diego

So you agree that SOS did not play along with the normal set of rules. But you argue the end justifies the means. I disagree on the point of principle. I also disagree with your assessment of the facts. CP has been consistently forthright in answering questions and in meeting with SOS. SOS asked good questions and got substantial answers. Your reply reflects an attitude that is often expressed on here, that anyone connected with the club should be tarred with the same brush. As for how we got into this mess - it was by a decision of David Moores not to invest any of his money in the club over several years, and not to borrow to build a stadium but to sell to whoever would give him the biggest profit on his family's original investment, and repay all his loans to the club with interest.

I don't know the user-names of members of SOS or of the group who met CP. Even if I knew, their statements on here or on multiple other sites, do not constitute minutes of a meeting. So they do not tell me authoritatively what the understanding was between SOS and CP during the meeting. I would need to hear CP's version. I would prefer to see a statement agreed between the parties. Minutes are by definition the official record. They are supposed to be produced in draft and then submitted for formal approval. Challenges to minutes have to be settled by negotiation and agreement not by publishing different versions. (The various statements by SOS members you refer to constitute more than two versions and in fact several versions of the minutes. They are a kind of serial minutes). The reason for the convention is that participants in a discussion can be partisan and subjective. Its not unusual that they misinterpret remarks or give too much or to little emphasis to them. What is important is the substance. CP version seems to agree in substance with SOS version and the addition of remarks that SOS alleges he made adds nothing to the substance, detracts from the overall merit of their initiative and appears to be courting controversy. In any case, I find it difficult to believe that CP would have held any meeting with SOS if he had not trusted their assurances that there would be minutes in the conventional sense of that word.

I don't buy the explanation that CP was being cute in deliberately making controversial statements and then denying them. He is not a liar. He made a mistake. He believed that the agreement with SOS that no minutes would be published without his approval gave him some licence to be frank. In effect, he treated the conversation as he would any "off the record" discussion with a journalist. An agreement not to record the exchange, other than with notes, is normal in such agreements. It is an essential part of the convention that if the journalist breaches the trust by reporting the comments verbatim or identifies the source, then the person who received the assurances that the exchange was "off the record" can legitimately and morally deny them. His mistake was that SOS is not a journalist and does not, therefore, adhere to the ethics of journalism. It also appears that SOS does not consider itself bound by the agreement it made with CP and the assurances it gave him. Furthermore SOS does not consider itself bound by the "parliamentary" conventions that govern formal corporate and institutional meetings. To that extent CP was duped. Ultimately it was his mistake to trust SOS. The substance of that matter is that he wanted to convince SOS that he understood and shared some of their concerns and feelings about the owners. He needed to do this to show that his request that they reconsider the protests they have been making at Anfield was not driven by his concern for the hurt feelings of the current owners but for his concern about driving away or discouraging better owners. The version of the minutes CP has authorized is sufficiently informative and substantial to satisfy most genuine supporters. And if that is all we had learned SOS should be congratulated in providing an opportunity for CP to have made such disclosures. In my view, the substance of the disclosure is not enhanced by the controversial comments. There was no need for SOS to have added them. This does not mean that I accept the SOS version as being true. Minutes are not supposed to be verbatim record of every remark made in a discussion. They are supposed to be a faithful rendering of the substance of the discussion that took place. The true version would have been the version mutually agreed by both parties. There should have been no other version.

As I said earlier - another rubbish thread. But more pathetic than the mischievous rumour-mongering are the congratulations to the author of the thread as though he has done something noble by creating or passing on a lie about LFC in a manner designed detract from the glow of the win on Saturday and the vocal support the true supporters showed to Rafa at Anfield. Why should Rafa, the players, genuine supporters and the club have to deal with tripe like this from a forum that is supposed to represent TLW? Inevitably there are even some posts that suggest that the lie cudda, shudda, wudda been true. No wonder Bascombe considers this his home forum. Its an inexhasitble source of vituperative gossip about LFC - and especially about Rafa. Blood lust for the manager seems to have become the ruling passion of the ruling clique on here. They're blinded by it. Its as though football is not enough for them.

Another rubbish thread.

Most of the nihilist "I hate everything but especially Rafa" stuff could be eliminated if the the following were to happen: ATK and his like, and Whelan, St.John and all the other jealous has-beens and wannabees were put on the LFC pay roll. It might cost a few pounds but not having to listen to their squawking would be worth it.

