Could it be this is what Rafa wanted?

[JustTosh]

Something doesn't make sense. There has to be an explanation. Why didn’t Gerrard sign a 100K a week contract and stay as captain of his boyhood team? It doesn’t make sense. Why would he leave?

 

Is it possible that this is exactly what Rafa wanted. There’s been rumours before that Rafa didn’t rate him that much. Is it possible that Rafa’s manipulated him to turn down the offer. To tell Gerrard he was surplus to requirements would’ve been impossible. It would also have reduced the price significantly. So if Rafa wanted to cash in on him, he’d have to manoeuvre him to say no. The only way to get rid of him was probably to make him believe that we’re not buying enough quality players to challenge for the title. Remember Parry told Gerrard that giving him a 100K/week contract meant we couldn’t sign the players we ideally would’ve wanted.

 

No that he’s gone, we can remove the smokescreens being Crouch etc. and start doing real business. Bring‘em in Rafa, Aimar or whoever they are.

[Hermes]

Remember Parry told Gerrard that giving him a 100K/week contract meant we couldn’t sign the players we ideally would’ve wanted.

 

 

When did he say that? I don't think Rafa wanted this, if he did then what he said yesterday about wanting him to stay for life etc. just left him open to ridicule.

 

I do think the lack of any movement for top class players has played a major part though. All the more reason why they should have got him to sign ASAP if that's what they wanted.

[MLB]

I had sympathy for Gerrard when I thought that might have been the case, but everything Rafa has said in the past couple of days suggests that he wanted to keep him at the club. That makes "Stevie" the cunt, and Rafa the real red.

[JustTosh]

When did he say that? I don't think Rafa wanted this, if he did then what he said yesterday about wanting him to stay for life etc. just left him open to ridicule.

 

I do think the lack of any movement for top class players has played a major part though. All the more reason why they should have got him to sign ASAP if that's what they wanted.

 

I've read it somewhere but can't remember where that Parry told Gerrard the 100K contract would have an impact on our signings this summer. I'm not saying they wanted Gerrard out. However, somethings don't add up, so I'm simply asking the question. If we wanted to get rid, it makes sense Parry didn't want to discuss a new contract before now. Saying what he said yesterday could have been a qualified gamble from Rafa?

[WeAreTheBest]

Something doesn't make sense. There has to be an explanation. Why didn’t Gerrard sign a 100K a week contract and stay as captain of his boyhood team? It doesn’t make sense. Why would he leave?

 

Is it possible that this is exactly what Rafa wanted. There’s been rumours before that Rafa didn’t rate him that much. Is it possible that Rafa’s manipulated him to turn down the offer. To tell Gerrard he was surplus to requirements would’ve been impossible. It would also have reduced the price significantly. So if Rafa wanted to cash in on him, he’d have to manoeuvre him to say no. The only way to get rid of him was probably to make him believe that we’re not buying enough quality players to challenge for the title. Remember Parry told Gerrard that giving him a 100K/week contract meant we couldn’t sign the players we ideally would’ve wanted.

 

No that he’s gone, we can remove the smokescreens being Crouch etc. and start doing real business. Bring‘em in Rafa, Aimar or whoever they are.

 

I think its more to do with the fact Gerrard has wanted out all season, he said he'd stay in the heat of a CL win, has been playing ever since but has now found an excuse to leave

[JustTosh]

I had sympathy for Gerrard when I thought that might have been the case, but everything Rafa has said in the past couple of days suggests that he wanted to keep him at the club. That makes "Stevie" the cunt, and Rafa the real red.

 

Exactly what Rafa would've wanted. To get top dollar for the lad Rafa has to show the world he doesn't want to loose him. Maybe Rafa knew he'd say no.

[Hermes]

I've read it somewhere but can't remember where that Parry told Gerrard the 100K contract would have an impact on our signings this summer.

 

Actually, looking at the signings we've made I reckon £100,000 would make a huge difference. I suppose you're right.

[BatChainPuller]

Exactly what Rafa would've wanted. To get top dollar for the lad Rafa has to show the world he doesn't want to loose him. Maybe Rafa knew he'd say no.

 

Was thinking the same thing - couldn't see Rafa being able to put up with all gerrards bullshit for longer than he had to.

[Dirk]

I've read it somewhere but can't remember where that Parry told Gerrard the 100K contract would have an impact on our signings this summer. I'm not saying they wanted Gerrard out. However, somethings don't add up, so I'm simply asking the question. If we wanted to get rid, it makes sense Parry didn't want to discuss a new contract before now. Saying what he said yesterday could have been a qualified gamble from Rafa?

