Torres on this season

[Guest Ulysses Everett McGill]

Torres was talking about David Villa and David Silva over the summer though wasn't he? That's not made up to have a dig.

 

I wasn't aware that Purslow did all the negotiating with Madrid, and I doubt whether Royal Family did either. What about the stories of Rafa taking the piss out of the initial Real bid "who's team beat who's 5-0?" etc. Were they just fabricated?

 

Interesting that we were told that Rafa wanted and got full control of the football budget - but now it seems he doesn't have full control of the football budget?

 

Villa was never a possibility, even if we had the £40-45,000,000 it would have cost

 

You mention Silva, interesting that, wonder how different things might have turned out if we had signed him before the magical "£20,000,000 net transfer pot" mysteriously disappeared.

 

Rafa may have 100% control over his budget, but is 100% of nothing any different in real terms to having any control at all?

[Jose Jones]

Villa was never a possibility, even if we had the £40-45,000,000 it would have cost

 

You mention Silva, interesting that, wonder how different things might have turned out if we had signed him before the magical "£20,000,000 net transfer pot" mysteriously disappeared.

 

Rafa may have 100% control over his budget, but is 100% of nothing any different in real terms to having any control at all?

 

I wasn't suggesting Villa or mentioning Silva at all - Fernando Torres was!

 

That's the whole point of this here thread. I'm not saying we would have done better signing Silva rather than Aquilani or anything like that. You've got Torres saying that we sold some important players and implying we couldn't afford to sign some decent players and that depressed the team.

 

It's been suggested a few times that we were only capable of signing Johnson and Aquilani because we could get them for a small initial outlay (or none due to the Crouch and Riise sales).

 

At what point do you reckon Purslow stepped in and told Rafa that he was doing the negotiating with Madrid to get the most cash up front? When did he tell Rafa that the budget was non-existant because the bank wanted it?

[JohnnyH]

Sami and Xabi was down to Rafa and no one else.

 

Other then Sami and Xabi like.

[Jose Jones]

Tom Hicks said after Rafa got his new contract: ""Rafa was never wanting control of the transfer policy, he just wanted to make sure we had better decision-making capability and that we moved quicker than we had in the past.

 

"Rafa will make the recommendations but in English football it's very important that the chief executive should make the financial decisions not the manager."

 

He's not got and has never had full control of the budget.

 

 

 

After signing Johnson Rafa said: "But we have a plan. We can sign one more player if necessary, but that’s without any players leaving."

 

And at that time I don't believe he was expecting more than £25m for Alonso.

 

That was in June.

 

Where did all the "Rafa has full control" crap come from then? Was that Parry's parting gift?

[JohnnyH]

Villa was never a possibility, even if we had the £40-45,000,000 it would have cost

 

You mention Silva, interesting that, wonder how different things might have turned out if we had signed him before the magical "£20,000,000 net transfer pot" mysteriously disappeared.

 

Rafa may have 100% control over his budget, but is 100% of nothing any different in real terms to having any control at all?

 

This is key and I wonder are people purposely not understandig it.

 

Rafa now having 100% control over transfers should be an absolute gimmie. It means that Rafa gets to chose who he wants and doesn't want. It is not Rafa having 100% control of the purse strings in that if he decideds he wants to spend £30m on someone then it just happens. It means he gets to chose the player (like any other manager in the league) and then if we can afford him we will try and get him. This is a no brainer and any manager in this league must be allowed work this way. Imagine the owners dictated to Ferguson or Wenger or Redknapp or O'Neill, etc as to who they'd have to buy? They'd walk out. It was the begining of the end of Mourinho at Chelsea when Abramovitch started dictating players to him.

 

I can't believe how much is made of this extremely obvious function that any manager worth is salt must be allowed have. Actually, I can believe it.

[coachpotato]

I don't believe for one minute that all of this is Rafa's fault, just as I don't believe he is totally blameless either.

He has gone very quiet regarding the owners in the last season, despite us having a poorer season than when he was ever bitching about them before.

That suggests to me that his new contract was a deal which gave him mostly what he wanted as long as he kept his mouth shut in public.

