Liverpool FC Forum

[aCe']

So, let's see if I get this.

If Rafa gives a contract to kuyt of 4 years now, because it's obvious he trusts him, besides being told that's a bad decission, what would happen if another manager came?

Yes, you're right, the new manager would have a player with a 4 year contract and he may not like the player. And the same guys that are in disbelief now would complain about Rafa's deadwood to explain why the new manager is 15 points away of Manchester. Oh yes, I can foresee answers too.

Now, anyone who wants to notice this is an article from Bascombe, I don't know him well, but people who go to the stadium say he's a cúnt. In articles, you select a few quotes, you make introductions to those quotes, and normally you want to imply an idea. Often the journos get away with it.

But if you analyse the facts, those are clear for anyone who wants to see them. Rafa obviously rates Kuyt, as people has said a lot of times they have oral sex together . Rafa probably has a long talk with a player he rates, and tells him perhaps the best thing is to wait.

The player, doesn't go mad about that, and he's ready to play under the manager that has trusted him, and without him.

So excuse me, but this is the best for the club. If Rafa continues, he'll give Kuyt another contract. If Rafa doesn't continue the new manager will decide. We're not talking here about Gerrard's contract are we.

In a nutshell I'd love that someone explained me how it's a good idea to give Kuyt a long contract if we don't know Rafa will stay or what the new manager thinks of Kuyt. If the player is ready to stay no matter what, then this situation is ideal for the club's interest.

I don't know eh? Perhaps we'd be better off if Mou came, and we had to pay a lot of money to Kuyt for breaking his contract because Mou doesn't want him. In order to help our debt a bit more. More incredible things have been defended in newkit.

Sabre mate, ur the one trying to defend the undefendable as far as im concerned... i see your point but i clearly dont agree with it..

if a new manager comes in annd he doesnt want Kuyt..put simply... wouldnt it be better for Liverpool if Kuyt was on a 4year contract and thus wouldnt have to be sold for peanuts because not only would we be wanting to sell the player, we'd also be risking him going about for *nothing ?!

surely we'r not talking about a small bit player who wouldnt be wanted by good clubs around the continent because maybe then i'd understand where ur coming from and all..

[Sabre]

Of course you can disagree me.

Now tell me. Do you see danger of Kuyt leaving ace?

Hasn't he explained publicly he wants to stay at the club no matter the manager we have?

Would be a problem to have a contract of Kuyt with 4 or 3 years more for a new manager if he didn't like him?

Have you noticed Kuyt very dissapointed with Rafa? (I just read the quotes, not Bascombe)

Cisse anyone?

So, sorry, but I think since we don't have the danger of losing Kuyt, it's in the club's best interest that he's not given a new contract until we know who's going to be the manager next year.

About your question

if a new manager comes in annd he doesnt want Kuyt..put simply... wouldnt it be better for Liverpool if Kuyt was on a 4year contract and thus wouldnt have to be sold for peanuts because not only would we be wanting to sell the player, we'd also be risking him going about for cheap ?!

Erm. I don't get this honestly.

If a new manager comes, and he doesn't want Kuyt, it's better he has less of a contract.

On the cheap? Who has the money here. Manchester and Chelsea. Do you see them paying a lot for Kuyt? I don't. I don't see them signing Kuyt neither. Kuyt is not Barcelona or Madrid material neither. So if a new manager comes and we have to sell Kuyt expensive, and find a club able to match the wages Kuyt is getting at Liverpool, we'd have a problem. I think.

Not sure if I got you on this one, it's obvious that if a contract is running up and you have to sell it must be on the cheap. But I don't agree it's best to have a long contract of kuyt if we have a new manager.

I'd think so in the case of Mascherano, Alonso, or Gerrard, or Reina. Not in Kuyt's case.

Sorry for defending the undefendable, but it's my opinion :-)

[aCe']

Of course you can disagree me.

