Liverpool Signings and General Rumours Thread

griffdaddy

mike65 wrote:

Glad Momo is'nt playing in the derby, he'd proberly break something!

Mike.

hahaha, apart from arteta or someone like that's leg you mean?

mike65

Canadian Perspective

Mike.

p.pete

6000 post mark, yeay
on a lesser not - liverpool have signed yet another (presumably) mediocre spanish league defender has signed for us, I expect bench time and the occassional appearance which will possibly be hampered due to match fitness but possibly that'll just be us giving the guy a chance. I'm up for giving him a chance at least.
As for DIC - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

Stky10

You've seen of course that Tom Hicks's teams in the US are just as rubbish as Gillett's are in Canada.

Yet we've turned down DIC who have been major winners in horse racing.

The board needs shooting with a ball of its own sh*te. I saw a post on RAWK earlier saying that the board has done this week just the same as what Lucas Neill did last week, ie agree a price in general yet at the chase run off to a higher bidder. Yet there was Rick Parry last week criticising Neill, and today claiming they were being bullied by DIC. Muppets the lot of them.

Stky10

mike65 wrote:

Why can't a local business magnet buy the club?

Wha, like Steve Morgan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Morgan

Cos he don't get on with Moores, as he's taken the p*ss out of him too much in the past

Dr. Nick

Stky10 wrote:

I saw a post on RAWK earlier saying that the board has done this week just the same as what Lucas Neill did last week, ie agree a price in general yet at the chase run off to a higher bidder. .

Hardly.

An individual (and a footballer ffs) deciding on an employer (who he'll probably leave shortly) and a business deciding on a massive multi-million pound decision on it's very future cannot be compared.

Dr. Nick

mike65 wrote:

Canadian Perspective

Interesting read, here's a good quote:

But many Liverpool supporters are colder than their morning toast to the idea of Gillett's ownership.

And doesn't that sound familiar on this side of the pond, where Montreal hockey fans impaled themselves on their Sher-Woods when Gillett bought 80.1 per cent of the Canadiens from Molson in October 2001 - despite the fact that no Quebec or Canadian investor mounted a serious bid.

The fear was that Gillett was going to strip the Canadiens for parts, move them or run them for a loss to write off his other myriad business expenses.

Or, worst of all, ignore them.

In fact, he has embraced the team and held it like the public trust that it is, and he has displayed a profound caring for it and the people he employs.

Stky10

Dr. Nick wrote:

In fact, he has embraced the team and held it like the public trust that it is, and he has displayed a profound caring for it and the people he employs.

They've won nothing since he's gone there of course.... despite changing the manager a couple of times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Canadiens

Thrill

It looks like the deal is done and dusted. Gillett and Hicks will pay half each.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21158245-23215,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,428-2580183,00.html

copacetic

Dr. Nick wrote:

Hardly.

An individual (and a footballer ffs) deciding on an employer (who he'll probably leave shortly) and a business deciding on a massive multi-million pound decision on it's very future cannot be compared.

of course they can be compared, just because the stakes are higher doesn't make it any less of a poor moral move. maybe it is just business for Moores but after all the crap he has been talking for weeks about how the DIC boys are big fans and understand the traditions how can he justify what he has done now. Place that along with what himself and Rafa said about Neil and I feel sick to the stomach. One of the big things to be proud of for me as a fan is the relative sense of tradition and moral high ground that Liverpool hold against a lot of the other clubs in the premier league. In general we do things the right way.

Selling out to a guy who wants to groundshare for business reasons and his partner to run the 'franchise' (who only appears to what heard of 'soccer' 5 minutes ago) is shameful. If there was no other option then maybe I could live with it but there was a decent offer that the board themselves were saying was the best thing since sliced bread. Now they have sold out purely for the money, simple as.

redspider

Thats a reasonable article in The Times. With a co-bidder for Gillet in the shape of Hicks, it is a different bid, better than a Gillet-only one, but not perfect imo.

