posted Aug 11, 2008

Lets be honestm Barry is not worth 18M, he is in the 12-14M range at best, but of course being English and a holding pin for AV he is over valued. I dont blame AV for this nor MON. However, Barry has suggested he wants to move, LFC put in a reasonable bid and got rejected, now MON says yes he's for sale knowing Barry doens really want to play for Villa, LFC have every right to now bid less - id say 13-15m Max to bring him in. MON should have sold him for the claimed 16/17M and be done with it... now he potentially has a players whose heart is not in it and who will resent him a bigt move.

I feel for the fans (AV), having to deal with this all summer is just annoying.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 11, 2008

"EighteenTimes (U8215365)", the Liverpool way in getting the right players has well and truly moved on since the days of Paisley and Shankly. As for them "turning in their graves", surely you understand that the game has changed in the last 10 years let alone the last 25 - 30. I understand the point, but there could be a hundred things that they would have not agreed with ..... but this is 2008, not 1970, football is a new game, with many a new rules.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 11, 2008

I cant see why Villains want LFC to back from this deal now.
a large amount of villa fans have booed Barry, and want him to languish in the reserves, accross loads of these posts.

What incentive has Barry got for staying???

Some Villains wont forgive Barry for wanting to play in competitions, they know that they can never give him, and have highlighted such a change in passion for him to hate.
recent news reports, have stated that MoN has moved the goal posts again, and a deal had been met, on a 3 stage payment, but is now wanting a 2 stage payment, this is just messing the player about, and is a big message to any player who would previously have signed for villa, into thinking twice about it.
Its not a good sign either.
The guy gave you 10yrs of service, you should wish him well, and move on, or at least show that you want him to stay, as captain etc, leading your team, not demand him to play in the reserves - no one would benifit with that, Villa or Barry.
So why would he want to stay?

Well, it looks like we may now be going for D Silva instead, Villa & MoN will have their way, and have their ex captain, as a reserve player, If you Villains think this is good management by MoN, then there is no debate.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 11, 2008

I would Love Liverpool to sign Barry , 18 million is to much , people who are saying about hargreaves and Carrick , well Man United over spent on them.

If Liverpool can Hardly get 15 Million for Alonso
Then Barry should be around the price tag of Alonso

So 15 Million will be a good deal , we payed the right amount and swaped a player we don't need anymore and we get Barry who i think solves the Jigsaw to the Premiership.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 11, 2008

"If there isn't a rift at Liverpool FC why did Parry feel it necessary to release the statement last night, it hasn't really helped has it - check the media"

Did you read the statement? Parry released it because of the specualtion there was a rift in the LFC boardroom over Barry. Therefore in regard to Barry, there is no rift but there is an issue over the value put on him by AVFC. That is why LFC have not gone further. But of course you know it all from following the media. When it suits you, they talk rubbish, when it suits you they talk sense. When the NOTW printed Barry's words, many AVFC fans blamed Barry, others blamed the NOTW. Didnt want to trust the media then but certainly because of the speculation being printed regarding LFC you can assume and therefore believe. But here is the statement from Parry, pretty clear for your speculative mind:

"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."

You're not the only one constantly picking at there being a rift,t he media have been poking too that even if things had simmered down from that documented last season, it wouldnt be allowed to for the media want to continuously poke the fire and keep it going. And right now a number of AVFC fans would simply relish in there being dismay in our boardroom continuously. Cant speak for yourself but the statement is LFC's POV on the matter and I go by that than media speculation being painted as virtual fact.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 11, 2008

"There has been a lot of comment today regarding our position with regards to Gareth Barry.
--------------------------------------
Yes there was and it was generated by Rafa after the Lazio game, of course Rafa was talking about Barry.

If he wasn't talking about Barry why did Parry feel it neccessary to issue this statement late on Saturday night. The second paragraph of the statement makes it clear Benitez was talking about Barry. So Parry goes on the record, contradicts and undermines Rafa. Are you really trying to claim that there isn't a rift at Liverpool FC, if you are can i have some of your happy pills - they must be great.

Just because LFC deny a rift doesn't mean there isn't one, people do tell porkies to the media you know. When some Government Minister goes on the radio and says the cabinet are 100% behind Gordon do you believe them too.

tbh I'm thoroughly bored of this whole saga, if Barry really wants to join LFC he should point in a transfer request and put everyone out of their misery.

I would also repeat that Liverpool used to be a really classy operation, it's sad to see Hick/Gillett turning them into a laughing stock

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 11, 2008

Of course there will be a lot of comments made even IF Rafa had said nothing, he has kept quiet on Barry since the leak came out. Now he's said something it is blamed for the comments thereafter, the man just cannot win. Which to me means things are deliberately being made a mountain out of, just.

Parry made the statement to put right what has been put wrong since. Mention of a rift why Rafa hasnt gone in for Barry, no funds available, loans, proper nonsense. The media had good substantiated proof they would have delved and found it as they did exposing the Ashley Cole saga.