Now tell me. Do you see danger of Kuyt leaving ace?

Hasn't he explained publicly he wants to stay at the club no matter the manager we have?

Would be a problem to have a contract of Kuyt with 4 or 3 years more for a new manager if he didn't like him?

Have you noticed Kuyt very dissapointed with Rafa? (I just read the quotes, not Bascombe)

Cisse anyone?

So, sorry, but I think since we don't have the danger of losing Kuyt, it's in the club's best interest that he's not given a new contract until we know who's going to be the manager next year.

About your question

if a new manager comes in annd he doesnt want Kuyt..put simply... wouldnt it be better for Liverpool if Kuyt was on a 4year contract and thus wouldnt have to be sold for peanuts because not only would we be wanting to sell the player, we'd also be risking him going about for cheap ?!

Erm. I don't get this honestly.

If a new manager comes, and he doesn't want Kuyt, it's better he has less of a contract.

On the cheap? Who has the money here. Manchester and Chelsea. Do you see them paying a lot for Kuyt? I don't. I don't see them signing Kuyt neither. Kuyt is not Barcelona or Madrid material neither. So if a new manager comes and we have to sell Kuyt expensive, and find a club able to match the wages Kuyt is getting at Liverpool, we'd have a problem. I think.

Not sure if I got you on this one, it's obvious that if a contract is running up and you have to sell it must be on the cheap. But I don't agree it's best to have a long contract of kuyt if we have a new manager.

I'd think so in the case of Mascherano, Alonso, or Gerrard, or Reina. Not in Kuyt's case.

Sorry for defending the undefendable, but it's my opinion :-)

funny i'd be the one saying this with all the Kuyt bashing iv done over the years but im sure plenty of clubs would love to have Kuyt in their starting 11... maybe not the 4 clubs u mention up there but surely the like of atletico,Juventus, Roma, hamburg, bayern, maybe mancity, etc etc would love to have a player of his quality ( ) and experience in their sides.... he'd go for anywhere between 5-15mill as far as im concerned and im pretty sure many clubs besides the 4 you have up there would be willing and able to make bids..

with a 4year contract if he's not wanted i can see him going for such money...surely if hes not wanted i wouldnt think he'd sit on his and prefer to let his 4year contract run down just to collect his wages.. surely many other clubs (see above) would again be willing to offer similar wages...

the scenario you give... rafa leaves, kuyt has 1 year..hes not wanted.... what happens then... he leaves for a few mill... i dont see the good in that !!!

[Ciggy]

Trouble ahead: Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry and former chairman David Moores, now the club's life president, would have had no idea how much in-fighting there was to be at Anfield when they agreed the handover to the Americans Photo: GETTY IMAGES

In the immediate aftermath of that remarkable night, the club's captain and heartbeat, Steven Gerrard, declared he would reject Chelsea's overtures but Parry prevaricated over a new deal. Benítez came within a whisker of losing the man central to his plans to make Liverpool great again.

Interference from those above him is a subject close to the Spaniard's heart. His clashes with Jesus Garcia Pitarch, the sporting director he could not work with at Valencia, have made him suspicious of the efficacy of those above him, of their intentions and agendas.

From the moment Parry almost lost Gerrard, Benítez was on alert, waiting, watching. By the end of the summer of 2005, Parry's failure to agree a payment schedule with Benfica over the £10 million transfer of Simao Sabrosa had cost Benítez his main transfer target with the player's medical completed. The manager was furious. A year later, Parry could not seal an £8 million deal to sign Daniel Alves, the Sevilla full-back.

Benítez knew Liverpool were not cash-rich when he joined from Valencia but, in the days before the club's current custodians arrived with pockets full of credit notes, it was less Liverpool's financial power than Parry's inability to close a deal which concerned the Spaniard.

The manager who complained at the Mestalla that Garcia Pitarch bought him a lamp when he asked for a table found himself at a club where they knew what furniture to buy but could not remember their pin number.

