Good luck with that. Talk is cheap though. I once tried collecting as little as 20 bucks from Liverpool fans for Hillsborough. My friends and I were auctioning off our merchandise and some art pieces of LFC to raise funds for the campaign and no one seemed interested at the viewing party we organised. Now if you don't donate to Hillsborough which is way more important than donating to fund the transfer of a player, I have to question ones priorities and commitment.

Mellor was released because he had the mobility of Sami Hyypia, and forwards these days need a bit of pace and agility. He scored a wonder goal against Arsenal but had very little else to boast. Last I remember he ended up at Preston but that fact that I've no idea where he is now suggests it was a good decision to release him when we did. The lad was slowwwww.

I would as well. I already spend way more on booze and a jug of beer for Falcao is well worth the investment!

It was during a viewing party at the now relocated Breakers Bistro and we were playing the mancs. Dude it's 10 bucks and if everyone "loves" the club as they claim, is it really a big deal? I'm not generalising of course. Just saying from my experience then that talk is cheap la. It's easy to say something and commit to something when you don't have to lay anything on the line, in this case it's money. I mean if you can spend 300 bucks on a jersey....

The Hillsborough tribute is held every year so I doubt it's stagnated. One cannot claim to love the club and not be aware of it's importance I'm sorry to say. Players come and go but Hillsborough will forever be etched in the minds of those on Merseyside at least.

Here's a good writeup from the Independent. Some of this has already been discussed yesterday but this article provides greater detail on why we didn't proceed with the Dempsey move. I've cut out a piece of the full article (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/liverpool-reject-owen-as-henry-admits-errors-8102806.html)



In summary, here's why FSG were reluctant to sign Dempsey.

1) Jordan Henderson's refusal to move. Hmm... it says that he was offered as "makeweight". We signed him for close to $20 million and Dempsey was offered to us at $7 million so how much do were we going to value Henderson at for this deal to go through? Doesn't make sense unless we were going to ship him to them on loan.

2) Fulham wanted us to pay a higher price than the others because of the messy summer where even on FSG's website, we claimed he was already joining us. I can understand why Fulham were pissed. What we did is almost akin to tapping up a player. I don't think either party was wrong here. We refused on principal and they wanted more because of what we did.

3) Buying prudently. To be honest I don't think that refusing to sign a player who had just scored 23 goals for a paltry sum despite his age (not even 30 btw) was being prudent. I think it had more to do with reason 2).

As to why we loaned Carroll out? Well it had to do with our cash flow I feel. With FFP taking effect, we cannot afford expensive passengers.

Try as I may I just can't see any merit in re-signing Owen even on a pay as you play basis. There is no long or even short term benefit that I can think off as I feel he's past it. Based on my belief that he won't be scoring for fun, I'd much rather place my faith in Morgan and give him more exposure. FSG have already said that they will be patient in the transfer market, and are building for the future even if it means taking two steps back now, and finishing mid-table. I've been supportive of this since they first bought as and told us they were here for the long term and will be patient in restoring us to our glorious past.

It certainly seems plausible based on Rodgers decision to send Carroll away on loan, and reports suggesting that there is some kind of rift. Rodgers was FSG's pick and they seemed to have backed him from the beginning, that is up until the final day of the transfer window. In terms of managing our wage bill, I imagine that Carroll commands a much higher salary than Dempsey who unless I'm wrong is earning somewhere between $35,000 - $40,000 pounds per week.

Not as clear cut, that much I agree. Why would FSG put us in a situation that will jeopardise our chances of finishing fourth, missing out on a windfall, all for principle?

Dalglish's side suffered from the same ailments we have now, an inability to put the ball in the back of the net. We outplayed our opponents 75% of the time, dominating possession and having the most number of shots on goal. We also contrived to hit the post more times than anyone has in a season. His signings may have been questionable but often, we played some pretty decent footy. Rodgers has since come in and looks to be suffering from the same problem - that we simply cannot score. Not much has changed yet but just 3 games into the season, it's too soon to judge so come what may.

My point is that Kenny wasn't doing as bad as some suggest. Of course if a person doesn't watch our games, only highlights, then their opinion would differ.