I'm not saying there is or isnt a rift, we only know of something untoward in the background from what was made public and the various comments last season. Right now, who is to say there is or isnt one? Parry would know and he says there is none and until such time as someone proves otherwise, that's the LFC POV. Unless you're a fly on the wall. And further, because someone says there isnt one, you believe there is one despite the fact nothing has been proven to show there is one? I'm not naive, LFC or any other club or any person wouldnt come out publicly and state there is a rift in the background. What if there isnt one? How would you believe it? In the same manner you would believe there is one?

As for LFC, the worse that happened was the stupidness between Rafa and Hicks and for that reason the fans despise Hicks in a way unparalleled. Rafa just cannot be allowed to flow with his management without Hicks sticking his oar in and that has been the major sticking point with the fans. It's what I suspect, though, and I maybe wrong since Parry's statement states the owners are being Rafa's movements. Which would go on further to say that it is not a point between Rafa and the board regarding Barry, that it is more to do with the point between Rafa and MON over Barry. All 18m of them.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 11, 2008

Lpool 85...
I had already read your earlier posts, which is why I said that I thought you had just got yourself wound up when you started ranting a bit, as it didn't match the tone of your earlier comments. That's why I ended my post with a group hug!! You can't get more reasonable than that..
I know my faith is blind, but don't pretend yours isn't. That's what footy's all about.
I'm sick of this Barry thing. I just want him out of my club, and to concentrate on our big European game in an Icelandic fishing village on Thursday.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 13, 2008

Hello Liverbirdmate, I'd refer you to the article by seven times sports writer of the year Martin Samuel in today's Times. (see below)

There are a lot of potless billionaires out there. Men who did not do their homework and thought, because they had a lot of money, that running a Premier League club in England was going to provide even more. Wrong. Liverpool, Manchester City, Newcastle United, West Ham United, here were clubs that were meant to be embarking on bold new adventures, encroaching on the top four or on the title itself, funded by owners who had the resources to match their ambitions. What happened? Reality happened. The new money missed the boat.

The time to invest in English football was half a century ago, when there was a maximum wage and a 60,000 walk-up every week. No television deal or megastore, maybe, but Sepp Blatter's slave analogy would not have sounded so foolish given the employment conditions, and no player turned up his nose at £120,000 a week. In his peak earning years, and this included playing for AC Milan, Jimmy Greaves never earned more than £5,200 - per year. That was the time to turn a profit owning a football club, and nobody even knew who the chairman was. These days, we know not only the owner, but the name of the bank that is about to pull the plug on him, because it is only too obvious where the money goes.

Sorry about this. Today's column was intended to be a little more uplifting, more on the theme of a season of surprises. Liverpool for the title was the tag and it went west the moment the owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr, decided that they knew more about a footballer's worth to his club than their manager, Rafael Benítez. It is hard to fancy Liverpool to overturn Manchester United and Chelsea now, yet when the summer began, Gareth Barry was set to be Benítez's missing link and, had the club bought him, this could have been their season to evolve from a team capable of impressing in set-piece matches in Europe to one capable of emerging triumphant from the slog of the domestic season.

Instead, the way the move failed reveals much about the parlous state of the clubs under new ownership. At the weekend, Rick Parry, the Liverpool chief executive, said that Aston Villa's asking price of £18 million for Barry was too high. It is not. It is the going rate for an England central midfield player, as indicated by the fees paid by Manchester United for Michael Carrick (between £14 million and £18.6 million depending on success) and Owen Hargreaves (£17 million). Indeed, Barry is an England regular at present; Hargreaves and Carrick are not. Nor is age an issue, because Carrick, Barry and Hargreaves were all born in 1981. Barry is 34 days younger than Hargreaves and 155 days older than Carrick and Villa's valuation, for a player under contract, the captain and an important member of their team, is entirely reasonable.


Now there are TWO ways to feed your fantasy
We have built on last year's success of PlayTheGame by offering fantasy football managers double the fun this coming season

Related Links
Liverpool in £8m chase for Poland winger
Terry: It's United who have peaked, not us
Yet, privately, what is said to concern Liverpool's owners is Barry's resale value if he signs a four or five-year contract. And there is the key; if a player could be the difference between winning the championship and falling short, why should the eventual return matter? His cost would be reimbursed instantly if the trophy was installed at Anfield, and while that is a big if, so is every transfer of substance.

The resale issue with Barry confirms that there are serious financial concerns at Liverpool, despite the costly purchase of Robbie Keane from Tottenham Hotspur this summer. It has been well documented that Gillett would sell his half of the club at the right price, while Hicks wants to stay in the game. In the City, the word is that an American bank is ready to offer Hicks the funds to buy out Gillett, but not at the figure his partner wants because Gillett is insisting on a 30 per cent profit on the purchase price. Whether a Hicks buyout could resurrect the Barry deal, however, is questionable. If he plays for Villa against FH Hafnarfjördur, of Iceland, in the Uefa Cup tomorrow, and is cup-tied in Europe, Benítez may well give up hope.