 

I read that but like you say it doesn't add up. An extra £20 000 a week if the reports that he is on £80 000 a week are to be believed would only mean that we would have to find an extra £1 mill a season. Even at £60 000 a week we'd only have to find £2 million a year. If that meant we'd have no money then how come we've just spent £6-7 million on Reina and are/were about to land Crouch for a similar amount? It doesn't add up.

[JustTosh]

I read that but like you say it doesn't add up. An extra £20 000 a week if the reports that he is on £80 000 a week are to be believed would only mean that we would have to find an extra £1 mill a season. Even at £60 000 a week we'd only have to find £2 million a year. If that meant we'd have no money then how come we've just spent £6-7 million on Reina and are/were about to land Crouch for a similar amount? It doesn't add up.

 

Your math's exactly right. I'm confident you are a clever guy, so please tell me why Parry would say such a thing to Gerrard.

[Dirk]

Your math's exactly right. I'm confident you are a clever guy, so please tell me why Parry would say such a thing to Gerrard.

 

The only other thing I am thinking is signing fees but that would be spread out over the duration of his contract? Gerrard is a liar or the club are lying too.

[JustTosh]

The only other thing I am thinking is signing fees but that would be spread out over the duration of his contract? Gerrard is a liar or the club are lying too.

 

I wouldn't say the club's a liar, I'd say they're conducting business. Gerrard har repeatedly said that he wantet Liverpool to build a team strong enough to win the league. To do that Gerrard said we needed better players. If it's true that Parry told Gerrard his wage-demands would jeapardise the teambuilding, how could that persuade Gerrard to stay? Either Parry's a complete idiot or he wanted Gerrard to say no.

 

Fighting with West Ham for Peter Crouch could be the best smokescreen ever.

[Dirk]

I wouldn't say the club's a liar, I'd say they're conducting business. Gerrard har repeatedly said that he wantet Liverpool to build a team strong enough to win the league. To do that Gerrard said we needed better players. If it's true that Parry told Gerrard his wage-demands would jeapardise the teambuilding, how could that persuade Gerrard to stay? Either Parry's a complete idiot or he wanted Gerrard to say no.

 

Fighting with West Ham for Peter Crouch could be the best smokescreen ever.

 

 

If it is a smokescreen then the club are liars and didn't want to keep him and have forced him out - something they strenuously deny.

[Dirk]

I think Gerrard is lying and that he was never told that.

[dave u]

I heard thats what Parry told Gerrard. However, that story did come from the 'Gerrard camp' as opposed to the 'Parry one' if you see what I mean.

 

Maybe it isn't true, maybe it is. The thing is, the club pleaded with him to stay and he chose not to. When its all said and done, Steven Gerrard is the one who wants to leave, no-one if forcing him to.

 

Parry could maybe have handled things a bit better, but it's unfair to blame him. Gerrard is a grown man. Yes, he's been manipulated to fuck by people who stand to make a lot of money from his leaving Anfield, but when Parry and Benitez sat down with him and explained things from their point of view, that should have been enough.

 

For him to ask to leave after all thats gone on.... I just think it reflects very badly on him.

 

Havng a go at Parry is merely deflected the blame away from the one person who is to blame for all this.

[Hermes]

Havng a go at Parry is merely deflected the blame away from the one person who is to blame for all this.

 

There's no doubt where 90% of the blame lies Dave but where's the money from the CL run? Did Parry really expect him to stay when he saw the standard of players we were in for? More to the point, why didn't he kick him out last season after his act of betrayal with Chelsea? Parry and Moores (is he on holiday?, or is going to consider his position again) are hardly blameless in this fiasco. We've lost 6 weeks of transfer activity due to their dithering.

[dave u]

There's no doubt where 90% of the blame lies Dave but where's the money from the CL run? Did Parry really expect him to stay when he saw the standard of players we were in for? More to the point, why didn't he kick him out last season after his act of betrayal with Chelsea? Parry and Moores (is he on holiday?, or is going to consider his position again) are hardly blameless in this fiasco. We've lost 6 weeks of transfer activity due to their dithering.

 

 

The point I'm making is that people having a go at Parry over t he Gerrard thing is letting Gerrard off the hook. It's hard to argue with a lot of your points there, I just don't think anyone else should take any stick over what Gerrard has done.

 

Slag them off over other things and I'll agree with you probably.

[Moschops II]

There's no doubt where 90% of the blame lies Dave but where's the money from the CL run? Did Parry really expect him to stay when he saw the standard of players we were in for? More to the point, why didn't he kick him out last season after his act of betrayal with Chelsea? Parry and Moores (is he on holiday?, or is going to consider his position again) are hardly blameless in this fiasco. We've lost 6 weeks of transfer activity due to their dithering.

