Benitez

[clapham_gull]

We don't do ground shares here - fans don't like them. We like our "ends" and our territory

We may have to one day and that will be another nail in the Match day experience

You still have your ends if the stadium is designed correctly. You swap home ends for each club.

It's madness they won't consider it.

For those that bothered, they always sit in the "clean" areas....

 

[clapham_gull]

It will be interesting what will happen to the rumoured financial fitness ruling for the Champions League that has possibly influenced Chelsea and Man City to convert their debt into equity.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

You still have your ends if the stadium is designed correctly. You swap home ends for each club.

It's madness they won't consider it.

For those that bothered, they always sit in the "clean" areas....

The only people that consider it are the people that only see football as a means to make money.

The further we get from our roots the more the soul of the game gets ripped out.

In the end you get franchised clubs with franchised fans

 

[Acker79]

They have not got £12M Benitez spunked up millions and they can't even finance the new ground. Thats why they even contemplate sharing with Everton

I am certain that they'd find the money if they feel they need it. The cost of failing to qualify for europe is too high. The only question is do they feel they need it, or are they confident benitez can get a top four finish?

 

[clapham_gull]

The only people that consider it are the people that only see football as a means to make money.

The further we get from our roots the more the soul of the game gets ripped out.

In the end you get franchised clubs with franchised fans

I think Liverpool is a unique case in this situation.

For both clubs, their roots only have to move a few hundred yards down the road (much nearer than the distance between Falmer and the Goldstone) and as I've already stated, Everton's roots are not only near Anfield they are in it.

Everton originally played there until they fell out with the landlord. The landlord tried to retain the Everton name, but was forced to import some Scottish players and call them Liverpool FC. Quite apt, if you think of the nationality of their best players in the 70s.

Rather than being a money making exercise, it would actually be an asset to the city and stop for instance Everton really throwing away their roots and moving outside the city boundaries which they were recently almost forced to do.

The Manchester City move to the stadium originally constructed for the commonwealth games appears to somewhat strengthen their "Manchester Identity" has it not ?

Perhaps Arsenal should move back down to South London ?

 

[BensGrandad]

. I like being RIGHT.

There has to be a first for everything

 

[Chicken Runner61]

I think Liverpool is a unique case in this situation.

For both clubs, their roots only have to move a few hundred yards down the road (much nearer than the distance between Falmer and the Goldstone) and as I've already stated, Everton's roots are not only near Anfield they are in it.

Everton originally played there until they fell out with the landlord. The landlord tried to retain the name, but was forced to import some Scottish players and call them Liverpool FC. Quite apt, if you think of the nationality of their best players in the 70s.

Rather than being a money making exercise, it would actually be an asset to the city and stop for instance Everton really throwing away their roots and moving outside the city boundaries which they were recently almost forced to do.

The Manchester City move to the stadium originally constructed for the commonwealth games appears to somewhat strengthen their "Manchester Identity" has it not ?

I take the points but your missing the main one.

Ask the fans here what would they want and if the club could afford it would they stop Falmer now and knock down Goldstone retail park and start rebuilding a modern Goldstone with a modern North Stand even though it might mean another two seasons at withdean?

Stoke & Vale 4mile a part refused to share even though both were in financial trouble and the council offered to build a joint ground.

If man U wanted to strengthen their Manchester Identity they should have moved to the the commonwealth stadium.

In Italy they build their stadiums in the middle of towns therby keeping football for the community.

Liverpool & Everton were/are under financial pressure to consider G/share

 

[clapham_gull]

I take the points but your missing the main one.

Ask the fans here what would they want and if the club could afford it would they stop Falmer now and knock down Goldstone retail park and start rebuilding a modern Goldstone with a modern North Stand even though it might mean another two seasons at withdean?

Stoke & Vale 4mile a part refused to share even though both were in financial trouble and the council offered to build a joint ground.

If man U wanted to strengthen their Manchester Identity they should have moved to the the commonwealth stadium.

