A Club In Turmoil?

[Cardie]

At the risk of upsetting Dirk

 

The Thai affair - actively considering selling the club to someone who would have stained the reputation of our club, and who kept changing the story about where his money was coming from. I don't care that Parry said no in the end, he shouldn't have touched him with a barge pole to begin with.

 

As CEO is it not his job to investigate all possibilities and would he not have been working under the terms of Moores, after all it wasn't Parry's club to sell. If Moores hadn't wanted to sell to Shinawatra he could have told Parry not to look into it but they didn't.

 

When the whole DIC/Gillette thing came up people were quick to point out that the club were legally obliged to look into all serious options what makes the Thai deal so different?

 

 

Almost letting our best player leave when he was ready to sign a new contract and all the big clubs were after him. Not urgent, we'll sort it out later.

 

As I said nobody is perfect but the idea that the captain of our club would be so insecure as to worry that it was left a few weeks having already said he wanted to stay doesn't really suggest all of the blame should lie at Parry's door, certainly he was partly responsible but at the time we were more than happy to let Gerrard share the responsibility for that caper.

 

Having a whole summer to land transfer targets when we were champions of Europe, and not getting them despite the money being there. Benfica were twats with Simao, but that's because it was the last day of the window and they knew we were getting desperate. If it had been done earlier we could have said fuck off, we'll go after someone else, and they might have backed down.

 

It was Benitez playing cat and mouse with Del Nido, trying to squeeze the odd 2 million here an their from the deal and Del Nido who was accepting then rejecting the deals (which has happened more than once hasn't it?). I'm sure if you search back through the old threads you'll find many a person saying they agreed fully with Rafa's stance on that, that he shouldn't be held to ransom, and that they backed the pursuit.

 

Again, for whatever reason, that seem's to have been re-spun into a Parry episode when the majority were applauding Rafa for his shrewd handling at the time.

[co1-lfc]

What makes you think a CEO would be responsible for booking hotel rooms?

 

I suppose so but he is surely in a position to oversee things like this don't happen? And to sort it out if it is going pear-shaped?

[Cardie]

I suppose so but he is surely in a position to oversee things like this don't happen? And to sort it out if it is going pear-shaped?

 

Depends how much he wants to micro manage the operation.

 

I would have thought it would be more the responsibility of the Club Secretary, although in this case it was apparently UEFA who did the work.

[philyhamann]

Rafa shouldn't be afraid of getting shit sorted, he could just come out tommorow in the Echo and call Parry an incompetent cunt, whammo, he's out.

[185]

Here's the full article anyway

 

 

Déjà vu as Benitez lays down the law

 

 

In the summer of 2004, Steven Gerrard gave an interview which exposed why the Gerard Houllier regime had run it’s course.

 

Having been at the end of his tether for the best part of 18 months, disturbed by the lack of progress of his club, he decided in the immediate aftermath of Liverpool’s Champions League qualification enough was enough

 

“The next few weeks will be the most important in the recent history of this football club” he said

 

“I will be watching what happens very closely”

 

Liverpool had just pipped Newcastle to the fourth Champions League spot, and while Houllier was hailing the achievement, the captain was mourning the fact such a routine expectation was now being perceived as worthy.

 

There was a clear subtext to Gerrard’s comments then, and although he stopped short of demanding a change of manager, this was the inevitable consequence of any revelution.

 

Had Liverpool not acted, they wouldn’t have avoided their narrow escape when Chelsea made the second of their three summer approaches for Gerrard between 2003-5.

 

It’s impossible not to be reminded of the agitation and hunger for change Gerrard felt then when Rafa Benitez speaks now.

 

On Thursday morning he effectively repeated what the captain had said three years ago.

 

“The club must act now…the next few weeks are crucial…if we don’t do more we can’t compete for the title…etc…”

 

There are those who argue to dismiss the competency of the entire structure of the club takes the argument to the extreme, but the shambolic organisation of the Athens trip did nothing to help those in the firing line, even if UEFA carry most blame.

 

In the early hours of the morning, as Benitez pondered what to say at Thursday’s press conference, he was strolling the streets around the team hotel because he had no room to sleep in.

 

The facilities at the team’s base were described by management and players as shocking.

 

When Liverpool’s representatives spent a couple of days in Athens after the semi-final, they were promised luxurious bedrooms which turned out to be unavailable when the team arrived.

 

AC Milan encountered similar problems.

 

In their Wisdom, UEFA picked a city with just one airport in the same week a major global pharmaceutical conference was held, block booking all the top hotels. Fiasco doesn’t do this organisation justice.

 

Many players had to move out as soon as they arrived, with Benitez eventually giving up his room completely.

 

“If we don’t win, there will be bloodshed at this club” someone close to the manager warned on Tuesday evening, making it clear Benitez saw UEFA as partially but not exclusively responsible for the problems.