Despite Parry's protestations to the contrary, the attitude of Liverpool's owners must greatly frustrate Benítez and threaten his commitment to the club. Funnily enough, in the paddock at Epsom, one rarely sees John Magnier, the head of the Coolmore Stud, overruling his trainer, Aidan O'Brien, so that he can pass instructions to Johnny Murtagh, the jockey; and Magnier knows a hell of a lot more about horses than Hicks and Gillett know of football. It seems bizarre to have an authority, a manager of experience and consistent success, and then ignore his expertise. Benítez must surely have impressed upon his employers the difference Barry would make to Liverpool: he would complete the starting XI.

Benítez is strong in most areas but requires a left-footed partner for Javier Mascherano in front of the back four. Barry is a perfect fit. With him, Liverpool could play the 4-2-3-1 formation that is all the rage right now, with Mascherano and Barry holding, Ryan Babel starting on one flank, Robbie Keane playing the Dirk Kuyt role on the other and Steven Gerrard behind Fernando Torres, with free range. Even the reserve options, Kuyt, Martin Skrtel, Sami Hyypia, perhaps Xabi Alonso, are good. The last piece of the jigsaw is an overused phrase, because even the best teams are in a permanent state of evolution, but Barry, potentially, was the most significant signing of the summer.

To be so close, and then to be distracted by talk of resale values, can only suggest a club perilously close to financial breaking point. Last season, it was believed that Liverpool's owners would struggle to service loan repayments if Champions League football was not secured and with Michel Platini, the Uefa president, intent on reducing the number of fourth-placed qualifiers from the leading countries, this precarious existence will not go away.

The team who finish fourth in the Barclays Premier League will have to play another non-champion from a leading European nation next season. Instead of FC Twente and Standard Liège, this season's opponents for Arsenal and Liverpool, the fourth-placed English team could be up against the likes of Fiorentina or Atlético Madrid, a far greater test.

General concern over the financial future of the club is likely to trouble Liverpool's owners more than the specific long-term worth of one player. At the weekend it was suggested that Benítez would now bid £18 million for David Silva, of Valencia, who plays on the left or as a playmaker behind the front two, the inference being that he has Barry's transfer fee available, but not for Barry. That would be madness. One of the positions Silva plays is already occupied by Gerrard, in the other Benítez has tactical options.

Why would any clear-thinking football business make a sum of money available, have the manager identify a target within that range and then tell him he cannot have the player, but can buy another instead? A year from now, Silva could be an excellent signing, as Liverpool move on, but right now, give Benítez what he wants.

Meanwhile, at Manchester City, Thaksin Shinawatra appears to be using his membership of the Potless Billionaires Club to avoid returning to Thailand, where he faces corruption charges. With many of his assets frozen, he is struggling to meet the costs of Premier League competition and short-term loans were recently required to pay the staff's wages. Kia Joorabchian, the agent, has become increasingly influential, which could also explain the involvement of Paul Aldridge, the chief operating officer, who did such a bang-up job helping to secure Carlos Tévez for West Ham two years ago.

Thaksin was another owner who arrived promising a great leap forward, like Liverpool's Americans and Mike Ashley at Newcastle, whose eagerness to wade into this Premier League jamboree was so great that he failed to complete the due diligence procedure when making his investment and is, as a result, surprised by even the most mundane aspects of football business. Ashley thought that the club owned the players on its their books and was subsequently confused to be told of substantial instalments due on individuals he had already seen in the black-and-white shirt. Latching on to that old phrase about looking after the pennies, he now wants the players to pay for such trivialities as club suits, a saving that might cover the postage the next time Newcastle have to send several million to Real Madrid for Michael Owen.

What these owners have in common is that they did not know football. This is why the business of it is now getting away from them. Pay attention and one will know the going rate for an established international footballer, or appreciate that transfers are paid in instalments and City are unlikely to attract sell-out crowds while mid-table. Roman Abramovich made a success of Chelsea not only because he is insanely wealthy, but because he understood from the start that running and maintaining a very successful football club required such lavish investment that, short term, it was a black hole.

Few can operate at Abramovich's level but, like Randy Lerner at Villa, at least they can be realistic. Those who arrived promising the earth to the fans, and a fast buck to their financiers, have been found out. There are not merely potless billionaires in the Premier League, but some pretty dumb ones, too.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 13, 2008

Hmmmm, food for thought. It's debatable whether the owners and the board are thinking like that, but for me as the days of August go on moving, it seems less likely that Barry will be bought. Just looking at the set up expected for today's qualifier with Standard Liege, Gerrard slots in with Alonso (Mascherano may have otherwise been there), Kuyt wide with Benayoun, Torres with Keane upfront. Gerrard, Mascherano and Alonso are LFC's main central options in midfield and playing all three in a game could backfire. The likelihood is a 4-4-2 formation on a regular basis.

Alternatively 4-5-1 with Keane playing behind Torres yet forming a three with two central midfielders. The point of this is with Barry's inclusion the options would vary with the addition of his tracking back and attacking forward qualities. But without him we can still manage something that could run regularly. And because of this last point we may leave the pursuit of Barry to another time. If at all.

add comment | complain about this comment