I still think I would prefer 'Liverpool DIC FC' though as the Dubai Sheiks are more likely to try and make the club valuable and stick with it if it wasnt and try and make things better. It didnt matter that they had a 7 year exit plan. All that means is that after 7 years that they planned that the club/business would be more valuable then than it is when they bought it and that should be good for Liverpool football club and Liverpool fans.

Here is the background of Gillet & Hicks:

"AMERICANS Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who each own National Hockey League teams, will split the $US450 million ($582 million) cost of buying English football giant Liverpool, the Dallas Morning News has reported.

Gillett, who owns Montreal Canadiens, and Hicks, who owns Dallas Stars and Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers, will each pay a half to purchase the English Premier League side, the paper reported."


This deal wont close for a while so there may be some more twists and turns yet.

Redspider

StickyMcGinty

so overall, is the take over good or bad news ye reckon?

Thrill

It's still bad imo.
All the talk now is about dept and borrowing and no mention of how much the club will have to spend on players.
The DIC were willing to provide more than Liverpool were asking for to get great players and improve the team. I seriously doubt that the Americans will be able to come close to matching the funds that DIC could.

Stky10

Yeah definetly bad.

A couple of days ago there was basically a statement on the club website that the new offer from Gillett merited serious attention, and that Parry had carried out a personality study to confirm that they were the people of merit and integrity that they'd claimed to be.

The facts are there in plain view to be seen though. The teams in Canada/US that Gillett and Hicks have taken over have performed moderately to poorly. DIC on the other hand has taken horse racing to a new level of professionalism and standards.

Yet the board decided that the offer of Gillett of 5 grand sterling a share is preferable to the offer of DIC of 4 grand sterling a share. It is for those with a massive stakeholding in the club as is, but its not for the future success of the club.

So forget all the propaganda cr*p that will be spread in the next week or month, its all rubbish. Selling out to Gillett and Hicks only profits existing shareholders (ie the board), not fans or the future success of the club.

Chardee MacDennis

guillem balague has noted there may have been some truth about the 7 year plan DIC had - that would have left us saddled with debt as well. so lets just see where this goes. and remember montreal fans seem to like Gillet for some reason...

Stky10 wrote:

It is for those with a massive stakeholding in the club as is, but its not for the future success of the club.

sure coz you know the ins and outs of both deals and what Moores & co are thinking. David Moores imho has always acted in the best interest of the club and I dont see why this would change now. Considering his family is worth £1.16 bn, why would he send a club he loves down the drain for a measly £8m. It makes no sense...

Chardee MacDennis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6323037.stm

well it seems to be a done deal.

zing

Stky10 wrote:

So forget all the propaganda cr*p that will be spread in the next week or month, its all rubbish. Selling out to Gillett and Hicks only profits existing shareholders (ie the board), not fans or the future success of the club.

As opposed to the propaganda we've all been sold about DIC being the best thing since sliced bread ? How much of that was crap and how much was true ?

The fact is that none of us know the details of either bid so there is no evidence to suggest that the Gillet/Hicks offer only profits the shareholders. Yes they may be offering more per share but that's just part of their proposal - they are also underwriting the stadium and have presumably made commitments to funds for player transfers, etc.. - perhaps they're offering a lot more than DIC were and have given the board stronger commitments in other areas of the business too ? But as I said none of us know..

I'm a lot more comfortable with the knowledge that Gillet isn't going it alone here but still not overly happy about the idea of them taking over the club.

Stky10

Call_me_al wrote:

sure coz you know the ins and outs of both deals and what Moores & co are thinking. David Moores imho has always acted in the best interest of the club and I dont see why this would change now. Considering his family is worth £1.16 bn, why would he send a club he loves down the drain for a measly £8m. It makes no sense...

Well if I hadn't just arrived in from the pub across the road after the proverbial gallon of Arthur, I probably wouldn't have expressed it so colourfully.

