rome 84

I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick with that tweet. That was a paraphrasing of what he'd written 18 months ago and he was basically that it's not worth going to war for players like Suarez because they'll always let you down. You may not agree with that but it's not the kind of dig you think it is. Not that it matters like. I just wish he wasn't going.

I don't get where you're getting that impression from. Like everyone else, I'm gutted and I'm angry.

Now is the time to reveal truth about Thatcher’s response to Hillsborough As has been the case throughout their 24-year struggle for justice, the Hillsborough families and their supporters kept their dignity in the wake of Margaret Thatcher’s death. “I don’t have any feelings about her either way,” was the diplomatic offering of Margaret Aspinall, whose 18-year-old son, James, was one of the 96 victims of British football’s worst disaster. Margaret could have said many things. She could have been vindictive. She could even have welcomed Thatcher’s passing. But as a mother who knows only too well the pain and anguish of death, she also recognised that this was not the time for any of that. Instead, tact and diplomacy took precedence as her innermost thoughts remained private. There was something else as well, though, an expression of frustration that Thatcher’s exact role in the cover-up that followed Hillsborough is still to be established. “We know she had sly meetings the evening of the disaster and the morning after at the ground and that is when the cover-up started,” Margaret said. Sheila Coleman, of the Hillsborough Justice Campaign (HJC), went a step farther. “The HJC hope that now she is dead at least those who have protected her will do the decent thing and release all documentation in respect of the Hillsborough cover-up,” she said. “Thatcher was instrumental in the Hillsborough cover-up. We call on the Government to release all documentation about her involvement.” For anyone tempted to suggest that such requests are ill timed or opportunistic, don’t. The Hillsborough families have waited far too long for full disclosure and those who were involved in what was described by Michael Mansfield QC as “the biggest cover-up in British legal history” are either dying off or reaching the stage of their lives when being held to account becomes increasingly unlikely. The justice clock is ticking. There is no more time to waste. Even more pertinently, a fortnight before Thatcher’s death, John Glover, whose 20-year-old son Ian perished on the Leppings Lane death trap, passed away following a brave battle with cancer. Meanwhile, Anne Williams, who lost her 15-year-old son Kevin in the tragedy, is spending her remaining days in a hospice having had terminal bowel cancer diagnosed. The plights of John and Anne highlight exactly why time is of the essence where the full truth about Hillsborough is concerned. That Thatcher’s involvement in the aftermath of Hillsborough remains clouded in mystery is wholly unsatisfactory and unacceptable. It had been hoped that the release of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report into the disaster last September would shed light on her activities but such optimism went unrewarded and the grey areas remain. Twelve months earlier, the Information Commissioner had ruled that discussions involving Thatcher should be made public at the earliest possible opportunity. Crucially, though, details of the briefing given to her and Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, on the morning after Hillsborough were not disclosed. It was also claimed that there was no documentation relating to her visit to the stadium the following day. As such, there is still too much that we do not know about what the Prime Minister of the day thought and said about a tragedy that cost so many lives and changed the face of English football. In the absence of that information, it is inevitable that those affected by Hillsborough feel that the whole truth is yet to emerge even though so many steps have been taken towards that aim during the past year. Equally inevitably, particularly given the extremes that instruments of the state went to in an attempt to subvert justice, the vacuum that has been created has led to conspiracy theories, the main one being that Thatcher’s role has been suppressed in order to protect her and the office that she served. There will be those who believe that to be far-fetched. Those who do should consider this – one of the few things that we know for sure is that she succeeded in distorting her government’s response to the findings of the interim report into the disaster by Lord Justice Taylor out of a misplaced desire to protect South Yorkshire Police. We know this because in a handwritten note in the margin of a civil servant’s memo informing her that Hurd planned to welcome Taylor’s findings, she wrote that this amounted to “a devastating criticism” of the police. “What do we mean by ‘welcoming the broad thrust of the report?’” she asked. “The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police. Is that for us to welcome? Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations – M.T.” If a Primer Minister is ready, willing and able to go to such lengths to protect the state, then surely it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that the very same state would go to the same lengths to protect her? It took 23 years for an establishment conspiracy to come to light so why would anyone believe it impossible for steps to have been taken to prevent the stench of the cover-up from infecting those at the very top? We also know that in the aftermath of the disaster, two of Thatcher’s favourite attack dogs, Bernard Ingham (her press secretary) and Kelvin MacKenzie (her favourite newspaper editor, who this week described the former PM as “a revolutionary who made a fantastic difference to this country”) played crucial roles in warping the public’s perception of Hillsborough. Under his infamous headline “The Truth”, MacKenzie ensured that The Sun’s coverage of the events at Hillsborough fitted in with the black propaganda that was spewing out of South Yorkshire Police. For his part, Ingham claimed the disaster had been caused by “a tanked-up mob” of Liverpool fans. He later admitted to having his opinions shaped by the same police officers who briefed Thatcher, including Peter Wright, the then chief constable of the police force. The possibility remains that Thatcher never got her hands dirty; that she didn’t need to because her minions were doing the dirty work on her behalf. It seems highly unlikely, though, that one of the most powerful politicians of the last century limited her involvement to a scribbled note in the margin of a piece of foolscap. This is why the time has come for the exact role that Thatcher played following Hillsborough to be made public. It is the very least that the Hillsborough families and their supporters deserve. On Monday, they will gather to commemorate the 24th anniversary of the disaster and they will do so in possession of most, but not all, of the truth about how their loved ones perished and how the state responded. That has to change. “Somebody fed those lies, I think she was part of it and she knew about it,” Margaret Aspinall said. Given the instincts of the Hillsborough families have been proven to be right on every other issue relating to the disaster, it would be foolish in the extreme to dismiss the idea that they are wrong to suspect Margaret Thatcher.

