Cronky

Rooney has lost his mojo. He's normally good at creating something when he receives the ball in confined spaces, but he's just losing it. We're having to rely on crosses from the wings.

The biggest problem is that so many decisions in football are matters of opinion rather than fact. That applies not just to whether a challenge is a foul, but also offsides, whether something is a corner or a goal kick and whether fouls are in the penalty area etc. We'd end up with long delays which leave us none the wiser and still arguing. The use of replays in other sports is confined to issues of fact which are easier to determine - eg whether a batsman was run out, or whether a try was scored. Even then, it's not without its problems. The only exception I'd make is whether the ball has crossed the line for a goal. This argument usually flares up when a ref makes a mistake that is clear cut and obvious. Trouble is, if you then bring in a rule about replays, you'd be spending a lot of time debating decisions which aren't clear cut and obvious.

I'd have thought any new bid that's larger than the existing one will create a problem for the Board. It'll be difficult to argue that the sale price is 'reasonable' if there's an opportunity to sell it for more.

Good nice to see the other clubs will not allow for the rules to be bent over for teams. are they though ? there'll be lots of smallprint as regarding the club as the company,holding companies etc.........why do you think these holding companies are set up, including the holding company that technically owns us ? Taxing Purposes, Also Limited Liability on the Owners (i.e. if liverpool default on the debts then Gillet and Hicks other companies don't go tits up) etc. It's in the Premier League rules, as in the Football League rules that if the holding company goes into admin then the club is in admin. The clubs will enforce this (14 out of 20 votes needed to pass these rules, or create new rules). As with West Ham, I don't think the parent company or club going into admin automatically means a penalty. Providing the debts can be cleared in full by the process of administration (as would be the case with Liverpool), then you're okay. The problem with Leeds and Portsmouth was that the debt was greater than the value of the club. It'll be interesting to see how the Court case goes. I would have thought that the Board were under an obligation to find the maximum price for the club. The fact that the price they've got matches the debt looks a bit dodgy. It's like they've created the deal that is most in the interests of the club and the buyer, rather than the owners. If the wording of the agreement between the Board and the owners says something ambiguous like a 'reasonable' price, then it'll all come down to the views of an individual judge, and where his / her sympathies lie. Wasn't the West Ham case more to do with the holding company holding lots of companies? In Liverpool's case Kop Holdings only holds Liverpool Football Club, so the PL rules would dictate that if Kop Holdings go into Administration so do LFC (for points purposes) There have been confusing messages about this, but I read on the BBC website that if the club remains solvent, then they won't pay a penalty. Given that the club would actually be profitable when the debt is cleared, and the new owners would clear the debt, there doesn't seem any doubt about that. The situation that they're trying to deter is clubs going bust and creditors having to settle for a fraction of what they're owed. The re-constituted club then takes over, having gained an unfair advantage previously over its rivals by over-spending. What H and G will try to do is show that the club is being under-sold, which in reality is probably the case. I doubt whether they'll get a sympathetic hearing though. In America, the club is a franchise, which the owner can transfer to any other city if it suits him. In this country, the club has a much closer tie to a particular city, like some community institution that the owner only holds in trust. If that's how the court sees it, then they'll find against the Americans. I suspect this culture clash is what lay behind that foul-mouthed email that Hicks jnr sent to that fan. He couldn't handle this bloke trying to tell him what he ought to do with his club.

Man City and Chelsea. This strategy of pumping in huge amounts of money from an outside source has been very bad for the game. My third choice was Spurs, out of jealousy. They're in the place that we could have been in, had we built properly on Sir Bob's legacy.

