Jump to content

diego

Registered
  • Posts

    692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by diego

  1. Some on TLW have not only applauded the Board's decision "to release" Rafa from his contract but have even propagated the lie that the Board "sacked" him and have congratulated them for that fiction, too. Of course he was not sacked. He demanded that the Board fulfil their employment contract with him and their moral contract with the supporters and the public. In so doing he exposed the Board for what they are - the impotent money-grubbing puppets of Hicks and Gillet. Under pressure from Rafa, the Board scrambled to save face. Rafa helped them out by accepting only partial compensation for their breaches. Since this is what I know to be true I do not agree entirely with the assumptions of the following letter which someone on Rawk has sent to Scudmore at the Premier League. However, with those reservations, I applaud the main purpose of the letter and most of the points it makes. FIGHT BACK, PART III... BROUGHTON. HE NEEDS A RAP ON THE KNUCKLES THIS FELLA! To: Richard Scudamore Chief Executive Premier League 30 Gloucester Place London W1U 8PL cc. David Sheepshanks Acting Co-Chairman The Football Association 25 Soho Square London W1 4FA cc. Roger Burden Acting Co-Chairman The Football Association 25 Soho Square London W1 4FA Dear Mr Scudamore, I wish to express my increasing concern regarding the conduct of Martin Broughton, recently appointed as Chairman of Liverpool Football Club. Upon taking up the part-time role in April 2010, Mr Broughton confirmed that his remit was purely to facilitate the sale of the club on behalf of the current owners. Acting in conjunction with investment bank, Barclays Capital, it was made quite clear that his role was limited to reviewing and making recommendations on potential buyers. Furthermore, as Chairman, it was also made explicit that he would not be involved in the day-to-day running of the club or making operational decisions, deferring those responsibilities to the existing management team headed up by the Managing Director, Christian Purslow, himself a temporary appointment whilst the club sought a long-term replacement for former Chief Executive Rick Parry. As you are no doubt aware, Mr Broughton has always been open about his strong personal allegiances to another, rival Premier League member, Chelsea Football Club. Many Liverpool fans, whilst initally sceptical given such an admission, were nevertheless prepared to cautiously accept his personal inclination, given his very specific role and his 'day job' as Chairman of British Airways plc (BA). We had trust that he would act in a manner befitting the role of Chairman, respectful both of his duties and the confidences they afforded, and ultimately, to act in the best interests of the club. His statement in May 2010 that he felt it unwise to attend the forthcoming Premier League match between Liverpool FC and Chelsea FC, was also seen at the time as understandable albeit a little disconcerting. However, that initial scepticism seems to have been valid and has taken on greater significance following a recent report in the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article7140751.ece. Having stated he did not think it wise to appear in public attending that football match between Liverpool FC and Chelsea FC, it therefore beggars belief he felt no such compulsion or crisis of conscience about accepting a subsequent invitation to attend Chelsea FC's private party to celebrate their Premier League title. Not only did he happily attend the event, mixing with executives and club officials, but he is alleged to have made 'off-the-record' comments to a Sky journalist and broadcaster present that contradict his official stance on the sales process at Liverpool FC, and worse, made specific insinuations and references to Liverpool's most valuable player, Fernando Torres, glibly suggesting he may leave due to the state of the club. I suggest to you that these remarks - not withdrawn or denied - are both wholly unprofessional (in circumstances not entirely dissimilar to the damaging Triesman affair) and represent clear evidence of a serious conflict of interest given his position at Liverpool FC. There is also the matter of his official involvement in the very recent and somewhat controversial dismissal of Liverpool's manager, Rafael Benitez, a long-standing outspoken critic of Liverpool's owners. Suggestions that he was only communicating on behalf of Christian Purslow are no longer valid given he has now confirmed his direct involvement in an email to Jim Boardman, who runs an independent fans site, AnfieldRoad.com (on which the email is published). In addition to restating his primary remit (the sale of the club), Mr Broughton confirmed he was involved in the dismissal as it was "a matter for the Board". This is contrary to his non-involvement in operational club matters that he claimed upon appointment. Either that original statement was deliberately false, or he has acted in collusion with Christian Purslow (who, it should be noted, shows no sign of ceding his own temporary role, despite having failed in his primary objective to secure investment, and having interviewed no candidates for the CEO position that would render his own job redundant) to terminate the contract of a manager for political purposes. The role of Chairman is not something that he can apply when and where it suits him to do so. Mr Broughton's additional comment in that email that the decision was largely ratified by the media as some sort of justification, is at best, extremely naïve or at worst, utterly disingenuous. Again, a comment that raises serious question marks about his perceived integrity and credibility in general. You may quite reasonably feel this is very much an internal matter for Liverpool FC, not least given the current ownership welcomed his appointment. However, I would remind you that both the Premier League and FA have a regulatory responsibility to maintain the integrity of the game, and where necessary police clubs and individuals involved with clubs, in order to safeguard the interests of the sport. Both organisations are very clear on potential conflict of interests when it comes to clubs, players and agents, and I see no need reason