Fernando Torres doesn't actually mention the owners nor does he mention the manager, but his comments can be construed as a dig at either depending on where you are coming from.

It also suggests he's unhappy at how we fell apart at the first sign of trouble and it was evident to me that Rafa went into defensive mode very early this season despite us playing some wonderful stuff towards the end of last season.

All suggestion without knowing the real truth.

Does anybody really know what goes on behind the scenes at a club such as ours other than those who actually are involved?

[Delmar]

I wasn't suggesting Villa or mentioning Silva at all - Fernando Torres was!

 

That's the whole point of this here thread. I'm not saying we would have done better signing Silva rather than Aquilani or anything like that. You've got Torres saying that we sold some important players and implying we couldn't afford to sign some decent players and that depressed the team.

 

It's been suggested a few times that we were only capable of signing Johnson and Aquilani because we could get them for a small initial outlay (or none due to the Crouch and Riise sales).

 

At what point do you reckon Purslow stepped in and told Rafa that he was doing the negotiating with Madrid to get the most cash up front? When did he tell Rafa that the budget was non-existant because the bank wanted it?

 

It's interesting how people want LFC run as a business, and once it is run as a business, the basic principles and the big picture are simply ignored, and agendas take over.

 

The only thing you have to do is look at what the owners and Purslow do, and there you have it. Of course cash flow dictates what can and what cannot be spent. And of course Purslow is involved in the decisions. Rafa may have control, the final say, but the options he is given depend on Purslow and the owners.

 

Last summers signings were reasonably OK given the resources and the situation, the best we could do with a really bad situation. It is clear that something happened, Rafa did not just choose to not buy another player. And that something has been discussed and analyzed to pieces.

[Jose Jones]

This is key and I wonder are people purposely not understandig it.

 

Rafa now having 100% control over transfers should be an absolute gimmie. It means that Rafa gets to chose who he wants and doesn't want. It is not Rafa having 100% control of the purse strings in that if he decideds he wants to spend £30m on someone then it just happens. It means he gets to chose the player (like any other manager in the league) and then if we can afford him we will try and get him. This is a no brainer and any manager in this league must be allowed work this way. Imagine the owners dictated to Ferguson or Wenger or Redknapp or O'Neill, etc as to who they'd have to buy? They'd walk out. It was the begining of the end of Mourinho at Chelsea when Abramovitch started dictating players to him.

 

I can't believe how much is made of this extremely obvious function that any manager worth is salt must be allowed have. Actually, I can believe it.

 

Weelllll I must be an idiot because I was labouring under the apprehension that Rafa now had full control of the "football budget". He'd been told by Spick and Spack that it was going to go up 20 million per year, and that Rafa had control of what wages to pay players, who to sell and for how much and then who to bring in.

All so that he didn't get stuck with the scenario of trying to sign someone from a club that wanted 10 million, then Parry offering 9 million half an hour before the transfer deadline.

[Flying Pig]

I would have Arbeloa back tomorrow. Although I think Johnson has different attacking qualities I don't rate him as a defender.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

I would have Arbeloa back tomorrow. Although I think Johnson has different attacking qualities I don't rate him as a defender.

 

Arbeloa was a steady player and versatile.

Would be interesting to see Johnson in a right wing role for a few games. I'm sure he would be a far better option than Kuyt. Obviously talking about next season now, once Kelly is fully fit and we hopefully get back up for Right back.

[Best Believe It]

To those that have said 'He doesn't mention the owners', precisely what do you think he meant when he said 'circumstances dictated we had to sell players'?

[Best Believe It]

Better version here

 

Fernando Torres' anger gives Liverpool heart as hopes of Champions League place fade

 

If Rafael Benítez remains in optimistic denial of Liverpool’s probable demise as Champions League entrants, Fernando Torres has already reached stage two of the five which comprise the grieving process: anger.

 

By Rory Smith

Published: 7:30AM BST 07 Apr 2010

 

Brimming with bravado, the Spain international has warned the rest of the Premier League that Liverpool will be back next season – “with a vengeance”.