Yeah. I agree with that. I also think players should be able to cope with criticism (as long as it's valid) when their standards drop just as they accept praise when they do well. My only point is that it doesn't always play out that way, which makes it a risk if any manager is outspoken.

And he only lasted another four months! Maybe it's a curse? ;)

It's mad the way some people read whatever they want into articles and blogs. There is not one word of criticism of Rodgers in that blog, not one. The premise is very simple - when groups of players are publicly criticised by their manager it is a risky strategy that can (although, by no means always) backfire, as it has done in the past and will do again in the future. Rodgers isn't daft, he knows the risk but he also knows the potential benefits, which makes it a calculated gamble. Will it pay off? Who knows? I hope it does but if it doesn't it won't be the first time that a Liverpool manager's decision to go public in his criticism has backfired. If anyone on here can say with absolute confidence that the young players will respond in the right way then you've seen qualities in them that aren't all that obvious at this stage. Time will tell and hopefully we'll go to Arsenal tomorrow night, get a great win and all of this will come to be seen as a much needed kick up the backside. As for Ferguson and United, he is the most successful modern day manager and his authority at his club exceeds that of any other manager in the country. That means that whenever he does revert to public criticism he is doing so from a position of strength, something that didn't apply to Benitez, Hodgson or Souness.

There's nothing wrong with that!

Do supporters of other clubs rush to write off players as quickly as we do at Liverpool? Nothing changed after yesterday. Carra had missed the previous couple of games; in those games we'd kept clean sheets and defended well, therefore the manager stuck with those in possession of the shirts and they didn't let him down. This wasn't any kind of statement from Dalglish and it definitely shouldn't be taken as some sort of indication that Carra's been written off by the manager who, in actual fact, never misses an opprtunity to praise him for what he brings to the club. Carra's preparing for the end of his playing days, as all players do when they get to a certain stage of their career, and that's why he's taking his coaching badges. But lets not rush him out of the team before his time is up. You don't achieve what he's achieved in the game and suddenly become uselss just because you've put another year on the clock.