Good nice to see the other clubs will not allow for the rules to be bent over for teams. are they though ? there'll be lots of smallprint as regarding the club as the company,holding companies etc.........why do you think these holding companies are set up, including the holding company that technically owns us ? Taxing Purposes, Also Limited Liability on the Owners (i.e. if liverpool default on the debts then Gillet and Hicks other companies don't go tits up) etc. It's in the Premier League rules, as in the Football League rules that if the holding company goes into admin then the club is in admin. The clubs will enforce this (14 out of 20 votes needed to pass these rules, or create new rules). As with West Ham, I don't think the parent company or club going into admin automatically means a penalty. Providing the debts can be cleared in full by the process of administration (as would be the case with Liverpool), then you're okay. The problem with Leeds and Portsmouth was that the debt was greater than the value of the club. It'll be interesting to see how the Court case goes. I would have thought that the Board were under an obligation to find the maximum price for the club. The fact that the price they've got matches the debt looks a bit dodgy. It's like they've created the deal that is most in the interests of the club and the buyer, rather than the owners. If the wording of the agreement between the Board and the owners says something ambiguous like a 'reasonable' price, then it'll all come down to the views of an individual judge, and where his / her sympathies lie.

They may be a club that will benefit once the new rules kick in and there's more of a level playing field financially. They seem to have a good youth structure, and they give young players a chance at first team level. I think they must also hope that their manager stays. He's been over-achieving with them for quite a while now.

I'd give Ranger a chance with Jonas in that 4-3-2-1 formation that we played against Man City. I don't have much faith in Routledge any more. As for Xisco, you feel there's a better player in there than his performances would indicate. Not great, but better. His brain doesn't seem to function the minute he steps on the pitch.

I guess to me that is the worst part of this episode (well aside from losing him for almost the whole season). With him playing, he was 90% ours, the 25 games clause was to protect Marseille, but it also works in our favour. Given how good he was and the impact he would have had on our team, I could not see Hughton refusing to play him for 25 games just to avoid buying him . But now everything is up in the air and it gives any of a variety of parties the perfect excuse not to go through with the deal. I would not be surprised if we've seen the last of HBA in a black and white shirt hatem is an emotional seen as he was greeted upon arrival in Newcastle and argues that received after the tackle by the Cro-Magnon man do not worry it will be next season he found his club That's how I'd see it. It may well have the effect of bonding Ben Arfa with the club, and the team as a whole bonding closer together. Long-term, some good may come of it. It may well be the opposite case with Man City. Not all their players will be happy at what's happened here.

Our system tends to be very adversarial - ie one side will put the worst possible interpretation on statements and events and the other side will respond in an equally extreme way. Both sides will be talking crap a lot of the time, but that's the game. The court then has to make sense of it. If you try to be a nice guy and move into the middle ground without being forced there, you'll be taken advantage of. That's the reasoning anyway.

I suspect he's been advised against that by lawyers. If Ben Arfa's career is over, he could get sued, with an apology used as evidence. I thought it was the opposite, demonstrable remorse would weigh in his favor (that's how it's reported in Spain at least). Your courts must operate in a different way. Insurance companies over here invariably advise against apologising. The only exceptions would be where your guilt was already clearly established and it might work (slightly) in your favour.

I suspect he's been advised against that by lawyers. If Ben Arfa's career is over, he could get sued, with an apology used as evidence.

i wish he'd just fuck off like Just read that - if I was Hicks & Gillette I'd be on the phone to 'Arry asking him if he wanted to take over from Woy, since he thinks they are doing such a bang up job It's interesting to hear another point of view though. They ought to have bailed out earlier, when the price would have been higher. I don't know if it was just greed, or whether they simply hadn't understood the situation. Now that the club is deep in debt, it's a buyer's market. It sounds that they were stuck in the model that if you 'invest' in the team, that will eventually increase the value of the club and you will then be able to sell at a profit - the normal pattern of 'investment' in other areas of life. When it comes to players, I think the word 'invest' should be banned. You don't invest, you spend. In the current climate, there's no way you can get a financial return from success on the field, because you have to compete with clubs like Chelsea who are being subsidised. That's aside from the difficulty of guaranteeing success from any group of 11 players.

A genuine LOL at that.