 

The zeal for revolution this column reported on last week was evident in Benitez’s comments after the match.

 

Wednesday night felt like a watershed for Liverpool in Europe. Rather than a climax of an exciting new era, it was the end of one.

 

From the callous approach of UEFA to the depressing site of a minority of fans pushing down barriers (how do they qualify these actions when they’re wearing yellow justice stickers I may ask?), right through to the inappropriate preparations of UEFA and the club which were frankly embarrassing.

 

The majority of right minded Liverpool supporters must have made the depressing return feeling wounded by their experience. I know many who wonder why they bother. The idea of the European Cup final is sometimes more exciting that the experience of it.

 

George Gillett and Tom Hicks have spent six months commenting on their extraordinary purchase, but nothing exposes the cracks more than a cup final defeat.

 

It’s now up to them to keep their part of the bargain and ensure on and off the pitch Liverpool is run like a club worthy of its stature.

 

The focus is shifting to them, and it’s their job to shift it back to Benitez.

 

They’ll do this by investing in the team and then taking care of the other under-funded departments.

 

If they succeed, it’s then up to Benitez to prove how astute he is in the transfer market.

 

The loss of chief scout Frank McParland to Bolton is a blow, especially since the jury is out on the track record of Eduardo Macia. His purchases must be up to scratch if the money is there, but he can be sure his dependency on the same Italian agents will be monitored if the signings aren’t good enough.

 

The loss of Paco Herrera last summer was compared to the departure of Patrice Bergues in 2001 which had a destabilising impact. At the moment, worryingly, that still stands.

 

Make no mistake, Liverpool head into the closed season a club deeply divided, with talented backroom personnel leaving and many key figures barely on speaking terms.

 

If the summer of 2004 was considered one of the clubs most important in recent history, it may look like a picnic in comparison to what may follow.

[Neil G]

At the risk of upsetting Dirk

 

 

 

As CEO is it not his job to investigate all possibilities and would he not have been working under the terms of Moores, after all it wasn't Parry's club to sell. If Moores hadn't wanted to sell to Shinawatra he could have told Parry not to look into it but they didn't.

 

When the whole DIC/Gillette thing came up people were quick to point out that the club were legally obliged to look into all serious options what makes the Thai deal so different?

 

This paints a picture of Parry as a powerless dupe and Moores as an omipotent puppetmaster. From everything I know about the relationship Parry was always the driving force, people with better knowledge of it than me can correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

And even if it was all done at Moores' bidding, a responsible and competent CEO who takes his role seriously, particularly at a club with the history of Liverpool, should have stood up to the chairman and said no, this is a really bad fucking idea. The fact that Parry was on the board would have given him the authority to do this. If he genuinely believed himself and the rest of the board to be custodians of everything important about LFC, as he's said in a number of statements and interviews, then he should have taken a stand on it.

 

My understanding is that there was never a formal bid from Thaksin, and thus no obligation to examine it as per DIC and G&H. Even if there was, there was so much that was manifestly wrong about Thaksin that they could have sent him packing much more quickly than they did.

 

 

 

As I said nobody is perfect but the idea that the captain of our club would be so insecure as to worry that it was left a few weeks having already said he wanted to stay doesn't really suggest all of the blame should lie at Parry's door, certainly he was partly responsible but at the time we were more than happy to let Gerrard share the responsibility for that caper.

 

 

Gerrard was responsible for the situation as well, but then we're into the same area of sharing the blame that the fiasco in Athens has thrown up. Never mind how insecure and petulant Gerrard might have been, if Parry had actually moved quickly then it would never have been an issue. His complacency was staggering.

 

 

It was Benitez playing cat and mouse with Del Nido, trying to squeeze the odd 2 million here an their from the deal and Del Nido who was accepting then rejecting the deals. I'm sure if you search back through the old threads you'll find many a person saying they agreed fully with Rafa's stance on that, that he shouldn't be held to ransom, and that they backed the pursuit.

 

Again, for whatever reason, that seem's to have been re-spun into a Parry episode when the majority were applauding Rafa for his shrewd handling at the time.

 

 

You're talking about the Alves deal there, not Simao.

[Cardie]

You're talking about the Alves deal there, not Simao.

 

I know, but his pursuit of Alves meant any deal for Simao would have been delayed which is why I mentioned it. The same as we saw this summer when we were negotiating with them and had to cobble together an excessive deal for Pennant because we'd spent so long on Alves.

[Cardie]

This paints a picture of Parry as a powerless dupe and Moores as an omipotent puppetmaster. From everything I know about the relationship Parry was always the driving force, people with better knowledge of it than me can correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

What did you expect Parry to do, say no you're not selling your shares to him he's a bad man?