I hope you don't think I'm being evasive, because I'm not. But the only way I can answer that question is by asking how I could possibly speak for someone else? I'll speak on my own behalf all day long but it's up to others to speak for themselves.

How saying he "understands their reasons" and "totally respects them" because "we all did what we thought was right for the club," has been turned into a Reina attacks Carragher and Gerrard for not speaking out is completely and utterly beyond me. He does nothing of the sort.

At the risk of getting strung up by the publishers, here's a fuller - albeit, not complete - extract from Reina's book than the one provided by the Mail On Sunday. Here's what Reina actually says. His criticism is of Hicks and Gillett for putting players and supporters in a position where they were bound to have differences of opinion. His respect for Carragher and Gerrard could not be more apparent. “I know Carra has admitted that I asked him why neither he nor Stevie spoke out at the time. I understand their reasons, that they felt that they had to be professional and not get dragged into a war, and I respect them. We might have disagreed on this subject but that did not mean we fell out with each other or anything like that. The club had enough problems without the senior players having problems with one another because of a difference of opinion. The way I saw it, Stevie and Carra are the two principle members of our squad, the ones who the people love and maybe if they had said something 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 rather than risk rocking the boat even more. What was not in doubt was that we all just wanted the best for the club. “This was an extraordinary time and it should never come down to the supporters to decide whether or not they should protest, or to the senior players to decide if it is right to speak out against the owners. It just shouldn’t happen. We were all being put in a bad position by Hicks and Gillett. Whatever choices we made at the time should be judged against the backdrop of how bad the situation had become, not against us as individuals. My respect for Stevie and Carra did not change one bit, even though we saw things differently. We all did what we thought was right, that is all anyone can ever do.” Pepe Reina.

Should hold my hands up to gross stupidity at this point. The Zidanes y Pavones strategy didn't actually work that well even though the concept was a good one. That's what happens when you blog first and think later. The general point - that Liverpool's future currently looks bright - still stands though.

You know what mate, I honestly couldn't say. I think lots of things came together at once - their own greed coming back to haunt them, the pressure from RBS and the fans, etc. All I do know is that it's behind us now and that's where it should stay. There's nothing to be gained by picking at scars, all that does is open up old wounds. I'm just grateful it's over cos I got plenty wrong during the whole horrible saga. The club is in better shape now than it has been for a long time and we should all focus on and enjoy that.

What I said was that I was not convinced at the time that the emails had been as significant as you'd thought. Like I've just posted, I later sent your Dave a text saying I had come to believe that I was wrong on that front. i did not think Kenny Huang had saved the day at any stage but I was naturally suspicious about a potential involvement from CIC because they were one of the main investors in Blankstone. If you want to twist that into me wanting to give Kenny Huang the credit then go ahead.

That is complete and utter bullshit. If I wanted to credit someone I would have done so. What I did point out verbally in a private conversation (that has clearly relayed to you inaccurately) was that one of the investors in Blankstone was CIC and that in itself made me wary of the whole thing. The more I looked into it the more I viewed things differently and I sent Dave U a text message holding my hands up and admitting that my initial vague suspicion had been wrong. I was also the one who put Brian Reade in touch with Stevie H and Dougie Doins to ensure that the role they and countless others played in unseating Hicks and Gillett was recorded in his forthcoming book. I had zero dealings with Kenny Huang. Zero. So why I would seek to give credit to someone whom I'd never met, spoken to or dealt with in any way, shape of form is beyond me. Surely now though, the time has come for the blame game to stop and the scab picking exercise that has stopped the club's wounds from healing to come to an end? Purslow has gone. Benitez has gone. Torres has gone. Hodgson has gone. Hicks and Gillett have gone. Kenny Huang isn't here. The sources of division no longer have any involvement at the club and nor do they have any influence. Focus on the people who are here now who can make a difference because there is far more to unite us than divide us.