When Parry and Moores, in return for a substantial bonus payment and guarantees over their own futures, sold the club to Tom Hicks and George Gillett in February 2007, money was not supposed to be an issue. That, of course, proved to be a false dawn. After that year's Champions League final, Benítez complained the club had to back him in the transfer market if they were to remain at the top of the European game.

Hicks and Gillett responded, signing Fernando Torres and Ryan Babel for a combined fee of up to £40 million, but it did not take long for the cracks to appear. In November that year, Benítez, furious the club's owners would not give him a concrete response to his detailed plans for the forthcoming January transfer window, revealed in a stormy press conference he had been told to concentrate solely on coaching his current squad.

Behind the scenes, the club was in chaos. Benítez had threatened to leave for one of his long-time Italian suitors, including Inter Milan, if he was not given the requisite funds. In the tumult, Parry helped set up a meeting at Jurgen Klinsmann's California home, which he, Hicks and Gillett attended.

The German was offered Benítez's job should the Spaniard quit. When details of the meeting became public the following April – contradicting Parry's earlier statement that he had known nothing of it – Benítez knew the situation could not continue.

Sources inside Anfield suggest it was at that stage that the manager's relationship with Parry broke down irretrievably. That led to a clear division within the fractured power structure at the club. Hicks and Benítez became allies as the Texan, himself unimpressed by Parry's commercial performance, tried to oust the chief executive, who was saved only by Gillett.

By the time of last summer's Gareth Barry debacle, yet another transfer failure from Parry, the die was almost cast. Hicks spoke in April of Parry as a "disaster" for allowing Liverpool's famous name to fall behind Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea in terms of sponsorship, merchandising and brand value.

Parry, believing the club could be sold in the summer, clung on, believing he could survive as both Hicks and Gillett fell. As Benítez's contract negotiations started last year, it became obvious Hicks was going nowhere, actively seeking new investment to replace Gillett. The reality that Gillett would leave the club, leaving Parry a sitting duck, slowly dawned.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/liverpool/4885080/How-Rick-Parry-walked-alone-after-relationship-with-Rafael-Benítez-fell-apart.html]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport....rt.html[/url]

[Gerrard30391]

Is Rafa following? I wouldn't mind

[Effes]

In the immediate aftermath of that remarkable night, the club's captain and heartbeat, Steven Gerrard, declared he would reject Chelsea's overtures but Parry prevaricated over a new deal. Benítez came within a whisker of losing the man central to his plans to make Liverpool great again.

At the time, I did wonder whether Rafa quite fancied cashing in on Gerrard. Not saying I was correct, but I did think it.

[The_Rock]

In the immediate aftermath of that remarkable night, the club's captain and heartbeat, Steven Gerrard, declared he would reject Chelsea's overtures but Parry prevaricated over a new deal. Benítez came within a whisker of losing the man central to his plans to make Liverpool great again.

At the time, I did wonder whether Rafa quite fancied cashing in on Gerrard. Not saying I was correct, but I did think it.

Actually if you think back..... yeah, he might have fancied cashing in on gerrard. But like always Parry makes an awesome scapegoat....pretty much like Kuyt. 

[bigmick]

We'll never know, but my impression at the time was that the manager consiered the possibility of cashing on on Gerrard too. Mind you, so did I so I can hardly slag him off for that What a fecking numpty I was still can't believe I advocated that. Makes Robert Earnshaw look like an inspired choice.

[Ciggy]

Depressingly spot on.

Liverpool Will Never Embrace Future with One Foot in Past
Oliver Kay -The Times 02/03/2009

Life at Anfield was quiet. A few people might mill around during the week, trying to spot a star or snatch an autograph, but it was only on match days that any real crowd gathered. Go to Old Trafford any day of the week and you will see . . . crowds gathering, buying tickets, drifting around the souvenir shop, queuing for the museum or simply gawping at the stadium. Old Trafford is supermarket football.”