Facts remain though, that while yeah his family is worth over a billion, thats split over a large family covering those that are decedents of the original Sir John Moores who set up the Littlewoods company in the 1920's. The head of the family is Lady Grantchester who is John Moores daughter. David Moores is John Moores nephew. He invested something like 15 million in the club in the late 80's/early 90's as part of a fund raising share option scheme, but hasn't invested in the club other than that as far as I know. I think he's even on record a couple of years ago as saying that he didn't have the resources to invest further. And as a result of the sale to DIC/Gillett/Whoever he would stand to make a profit on his investment of over 80million sterling. Which is fine, I have no problem with that. He hasn't done a Martin Edwards on it and being continually selling shares for purely monetary purposes.

So why if DIC were the expressed preferential bidder has it suddenly changed to their offer not being accepted, and the Gillett one being accepted?. The only advantage I can see to it is the extra value per share they're willing to bid. So as fans we're quite entitled to speculate as to whether they (the board - thus major shareholders) have sold the club to the highest bidder at the potential cost of its long term future. Its not just Moores, its the other members of the board such as Granada etc. They're just as guilty by association.

Stky10

zing wrote:

The fact is that none of us know the details of either bid so there is no evidence to suggest that the Gillet/Hicks offer only profits the shareholders. Yes they may be offering more per share but that's just part of their proposal - they are also underwriting the stadium and have presumably made commitments to funds for player transfers, etc.. - perhaps they're offering a lot more than DIC were and have given the board stronger commitments in other areas of the business too ? But as I said none of us know..

Which is true. Nobody outside the board members knows the exact terms of any bid and the reasoning behind the change.

However, none of these commitments are legally binding and enforceable post takeover. And the history of Gillett/Hicks and the teams that they own doesn't makes me think they'd invest in the club to the same extent that DIC would as they have shown they can in horse racing. Thats why I'm uneasy. The addition of Hicks to the deal makes me no more confident.

zing

Stky10 wrote:

However, none of these commitments are legally binding and enforceable post takeover.

That's certainly true - yes.

And the history of Gillett/Hicks and the teams that they own doesn't makes me think they'd invest in the club to the same extent that DIC would as they have shown they can in horse racing. Thats why I'm uneasy.

DIC have invested in horse racing ? Not that I can see. Sure Maktoum and his family have but not through investment arms like DIC from what I can see (I could be wrong here). That's part of what made me uneasy - the whole thing was being done through an investment arm which would distance the club somewhat from Maktoum's own pockets. Maybe (definitely ?) it's paranoia on my part but I've problems with the idea of the club being 'state owned' (as it effectively would have been - regardless of the state - wasn't too long ago we were all against the club being owned or part owned by the Thai gov[1] when sketcy details of that deal were first being bounced about in the media) and also the whole investment company out to get the highest return they could from it. That 7 year plan document certainly didn't help those concerns..

1. There were various stories about the deal being financed by the Thai gov, by Shinawatra directly, some crap about a lottery and various other rumours I can't remember

RE*AC*TOR

I was never too comfortable about the DIC deal. I don't see why everyone assumed they were in it for the benfefit of the club. Then again, I'm not sure about Gillet either.

In all these cases its a step into the unknown, but one that has to be made in the name of progress. A lot has been said about Moores lately, I think he's been a great owner/chairman. In an ideal world he would simply have deeper pockets and we would carry on as before.

redspider

Stky10 wrote:

Nobody outside the board members knows the exact terms of any bid and the reasoning behind the change. However, none of these commitments are legally binding and enforceable post takeover. And the history of Gillett/Hicks and the teams that they own doesn't makes me think they'd invest in the club to the same extent that DIC would as they have shown they can in horse racing. Thats why I'm uneasy. The addition of Hicks to the deal makes me no more confident.

That is an important point and I agree fully with it. None of the 'promises' made by either bid are legally enforceable. So Moores can only go on the word of the purchasers. DIC may 'commit' to putting in XYZ but once the club is sold and 100% in their ownership they can do with it what they like. The same goes for Gillet & Hicks.

And I agree with you that the track record of both parties (Dubai IC v Gillet) would come down on Dubai's favour. Hicks helps Gillet's pedigree somewhat when added. But overall, with new ownership, who is to say what will happen with the club in the future? Either party could mis-manage it or manage it brilliantly, no mater what their past records have been.

