Jack the Sipper

Plug: "People forget that traders need access to DIXONNNS."

I was referring to the current media wankfest over him, rather than anything he's done differently recently. I haven't followed his career, but I'm willing to accept he's always been a self-important, attention-seeking twat. I also accept his side tries to play a more attractive style of football than Brown's Hull, but the plaudits from the press (and most fans) are similar: "What a character Phil is, the cheeky monkey, and he knows how to set up a side that can compete in the PL." By the season's end he was the subject of ridicule from the same people who lauded him when he was beating Arsenal. I predict the same fate for Holloway. That said, I do find some of his asides amusing, but overall he just grates on me. BTW, what was his opinion on what Benitez said? Did he say anything? What would his opinion be now, do you think, if someone suggested that Slur gets the big decisions or that the FA are lenient with him, or that the press love him too much? Pesronally I find it hard to believe he would take Rafa's side over Slur's - whatever he really thought. I can't help but get the feeling that much of what he says is for effect rather than a need to voice his heartfelt opinion. Todays rant and threat to resign is a case in point. Maybe I'm just being cynical. Time will tell.

I know it's an unfashionable opinion, but he comes across as a self-important, attention-seeking twat to me. As for him and his 'exciting brand of football' being a breath of fresh air, two words: Phil Brown. Holloway's just another flavour of the month IMO.

'And when I press this button he says "MERKED!".

Seems to me that it's a piss-take of the London barrow boy culture and the high prices in London.

Perhaps, but then we were in a much better postion to attract talent than Spurs were. Bigger club, CL football, higher wages, Rafa's reputation. On paper, we should have had a much superior record in getting players in than Spurs.

My yarmulke almost fell off, I'm so taken aback.

Is this what the fuss is about? He's spot on with what he said there. The initial claims of a sale were spin, designed to create a momentum and an air of inevitability among the fanbase and the press that G&H had lost the club. The fact that we actually sold the club the following friday confirms that, no? I'd imagine that tweet was in response to fans who, upon seeing the first LFC website statement, thought it was a done deal. It wasn't, as Jeffries pointed out - Hicks did litigate. If Jeffries has also claimed that the whole NESV coming in for us was spin put out by Broughton/Purslow in some grand conspiracy with G&H for some reason, then that's another thing, but he dosen't claim that here, and I'm sure someone would've posted his comments on an LFC forum even if he had deleted them.

And that could be what does for them. They clearly can't invest in the squad like they used to, so, like with us, their owners need fucking off. The best means of achieving that is if Slur comes out against them. As long as he toes the party line, no campaign will really take off.

Not at all. I don't know anyone who's expecting them to be sugar daddies, so how else are NESV going to make the club more competitive and successful on the pitch without looking to increase revenues? And they're understandably vague about money for tranfers (why tell other clubs how much you're spending) and a stadium (there's three options for increasing capacity, each with its own merits). The fact that they're looking to increase revenue would suggest that increased capacity is a priority for them as much as it is for us. If David Moores set about maximising our potential revenue streams in the early 90's we'd probably be on more than 18-5 right now.

Ideally, a youngish, progessive manager. Guardiola would be ideal, if unrealistic. Loew or Pellegrini I would also welcome. I wouldn't turn my nose up at Rijkaard either, or even Klinsmann. And, even though I wanted Rafa out the turn of the year, I'd welcome him back as long as he didn't have control over transfers. Indeed, his approach seems to fit well with Henry's love of statistical analysis that worked so well at the Red Sox.

So far he's set up utterly negative tactics, to the point of letting Blackpool bully us at home. On the eve of that game he defended his approach by saying it's served him well at a host of second rate Scandinavian sides. He's clearly got no intention of changing his approach now.

The biggest irony is that, if we're still in the relegation zone come Christmas under Hodgson, and the owners start asking who's got experience of relegation battles, one of the first names that will come to mind is Roy fucking Hodgson. He's planned this, I'm telling ya. And yes, I am paranoid.

His dog died. The question now is, how many of his pets can I kill before his suspicions are aroused?

Even so, "there's a game on at the Standard this weekend, we're playing Barca in the CL semi-final" sounds a lot more appealing to me than "there's a game on at Anfield this weekend, the relegation decider between us and WBA". Ideally (if we do develop the stadium) we'd keep both the name and be able to invest in the squad as we want. In reality, it's one or the other. Naming rights would take a massive financial burden off of us, and could mean the difference between us competing at the very top level for players, and hoovering up the leftovers. And all because we want to keep the name 'Anfield' for traditional reasons. Tradition is important at our club, and our most important tradition to my mind is one of success. If we can better achieve that by changing the name of our stadium, so be it. Shankly, who epitomises everything good about LFC, did away with something just as traditional as the name 'Anfield' when he changed the shirt colours to red. He did this because he believed red was a more intimdating colour, and so more likely to bring us success. That was progressive thinking. and I welcome more of it.