why that policy should not be extrapolated and enforced in this matter. Let us not forget the controversy and disrepute that Peter Kenyon was involved with following investigations into his involvement in transfers towards the end of his tenure at Manchester United whilst in discussions to join Chelsea. Suggestions of questionable moral conduct by association also tainted him at Stamford Bridge, for example the Quest report into unlicensed agents. Then there is David Dein, who was also subjected to similar controversy and accusations of conflicting interests given his dual roles at Arsenal and the FA. Ultimately, the game's executives must be beyond reproach, a criteria that Mr Broughton has even in such a short time, evidently failed to fulfill. Whatever his credentials at BA, Martin Broughton is very far from being an experienced football executive. He was appointed only to provide a credible and reputable business figurehead with whom potential buyers for the club could comfortably enter into discussions with (in stark contrast to owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett). However inexperience is not an excuse for ill-judged and questionable conduct. And so I would call upon you to investigate this matter and strongly consider a motion to censure his conduct. Given the circumstances and his comments, I would hate to think what the potential ramifications would be if, for example, Fernando Torres was sold to Chelsea this summer. Improper or not, it would be seen as a transfer potentially involving corruption given Mr Broughton's access to confidential contracts and his own personal loyalties, and any failure for you to properly investigate such a proposed deal would be highly damaging to the game in England, and consequently the Premier League's reputation globally. I ask you, therefore, to act pre-emptively and in the first instance, investigate this matter by requesting Mr Broughton answer these deeply-held concerns (held by the vast majority of genuine Liverpool stakeholders I might add) regarding his allegiances and agenda, and for you to report as such via reputable media outlets. At the very least, it will serve as a welcome reminder to Mr Broughton as to his wider responsibilities and duty of care as chief representative of one of your high-profile members. Yours faithfully, (name withheld)
  2. The Rafa-haters on here (and yes they are still obsessively at it) will do anything to satisfy their lust for his blood even to the extent of justifying policies and practices of Hicks and Gillet that were carried out by their hand-picked agents on the Board. In the immortal words of the News of the World, they want to "cut them some slack". It's not a coincidence that one of Bascombe's most slavish admirers and defenders on here throughout the last 18 months has been Juan Galonso who today has tried to find another way of "cutting them some slack". Cutting through his own brand of sanctimonious bullshit, it is clear that Juan Galonso is driven predominantly by the maxim "The enemies of Rafa are my friends". He adopts the pose of a reasonable rationalist even while he (and some of his Rafa-hating cronies on here) construct their arguments on the false premises that Rafa was sacked. It is probably true that if Rafa had decided to stay H & G would have continued to act in a way that courts would later be able to define as constructive dismissal. In other words, Rafa's lawyers would have been in a position to argue that the routine incursion into Rafa's sphere of responsibility, especially by Purslow, and the constant briefing of the press against him by Purslow and other directors, the owners failure to fulfill material conditions which they promised Rafa at the time of his contract negotiations, and their constant reversal of financial commitments made to him with respect to players contracts and transfers - all these would constitute breach of contract and/or constructive dismissal and would have entitled Rafa to full compensation. As it happens, Rafa decided not to go that route. Instead he demanded release from his contract with partial compensation for their breaches of contract. That is what "mutual consent means". On the specific issue of what Broughton said in his e-mail. He did not refer to Rafa's sacking but to his "release" from his contract. I take the view that Broughton was wrong to make that remark about the press - it was entirely inappropriate from a Chairman of a Board, showed bad judgment and a lack of understanding that does not augur well for the club.
  3. The following would help us do better than last season: 1. If Gerrard could stay out of court during the pre-season training camp and thereby not unsettle to club by hogging the press with weeks of negative news. (After all his mates have managed to bundle him out the back door of other pubs and clubs before the cops arrived on previous occasions). 2. If Gerrard could show up fully-fit at the start of the season, and focused on LFC, rather than Ingerland and if he could stop sulking throughout the season. 3. If we can cutback on the money-making poorly organized trips to Asia which interrupted the pre-season and robbed Torres and other Spanish players of time to recuperate from the European Cup. 4. If we could avoid any more Alonso-style soap operas where a player sets up a lucrative transfer for himself to Real Madrid before the previous season ends and then spends the summer trying to get a cheap price for Real Madrid while at the same time manipulating the media and the fans into believing that it was the manager's fault. 5. If Carragher doesn't give away too many own goals, and make too many defensive errors in the five or six weeks he seems to need before he gets in the groove. 6. If Torres comes back fit, energetic and focused on LFC rather than Spain. 7 If we have a new first choice left back who can stay fit for more than three games in a row. 8 If our first choice right back etc etc etc 9. If Mascherano is focused from the beginning of the season on LFC and not on Argentina or Barcelona. 10 If we reduce our injuries down to what is the norm for the Premiere League. 11. If all the squad players who think they should be first choices stop whinging to the press when the manager does not pick them. 12. If beach balls are banned from home games.