Another angle, why is Moores selling out? Surely if there was a viable business plan that needed investment to get to the new ground, that banks would be willing to stump the funds, expecially if it involved property, or a group of Private Equity Investors, such as the Maddison Dearborns (sp?) and equivalents? Moores could then pass it what he owns to his heirs, and know that the club is in good hands. Why sell if that future path is a viable business path?

Another thing, Moores owns 51% I understand, but what about the other shareholders? Is the other main shareholder Morgan in a position to be forced to accept whatever deal has been agreed by the others? I forget the ownership structure and shareholdings, anybody have it to hand? I think Morgan is around the 20% marl but that could be wrong and I understood that the other remaining shareholders are in with Moores rather than Morgan.

Overall, the disagreements between Moores and Morgan over the years has been holding Liverpool back somewhat and the new ground is the key issue to advancement (increased revenues) of the club/business.

My understanding is that Arsenal borrowed for their ground, so why cant Liverpool? Maybe property values in that area arent as lucrative as in London and that is understandable.

Treasury Holdings to the rescue, or are they all Man Utd fans ????

Redspider

PHB

A couple of things I don't understand about this whole takeover issue.

First off, Moores has pumped loads of money into the club for transfer, as much as United have spent in the last 4-5 years. Is a new owner realistically going to invest any more than that?

Second, the stadium issue. Why can't Liverpool do exactly what Arsenal did under the current ownership? Why do they need a new person to come in, put the club in depth, and build the stadium.

zing

PHB wrote:

Second, the stadium issue. Why can't Liverpool do exactly what Arsenal did under the current ownership? Why do they need a new person to come in, put the club in depth, and build the stadium.

Initially it looked like the club were looking for someone to both buy a relatively small stake in the club and also pump money into it towards building a new stadium. But who'd be willing to a) buy a small chunk of the club and then throw more money at it toward helping fund the stadium ? The're no real return in that..

I think they realised fairly quickly that wouldn't happen the way they wanted it and the only option was a complete takeover in order to get someone to also fund the stadium.

But you're right - they themselves could presumably borrow the money as Arsenal have done and fund the stadium that way. Yes it would saddle the club with debts but then so will the new owners of the club. One can only assume one of two things here:
o. They didn't have much luck with the various banks
o. DM wants out (which I don't think is the case) - or at least wants the pressure off his back (a lote more likely) e.g. DIC supposedly offering him the president of the club for life gig would have taken the pressure off him but left him 'involved' even if just in a token capacity.

I understand they do have a backup plan to fund the stadium through borrowing themselves but fear it's too late to go down that road at this stage (given the deadlines for the grant money they've gotten).

The likes of selling the naming rights would have helped big time there but that's such an emotive issue for some - personally the new stadium will never be 'Anfield' to me so it doesn't really matter what it's called.

I think part of DM's problem is that's he a fan and is just as emotional about the likes of ground sharing, naming rights, etc.. As a businessman maybe he needs to distance himself from such things and make decisions purely from a business pov (e.g. renting the ground to everton would go a huge way towards clearing the debts from the stadium - even if just for 10 years or so)

HashSlinging

Think the deal will be ok, Sky sports done a section on hicks and he's not afraid to buy players.

Stky10

zing wrote:

DIC have invested in horse racing ? Not that I can see. Sure Maktoum and his family have but not through investment arms like DIC from what I can see (I could be wrong here).

No technically you're probably right. Money spent on horse racing probably comes through Sheikh Mohammed personally rather than through DIC. The fund is though at the ultimate control of him though rather than the Chief Executive and supposed Liverpool fan Sameer Al Ansari

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/tm_headline=exclusive%2D-furious-sheikhs%2D-kop-has-no-honour%26method=full%26objectid=18564228%26siteid=94762-name_page.html

zing wrote:

That's part of what made me uneasy - the whole thing was being done through an investment arm which would distance the club somewhat from Maktoum's own pockets. Maybe (definitely ?) it's paranoia on my part but I've problems with the idea of the club being 'state owned' (as it effectively would have been - regardless of the state - wasn't too long ago we were all against the club being owned or part owned by the Thai gov[1] when sketcy details of that deal were first being bounced about in the media) and also the whole investment company out to get the highest return they could from it. That 7 year plan document certainly didn't help those concerns..