Whether it was Comolli's decision or his, the bottom line is we paid a lot for players who weren't up to mark. I don't think anyone has denied that mistakes were made in this department. My opinion on the matter however is that I saw enough positives to give Kenny a chance to right the wrong. Yes, I stand strongly by my belief and understanding of the game that we were playing good football, the pass and move of old. We just weren't clinical and there was a fine line between success and failure. If we had converted half the chances that came back off the post, we could potentially have finished in or thereabouts the top four. We certainly weren't playing the crappy, negative football we had been under Hodgson.

I never quite understood Hodgson's appointment despite him taking Fulham to the Europa Cup final. His away record was appalling and he never showed the steely mentality required by a big club manager. Although Rodgers is way younger, you can feel charisma oozing from him and after reading his interviews, you get a sense that he is determined to do it his way and he displays no fear. He almost sent Raheem Sterling home from our tour in the US after the young lad continuously interrupted his debriefing (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2194616/Liverpools-Raheem-Sterling-barracked-Brendan-Rodgers.html). Whether he'll still be here come end of the season or not, I can at least respect Rodgers for the man that he is.

Hodgson's biggest contribution was Raul Mereiles who was quite easily our player of the season before we sold him.

In terms of FSG sanctioning Kenny's buys, I'm sure you're right, however FSG had very little understanding of the game and the transfer market at the time, hence why they appointed Comolli as Director of Football to advise them on such matters. His appointment in itself was a surprise given his spell at Spurs but axing him clearly showed that whilst Kenny may have suggested which players to buy, Comolli had the final word. Both of them made a mistake but the person who had the last say bit the bullet in the end.

What I find dodgy about Kenny's sacking is this. In his letter, John Henry reiterated that they are looking long term and that it will take some years to re-establish us as a force. This came in light of our inability to sign a striker after the close of the transfer window, and our recent run of poor results. He even suggested that we may have to move backwards to move forward. The question then is, if Rodgers is unable to improve on our league position, will he be retained? Henry said the same things about time and planning for the future when Kenny was at the helm and after just one season, he got the sack. This suggests that regardless of what he says, Rodgers will go if he cannot at least match Kenny's last league finish. I for one would like to see him retained even if he doesn't because I think we need some continuity. We aren't cultivating success the same way the likes of Chelsea and City are. John Henry has already said we aren't going to splurge and pay over the market rate. Therefore, we need continuity and consistency and I say whether this season is regarded as a failure or not, we should persist with Rodgers at least until the end of his contract.



Your sequence of events seem about right.



If I understand you correctly, you agree that the team was looking more positive and we played some decent footy, only to be let down by poor players? Thing is if the problem was only the latter, why not just appoint a new Director of Football to oversee signings? I think Kenny was sacked because FSG didn't care if we played good footy or not. In the end it was down to the results. If we lost a game, we lost, regardless of how we lost. It's not my money invested in the club and it's easy for me to say this, but if you ask me, how we lost does matter. The fact that we played well despite losing is a positive.



The reason we aren't signing superstars isn't just down to us not being an attractive destination for them, what with no Champions League football and all.
1) Trimming the wage bill - Signing superstars isn't just about shelling out a huge transfer fee. You have to pay them exuberant wages each week. Ask Yaya Toure how much he's on. He's a superstar an an amazing player but earns the combined amount of 4-5 average first teamers.
2) FFP - The club needs to be profitable and a high wage bill is the main reason clubs like Chelsea and Man City were in the red last season, despite winning trophies.

It is. To make it simple, a club cannot spend more than it earns and clubs like Chelsea and Man City who are in the red, are there mainly because of their high wage bill. This explains why FSG keep harping on this issue and are discarding surplus players on high wages.

It would be foolish to completely ignore FFP because representatives from Deloitte have already said that anyone who doesn't abide will be banned from UEFA sanctioned tournaments. We are doing it ahead of time and big clubs who aren't will struggle to do so in the span of a year.

In terms of buying the league, we have to ask ourselves this question. Do we really want to spend indescriminately, even if it means the club operating at a loss, just to win a trophy? The club means more to me than just that. I'd much rather we take the long route of rebuilding and remain healthy. Man City and Chelsea recorded massive losses despite winning titles. Why has Arsene Wenger been at the helm for so long? Despite a lack of titles in recent years, no doubt due to the emergence of big spenders like Chelsea and subsequently Man City, Arsenal have still managed to compete and stay relatively debt free. The club us in a healthier position than any of their rivals despite not being able to match them in silverware. This is of the utmost priority.