My impression is that most American sports fans bring different attitudes. With the draft systems, there's a mechanism whereby some equality between the teams is maintained, and any one club would find it difficult to maintain a long period of success, in the manner of Man U, Bayern or Real Madrid. I'm sure that the American fan wants entertainment and hates failure, but they must also expect to go through good times and bad as a natural part of sport's life cycle. Plus there's no danger of relegation, so there isn't quite the same element of panic. For Liverpool, finishing fifth is failure. Many Arsenal fans think the club has failed because they haven't won anything in five years (OMG). There's a big expectation that the owners will dip their hands in their pockets to keep success going. I daresay it's only a question of degree when making the comparison, but the gratitude that may get showered on the new owners is going to disappear fairly quickly if they don't get back in the Champions League. I do wonder whether they're prepared for that.

I've just watched Broughton on Sky Sports. It all seems to boil down to wording of the terms on which he came in to sell the club. He was given a free hand to process the sale, providing it wasn't for an absurdly low amount that took no account of business realities. It's in the club's interests for the club to be sold for the lowest amount possible ie just enough to cover the debt. That way there's more money for players and building a new stadium. Of course, it's in the owners' interests for the club to be sold for the highest amount possible. So it depends on whether the club is defined as the owners' property or as a kind of longer-term community institution. It's a contradiction at the heart of every football club. If H and G can demonstrate that the club can be sold for more money, then the Board probably is on dodgy ground. However, the Courts will not be sympathetic to the Yanks and I suspect will be looking for ways of finding against them. And incidentally, Broughton was very evasive about the new stadium. Don't be surprised if they're looking at a ground share with Everton.

Ha ha, I thought it might not be simple. Does a buyer exist who is going to take on the club's debt AND build a stadium? I doubt it. I know it's been debated before, but it is complete, utter, total madness that both Liverpool and Everton need new stadiums but will not ground share. There may be protests, but people will soon get used to the idea. I assume that the block until now is that Liverpool have felt that they are the bigger club and that the deal would therefore benefit Everton more than them. It looks like it's time to re-consider that particular idea.

It seems that the crucial difference was that, unlike West Ham, they weren't able to find a buyer who would take on the club's debts. Liverpool appear to be in the same position as West Ham. For now.

I think Aquilani was a crucial mistake. A lot of hope and money was invested in him, and he just wasn't up to it. He's not strong enough or athletic enough for Premiership football. There's always an element of chance with buying players from abroad, but this one ought to have been forseen.

could someone explain the bit in bold for me please ? My understanding of it was this other yank is paying off the debt and taking comtrol of the club, leaving gillette and hicks with no profit. I could be wrong like. I assume that acquisition debt is financing your purchase by using money borrowed against the value of the club you're buying. Effectively mortgaging the club. What they are saying here is that the potential new owners will be funding their purchase from elsewhere.

It's not the fans who are forcing Hicks and Gillett out. It's the banks, who want their money back. I'm not sure how the Board can use the courts to force the sale through without the agreement of the owners. Presumably there's a way, but it may be quite drawn out. I expect the more likely route comes down to the banks' willingness to force the owners out after October 15th, by filing for administration. From recent history, I do wonder whether the Americans realise how difficult it is to run a European football club at a profit. American sports teams are run within a different system.

Referees tend to favour the home team. I don't think there's any more to be read into it. It's more to do with the crowd than the manager. If a player goes down and there's a huge howl from the stands, that's instant pressure.

A lot of this criticism of Hodgson is very retrospective. At the start of the season, he looked the right candidate, given Liverpool's situation. A younger manager could easily have got buried by the pressure around the club, and the egos in the dressing room. On the other hand, there weren't any other older managers who weren't either already in jobs or whose career wasn't in decline. Talking of past-it managers, could there be a worse candidate than Dalglish? Actually, I can think of one, but I won't name him. I didn't expect Liverpool to start so badly, and the factor here is Torres. He has been a crucial player for them, and if he doesn't recover fitness and motivation, they'll continue to look ordinary. I think Everton will win the derby. Comfortably.

They've got a bit of a problem, because players don't join Liverpool to get stuck into a relegation fight. A lot of those lads will be looking at the exit door rather than trying to get them out of their current situation.

Basically, there's only been one game where we've been outplayed, and that was Man U away. We're a newly promoted side, remember, so it was never going to be easy. But we've improved so much over the last year, and are continuing to improve.