 

He was given the job (along with two companies) of seeking out the best possible investment, if he didn't look into each bid and just went off a hunch wouldn't that have been even more irresponsible?

[Harry Squatter]

I do reckon Parry was responsible for the Gerrard situation. To think he could be playing for Chelsea now because Parry sat off and let everything ramble on. I can remember Parry on Sky Sports News coming out of the Centenary Stand playing on his mobile and the presenters ran up to him and Parry said "well, yes, he's decided to stay" - very casually as if it was no big deal, the day before people were burning Gerrard shirts and organising witch hunts.

[Neil G]

What did you expect Parry to do, say no you're not selling your shares to him he's a bad man?

 

He was given the job (along with two companies) of seeking out the best possible investment, if he didn't look into each bid and just went off a hunch wouldn't that have been even more irresponsible?

 

It wasn't just a hunch, Thaksin's record as Thai PM and his behaviour during the proceedings was there for all to see.

 

You're simplifying it by saying "don't sell, he's a bad man", but essentially that's about the size of it. Liverpool FC has values and standards, and they would have been torn up if Thaksin had got his hands on the club.

 

Morals aside, Thaksin and his associates were shady about where the money was coming from from day one. As soon as he even mentioned the idea of selling the club to a government - not an individual or a corporation, a government - he should have been fucked off. He wasn't, and so we were treated to the display of him shifting his position, saying actually it was his own money, then it was from his business partners. Dodgy as fuck and in plain view.

[Cardie]

It wasn't just a hunch, Thaksin's record as Thai PM and his behaviour during the proceedings was there for all to see.

 

You're simplifying it by saying "don't sell, he's a bad man", but essentially that's about the size of it. Liverpool FC has values and standards, and they would have been torn up if Thaksin had got his hands on the club.

 

Morals aside, Thaksin and his associates were shady about where the money was coming from from day one. As soon as he even mentioned the idea of selling the club to a government - not an individual or a corporation, a government - he should have been fucked off. He wasn't, and so we were treated to the display of him shifting his position, saying actually it was his own money, then it was from his business partners. Dodgy as fuck and in plain view.

 

And that is somehow Parry's fault?

 

His job, initially, begins and ends at investigating a possible investment and reporting back to the shareholder who then make the decisions. If accepted his role would then change.

 

Quite how doing his job marks him out I don't know.

[Zippy]

For Cardie: Some things that Parry has to be responsible for:

 

Going on holiday when he is needed for transfer business.

 

Having his phone off when he should be contactable for transfer/takeover business (Sources: Gerrard Autobiogrophy, Fowler Autobiography, George Gillett, Dave U Re: Owen transfer - the day before the transfer window closed.)

 

His slow movement on transfers that has obviously annoyed Rafa and seen us miss out on targets on occassion like Vidic (Source Balague and Dave U)

 

The ticketing system up to and including the latest debacle.

 

The marketing of the European Champions.

 

Sanctioning a club record purchase for a manager who they were obviously considering sacking.

 

Selling a 10% stake in Liverpool for £22 million who a year later paid over double that price (£47 million) for 5% of Arsenal a club with nowhere near the International stature of Liverpool. Great deal Rick!

 

The inability to secure a sponsor that saw us agree a new deal with Carlsberg for a relatively poor amount.

 

On the plus side: he got Rafa.

 

He wears awful shirts that make us laugh.

 

Oh and the website has been very successful.

[Neil G]

And that is somehow Parry's fault?

 

His job, initially, begins and ends at investigating a possible investment and reporting back to the shareholder who then make the decisions. If accepted his role would then change.

 

Quite how doing his job marks him out I don't know.

 

No, his job is more than that. His job is to protect the identity, the values and the good name of Liverpool Football Club. That's not just my view, it's his, and he's expressed it on repeated occasions.

 

If he doesn't take that responsibility seriously, and takes the attitude that "it's not up to me at the end of the day, I just do what the shareholders ask me and that's it", then he has no right to hold such an important position at the club.

[Neil G]

For Cardie: Some things that Parry has to be responsible for:

 

Sanctioning a club record purchase for a manager who they were obviously considering sacking.

 

Thanks, I knew I'd forgotten one.

 

In the summer of 2003 when the Cisse deal was agreed, Parry must have entertained the possibility that Houllier might not cut it and they might to have take action the following summer, before Cisse actually arrived. We had just failed to qualify for the CL after strengthening a second-place squad to the tune of £20m, so clearly things weren't all peachy and Parry should have seen this. If he'd brought Cisse in in 2003 so that Ged could have used him then fine, but the way that deal was done was indefensible.

[Cardie]

Thanks, I knew I'd forgotten one.