In Italy they build their stadiums in the middle of towns therby keeping football for the community.

Liverpool & Everton were/are under financial pressure to consider G/share

I'm sorry to repeat myself , but I honestly think Liverpool is a special case.

The ground share idea goes back further than the recent financial troubles.

Stanley park has always been seen as the traditional boundary between the two grounds. Since Liverpool wanted to build on that boundary and take up some of the only green space up there, the idea was muted that any new stadium on that land should be used by both clubs.

I suspect a lot of it is to do with Liverpool FC being told what to do by the authorities.

I don't personally see it as an answer to either club's problems or a compromise.

I see it as more of a genuine asset to the city.

Admittedly in their current state, if the new stadium was funded in some way by the council both clubs would financially benefit.

.. which again I see as absolute madness that they aren't considering it.

 

[always a seagull]

Rafa benitez and brian mcdermott were having a post match drink at anfield . They both had one pint, then a second, then a third. At that point, mcdermott turns to rafa and says "shouldn't you f*** off now, it's the forth round"

 

[Chicken Runner61]

.. which again I see as absolute madness that they aren't considering it.

They considered it!

The majority of fans didn't want to share,

Even supporters (KEIOC) of ground share there knew the feeling

"KEIOC’s position is that whilst we see and understand the logic behind a shared stadium proposition football is intrinsically illogical. Why do grown men become emotional at the sound of an old sea shanty and the emergence of eleven men in royal blue shirts? Why do you get a tingle down your spine when you walk into a collection of four buildings that surround a field? Why do you feel you're with your own kind when with a group of strangers in a stadium or a pub, when essentially the only common tie is supporting the same football club, a camaraderie that, thankfully, transcends all backgrounds including class, gender, education, colour and creed? Of course nobody can answer any of these questions with an ounce of logic and it's probably why a shared stadium will always require a phenomenal leap of faith from both sets of match going supporters whose culture, tradition and values differ manifestly possibly due to the magnitude and concentration of success over the lifespan of the respective clubs. Everton's success, great players and great teams being spread throughout its rich one hundred and thirty year history whilst Liverpool's unparalleled success being concentrated into a thirty year period which has included incomparable success, disaster and tragedy leading to a club with both national and international appeal and standing.

The circumstances behind both clubs need for new stadia are different as are their requirements, KEIOC understand the thoughts and feelings of thousands of loyal match going Evertonian’s, it's like some Divine Comedy - hell - purgatory and paradise!!! Make your choice!
Time to Share?

Everton’s moves towards a medium-range stadium in Kirkby have attracted wide-spread opposition within a club that professes that ‘nothing but the best is good enough’. In the meantime, Liverpool’s more ambitious proposals for a ‘New Anfield’ are running into difficulties in the face of the club’s mounting debts.

It has been suggested that it is now time for Everton and Liverpool to give serious consideration to sharing a new stadium, to ensure a fitting home for the two clubs and sufficient revenue to allow them to compete at the highest level of World Football.

David Backhouse is the architect responsible for Cavern Walks, the excavation of the Cavern Club site and the eventual reopening of the Cavern Club. He is a life-long Liverpool supporter, who believes that it is a dreadful waste of resources for the two clubs to be considering building two separate new stadia. He has challenged Trevor Skempton, a life-long Evertonian and also an architect, to help bring forward details that might make a shared stadium acceptable.
Trouble Ahead

The objections to sharing are understandable. Each club has a precious identity and fabulous history, forged through a deep rivalry. In business terms, each club relies on careful product differentiation and unique selling points.

Elsewhere, successful ground-sharing is rarer than is often supposed. Internationale and AC Milan are often quoted. Munich also. But divorce is in the air in Turin and Rome, and closer to home, Charlton couldn’t wait to get back to their own ground. Nor Fulham. Sharing wouldn’t work in Glasgow or Manchester, but could we be a special case?