The above paragraph could easily have been written last week, but in fact it was written 15 years ago in Stephen F. Kelly’s biography of Graeme Souness. Kelly went on to portray Manchester United as a corporate monster and Liverpool as a cosy corner shop, but he suggested that things were changing, that the Merseyside club were evolving into “a multimillion-pound business staffed by well-paid executives in Marks & Spencer suits and where success is imperative on and off the field”. How did that go, then?

In one sense it sounds like a bygone age and in another it feels as if nothing has changed. As United close in on Liverpool’s proud record of 18 league titles — it was 18-7 when the Premier League was launched in 1992 — the instinct among the Merseyside club’s supporters may be to bemoan the disharmony in the boardroom, Rafael Benítez’s contract saga, injuries to Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard or even just to blame Lucas Leiva, but the reality is that Liverpool are just about punching their weight on the pitch while falling dramatically short in all other departments.

On the pitch, Liverpool have a team capable of beating Real Madrid away from home in the Champions League. As a club, though, they are so dogged by infighting and inertia that it is difficult to see what happens next.

Everywhere you look, it is a collision of cultures, the old guard at odds with the new — with Rick Parry, the chief executive, ousted and David Moores, the former chairman, contemplating stepping down from his honorary role as life president — and even the new at odds with the new. Parry’s departure has been portrayed as a move towards unity and, in the view of Tom Hicks, the co-owner, towards dynamism, but, barring a change of ownership or an enormous injection of cash, the underlying problems will remain.

Every home match at Anfield generates about £1.5 million, meaning that their match-day revenue over an average season is likely to be about £37.5 million. United, their stadium full to its 76,000 capacity and their corporate lounges heaving every week, earn more than £3 million every time they play at Old Trafford. Last season their match-day revenue topped £100 million. It is one reason why their accounts for the financial year ending June 30, 2008, will see a turnover in excess of £300 million, the largest recorded by a British club.

Liverpool simply cannot compete with that and, while a lack of dynamism or commercial vision has been a factor in their efforts to break away from the corner-shop mentality, it is not the biggest one. Ultimately it comes down to location, location, location and, whereas Old Trafford always had potential for expansion Anfield, hemmed between rows of Victorian terraces, remains every bit the corner shop.

Much of the blame for that has been laid at Parry’s door, not least by Hicks, who has described the chief executive’s tenure as “disastrous”. As a global brand, Liverpool are woefully underdeveloped — incredibly, they were the last Premier League club to have their own website and did not even have a commercial director until the appointment of Ian Ayre in 2007 — but the shortfall in commercial revenue (£41 million in the 2006-07 campaign, against United’s £56 million) does not begin to reflect match days.

Parry cannot be accused of hiding from that fact. Almost as soon as he had taken office, he identified the need to relocate. But all their efforts over the past decade have been hampered by planning issues, a lack of funding, rising construction costs and now the global economic climate. Moores sold the club to Hicks and George Gillett Jr on the premise that they would provide the money to deliver the new stadium while supplying Benítez with funds to strengthen his squad. Instead they have delivered discord and wrangling, not just with Parry and Benítez but with each other.

It is an utter mess, with Gillett desperate to sell his stake but seemingly intent on being obstructive for as long as he struggles to find a buyer. It is why the feeling persists that Benítez has made Liverpool about as competitive as they can expect to be in the Premier League while somehow making them one of the most feared teams in Europe. That will not prevent the inevitable gnashing of teeth on Merseyside when United draw level with their total of 18 league titles in May. But, for as long as Liverpool remain at such a competitive disadvantage, it cannot be classed as underachievement.

If Parry could turn the clock back to 2007, he would not allow Hicks and Gillett anywhere near the place. If he could turn it back ten years, he might approve a full-scale redevelopment of Anfield. As it is, he will leave the club in May much as he found it and as Moores found it when he took over as chairman in 1991 — in need of investment, in need of direction and, above all, in need of the nineteenth league title that continues not just to elude them, but to pass them by completely.