So two characters who no longer go to Anfield - ATK and DM - met near the Liverpool RC Cathedral. And along came Parry. It was a proper TLW meeting - The Loser's Wankfest. Judging by ATK's racist anti-Irish statements on here I suppose we should be grateful it was not at the Orange Lodge. David Moores - who never invested a penny of his own money in LFC all the years he was principal shareholder and Chairman - all those years he was hanging around the dressing room, riding on the team bus and having players over to his house for dinner - and who refused to try to borrow money to build a new stadium when loans were easily available and costs were much lower - is "upset" about G&H. He thinks they should be putting their own money into a stadium like he didn't. Its gets more absurd by the minute.

Here is today's lesson in TLW 101 Orthodoxy. The relative success of the past five years is down to Gerrard, not the manager. The relative failures of the current season is down to the manager, not Gerrard. It follows that the relatively few success of the Houllier years were down to Gerrard and the failures were down to the manager. The fact that LFC have not won the PL since Gerrard appeared on the scene has nothing to do with him.

Sami's support of the manager including his statement that he is a good man-manager who is respected and liked by all the players is heresy on TLW. The Gold and Silver Members of the ruling clique on here would rather listen to Bascombe and the other anti-Rafa gobshites. Sami Hyypia backs Rafael Benitez to deliver Liverpool FC to top four finish > Liverpool FC > Sport | Click Liverpool

There is no owner real or imagined who would build the stadium with their own money. All would borrow the money and pay for the borrowing and the principal from the stadium's revenues. Unfortunately we had an owner for many years - David Moores - who would not even borrow the money - even when a stadium could be had for 80 million. He did not invest a penny of his own money in the club. He made a series of loans which he recovered with interest when he sold the club. He also recovered all the money his family had invested and made a profit on it. There is no difference in kind between Moores and H&G. There is a difference in degree in that H&G borrowed more than Moores to buy the club and advance loans to it. In that interview G admitted what we have known for some time. That he and H need to borrow to build a stadium. That a stadium will transform the finances of the club. He also made clear that efforts are underway to raise the loan and complete the planning application. The existing planning permission is for the smaller size. LFC has to satisfy the city council about transportation and other peripheral issues for the larger size.

Sounds as plausible as your other stories. The fact that it makes you out to be an Evertonian enhances its credibility.

Yeah, as though a lot of people are interested in your fantasies! Incidentally, who's next on your visiting list? I don't read many of your posts but in the last few months I've seen you threaten several posters with physical violence. I've also seen you make threatening remarks about Rafa - tinged with your usual racist allusions. Can we expect to see you chatting on his intercom with his wife and kids to get him to come out ? He might be well advised to take out a restraining order on you.

So the radical, fire-breathing ATK - the super-fan who spends much of his time bad-mouthing the owners, the administrators, the manager and staff, former players and most of the foreign players and who physically threatens supporter's who tell him to get lost - the same super-fan who does not go to matches even though he lives a couple of miles from Anfield - presented himself at the gates of the home of the rich man who sold the club for a substantial profit to the Americans, touched his forelock and meekly begged him to come out to talk to him. In fact he was so meek and nice that the rich man eventually complied. And when the rich man gave him a few lumps of sugar, ATK wagged his tale and left when he was told to. Upstaged last week in the Hicks jr affair by the organization which he also criticizes - of course - ATK is getting desperate for attention. His constant petty politicking with the club's reputation and the personal reputation of its employees is not working and his stream of innuendo and lies from false sources is proving counter-productive.

You need medical help and I hope you don't get it.

The year we won the Euro Cup we had not qualified for the CL for the following season. After considering the matter the governing body changed the rules to allow the Europa Cup winner to get automatic entry to the CL even if it meant that their national league had more representatives than allowed. However, the new rule would not take effect until the following year. They dealt with the LFC case by allowing it to enter the CL by way of the very early summer rounds. I don't think the rules have been changed since then.

