Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:24 am

Kharhaz wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:Should the owners choose what is acceptable? yes, unless you want to end up the same way as Leeds Utd.

Where the board were oh so prudent

Liverpool are still in the premiership, Leeds aint, Rafa has been able to spend, whatever anyone says, mascha, torres, babel, if hes capped this season I can understand why, we won sod all last season, if he has to raise funds then so be it. Id rather that than be a chelsea type run club where you can spend what you like and buy success rather than earn it.

Leeds Utd went t!ts up for the reason that the board were a f*cking joke, they gambled the future of the club. The board had final control over the finances of the club - not O'leary. They were to blame as they sanctioned deals on behalf of the manager. This idea that O'leary somehow had unlimited control over their finances, and that we should somehow be looking to avoid that same scenario, is simply mythical.

The point was about who should be taking footballing decisions, the people who sanction the deals, or the bloke employed to manage the footballing side of the club?

Who is best placed to decide which prospective signing offers the greatest footballing value to the squad?

The fellas in America, or the bloke on the training pitch who works day-in-day-out with the squad?

Yes, as owners they have the right to determine where to allocate funds, but this isn't a question of legal right, it's a question relating directly to the principle of managerial sovereignty, and how you want your club run.

by **112-1077774096** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:26 am

zarababe wrote:LFC Statement on official site: http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N160851080809-2245.htm

Liverpool Football Club have today released the following press statement.
Liverpool FC Chief Executive Rick Parry said: "There has been a lot of comment today regarding our position with regards to Gareth Barry.

"This is not about questioning the Manager's judgement or the ability of a particular player. The owners have clearly demonstrated throughout the year they are willing to back Rafa in the transfer market and will continue to do so.

"It is obviously the selling club's prerogative to put whatever price they want on the player, but on this occasion Liverpool think the price quoted is too high."

So are we signing him or not Typical Parry talk - all riddles no straight answers - so we are not buying him then - farce farce face - we've become a laffing stock since these Americanos came

we have been a laughing stock for the past 20 years, but hey any chance to have a dig at the owners.

like parry says they have backed benitez with funds but dont let facts get in the way, just keep slating them for us failing on the pitch (which we were doing before they arrive)

i think EVERYONE on this forum has said barry is overpriced, but now the owners say it and all of a sudden they are the biggest pair of kunts that ever lived

(this is not aimed solely at zarababe, i just quoted for the 'laughing stock part)

by **112-1077774096** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:28 am

LFC2007 wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:Should the owners choose what is acceptable? yes, unless you want to end up the same way as Leeds Utd.

Where the board were oh so prudent

Liverpool are still in the premiership, Leeds aint, Rafa has been able to spend, whatever anyone says, mascha, torres, babel, if hes capped this season I can understand why, we won sod all last season, if he has to raise funds then so be it. Id rather that than be a chelsea type run club where you can spend what you like and buy success rather than earn it.

Leeds Utd went t!ts up for the reason that the board were a f*cking joke, they gambled the future of the club. The board had final control over the finances of the club - not O'leary. They were to blame as they sanctioned deals on behalf of the manager. This idea that O'leary somehow had unlimited control over their finances, and that we should somehow be looking to avoid that same scenario, is simply mythical.

The point was about who should be taking footballing decisions, the people who sanction the deals, or the bloke employed to manage the footballing side of the club?

Who is best placed to decide which prospective signing offers the greatest footballing value to the squad?

The fellas in America, or the bloke on the training pitch who works day-in-day-out with the squad?

Yes, as owners they have the right to determine where to allocate funds, but in principle this is a question of managerial sovereignty

wtf have leeds got to do with anything, lets not compare, lets look at ourselves and where we are

by **LFC2007** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:29 am

peewee wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:Should the owners choose what is acceptable? yes, unless you want to end up the same way as Leeds Utd.

Where the board were oh so prudent

Liverpool are still in the premiership, Leeds aint, Rafa has been able to spend, whatever anyone says, mascha, torres, babel, if hes capped this season I can understand why, we won sod all last season, if he has to raise funds then so be it. Id rather that than be a chelsea type run club where you can spend what you like and buy success rather than earn it.

Leeds Utd went t!ts up for the reason that the board were a f*cking joke, they gambled the future of the club. The board had final control over the finances of the club - not O'leary. They were to blame as they sanctioned deals on behalf of the manager. This idea that O'leary somehow had unlimited control over their finances, and that we should somehow be looking to avoid that same scenario, is simply mythical.