  4. Good to see that Fatty Oldham has moved on from citing "the horse" to citing "the antelope".
  5. I've posted a few times on here: "We are lucky to have him". Unfortunately I have to change that now to: "We were lucky to have him". But it's not too soon to start posting: "Will we be lucky to have him again?" There will always be an LFC ready to be lifted to the heights again by Rafa Benitez, a world-class manager in the tradition of Bill Shankly, and a fine man in the tradition of Billy Liddell.
  6. But Gerrard is not good enough for Real Madrid. Then again, neither was Owen.
  7. I can now reveal that all the body-twisting, grimacing and sudden head movements in that video were because, in Oldham's own words, "Purslow was working his ass off behind the scenes".
  8. So you're saying that not only was Rafa a politician, but a damn good one, who came out on top and left the losers to squabble among themselves? Not much to disagree with there. Thanks for the insight.
  9. Bascombe once told me that he had a good relationship with the owners. I've not spoken to him since then. It was the same time he told me that there were two LFC's - Parry's and Benitez. (I suppose that would be the Parry Mafia versus the Benitez Mafia?). Does anyone know if he still has a good relationship with the owners as his more recent "cut them some slack" remark seemed to suggest? Or did he fall out with them like he did with Houllier and Benitez? All his articles seem - Koptalk-like - to be based on unattributable insider sources and designed to please his own little Mafia - the small ruling clique on here, his paying client Carragher and Gerrard.. His remarks about Shankly and players is hypocritical. His nasty personal campaign against Fowler at the bidding of Houllier was an abuse of that player's trust. He crawled back to Fowler and begged forgiveness only after the supporters made clear which of the two - Houllier or Fowler - they preferred.
  10. Who gives a tinkers cuss what you think, you blowhard. Why don't you spend more time looking after the "millions of pounds" every day that you boast you manage for clients rather than drone on and on with your half baked psychoanalysis of Rafa - a man you have never met and never will. Which of your clients pays for all the time you spend on an insignificant football forum obsessively spinning conspiracy theories, like some latter-day Captain Queeg trying to prove that Rafa stole the strawberries from the officers mess. Your theories, statements and slanderous insinuations about Rafa are so wide off the mark that you are not worth debating.
  11. In effect, he enjoyed the prestige, power and thrill of owning LFC for donkey years and never put a penny into it. All the money he advanced to buy players was in the form of interest-bearing loans which were fully repaid to him as part of the H&G purchase price. The greater part of the current debt everyone is complaining about represents the money paid to Moores and the other shareholders. But the main burden he placed on LFC was his refusal to borrow money to build a stadium when loans were much cheaper and building costs much lower. He could have easily arranged this with a conventional mortgage secured with the revenue from the turnstiles and naming rights. A new stadium, rather than the mythical LFC-loving sugar-daddy he was looking for, would have met the rising costs of player's salaries which, he says, was his main motivation for wanting out. It would have also been more in keeping with The Liverpool Way, which he claims to represent. In fact, if he still wanted to sell after a new stadium was up and running, he would have made a larger profit than he did.
  12. The vicious tittle tattle that the ruling clique on here has been producing remorselessly and with increasing obsessiveness for more than twelve months is the Petri dish in which Bascombe cultivates his weekly serving of poisonous tripe in the Sun's sister tabloid. The ruling clique on here (and their idiot apprentices) are like an inbred gaggle of superannuated Troskyites constantly trying to reassure themselves that they are still relevant. Their febrile plots and counter-plots do not even have the merit of wit. They are no more than ponderously transparent lies, gossip, mischievous speculation and outright prejudice. Their breathelss hints that there is some kind of communication between this site and Gerrard, Carragher and Bascombe - the paid biographer of those two "stalwarts" - adds to the sleaziness of the gossip that emanates from this site about LFC - especially about Rafa and the players he has signed. Needless to say, I think LFC is very lucky to have Rafa. He is far too good for the ruling clique on here.
  13. And one pompous self-styled "writer" on here who used to refer to him as "the Greek mess".
  14. Riera did not say that LFC is a sinking ship. In Spanish, he used that phrase with reference to himself. His comments were mainly about trying to save what he admitted were his already minimal chances of selection for Spanish WC squad. He made it very clear that that was the main cause of his angst. He also did not say that it is amazing what the absence of Arbelo and Alonso had done to Liverpool. He said that they had been adequately replaced by Englands first first choice right back and by Romas first choice. He admitted that he has not approached Rafa to ask him for special guidance or feedback. He just assumed that because he had not been picked then it must be something personal. He said he had no intention of approaching Rafa with his complaints.