 

While Benítez’s assertion that his players should not lose hope, that they must “keep the belief” that Manchester City, Tottenham and Aston Villa can be seen off in the race for fourth place, can be written off as the Liverpool manager’s duty, Torres’s menacing statement of intent will provide far greater solace.

 

The club’s supporters, punch drunk after a season in which Liverpool have lurched from one disappointment to the next, have long feared their talisman might decide that a club lacking both finance and direction in the boardroom are no longer capable of matching his own ambition.

 

That he has evidently not lost his stomach for the fight, or his faith in Liverpool’s powers of resurrection, will be of intense comfort.

 

“The biggest clubs in Europe always go through difficult spells where there appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel,” said the forward.

 

“But because they are big clubs, they always come back and they do so with a vengeance. It is just a matter of time.”

 

Torres was equally ebullient when asked whether he felt the regime of his current manager was reaching its natural conclusion. “Rafa signed a five-year contract last summer,” he said. “He did that because he wants to help the club grow. Rafa’s new era is just starting.”

 

It is hardly doing so on a high note, with Liverpool’s failure to claim a fourth-place Champions League slot likely to be confirmed in the next few weeks.

 

Benítez’s side stand five points behind City having played a game more, and though the Liverpool manager insisted Roberto Mancini’s team “have some difficult games to play, so we just to have to win our fixtures”, the mathematics are against him.

 

Time, then, for the inquests to start. Yossi Benayoun earlier this week identified defeat to Tottenham on the opening day of the season as the moment which condemned Liverpool to a year of toil, but to Torres’s mind, the die was cast earlier even than that.

 

“There have been various important factors, like being so far behind the top teams so quickly,” the striker said. “That killed us psychologically. After that injuries hit us hard and we have suffered a lot because of them.

 

“But after a good season last year, we needed certain reinforcements and we needed to keep the squad we had together. But circumstances dictated that we had to sell players and so everything got messed up.

 

“The sales of [Alvaro] Arbeloa, [sami] Hyypia and [Xabi] Alonso were important losses. Alvaro did a vital job for us, always played to a high level and his flexibility was a huge asset.

 

"Sami did not play every week but he was a 10 out of 10 on and off the pitch. And Xabi? Players like him are very rare. He was the team’s engine, and you know that when you change an engine, it takes time to work again.”

[Guest Pistonbroke]

To those that have said 'He doesn't mention the owners', precisely what do you think he meant when he said 'circumstances dictated we had to sell players'?

 

Maybe that the players wanted to leave ?

[Trucker Paddy]

So what the fuck was all the contract rejections for? He got his pay rise and pay off package that's what it was for IMO, because he certinley dosent seem to control of anything if he allegedly has no say in spending money he raised, do people still think there's no gagging order?

[JohnnyH]

Weelllll I must be an idiot because I was labouring under the apprehension that Rafa now had full control of the "football budget". He'd been told by Spick and Spack that it was going to go up 20 million per year, and that Rafa had control of what wages to pay players, who to sell and for how much and then who to bring in.

All so that he didn't get stuck with the scenario of trying to sign someone from a club that wanted 10 million, then Parry offering 9 million half an hour before the transfer deadline.

 

That sounds about right.

 

I'm saying that some people over the lasts few months have been trying to claim that Rafa can sign anyone he wants now he "has control", but he can't. Having control of a budget of £0 is not much good.

 

So there you are. I don't think you're an idiot. You're probably a lovely boy.

[coachpotato]

To those that have said 'He doesn't mention the owners', precisely what do you think he meant when he said 'circumstances dictated we had to sell players'?

 

Many have posted on here that the reason Alonso went was down to the manager. Also that Sami would have stayed had he been offered a longer contract.

 

I don't know if those statements are true, but Benitez could have made those decisions himself without the owners getting involved.

 

As I said in my earlier post, it's all speculation unless you actually know the facts.

[Best Believe It]

Maybe that the players wanted to leave ?

 

Really? You genuinely believe that's what Torres is alluding to?

 

It beggars belief that we scream out for ex-players to come out against the owners, and yet when one of our star current players does it, we spend ages trying to argue he isn't.