[Sabre]

Old Trafford is supermarket football.

I agree.

[tubby]

It is a bit disturbing to think that if Rafa is given control of all contracts then the he could force the owners arms at any time to get anything he wants.

[zarababe]

Depressingly spot on.

Anfield, ..... remains every bit the corner shop.

...As a global brand, Liverpool are woefully underdeveloped — incredibly, they were the last Premier League club to have their own website and did not even have a commercial director until the appointment of Ian Ayre in 2007 — but the shortfall in commercial revenue (£41 million in the 2006-07 campaign, against United’s £56 million) does not begin to reflect match days.


...the feeling persists that Benítez has made Liverpool about as competitive as they can expect to be in the Premier League while somehow making them one of the most feared teams in Europe... for as long as Liverpool remain at such a competitive disadvantage, it cannot be classed as underachievement.

absolutely - even the press is now saying it..

[tubby]

Why Liverpool must replace Rafa Benitez with Jose Mourinho in the summer. By Stan Collymore

Saturday February 28 must go down as the day Manchester United effectively retained their Premier League title - without having to kick a ball.

My Call Collymore phone-in was bombarded by Liverpool fans exasperated by the 2-0 defeat at Middlesbrough.

I have the ultimate respect for Anfield manager Rafa Benitez for turning the club into a force in Europe again. But he is absolutely not the man to take them forward next season to challenge Manchester United for a 19th title.

And I think that when chief executive Rick Parry goes this summer, Benitez should follow him through the exit door.

Liverpool's chances of finally landing the title for the first time since 1990 looked good when they won at Chelsea last October. But since Rafa's rant about United boss Sir Alex Ferguson in early January, Liverpool have stuttered badly.

The problem has been a genuine lack of quality as they have spent money on players who wouldn't get into Manchester United's side.

Apart from Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard, there is very little creativity, imagination and guile in Liverpool's team - and they are just too darn negative.

Benitez's tactics may work at Real Madrid in the Champions League, where you can shut up shop and nick a 1-0 win like they did last week, but not in the Premier League where anybody can beat anybody.

Advertisement - article continues below »

The biggest challenge for Liverpool is to create another dynasty to rival the ones set up by Bob Paisley and Bill Shankly.

And I think the only man who can do that is former Chelsea boss Jose Mourinho, whose Inter Milan team now top Serie A. I realise he isn't popular on Merseyside but Mourinho has absolute self-belief and I firmly believe he should be the next Anfield boss.

I would urge Liverpool not to delay and to start putting the feelers out now for the Portu-geezer.

Liverpool have missed on out Nemanja Vidic and Cristiano Ronaldo in the past by not being decisive enough, but this is one decision they should not stall on.

With the political battles at Anfield, luring Mourinho from Milan will not be easy. But I hope there is a big broom to clean up Liverpool this summer and sweep away Parry, Benitez and of course the club's American owners.

I hope any new owners stump up the money required to transform the club and then keep their heads down - unlike the Yanks.

And my first signing would be Mourinho. Players respond to him and he has a proven track record in the Premier League and Europe.

Benitez's track record is in Europe after winning the 2005 Champions League and reaching the 2007 final so it is a no-brainer for me.

[112-1077774096]

well that supermarket football really seems to work judging by the way the mancs are going. don't knock it

[aCe']

well that supermarket football really seems to work judging by the way the mancs are going. don't knock it

yea...holy fck 6 titles theyr going after this season eh ?

3 already secured ( Community Shield, World Club champs, Carling Cup)

3 still there for the taking ( Premier League, Champs league, FA cup)

missed out on the Super cup to Zenit..thank fck for that !


unbelievable really... even more scary is the fact that they seem to be going all out to win every single one of them and quite honestly: who would bet against them ?!