Suffice to say, FSG have trimmed our wage bill and will not pay over the top, whilst at the same time looking at securing sponsorship deals (most recently Garuda), to keep us financially healthy. If we can end the season with a positive cash flow, Rodgers will be given a stay of execution even if we finish 8th again. Dalglish wasn't and one reason is because we ended the season with negative cash flow.

Regarding the Bleacher Report on poor transfers. Whilst I agree we've made a number of dodgy signings, I have to say that so have other clubs, plus we did make some really good signings in the following players:

Mark Wright, Rob Jones, Vegard Haggem, Daniel Agger, Marcus Babbel, Jason McAteer, Sami Hyypia, Stephan Henchoz, Patrik Berger, Xabi Alonso, Dirk Kuyt, Fernando Torres, Dean Saunders, Luis Suarez, Raul Meireles, Jari & Gary Mac (on a free but still a transfer), Didi Hamann, Javier Mascherano, Stan Collymore, Alvaro Arbeloa, Yossi Benayoun, Steve Finnan, Luis Garcia, Pepe Reina, John Arne Riise, Ronny Rosenthal, and Martin Skrtel were decent to very good signings.

It mentions the emergence of Jamie Redknapp and Danny Murphy but it needs to be noted that they are local lads and were acquired from Bournemouth and Crewe respectively.

Maybe if we measures the percentage of success a club has with players by plotting the number of players signed against those who were deemed a success in an X and Y axis.

The problem with Souness was that he sold the likes of Houghton, McMahon, Beardsley and Staunton too early. They were still very good players and I do agree with the report in that the acquisitions of Speedie, Stewart, Clough (although he did score a hat trick against the mancs), Walters, Dicks and Razor Ruddock in particular were mind boggling. Houllier justified his signing of Jean Michel Ferri, who never featured in a single game by saying that he was his spy in the dressing room. The report doesnt mention Bernard Diomede who was a World Cup winner when we signed him.

---

Added on September 6, 2012, 8:40 amWe can't act based on what others are doing. We can only adhere to what the authorities are saying and if there is any truth in their words, FFP will take effect in 2013.

Regardless of big sponsorship deals, the clubs you've mentioned will still have to downsize. How much is a big sponsorship deal worth? 20-20 million a season e.g. Stand Chart. Assuming we had Yaya Toure, half of that would be used to pay his wages not including bonuses. FFP will not single handedly ensure a level playing ground but it is a step in the right direction. The amount of debt floating in the air is bigger than the economies of some developed nations.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Sep 6 2012, 08:43 AM

A good read. Sheds some light in questions I've had on the matter. So it seams that exclusion from tournaments is the harshest punishment a club can face. What about the fine however? A dollar for every dollar above the benchmark sum. Where does all this money go?

What has Man City done commercially? Despite winning the Premiership, I see no efforts made in tapping into the Asian audience. No signing of Asian players for example. Are they even looking at addressing the issue of making themselves commercially that much more profitable? Given last seasons recorded loss, they have a lot to do before the 2013 season.

In the context of his post, I'm assuming he meant Rodgers has relegated them to the bench when he said, "discarded".

Hmm the first thing that would happen is that teams will have to trim their squad sizes or at least rid themselves of expensive stars, and to rely more on their academies. The "Galatico" way of building a squad will be all but a thing of the past. Clubs will have less star players and as such, may shun less lucrative competitions to focus on the big prize. It happened with the League Cup and it's happening with the Europa Cup, which isnt as financially rewarding as it was before when it was known as the UEFA Cup. The World Club Cup would suffer and next in line is the FA Cup.

Whatever it is City will suffer should FFP take full effect. Like you've said, they don't have a fanbase that can rival Even Spurs yet and they haven't had a sustained period of success to date. Finding big sponsors will be a big plus but how many corporations or brands can afford that big a sponsorship amount? After recording a loss of almost £200 million, they would still be in the red even if they secured the big Standard Chartered and Warrior deals we did. This is I. Light of FFP's regulation of benchmarking sponsorship deals.