The point was about who should be taking footballing decisions, the people who sanction the deals, or the bloke employed to manage the footballing side of the club?

Who is best placed to decide which prospective signing offers the greatest footballing value to the squad?

The fellas in America, or the bloke on the training pitch who works day-in-day-out with the squad?

Yes, as owners they have the right to determine where to allocate funds, but in principle this is a question of managerial sovereignty

wtf have leeds got to do with anything, lets not compare, lets look at ourselves and where we are

I refer you to my previous answers.

by **Kharhaz** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:34 am

Leeds Utd went t!ts up for the reason that the board were a f*cking joke, they gambled the future of the club. The board had final control over the finances of the club - not O'leary. They were to blame as they sanctioned deals on behalf of the manager. This idea that O'leary somehow had unlimited control over their finances, and that we should somehow be looking to avoid that same scenario, is simply mythical.

He chose the players and the price, and the board were simply "yes" men and signed the cheques. In this case with Barry, the board have said no, something the Leeds board couldnt do.

The point was about who should be taking footballing decisions, the people who sanction the deals, or the bloke employed to manage the footballing side of the club?

The footballing side should be left to the manager, but when we are talking daft amounts of money for a player like Barry, the board have to step in and say "ok, you have "X" amount maximum" and thats it. Footballing side is down to the manager, financial side is down to the board and the accountants.

Yes, as owners they have the right to determine where to allocate funds, but this is a question relating directly to the principle of managerial sovereignty.

Yes it is, but it also down to the managerial soverignty (as you put it) of the board also, and seeing as it is there money, they have the upper hand.

by **account deleted by request** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:47 am

I think the point is..... IF Hicks and Gillett had said "Barry is outside of our budget" or "we just can't afford to pay that price at this time" ...... that is a finance decision and its perfectly OK for them to make that decision.

To say "we think he is too dear" or "we don't think he is a good investment"....... that is a footballing decision as it involves judgement of the ability of the player, and as such should be made by the manager.

If there is any truth in the Bascombe article, they obviously don't trust the manager as much as whoever has advised them (someone must have!) which can only lead to further problems.

by **LFC2007** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:49 am

Kharhaz wrote:
Leeds Utd went t!ts up for the reason that the board were a f*cking joke, they gambled the future of the club. The board had final control over the finances of the club - not O'leary. They were to blame as they sanctioned deals on behalf of the manager. This idea that O'leary somehow had unlimited control over their finances, and that we should somehow be looking to avoid that same scenario, is simply mythical.

1) He chose the players and the price, and the board were simply "yes" men and signed the cheques. In this case with Barry, the board have said no, something the Leeds board couldnt do.

The point was about who should be taking footballing decisions, the people who sanction the deals, or the bloke employed to manage the footballing side of the club?

2) The footballing side should be left to the manager, but when we are talking daft amounts of money for a player like Barry, the board have to step in and say "ok, you have "X" amount maximum" and thats it. Footballing side is down to the manager, financial side is down to the board and the accountants.

Yes, as owners they have the right to determine where to allocate funds, but this is a question relating directly to the principle of managerial sovereignty.

3) Yes it is, but it also down to the managerial soverignty (as you put it) of the board also, and seeing as it is there money, they have the upper hand.

1) The Leeds Utd board were absolutely, 100% responsible for the budget allocated to O'leary. To highlight this - If they had set a budget of £2.50, he would've had £2.50 to spend. They signed the cheques, they told the manager how much was available, he spent it. Wreckless on his part also? Another debate entirely, and besides the point in this instance.