 

In the summer of 2003 when the Cisse deal was agreed, Parry must have entertained the possibility that Houllier might not cut it and they might to have take action the following summer, before Cisse actually arrived. We had just failed to qualify for the CL after strengthening a second-place squad to the tune of £20m, so clearly things weren't all peachy and Parry should have seen this. If he'd brought Cisse in in 2003 so that Ged could have used him then fine, but the way that deal was done was indefensible.

 

Really because I can't remember too many protests at the time.

[Zippy]

Really because I can't remember too many protests at the time.

 

 

Because people wrongly assumed that the club wouldn't sanction such a major deal for a player if they were having serious doubts about retaining the manager.

 

Also most fans had heard years of hype about this player and were desperate for something to be excited about.

 

Why Cardie do you think that they were right to sanction a record deal if they were thinking of replacing the manager?

[Neil G]

Really because I can't remember too many protests at the time.

 

Liverpool fans are rarely rational during the close season, they want to be positive about the coming season and always hope for the best from new signings, often unrealistically. Most of them don't start worrying about what will need to be done in 12 months' time if things don't work out. Parry should take a cooler and more detached view than that.

[Cardie]

Because people wrongly assumed that the club wouldn't sanction such a major deal for a player if they were having serious doubts about retaining the manager.

 

Also most fans had heard years of hype about this player and were desperate for something to be excited about.

 

Why Cardie do you think that they were right to sanction a record deal if they were thinking of replacing the manager?

 

Because it's obvious they weren't thinking of replacing him.

 

Do you think we should hold off on any deals this summer on the off chance Rafa has another 'episode' and wants to go to madrid?

 

Were the club wrong to sanction a bid for Lucas that saw us shell out 5-8 million on a player that allows him to still play in a cup competition and not join us until they are out when A) he could pick up a serious injury or B) Rafa could be gone by then and the new lmanager might not fancy him?

 

If a club worked on the basis of 'what if' nothing would happen.

[Neil G]

Because it's obvious they weren't thinking of replacing him.

 

Do you think we should hold off on any deals this summer on the off chance Rafa has another 'episode' and wants to go to madrid?

 

Not the same. The year's delay is the difference. If there's a chance that Rafa might leave then we certainly shouldn't break our transfer record and committing a player to join us in summer 2008.

 

Give the manager the money to buy the players he wants now and see how he gets on with them. Maybe if Cisse had signed in 2003 Houllier would have kept his job.

[Cardie]

Liverpool fans are rarely rational during the close season, they want to be positive about the coming season and always hope for the best from new signings, often unrealistically. Most of them don't start worrying about what will need to be done in 12 months' time if things don't work out. Parry should take a cooler and more detached view than that.

 

So if, for example, G&H said to Parry they were not willing to match the kind of spending that Benitez seems to be demanding but would be willing to stump up for one major player meaning they would then have to compromise on other targets and Parry knew it meant Benitez would walk would you be happy for him to take a cool and detached view and block a deal for Eto'o?

[Neil G]

So if, for example, G&H said to Parry they were not willing to match the kind of spending that Benitez seems to be demanding but would be willing to stump up for one major player meaning they would then have to compromise on other targets and Parry knew it meant Benitez would walk would you be happy for him to take a cool and detached view and block a deal for Eto'o?

 

Sorry, don't understand the question. Are you saying Rafa would want Eto'o or not?

[dave u]

Really because I can't remember too many protests at the time.

 

Probably because the club got Rafa to say he wanted Cisse and considered signing him when he was at Valencia. He didn't want him, it was thrust upon him, but he was hardly going to go against his new employers publicly and say that he didn't want him.

 

Plenty of people believed it, therefore no protests. Plus, there was no reason to think Cisse was going to be a bit of a flop as his reputation was sky high.

[Cardie]

Probably because the club got Rafa to say he wanted Cisse and considered signing him when he was at Valencia. He didn't want him, it was thrust upon him, but he was hardly going to go against his new employers publicly and say that he didn't want him.

 

Plenty of people believed it, therefore no protests. Plus, there was no reason to think Cisse was going to be a bit of a flop as his reputation was sky high.

 

Rafa wasn't our manager in 2003.

 

Although your last sentence illustrates why he was right to do what he did. Cisse's reputation was sky high and if Parry had not done the deal and we'd lost him to another club come the next transfer window he'd be getting slaughtered for not doing the deal and not standing by the manager.

[Neil G]

Probably because the club got Rafa to say he wanted Cisse and considered signing him when he was at Valencia. He didn't want him, it was thrust upon him, but he was hardly going to go against his new employers publicly and say that he didn't want him.

 

Plenty of people believed it, therefore no protests. Plus, there was no reason to think Cisse was going to be a bit of a flop as his reputation was sky high.

 

I thought Cardie meant no protests in 2003 when the deal was first made.

[NelCarra]

Rick parry needs a kick up the arse, im really pissed off with him atm......we need to sign players now