The one line I saw in the FFP article posted earlier which could be their saving grace, is that consideration will be given to teams who are "moving in the right direction". I'm assuming there is actually a definition for this and it isn't as loose as it sounds. So yeah, if City start looking into promoting themselves by say, setting up academies, fan clubs and merchandise stores around the world, maybe they'll get by.

Aye. I'm no fan of Henderson but he is still young and he was played out of position.

I have mixed feelings about Stewart Downing mainly because I think he's one of our more exciting players when he's on the ball. FairPlay he didn't have any goals or assists last season but like madmoz pointed out, he created 55 chances, all of which we spurned. Downing is pretty good when he's on the ball and I do sometimes feel sorry for him because he has very little to aim at in the box which forces him to come inside and try to work his way past a wall of defenders. Like I said, mixed feelings here.

Carroll I've always defended and my opinion of him has not changed but que sera sera. Moving on.

Having said all that I can understand why they're left out now, with Lucas having returned before getting crocked again, Stevie G a permanent fixture, Jonjo Shelvey showing a lot of promise during pre season, Raheem Sterling putting in impressive performances and finally, the signing of Joe Allen.

I agree with this. The parameters have been set. We aren't going to spend foolishly which by default suggests that we either have to sell to buy, or that we have to play with the hand we've been dealt. If we do sell our lads deemed to be a surplus by Rodgers, we will incur a substantial loss. Hence it looks like we have to make do with the players we have. It makes Rodgers' job that much harder but he should have known what he was getting himself into. Martinez certainly wasn't jumping with joy when we approached him and despite interviewing managers, I didn't see too many clamouring for the opportunity to sit on the Anfield not seat.

---

Added on September 6, 2012, 10:43 amProbably the best deal we could hope for actually. Even at £18 mil, some may say he's still overpriced. The £35 mil price tag is indeed his biggest enemy or he would have been used the way Peter Crouch was, as a different option either as an additional striker when we're behind, or to serve as an outlet to relieve pressure when we're being pegged back.

---

Added on September 6, 2012, 10:54 amIf she was under performing, why is it so hard to replace her? Not hard for example to find someone better than Henderson, even internally e.g, Shelvey.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Sep 6 2012, 10:54 AM

I didn't read the full list of guidelines and I imagine most people haven't but from what Platiniis saying, they've already considered all angles and have prepared as best they can for clubs looking for loopholes. In regards to the example you've just cited about transferring funds, I believe the Barcelona example was cited where they'll use other sponsorship deals as benchmarks. It isn't difficult to tell if a large amount offered by a corporation makes financial sense or not. When it doesn't, it will investigated and only the an amount that's deemed plausible will be taken into account ignoring the rest. They are also working closely with Deloitte on this so a firms credit rating, P&L, etc will be taken into consideration I imagine.

Is FFP full proof? Maybe, maybe not but at least they are trying to do something to curb indescriminately spending which is a whole lot better than doing nothing.

There is a difference. In communism, the wealth or "profit" is divided equally amongst social classes. FFP's intentions isn't to take profit away from clubs, distributing it to the rest. It intends to ensure that clubs are profitable. Look what crazy spending did to Leeds and almost did to us. How is it bad that FFP wants to prevent such things from happening? Which clubs have objected anyway? Big clubs like Man Utd and Bayern Munich are supporting FFP and I've yet to see any club speak out against it. If there are, it would be the likes of City, PSG and maybe Chelsea, a small minority.

You're advocating a free market policy and look what that did to the US during the last financial collapse. People were spending money they did not have an eventually, the financial bubble burst. There needs to be certain measure in place.

Right, a self professed real Liverpool fans who doesn't give a rats ass about Shankly and our past. Hope not all "modern fans" are like your friend

Well if the amount sponsored is comparable with that of other clubs, it hardly matters if the sponsor is affiliated to the club I suppose. FFP isn't about auditing someone or ensuring transparency. That being said there can only be so many sponsors. Official sponsors and kit sponsors want exclusivity. Of course there are small sponsors in the form of official airlines and such but the amounts aren't anywhere near as big as the first two I mentioned. In the end UEFA just want to ensure that sponsorship amounts are within reason, whatever the source.