The club handed him the captaincy before he had earned it and when we had a better one. The club nursed him through his formative years sending him to the best surgeons and other health specialists on three continents. His salary was always greater than anyone else of similar age and experience. His position as captain gave him innumerable other opportunities to earn extras. He got rich endorsements. Even with all that he requested a transfer to Chelsea when Houllier left before changing his mind at the last minute. The club has hidden his off field indiscretions for years - they could do nothing about the Southport incidence. He has played a lot of good games and contributed much. But he is certainly not on par with Billy Liddle, Dalglish or some other of the past greats. The club owes him nothing. In fact it could be argued that pandering to his demands and moods and preferences is one of the reasons we have never won the PL.

Its all good as long as we did not spend a penny on you - you dimwitted fantasist.

The argument that Rafa bought the players and is therefore responsible for their poor performance is simplistic. He never bought Carragher and Gerrard. IMO Carragher has destabilized the defence this season and is also responsible for much of the barren hoofing that starves the attack of intelligent build up. Gerrard is not focused on LFC, his play is below par, his dead ball delivery stifling, and his moaning, sulking and intimidating attitude towards other players on the field and off is counter-productive. Torres has effectively assumed the role of off-field captain but his absence from the playing squad has meant there is no adequate on-field captain. Rafa spotted the Gerrard attitude early on but he has no option but to try to get the best out of the big sulk. He also spotted the Carragher's flailing about but once again had to make the most of it - with Agger and Kyrtl injured (the latter by Carragher) he had no choice. All the super fans who accuses Rafa of being "political" would proably go nuts if he was replaced by someone like Hiddink who - assuming he got more money than Rafa is getting - would ignore fan politics and drop Gerrard to the bench or sell him and replace Carragher as the lynch pin of the defence.

Another rubbish thread. Tell me again why this forum is called "The Liverpool Way". Is that name supposed to be ironic?

Agree. We need to rebuild and may as well do it this year. But we should not proceed by finding interim subs for Torres and Gerrard. I would sell Gerrard to the highest bidder - if I could get him to accept a move. I'd keep Torres but find him a decent attacking partner and back-up. I'd find a dominating, dependable defender and use Carragher far less. I'd sell Škrtel. I'd get a fit, dependable left back and use Insua and as back-up. Fabio is out of contract. I'd offer him a pay as you play or something similar. The priority is the defence. We no longer have a reliable defence and it is affecting everybody's confidence. The second priority is to replace Gerrard. He is no longer focused on LFC. He is injury prone. When he is not on song he disrupts the team and inhibits the other players. He is not particularly good as captain. If Mascherano goes, a strong defensive midfielder would then be a priority. If money allows, a specialist fast winger - left or right. I would keep Rafa. He is one of the few ranking experts who has the knowledge skill and guts to rebuild the first team squad and the academy. I'd also ignore all the moaning glory hunters on here.

Good question. He's played under three managers and never won the league. Was made captain when we had a perfectly good one already. Takes 95% of dead ball kicks and corners. Must be the manager's fault.

He was a good buy who will eventuall become a lynch-pin, if he stays fit. He will look better if the team hits form and Gerrard is kept out of the mid-field and is ordered to be more disciplined. Aquilani and the whole team played better after Gerrard left the pitch. Its true some of Aquilani's misplaced passes today and missed tackles were as bad as Alonso's during his two year down period between 2006-2008. But Aquilani showed more forward movement and attacking threat than Alonso ever did. He also showed a lot of spirit and stamina.

You may be misinterpreting that release - or your paraphrase of it. He was appointed to the board. He was also made Managing Director. The MD position is interim until a permanent appointment is made. Even after a permanent appointment is made and assuming its not himself he remains on the board.

Perhaps you should ask Alonso that? Ask him why it is so important to him to constantly try to prove that he moved for other reasons than money and ambition.

You make some very good points about player's hypocrisy. Alonso is clearly still troubled in his conscience and needs constantly to refine the formula he uses to explain that he left for other reasons than money and ambition. You also do a service in pointing out just how much extra money Alonso knew he would be on ever since he first started to deal illegally with Real Madrid in April 2009, before he informed Rafa. But you are wrong to equate Rafa with Alonso and other players. Rafa's delay in signing his contract was not about money. He agreed on the money at the first meeting. He said as much. All the subsequent delays were about the extent of his responsibilities, the lines for reporting and his role in the Academy. In fact it could be argued that he wanted to take on more work for the money they were already prepared to pay him for simply being a coach.