2) That isn't the point. It's the principle of the board - and in effect just the owners - rejecting a deal based on what they perceive to be 'too high' a price. I am not saying this is the case here, I am merely arguing in principle that, for us, and for the game in general, if owners end up rejecting potential deals on the basis that they do not value 'x' player at 'x' amount - assuming it is within the confines of a budget agreed with the manager - it is fundamentally negative for the game. If the £18m falls within an agreed budget, it should be Rafa's decision as to who he signs, as he is best placed decide - being manager of the team, working with the team, selecting the team etc.. Otherwise in effect, you have a continental-type system, where there is no manager, simply a head-coach, with decisions on signings being made at a higher level. In my opinion, and this will never change, the board, the owners, whomever is in charge should be there to set a budget, the manager should work within that budget and sign who he feels necessary to improve the chances of success at the club. Every manager will at some point have to justify a prospective signing to the board. I don't know the procedure, but it probably involves a combination of stat's, videos, scout reports, character references etc.. Along with this, the manager will probably have to justify exactly how he feels 'x' player will improve their chances of success. Is the improvement in the squad brought by 'x' player worth the likely fee? He will have to make a justification of this sort for each signing, and only if a manager takes it to the very extreme and tries to justify the unjustifiable e.g. £30m on Andy Johnson, should the board potentially reject a deal outright. Only absolute wrecklessness should be severely questioned, and if it ever got to that stage, the board would have to ask why they employed that person in the first place. It is however incredibly unlikely to ever happen in our case, as Rafa is a reasonable person, a manager with a good track record, and in spite of one or two relatively (relative to our budget) expensive signings which haven't made the requisite impact, he's done ok. Though errors in signings are par for the course with any manager, and that is the risk boards, owners, those in charge take when taking the decision to employ 'x' manager. One assumes that extensive research, interview procedures etc.. take place before the manager is hired, as this gives full justification for the board to show faith in that manager once he is hired and comes to the stage where he needs to recruit players. Now, I don't see in any way, shape or form how the board could consider the signing of Barry absolute wrecklessness, and if they did, they'd have some trouble explaining - at least to me - how the Robbie Keane deal could be sanctioned. Indeed, every pundit I've ever seen, read or heard considers Barry to be proven premiership quality, and more to the point; many would consider him more than adequate to make the requisite impact on our team. It would be very difficult to make the argument that spending £18m on Barry would constitute absolute wrecklessness. Justifiably they could argue he is; 'Not quite what we need', 'A decent player', 'An average player' even, but these comments fall well outside the remit the board should have in player recruitment. You can argue that because the current owners didn't recruit Rafa, they have the right to install their own man, after doing their own research - which they do. They should not, however, even in the short-term (if they don't see Rafa in their plans in the long run) assume the role of manager by determining who he signs, assuming the budget has been agreed, as he is by far best placed to decide who we need. They've seemingly invested their faith in him with comments in the past such as; 'we didn't realise how good he was', in spite of the Klinsmann approach, so they must honour those words with backing. If £18m is there to spent on a left-sided player, let Rafa decide - he still has to justify the decision reasonably - but let him do so.

3) See point 2.

by **LFC2007** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:51 am

s@int wrote:I think the point is..... IF Hicks and Gillett had said "Barry is outside of our budget" or "we just can't afford to pay that price at this time" ...... that is a finance decision and its perfectly OK for them to make that decision.

To say "we think he is too dear" or "we don't think he is a good investment"....... that is a footballing decision as it involves judgement of the ability of the player, and as such should be made by the manager.

Precisely, and with that, I refer every other f*cker to my previous answers.

by **Kharhaz** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:54 am

If there is any truth in the Bascombe article, they obviously don't trust the manager as much as whoever has advised them (someone must have!) which can only lead to further problems.

I dont think there is truth in that article, if there was a grain of it, we wouldnt have keane.

by **Kharhaz** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:07 am

The Leeds Utd board were absolutely, 100% responsible for the budget allocated to O'leary.

As are the LFC board with rafa. Rafa has known this for a long time, indeed he said himself, "whether the money is there or not" Rafa knows whats what, as did O'Leary. The difference is, rafa is trying to spend daft amounts of money on Barry, but we are not only talking a daft transfer fee, you also have to look at wages, bonuses and the like. Should the board step in, yes, they should. Ive said before, this is make or break for rafa, he has to get it right this season or the chances are he wont be here next season. Signing players used to the premier league is one thing, signing over the odds for average players is another. Rafa has had the money, had the support its now time for him to deliver. Barry isnt needed at £18 million, he has the players now, Rafa has spent the budget he has on players (keane and dossena) and the board have offered there support, but they have every right to say no to spending £18 million on Barry.

by **account deleted by request** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:10 am

Kharhaz wrote:
If there is any truth in the Bascombe article, they obviously don't trust the manager as much as whoever has advised them (someone must have!) which can only lead to further problems.