I don't quite see how though. In my opinion big clubs in the red will first have to curb spending, and consider their wage bill. This is the quickest fix because securing sponsors takes a longer time as clubs need to develop business plans, indicating how the club plans to market itself to the global audience and how their plan to raise their commercial value. Implementation of these plans will take years. We started in 2007 and still were in the red last season. Therefore like I said earlier, clubs will have to downsize, limiting the number if highly paid star players in their squad. This can only benefit sides like Newcastle who were 1 of 9 Premier League teams who made a profit from the 2012 season. Man Utd made a profit as well but I won't use them as an example because they have a massive global fanbase which can offset their huge debt.

So if clubs like Man City need to trim their squad to comply with FFP, I don't see how it isn't fair to smaller clubs?

Good point. I imagine that it will then depend on whether or not the said sponsor has any ties to the club. Also I'm sure that business proposals from both the club and the sponsor will be evaluated to ensure it makes sense. The Standard Chartered deal for example is substantially bigger than Carlsberg but if you consider our global following, and take into consideration the strides the club has made in terms of marketing and commercialising ourselves, it does make sense for a sponsor to invest that kind of money.

The thing about Man Utd is this. They did it the hard way. The didn't inherit billions to throw away on expensive benchwarmers. Their era of domination was built around homegrown talent which also featured a couple of foreign stars like Cantona, Kanchelskis or Peter Schmeichel. The bulk of the squad however consisted of local lads like Beckham, the Nevilles, Scholes, Butt, Giggs, etc. They then capitalised on their success by marketing the club to the world, something Liverpool failed to do during our era of dominance. If they did spend, the mancs spent money they earned, not inherited and even if they did splurge on a player, they did so because they have a healthy bank balance and cash flow.

FFP may seem to favour a club like Man Utd now because they are already at the pinnacle. However it also ensures that new filthy rich owners of clubs do not spend massive amounts of money just for short term gain. Man City may have garnered much more attention than they have before winning the Prem but they haven't earned any profit to reinvest into other areas of the club e.g. Youth development. How can a business entity be allowed to sustain itself on negative profit? In any other business, banks would have stopped loaning money to them as they did with us. We came that close to going into administration, we were days away in fact.

A TV breakaway deal would be unfair to smaller clubs hence why it wasnt passed.

It's a double edged sword like any proposal. It did state that even if clubs operate at a deficit for the year, consideration will be given if they are how they are headed in the right direction e.g. Investing in a new bigger stadium, improved facilities, setting up academies overseas, etc. in the short run, a club like Man Utd may benefit but in the long run, it addressed issues smaller clubs will have to deal with at some point if they want sustainability. A club like Newcastle for example, I see benefitting from this.

I get you. Gone were the days the likes if Blackburn could get promoted and win the title the next season but with business tycoons and conglomerates now seeing football as being a lucrative source of income, you can't tell this which clubs they should buy. Everyone is hoping for some rich dude to come along and invest in them.

English teams seem to be under scrutiny because they spend more than they counterparts. Almost twice as much. FFP also encourages the use of HG talent which is a good thing for England. Spain, Italy and Germany have no such issues.

I second this for the following reasons :-

1) Pepe is well liked off the pitch as much as he is on it. He is the life of the party and gets along well with everyone. Look at his antics while travelling with the Spanish national side.
2) Pepe is vocal and manages his defence well. He's a commanding presence in the box and players respect him.
3) Being a goalkeeper, he gets a good view of the entire pitch and sees everything that happens.

However to me, a captain should be in a position where he can give instructions to players all over the pitch, and would therefore ideally be a midfielder to me. Keepers don't get to communicate with forwards other than when defending corners. Still, I think Pepe is the ideal candidate if not Daniel Agger.

I was about to mention Oliver Kahn but Cloud beat me to it. Hmm other brilliant keepers I can remember who were captains at some point in their careers.

1) Neville Southall
2) Peter Shilton
3) Andoni Zubizeretta
4) Dino Zoff
5) Jose Luis Chilavert
6) Gigi Buffon
7) Peter Schmeichel
8) Jorge Campos

The next Oli Kahn? High praise indeed. A b**** to pronunciate especially for commentators though. Agreed that Pepe hasn't been getting enough competition. Not since we signed Chris Kirkland, and Scott Carson that we had a young keeper pushing a veteran for the no.1 spot.