Galactico

Shankly and Busby were mates, maybe we should have fired Shanks?

Ludicrous over-reaction to fuck all. I want Roy to go, but some people are using everything he says or does as a stick to beat him with and it's ridiculous. Houllier was mates with Fergie, but we sang his name on the Kop. Gerrard is mates with Rooney, are we going to attack him for that? It's all very small-minded stuff and some people need to get a sense of perspective.

It certainly is for the Polish guy.

Quite astonishing chutzpah from Samuel and (presumably) Purslow. Clearly aimed at an audience that knows nothing about Anfield (and its famous SoS section:wallbutt:) and unaware of poll after poll saying over 95% of fans want Roy Hodgson gone. The suggestion that the fans had nothing to do with the demise of the previous owners is also remarkable. Yes, RBS played a huge part, as did Broughton, Purslow and Ayre, but they did so against a backdrop of enormous fan pressure - even Hicks referred to 'internet terrorism' as a factor. We will never know if RBS would have got so tough without the increasingly vitriolic campaign against the owners or, in particular, the direct action threatened against them and other potential investors. To try to dismiss the fans' part in the change of ownership is ridiculous and laughable spin. The overall thrust of the piece, though, suggests that at least one 'adviser' to LFC is arguing against them bowing to fan pressure over Hodgson. The reality is that Roy has lost the fans now and it's hard to see how he can win them back. 35,000 attendances will not be acceptable to FSG and they are populist and sensible enough to know change is needed. Roy's mates in the press will squeal, but more and more people are coming round to this view, including the likes of Lawro who initially said he should be given time.

The Deutschebank ones are bouncing back as spam, I didn't put anything obvious in the title, any tips?

Ok, the opposition were shite, but the passing and movement was terrific at times and we played on the front foot throughout. Cole was outstanding and Gerrard very impressive back in his old position, also thought Jovanovic and Kelly were very good. The most impressive thing was the way the players worked for each other - we looked like a team and we looked like we cared. Great to see Cole getting stuck in as well as creating - and even Aquilani when he came on looked fired up. Encouraging but very early days.

Mascherano. Didi was a great servant to the club but Masch is an absolute monster in the holding role, best in the world at what he does.

If we want someone to go past people on the flank, I'd sooner give Babel a go on the right than sign SWP.

He's on another planet. Benitez's achievement in mustering the rabble he inherited into a CL-winning team, beating several stronger teams en route, was astonishing. That team had Biscan, Smicer and Traore in it FFS. Rafa leaves behind a squad including Torres, Reina and Mascherano - hard to think of a GH player who matches any of those three. It was also Rafa who turned Carragher into a CB after years played at full back under Houllier. I used to respect Houllier, but for him to attack another former LFC manager - actually not one, but two - is despicable and goes against everything Liverpool is about as a club. Fowler's comments on him in his book just look justified now - a man obsessed with spin and with his own ego. The bitterness is getting to the level of his feud with Ginola and to drag Roy Evans into it is sickening - one thing we remember about Evans is his sides played decent footie, unlike Ged's and he was LFC through and through. Even after his pretty disgraceful treatment, Roy never rounded on the club or Houllier. Have to say I'm shocked by this as I did think GH had some dignity, but he has none and he has trashed the memory of the pre-2002 period for which he was still remembered fondly. Sad day for the club and particularly for Houllier.

As Hodgson himself said the other day though, many of the names linked are speculation - agents touting their men more often than not. Liverpool fans, as he said, know better than to assume everyone linked with us is a target. A lot of the rumours involve Fulham players or players he targeted while there - there is as yet no actual evidence that we are in for Konchesky, Beattie or Scharner. As for Insua/Konchesky - Insua was bloody awful last season, we conceded far too many goals from the left and while he can be decent going forward, he has a long way to go to be even a decent Premier League full back. I am not against selling him as I am not convinced we can afford another season of developing him - he was a real weak link last term and £5m on that form is good business. I don't know if Konchesky is a target and he wouldn't be one that thrilled me, but he's been a much more solid LB than Insua over the last 12 months and we do need more English players because of the new rules. Dalglish won titles with Venison and Burrows at full back - solid, decent professionals who didn't tear up trees but didn't make many mistakes and knew their job in the system. Konchesky isn't a million miles from those two. I'd prefer the Wigan LB (whose names escapes me :() but Konchesky would IMO be a more solid option than Insua in that position.

Some of the hysteria on here is unbelievable, especially from a club whose fans are notoriously loyal to their managers. For one thing, Hodgson's comment on Purslow is being taken way out of context - it's hardly unusual for the manager to identify targets which are then pursued by the MD, who negotiates fees, wages, etc. For another, a ball hasn't yet been kicked in the Hodgson era and people are already calling for his head on a plate. He wasn't my first choice, but he's Liverpool manager now and he hasn't done anything to deserve this opprobrium. It was time for a change, as the likes of Torres have said - whether he was the right man time will tell, but some seem to have made their minds up already and are determined to be right - so we will end up with the same tiresome rows as we did over Rafa, only immediately. :wallbutt: It's not Championship Manager. Thanks to the owners the type of players we can afford to sign are in the Konchesky league or freebies like Joe Cole - Hodgson knew that when he arrived and probably recognises that on last season's evidence, Konchesky is more reliable than Insua. The only way he will have money to spend is if (or when) we sell Mascherano - and even then he may not get all of it. It's a tough rebuilding job and we won't be signing lots of big names this summer. Whoever the manager is, their job would be to sign decent players to fill some of the obvious gaps and try to pick up the odd bargain like Cole. I don't like it, but it's not Roy Hodgson's fault and it would be the same for any LFC manager in the current era.

