Coates also played in :s Say it aint so. Why we playing friendlies in the middle of the season for?

Shits alrite but I would still like a attacking player and for the central defence situation to get sorted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...