1. There were various stories about the deal being financed by the Thai gov, by Shinawatra directly, some crap about a lottery and various other rumours I can't remember

Well personally I don't have a problem with being under the control of DIC. Its a personal issue I suppose and as redspider says either side could mismanage it to an equal extent. Its just a matter of where you confidence lies, and I'm not all that confident in a businessman who 15 years ago was bankrupt with debts of 1 billion, and who says his weakness is trying to expand too quickly.

Shinawatra though was a disaster waiting to happen. And so its proved since.

el rabitos

anyone buying into the club will know how much money liverpool need yearly on transfers alone to compete in europe and the premiership. hopefully both of these investers have a good grasp on "soccer" and what it requires to be succesfull.

the 1 major requirement is the new stadium, right now pool are losing money hand over fist to man utd and arsenal on match day revenue. it has to stop, and soon.

and a 60,000 seater stadium is not big enough imo, i'd rather the plans for the stadium were revised, at least 75,000 seats and the stands closer to the pitch than in the pictures of the current stadium plans i've seen.

Stky10

PHB wrote:

First off, Moores has pumped loads of money into the club for transfer, as much as United have spent in the last 4-5 years. Is a new owner realistically going to invest any more than that?

The problem is that whereas ManU can afford to spend the likes of 30m on Ferdinand, Veron and Rooney and 20m on VanNistelrooy, Carrick and potentially Hargreaves, Liverpool can't afford to do that, which led to the farce of not being able to afford the potentially brilliant Daniel Alves over a comparatively small sum, and so were forced to spend nearly as much on Pennant instead who has nowhere near the same level of class. That has happened on a couple of occasions, and its whats holding them back. Buying quantity not quality.

PHB wrote:

Second, the stadium issue. Why can't Liverpool do exactly what Arsenal did under the current ownership? Why do they need a new person to come in, put the club in depth, and build the stadium.

Well they could have, but Moores was probably uneasy with adding another 200m to the existing debt of 80m when he had no personal means of underwriting it. The idea of being that deep in debt though is unsettling. This way he gets a large payout as well.

zing

17 year old Paraguayan Ronald Huth.
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N154871070202-1037.htm
Presumably one for the reserves to assess his progress.

Stky10

el rabitos wrote:

and a 60,000 seater stadium is not big enough imo, i'd rather the plans for the stadium were revised, at least 75,000 seats and the stands closer to the pitch than in the pictures of the current stadium plans i've seen.

Yeah thats struck me as strange as well. The main reason in going to the huge expense of moving is for extra capacity, but 60,000 capacity isn't going to generate that much more than the present 45,000 capacity (well obviously 25% more). And I can't believe that the building costs of a 75,000 stadium is extravagant compared to a 60,000 stadium. I'd go to 75,000 if possible, reduce the cost of season tickets to make it more accessible, make the stands closer to the pitch, and the improvement in atmosphere should be pretty dramatic, which should help the performance of the team.

The only problem with it though is planning permission, making a revised plan would probably mean a huge delay, and so wouldn't be viable. Maybe the present design would allow further easy expansion?.

zing

Stky10 wrote:

Maybe the present design would allow further easy expansion?.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. In fact I'm pretty sure it would be very difficult to expand it which is one of the reaons why I don't understand going with that particular design.

Then again I'd also favour rotating Anfield's pitch through 90 degrees and expanding on the current site (which is possible but means much disruption to match revenue over quite a long period).

I think the limit of 60,000 was on purpose for planning (both in terms of easing fears for locals and also for public infrastructure, etc..) so unless they've got a card somwhere up their sleeve to sneak in a few more seats ?

zing

Bascombe: "The deal is virtually signed and sealed."
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/tm_headline=24-hours-that-changed-liverpool-fc-forever%26method=full%26objectid=18565288%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

So that's that then... Oh no wait .. we were here a few days ago too weren't we

Stky10

zing wrote:

I think the limit of 60,000 was on purpose for planning (both in terms of easing fears for locals and also for public infrastructure, etc..) so unless they've got a card somwhere up their sleeve to sneak in a few more seats ?