 

Maybe it's due to the fact that he's daring to show public loyalty to the manager of the club who brought him here and who he has acknowledged has improved his game, and that this is unthinkable and unacceptable to some on here.

[Best Believe It]

EDIT: I give up.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Really? You genuinely believe that's what Torres is alluding to?

 

It beggars belief that we scream out for ex-players to come out against the owners, and yet when one of our star current players does it, we spend ages trying to argue he isn't.

 

Maybe it's due to the fact that he's daring to show public loyalty to the manager of the club who brought him here and who he has acknowledged has improved his game, and that this is unthinkable and unacceptable to some on here.

 

Loyalty to the club, fans and manager surely. I'm only highlighting another possible reason for him talking about the said sale of players. Or do you know concrete he was having a pop at the owners or the owners alone ?

[sh#t waffle]

This place resembles the aftermath of an explosion in a git factory sometimes.

[Best Believe It]

Loyalty to the club, fans and manager surely. I'm only highlighting another possible reason for him talking about the said sale of players. Or do you know concrete he was having a pop at the owners or the owners alone ?

 

Yes, loyalty to all three, but it's the loyalty to the manager that some people can't seem to stomach.

 

No I don't know concrete he was having a pop at the owners. But if he was, then he's been as explicit as he could be without actually naming them. I do know for concrete that he is fully behind the manager though.

[coachpotato]

Yes, loyalty to all three, but it's the loyalty to the manager that some people can't seem to stomach.

 

No I don't know concrete he was having a pop at the owners. But if he was, then he's been as explicit as he could be without actually naming them. I do know for concrete that he is fully behind the manager though.

 

I think he supports the Manager as well.

He made comments a couple of weeks ago saying that next season we should be back challenging for the title and the Champions League or Europa Cup.

I'd think that suggests he's accepted this season is a write off and we'll have to go again come next season.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Yes, loyalty to all three, but it's the loyalty to the manager that some people can't seem to stomach.

 

No I don't know concrete he was having a pop at the owners. But if he was, then he's been as explicit as he could be without actually naming them. I do know for concrete that he is fully behind the manager though.

 

Like i said, i was only pointing out other reasons for what has been said. I can stomach his loyalty to the manager, i've been loyal to firms even though i thought the boss was a great guy or a waster. Plus it would be pretty daft imo to come out publicly against the manager or the owners. Get on with your game and what the club pay you for, leave the politics to ex players and those who don't depend on them would be my advice. If he had mentioned names then we wouldn't be having this debate. Mind you, did he mention all the things in said articles or have the journos just put a spin on it to get yet another story.

[stringvest]

This is key and I wonder are people purposely not understandig it.

 

Rafa now having 100% control over transfers should be an absolute gimmie. It means that Rafa gets to chose who he wants and doesn't want. It is not Rafa having 100% control of the purse strings in that if he decideds he wants to spend £30m on someone then it just happens. It means he gets to chose the player (like any other manager in the league) and then if we can afford him we will try and get him. This is a no brainer and any manager in this league must be allowed work this way. Imagine the owners dictated to Ferguson or Wenger or Redknapp or O'Neill, etc as to who they'd have to buy? They'd walk out. It was the begining of the end of Mourinho at Chelsea when Abramovitch started dictating players to him.

 

I can't believe how much is made of this extremely obvious function that any manager worth is salt must be allowed have. Actually, I can believe it.

 

Rafa works under the same rules as those managers. None of them have 100% control of the purse strings, because that would be a ridiculous situation for any company to run with. Yes, there is no money at the moment, but he isn't forced to sign players he doesn't want when there are funds available. Those managers identify a target, and then if the funds are available the club will try to secure them. In our case (and quite often theirs) it means that Rafa will have to get rid of some of the dross in order to fund the purchase.

 

I guess we all wish Alonso was still here, but he isn't, and Rafa has to do what he's paid to do - manage the situation. He's not making a terribly good fist of it.

[straight_red]

It'll be interesting to see if Nando uses the "circumstance dictated it" line if he heads off in the summer...

 

As for the sales, it does look like that was more down to the owners than the manager. But can we really say the same about the players bought in?

 

Neither Rafa nor G&H are blameless in this situation.