I dont think there is truth in that article, if there was a grain of it, we wouldnt have keane.

The reason we got Keane was Rafa sold players to get him. With Barry, Rafa hasn't been able to sell the players yet to fund the Barry purchase, so Hicks and Gillett said they would fund the purchase with yet another loan. Now it appears that after further investigation (advice) they no longer believe Barry is worth the asking price. Presumably if Rafa had managed to offload enough players this deal would have gone through as well, before their recent change of heart.

by **LFC2007** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:16 am

Kharhaz wrote:
The Leeds Utd board were absolutely, 100% responsible for the budget allocated to O'leary.

As are the LFC board with rafa. Rafa has known this for a long time, indeed he said himself, "whether the money is there or not" Rafa knows whats what, as did O'Leary. The difference is, rafa is trying to spend daft amounts of money on Barry, but we are not only talking a daft transfer fee, you also have to look at wages, bonuses and the like. Should the board step in, yes, they should. Ive said before, this is make or break for rafa, he has to get it right this season or the chances are he wont be here next season. Signing players used to the premier league is one thing, signing over the odds for average players is another. Rafa has had the money, had the support its now time for him to deliver. Barry isnt needed at £18 million, he has the players now, Rafa has spent the budget he has on players (keane and dossena) and the board have offered there support, but they have every right to say no to spending £18 million on Barry.

On the point about O'leary - you said in a previous post that he had complete control over the amount he spent and that the board were simply 'yes men' - that being the reason they went t!ts up, now it's changed and O'leary was in actual fact adhering to a budget set by the board.

So, because of that and because I can't really be arsed trying to debate something which is pretty clear cut, and thoroughly explained already.

I refer you to my previous answers.

by **Kharhaz** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:17 am

s@int wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:
If there is any truth in the Bascombe article, they obviously don't trust the manager as much as whoever has advised them (someone must have!) which can only lead to further problems.

I dont think there is truth in that article, if there was a grain of it, we wouldnt have keane.

The reason we got Keane was Rafa sold players to get him. With Barry, Rafa hasn't been able to sell the players yet to fund the Barry purchase, so Hicks and Gillett said they would fund the purchase with yet another loan. Now it appears that after further investigation (advice) they no longer believe Barry is worth the asking price. Presumably if Rafa had managed to offload enough players this deal would have gone through as well, before their recent change of heart.

I guess it all rests on rafas next signing, as I believe there will be one, and for a high price. The price we paid for keane is even minded, as in as much as people say we paid too much there are equal amounts saying its money well spent. With Barry, it wont be, if we sign him he will be another midfielder, not left back, not left midfielder, but simply another midfielder with option of moving him elsewhere.

We will soon see when the season starts.

by **Rush Job** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:27 am

Its going to end up like it is on the continent with the CEO's and director of football doing the signing of players and the manager will just be head coach.

by **account deleted by request** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:29 am

Kharhaz wrote:
s@int wrote:
Kharhaz wrote:
If there is any truth in the Bascombe article, they obviously don't trust the manager as much as whoever has advised them (someone must have!) which can only lead to further problems.

I dont think there is truth in that article, if there was a grain of it, we wouldnt have keane.

The reason we got Keane was Rafa sold players to get him. With Barry, Rafa hasn't been able to sell the players yet to fund the Barry purchase, so Hicks and Gillett said they would fund the purchase with yet another loan. Now it appears that after further investigation (advice) they no longer believe Barry is worth the asking price. Presumably if Rafa had managed to offload enough players this deal would have gone through as well, before their recent change of heart.

I guess it all rests on rafas next signing, as I believe there will be one, and for a high price. The price we paid for keane is even minded, as in as much as people say we paid too much there are equal amounts saying its money well spent. With Barry, it wont be, if we sign him he will be another midfielder, not left back, not left midfielder, but simply another midfielder with option of moving him elsewhere.

We will soon see when the season starts.

Thats the whole point, they arn't saying we can't afford to pay £18million, they are saying Barry is not worth £18million, but player X (Silva?) is! Are they experts on football, international players and their values, do they know more than someone that has been immersed in football for 30years or more ?

If Rafa says we need another midfield player do they know enough about football to say "no we don't," or "get him instead he's better/ better value?"

Liverpool FC Forum

Gareth Barry TRANSFER is On * / Off * - *Delete where appropriate

Who is online