Well if the planning permission doesn't explicitly state that they're only allowed a maximum capacity of 60,000, it might be possible to do something with reducing the width of each seat and the distance between each seat and each row, or even do a Barcelona on it and have the pitch below ground level.

All that though would mean altering the number of toilet facilities, the width and number of emergency escape routes etc and it sounds messy (I'm not an architect though)

With Everton currently planning to move outside the city boundaries, the need for restrictions due to lack of infrastructure might be reduced. Either way, the clubs legal & PR team have shown themselves to be pretty capable in getting the Mascherano deal through FIFA and getting them back into the Champions League last year.

mike65

So then, the Everton game...!

Mike.

~Rebel~

<edit> retardedness went here<edit> I put in a team with 12 players.. was wondering why it looked so good...


On the Takeover deal I am a lot more confident with Hicks involved to be honest. The fact that hes well known to pump money into his teams is reassuring. People are saying their teams arent masssively successful, how were they placed just before the 2 guys arrived respectively? For example, Villa were a top team in the past so would Lerner be called a failure if they dont win the prem in the next, say, 5 to 10 years? cause i couldnt see it happening, yet they'll still probably be much better of then they were under Doug.

mike65

Aurelio is out, so its either 3 at the back and Riise on wing or Gonzo in a blood and thunder derby or Zenden. Hmmmmmm.

Mike.

Stky10

mike65 wrote:

or Gonzo in a blood and thunder derby

The only way he'll learn is through exposure. Throw him in I say

Guy:Incognito

Call_me_al wrote:

Considering his family is worth £1.16 bn, why would he send a club he loves down the drain for a measly £8m. It makes no sense...

This is what always intriged (sp?) me theres no shortage of money around Moores yet there was never really the big spending of others , plus the big hold up of the stadium etc. I would have thought with that kind of wealth behind them they would have been up there with the top owners, yet for a long time we've seemed like poor relations.

Chucky the tree

PHB wrote:

Second, the stadium issue. Why can't Liverpool do exactly what Arsenal did under the current ownership? Why do they need a new person to come in, put the club in depth, and build the stadium.

I think Arsenal made alot of money from selling off the land which highbury was on. Anfield wouldnt gain as much money from being sold on.

zing wrote:

Then again I'd also favour rotating Anfield's pitch through 90 degrees and expanding on the current site (which is possible but means much disruption to match revenue over quite a long period).

They wont be given permission to expand on anfield anymore.

zing

Stekelly wrote:

This is what always intriged (sp?) me theres no shortage of money around Moores yet there was never really the big spending of others , plus the big hold up of the stadium etc. I would have thought with that kind of wealth behind them they would have been up there with the top owners, yet for a long time we've seemed like poor relations.

The big difference is that while DM may be the controlling shareholder he doesn't single handedly own the club so why should he single handedly fund the club ?

It's said that a lot of his own Wealth is tied up in the club. Sure his siblings, etc.. might not be short of a few quid but that's not his money. And I believe Red/Blue loyaltys are as divided in that family as they are around the rest of Merseyside.

AIUI he pumped money in initially when he took his controling stake in the club but has since tried to run it as a business on it's own two feet. Whether that was by choice or necessity on his part I don't know but imo it was the right thing to do.

Thrill

This is the DIC version of what happened....

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/tm_headline=you-must-be-mad%2D-says-dic%26method=full%26objectid=18565289%26page=1%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

PHB

I'm open to correction here, but hasn't Moore spent just as much as United over the last couple of years? It's not like the Moores havn't pumped significant money into the club.

gary the great

Im devasted after watching that match, we should of got a goal.

If we had of got 1 goal, I reckon we would of destroyed them.

Title chance is definetly gone now, the slim hope I was hanging onto has disappered.

therecklessone

Very Mourinho-like comments from Rafa after the game, sad to see.