  15. Another laughable thread. Poking around for some anti-Rafa propaganda, ATK, who boasts that he does not go to matches at Anfield, comes up with a rumour about a rumour, which rumour was actually only a speculative "what if" remark by a journalist. The topic is that someone in Italy thinks that Rafa might have had talks with Juventus. Against this nonsense, we have Rafa's own clear statement, on the record, that he has had no talks with Juventus and all the claims that Juventus had sent people to talk with him and his advisors are bunkum. Why would genuine supports of LFC not believe their manager over some Italian gossiper they don't even know or some malcontent from Bootle posing as a moralist and guardian of the club's spirit? It could be that the malcontent doesn't like Rafa because Rafa is Spanish, probably Papist, who has brought a lot of foreigners - also probably Papists - into the team, and in the process denied a place to some third-rate "local boys" - probably loyal Protestants, or at least Agnostics. He doesn't like him because he was instrumental, after four years of monitoring their progress, of sacking a couple of hangers-on who were not doing a very good job running the Academy - hangers-on who knew somebody, who knows somebody else, who drinks at the malcontent's pub. How hypocritical that the names of Paisley and Shanks should be brought into this pseudo-discussion of a non-event.
  16. My scoring: Rafa 1 Anti-Rafa Scabpickers 0 (In arriving at my score I took into consideration the fact that Rafa was answering a question in his third language).
  17. My names' not Dick. I'm not "on this site". It's a public site. I look at it occasionally out of curiosity to see the latest attempts at propaganda from the minority of anti-Rafa scab-pickers who post on here. My understanding is that "Momo" usually got banned after a few posts - although there are one or two posters on here more extreme and xenophobic than he ever was and only half as bright. But during SS's recent splurge, when he seemed to be posting 7x24, he was not banned, even though he was identified, rightly or wrongly, as "Momo". He certainly seemed to welcome the identification, which, itself, is unusual. Perhaps, if he was "Momo", he had made himself more acceptable to the ruling clique because he had adopted the pose of a Rafa-hater. Whoever he is, he knows how to push the right buttons on here.
  18. Not that I am a regular poster or reader, but I never thought that Silcone was Momo. The writing style is different (i.e. better) as is the content and dynamics of his posting. The frenetic pace of his posting in the last week suggest that he was trying something on - or preparing for something. Whoever he is, it is not surprising to discover that one of TLW leading anti-Rafa theorists (to put it kindly) and one of TLW's most ardent anti-Rafa propagandists - capable of rousing so much anti-Rafa rhetoric from the others on here - is actually an obsessive joker. Thank God for Rafa - while he is around the lunatics will not get to run the asylum.
  19. We should try and get the manager of that Valencia team that lit up Anfield with its fast, mobile game and made us look like the hopeless cloggers we were. The same Valencia team that won the Europa Cup (as its called now) and Champions League Cup and beat out Real Madrid and Barcelona for the title to the Liga. But hang on, that Valencia team was managed by Benitez wasn't it? Back to the drawing board!
  20. Another boring thread from the usual prancing drama queens celebrating the fact that LFC didn't win. How boringly predictable!
  21. I like this thread. It exposes the hypocrisy of the Rafa haters. They start with the premise that he should not be supported and then tie themselves in knots with contradictory, inconsistent and other silly criteria to justify their stance.
  22. I disagree with those who say that Rafa's 5-year reign should be judged by the fact that we are battling for fourth. We are battling for 1st. Rafa said two months ago that 4th is the next target and that is the minimum he expects. He has also said that several of the players are aiming for an expect higher than that (and this at a time when many of his critics on here were saying he had lost the dressing-room!). There was a poll on here a few months ago as to what people expected. I said 3rd and I stand by that. Irrespective of where we finish Rafa should be judged on the trophies he has won with us, the semi-finals and finals we have reached, the five continuous years in the CL, the progressively higher status in the PL, the overall improvement in the quality of the squad and the recent improvement in the intake into the Academy. This year has been an aberration in points earned so far because of the huge number of injuries, and the poor form, tiredness and distraction of those returning from summer internationals - including Torres and Gerrard. I notice some of those trying to damn Rafa on the basis of this season only were also trying to damn him last season when we finished a relatively close 2nd after winning the highest number of points LFC has every won in the PL, and scoring the highest absolute number of goals in the PL and the most clean sheets. They seem to have a personal agenda against him. While the number of his critics have grown in the last few months they still represent a disgruntled rump and not a "split in the club". Millions of LFC supporters, representing a large majority, still think he is the best man for the job and that we are lucky to have him.
×
×
  • Create New...