 

You've talked very excitedly about Figo, Milito and Zenden. Reina is, even if you think he's over-priced, a very highly rated prospect, as is Gonzalez.

 

So if, as it appears you're suggesting, Gerrard left largely because we've been going after Peter Crouch then a) that would make him an ever bigger bell-end than I thought possible, and b) supported in his reasoning if not his behaviour by you.

[Maldini]

There's no doubt where 90% of the blame lies Dave but where's the money from the CL run? Did Parry really expect him to stay when he saw the standard of players we were in for? More to the point, why didn't he kick him out last season after his act of betrayal with Chelsea? Parry and Moores (is he on holiday?, or is going to consider his position again) are hardly blameless in this fiasco. We've lost 6 weeks of transfer activity due to their dithering.

 

Of course he fucking did! He's (was) the captain of the European Champions for fuck's sake! What have transfers got to do with anything? Gerrard probably hasn't seen any of these players, just like he wouldn't have seen Garcia or Alonso before last summer. You don't know who was set to come in this summer, same as I don't.

 

I really can't believe you of all people are saying that SG is justified in leaving.

 

You're talking as if you know the intricacies of our dealings over the last few weeks when you have no idea.

[Hermes]

You've talked very excitedly about Figo, Milito and Zenden. Reina is, even if you think he's over-priced, a very highly rated prospect, as is Gonzalez.

 

So if, as it appears you're suggesting, Gerrard left largely because we've been going after Peter Crouch then a) that would make him an ever bigger bell-end than I thought possible, and b) supported in his reasoning if not his behaviour by you.

 

But we haven't signed Figo or Milito. Gerrard considered leaving last year because he thought the team wasn't good enough, there's no evidence it will be any better this season judging by the players we've bought (not those we're linked with). What do you think "after what's happened over the last 6 weeks" means?

[Dirk]

Of course he fucking did! He's (was) the captain of the European Champions for fuck's sake! What have transfers got to do with anything? Gerrard probably hasn't seen any of these players, just like he wouldn't have seen Garcia or Alonso before last summer. You don't know who was set to come in this summer, same as I don't.

 

I really can't believe you of all people are saying that SG is justified in leaving.

 

You're talking as if you know the intricacies of our dealings over the last few weeks when you have no idea.

 

I don't think anybody has been saying that Gerrard has been justified to leave. There's a difference between pointing out problems that exist(ed) around the whole affair and between somebody saying it's okay to leave because of them. I am of the trust in Rafa camp when it comes to ALL team affairs.

[Hermes]

I really can't believe you of all people are saying that SG is justified in leaving.

 

You're talking as if you know the intricacies of our dealings over the last few weeks when you have no idea.

 

I'm not saying he's justified, I'm saying the reasons he considered it last year are still valid. We've won the CL but the team is no better today than it was 12 months ago, we haven't bought enough quality players to convince him to stay. That was Parry's job, he's failed.

[Moschops II]

But we haven't signed Figo or Milito. Gerrard considered leaving last year because he thought the team wasn't good enough, there's no evidence it will be any better this season judging by the players we've bought (not those we're linked with). What do you think "after what's happened over the last 6 weeks" means?

 

I think it means "the dinky little speech I had ready all season about the club not being able to win trophies annd leaving me with no choice but to follow my dream to Chelsea got blown out of the water in Turkey so now I'm fucked for anything even vaguely resembling a proper reason for my greed and lack of morals".

 

Incidentally, given that you never wanted Benitez appointed and would have liked Kenny instead, answer me one thing - do you think had Dalglish been appointed manager last summer that Gerrard would have signed his new contract? Just wondering, like.

[Maldini]

But we haven't signed Figo or Milito. Gerrard considered leaving last year because he thought the team wasn't good enough, there's no evidence it will be any better this season judging by the players we've bought (not those we're linked with). What do you think "after what's happened over the last 6 weeks" means?

Who have Chelsea bought? A Left-back? Big-fucking-deal!

 

We've not even completed our transfer dealings

[Maldini]

I don't think anybody has been saying that Gerrard has been justified to leave. There's a difference between pointing out problems that exist(ed) around the whole affair and between somebody saying it's okay to leave because of them. I am of the trust in Rafa camp when it comes to ALL team affairs.

But I can't see what Parry has done wrong, bar getting him to sign a deal on the plane back or on the parade bus he had no other opportunity as SG went on holliers the day after. His agent went a few days later. They were scheduled to sit down and talk last Wednesday.

 

If Parry has played it so wrong then why has Carra not asked for a transfer? He's got the same agent, same time left on his deal, his talks were not opened until the same time as Stevie Gecko's.