"After a game when a team comes to Anfield and plays a top side like that, looking for a draw, what else can you call them?" he said.

"Playing against a small team it is not always easy when they have nine men behind the ball. One team wanted to win while one team came not to lose."

Lifted from Football365 but reported on SSN.

Guy:Incognito

I wouldnt mind but there was plenty of chances to score. Bellamy and Crouch are just useless. Never like to seemanagers make comments like above, I thought Rafa was above all that rubbish but maybe not. He needs to start seeing that poblems are with substandard players in the team. Bellamy, Crouch, Pennant. You can generally carry one or maybe two (at the very outside) players that do a lot worng but come up with the goods every now and then. We have too many.

Crouch is generally good for the 2nd goal in a game thats going fairly smoothly. Kuyt's looking good but we need a striker now that scores in these games that need to be pulled out of the bag.

All crouch and Bellamy semmed to do was foul defenders and lose the ball.Might be a tad harse but this was a must win game that we had more than enough chances to win.

mike65

Not all bad news, Arsenal only drew.

Mike.

copacetic

therecklessone wrote:

Very Mourinho-like comments from Rafa after the game, sad to see.



Lifted from Football365 but reported on SSN.

i don't know about that, Jose would have said a lot worse. The possesion stats were ridiculous. I couldn't believe how much everton played for the draw, as Rafa said they played like a small team. It wasn't like a derby at all they just sat back and hoped to hang on, which is fine. The chairman complaining when it is pointed out that's what you did is a bit rich..

redspider

Liverpool 0 - 0 Everton ( Hic! )

Well, I have been saying that both Liverpool and Arsenal will likely have more hiccups before then end of the season than Man Utd and Chelsea, and so it has come to pass. Two hic's yesterday, and no more so than Liverpool's tepid draw against Everton.

I didnt see the game and I wasnt even bothered to watch the highlights on RTE's Premiership or BBC's MOTD or any other snippets of highlights, as I had heard enough from the radio coverage, although you cant always go by that I admit.

It would seem to me to have been a tepid draw, with Liverpool huffing and puffing and attempting many half-chances, 26 attempts in all, with Everton relying on defence and break, attempting a mere 6.

So, it was far fom a 50-50 game, but Liverpool need to adapt and break through teams that defend like this. The formation was 4-4-2 but with Kuyt out wide left.

---

Reina

---

Finnan - Carragher - Agger - Riise
Pennant - Alonso - Gerrard - Kuyt
---- Bellamy --- Crouch

---

Dare I say that this was a bit of tinkering didnt pay off that well, as Kuyt is better playing in the middle 'third' of the pitch, not out wide per se. Overall, Liverpool just seemed short of ideas.

All would have been well if Stevie G would have been able to produce a brilliant 20 yard stunner goal, but he wasnt.

Liverpool drop 2 pts ..... hic. At least the good news was that Arsenal also drew.

gary_the_great wrote:

Title chance is definetly gone now, the slim hope I was hanging onto has disappered.

I haven't had a any hopes of a title chance for quite some time now. The chance of getting 2nd is more difficult, but not gone. The chance of getting 3rd is slightly more secure, slightly. A top-4 finish is looking comfortable barring an implosion.

All eyes down for the Barca matches ....

Redspider

Daemonic

Watching yesterdays match i had the feeling the Liverpool players had bought into the hype surrounding derby matches. All it need was someone to slow the play a little and use some guile rather than trying to batter their way through Everton, but everyone seemed rushed even in their own half of the field. For a more or less full strength Liverpool team it seemed depressingly lacking in quality.

Malice

therecklessone wrote:

Very Mourinho-like comments from Rafa after the game, sad to see.

In fairness to Rafa, he's right. Everton came with a defensive mindset, playing for a point at best. I had to laugh at Kenwright on Sky Sport's News saying that Rafa's in a minority of one if he thinks Everton are a small club. If they are so big, why don't they play like other "big" teams like Spurs, Reading or Villa when they come to Anfield? They set their stall out for a "must not lose" and got it.