Oops, apologies, original post wasn't meant to be taken entirely seriously...more an admittedly piss poor attempt at humour in speculating about whether another 'promise' is about to be broken. The one thing I take issue with in the negative responses is people saying "it's not mid-July"....mid-July is not the 15th anymore than early July is the 1st- mid-July is the ten days in the middle of the month, or it is in business calendars anyway. Anyway, I'll get my coat...

...in the middle of July, said Broughton. So where are they? Are they with the spade in the ground and Snoogy Doogy somewhere?

I was around and there were questions raised about all three, though less so with Fagan than the other two. But I don't recall anyone telling them to fuck off.

We talk about the Liverpool Way, yet we are writing off and slating a manager who has not even been appointed yet. Hodgson would not be my first choice for the Liverpool job, but I'm staggered to see Liverpool supporters behaving like this. Whoever is appointed will need the support of the fans (and my suspicion is they will get the support of those who go to games) - they don't need a backlash before they have even taken up the post. This thread is so contrary to what I understand by the Liverpool Way that I wonder if the Liverpool Way, like the Boot Room, is just history.

Yes, I just edited in a previous response as I realised how you'd construed it - the 'meetings' comment was meant with a world weary sigh, not a claim of some sort of specialist knowledge...but the point about how minutes work is I think pretty universal. Re publishing both - yes, can see the argument for that given such varying accounts - but does it advance our cause? For the reasons I have set out above, I don't think that it does.

This is the point though PeeG...both sides' record of the meeting may be different, so an account has to be mutually agreed. I fully accept that he was told it was all on the record, but what seems to have emerged is that he wants the same outcome we all do ...so we should work with him to achieve that, rather than getting into a spat over what he did or didn't say. On the 'meetings' comment...perhaps I should've explained that it was meant with a world weary sigh, not as a claim of some specialist knowledge - just realised why it was thought patronising!

I'm not really sure why spending a lot of time in meetings and understanding how minutes work is patronising? It's honestly not meant to be... As I said earlier, you don't have to say "this is in confidence" in a meeting for something to be in confidence - because the assumption of someone like Purslow would be that he would agree the minutes afterwards. My impression (not being there) is he has tried to take people into his confidence and to be as frank as he can, but that he would rather what he said wasn't publsihed for fear of frightening off investors or getting him the sack.

I've read the thread...the fact remains that minutes are not minutes until they are agreed by attendees. I've been in hundreds of meetings where people have spoken a little too frankly thinking it was off the record or have felt their comments have been misconstrued. The minutes have never included such comments. I also sincerely appreciate SoS people coming on here to answer questions. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with their actions.

The minutes are the record agreed by all parties. That's what minutes of a meeting are. End of.

That wasn't my reading of the comment - and while Shanks was a great socialist, John Smith most certainly was not and I wouldn't describe the Moores family as lefties either. If we're looking for a new owner to bail us out, I'm afraid a rabid capitalist of some description is probably the only show in town. Sad but true.

As someone who spends a lot of time in meetings, I understand that the minutes are the agreed record of what occurred. If he didn't want the minutes published, that is because he considered he had spoken to them in confidence or that they had misunderstood some of his points. You don't have to say "this is in confidence" at the time - if you are trying to build an understanding, you can speak freely, but the minutes should be a record agreed by all parties. There are huge risks associayted with what SoS have done - if the Yanks are forced into a fire sale, who knows who will buy the club, who they will sell to make ends meet or what their plan will be. We want the Yanks out, but we want an intelligent strategy for achieving that. It is very possible that Purslow has one, I don't think SoS do and I don't think today's events have progressed the situation beyond scoring a few points against the owners in some of the media.

I agree. SoS have betrayed Purslow IMO, he spoke to them in confidence and frankly, they shouldn't have leaked it to the press, it makes them look amateurish. Ok, the effect may be to deter any potential investors who will simply wait for the price to come down and this may force Laurel and Hardy to sell...equally, the Yanks may remove Purslow from his position and slash and burn to pay off the debts and retain an interest in the club. It's an unsophisticated strategy and a massive gamble - unless Purslow had agreed to the minutes, SoS should have released a version both parties were comfortable with and thought about how they could best use the information he seemingly provided.

All this talk of Rafa targeting a right back is depressing. Darby looked good in the first game against Reading, Degen and Kelly can play there, and so can Carra in most games. There are far more urgent needs to address elsewhere in the squad. Rafa's response to any sort of bad run is to entrench and become totally risk averse, rather than giving more of an opportunity to youngsters like Darby and Pacheco or flair players like Aquilani. The caution he seemed to have shaken off could end up costing him his job.

I think there is something fundamentally wrong when a team concedes late so often, just as it is a sign of strength to score late winners and equalisers. We looked to have ground it out today but there is no confidence in this group of players - the season has gone horribly wrong and they don't have the belief any more. It may actually take a change of management to change that, though God knows who we would get with the clowns we have in charge.