It was obvious last night that the Texan judge adjourned the hearing for that very reason. The judge knew that, eventually, he had to cede to the authourity of the High Court ruling, but by stalling the decision he's deliberately given Hicks valuable time to put together a deal. The problem is, how the fuck could we prove the judge the adjourned the hearing for this reason? If he is in cohorts wih Hicks, he's not likely to admit to it, so, barring some discarded scrap of paper turning up that shows the judge stalled the hearing for that reason, we're fucked on that account. Likewise the argument that, by not informing that same Texan judge of the High Court ruling when he first applied for the TRO, the TRO is thus 'illegal' is redundant - for that to be the case the judge would have to admit that he wouldn't have given the TRO if he was made aware of the HC ruling.

He didn't have a leg to stand on when he claimed last week to have sacked Purslow and Ayre. Didn't stop him saying it, and it held up the sales process to the extent that we are where we are today.

Henry's clearly better at the old PR game than the two cunts we've been lumbered with for the past three years. I think he's also benefitting from the 'my enemies enemy...' thing right now too. That said, pretty mch everything I've seen and read about him points to him being a capable, responsible and progressive owner of the Red Soxs. The same couldn't be said about H&G, who already had noted probelms and fan resentment from other clubs when they took over. If, and it's a big if, he brought the same style of ownership to LFC then I think most of us would be happy. In any case, I'd much sooner take a chance on him than on some faceless financial institution, Peter fucking Lim (who I thought might be a decent back-up until I realised what a schemer chancer he proved to be with his timed press releases), or, God forbid another term with Cancer and Aids killing our club. And they seem to be the only alternatives.

I wouldn't say that RBS are on our side really. They just want their money back. Over the last week they've sided with us (Broughton, Purslow, Ayre) because they believed a sale to NESV represented the most viable means of getting their cash. If Hicks gets the cash tomorrow to pay the debt on terms the board can't block (as I understand it, they can only block deals which involve using club assets) then I see no real reason why they won't take it (or even if they'd be allowed to refuse it). I don't think bankers are the types to take things personally and refuse to deal on that basis - as with Hicks, money is their master. I also doubt that NESV are the owners of the club in any legally binding way. I know Henry and his lawyers have claimed this, but notably, none of the LFC directers has confirmed it to my knowledge; last nights club statement said only that they had "resolved to complete the sale", until the Texas injunction "regrettably... prevented the transaction being completed." If so, then NESV can't stop it either. And the High Court ruling could prove to be pretty meaningless. Sure, the Texias judge will withdraw the injunction tomorrow (if Hicks dosen't withdraw it first), but it would have served its purpose if the delay it created gave Hicks the extra two days needed to complete a deal. The fact that NESV's lawyers requested that the High Court judge order Hicks to withdraw the injunction tonight (which was refused) is very telling, for it suggests NESV were all too aware of what Hicks was up to - and therefore suggests they not nearly as assured of their own legal position re the sale as they've claimed. What's keeping me going is the fact that, if Hicks can buy out the debt legally, then he could've done this ages ago. Yet he hasn't been able to get the money. Clearly, no-one wants to lend him the money without the guarantee that the assets would provide - but which he can't use. People have suggested Lim could offer him the money. True, but again, he could've offered him it before, and either chose not to, or couldn't because the board do have more control over where Hicks gets his money from than I suspect.

What an utter cunt that Lim has turned out to be. He's basically singing from the same sheet as H&G, then he has the cheek to wish all the best for the club and its fans. Does he really think his interventions (not least this latest one) help our cause in any fucking way at all?

You gotta laugh.

I tried joining up there a couple of years ago, but was told they had fulfilled there membership quota, and to try another time. I'm glad I never bothered. There's a handful of really good and informative threads, and some of the posters are OK, but on the whole, there's far too many posters intolerant of opinions outside of the 'forum consensus'. The mods there seem guilty of encouraging this mentality too. As a result, debate is stifled, which surely goes against what a discussion forum should be all about. I noticed they have allowed members to post on the match day threads again, which is nice of them. Although what the fuck the mods (and those who agreed with it) were thinking when they banned in-match discussion in the first place is beyond me. If some people want an unbiased rolling report, there's other sites (BBC) for that, and even if they wanted one on their site, why not allow another one alongside it for those FM's who do want to discuss the match? It all seems a tad oppressive and Stalag-like for me.

Sounds like a great idea in principle, especially given the public stake in RBS, but looking at the image you've posted, I notice they had to have Dawn Porter with her back to us so we couldn't see her cunt. With that in mind, I can't see them allowing an image of the yanks.

For someone who seemed (to me at least) to be so self-assured in his pre-season press conferences, he's developed a severe case of foot in mouth disease. Added to his silence when told that Fergie called Torres a cheat, his publicly blasting the players he put out for the Northampton shambles, and his constant talk about 'expectations' and 'containing' sides like Sunderland at home, he's really not doing himself any favours.

I'd still support the club and, if my circumstances allowed, try to take a more active role in protesting, something which goes beyond the little I've done already (sending off emails, signing petitions, and stop giving money to the club). For me, turning my back on LFC would be tantamount to giving up my family home because some squatters moved in while I was on holiday. I can undersatnd why others would feel differently though.