In financial terms, the arguments for sharing are compelling. A truly world-class stadium, financed a third by each club and a third by outside bodies, need not eat into precious resources required for immediate team-building. But the challenge is to create a proposal that would not only safeguard, but actually strengthen, each club’s independent character.

It could be a condition of the public-funding element that both clubs commit themselves long-term to playing all their home matches in the stadium, thus preventing any future franchising proposals that might take either club away from the City of Liverpool. "

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Never understood the Scouser fans loyalty to Benitez for so long. He's never looked like winning the league for them, he won the Champions League but even that was really AC Milan throwing it away. He's constantly bought crap (Torres apart). Look at his team, and he's still relying on Carragher & Gerrard who were there before he joined as well as Torres. And he's spent an absolute fortune doing so. Average manager at best

 

[MikeySmall]

Never understood the Scouser fans loyalty to Benitez for so long. He's never looked like winning the league for them, he won the Champions League but even that was really AC Milan throwing it away. He's constantly bought crap (Torres apart). Look at his team, and he's still relying on Carragher & Gerrard who were there before he joined as well as Torres. And he's spent an absolute fortune doing so. Average manager at best

Completely agree. He has managed to rip apart a perfectly good team with poor signings (last time he bought british??). I cannot see them finishing in the top 7/8. I hope he stays!!!

 

[Gwylan]

On the Man United front, I honestly don't believe there are going to be in any financial trouble long term. If the clubs get their own way and are available to negotiate their own television rights, Manchester United could get the same amount of money from a few games than they get for the entire season currently.

For the future competitiveness of that league, that's a frightening thought.

That's true, but it's a big if. Man U have been pushing for this for years and years and it's never been a remote possibility. Why do you think that's about to change?

As for Benitez, I've never rated him much either - he got lucky in the CL and he's lived off that ever since. How a club can spend so much money and yet still rely on two players being fit beats me.

 

[BadFish]

Never understood the Scouser fans loyalty to Benitez for so long. He's never looked like winning the league for them, he won the Champions League but even that was really AC Milan throwing it away. He's constantly bought crap (Torres apart). Look at his team, and he's still relying on Carragher & Gerrard who were there before he joined as well as Torres. And he's spent an absolute fortune doing so. Average manager at best

Does anyone remember last year....

Premier League 2008-2009 - Full Table

Pos. Team Pl W D L GF GA +/- Pts
1 Manchester United 38 28 6 4 68 24 44 90
2 Liverpool 38 25 11 2 77 27 50 86
3 Chelsea 38 25 8 5 68 24 44 83
4 Arsenal 38 20 12 6 68 37 31 72
5 Everton 38 17 12 9 55 37 18 63

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Hope he doesnt get sacked he is doing a fine job

 

[Lady Whistledown]

If he has any decency he'll do the right thing now and walk. He's turned such a once proud club into a circus act.

That's not entirely fair...let us not forget it's 20 years since they last won the league and pause to remember the others- Roy Evans, Graeme Souness and Gerard Houllier- who have also played their part in Liverpool's comedy decline.

Benitez was merely fortunate that he somehow fluked a Champions League win to temporarily mask his crap tactical abilities and completely dismal record in the transfer Market.

 

[Simster]

To be fair, their record last season would have been enough to win the league in many other seasons. And you can't really discount a Champion's League trophy and another final appearance as "flukes". How many have Chelsea won, with all their money? Add to this Benitez's record at other clubs before he joined Liverpool and he isn't really that bad a manager. He's just having a mediocre season having relied on a handful of really quality players for too long. Alonso was his biggest mistake.

 

[alan partridge]

He won La Liga. Twice. And without managing Madrid or Barcelona.

Has made a fair few mistakes at Liverpool but has also bought them the European Cup (and until this season a very good record in the competition), Fa Cup and more importantly came the closest to winning the league in 20 years, with a points haul that would normally have won it. With a backdrop of idiot bickering owners.

Certainly not the best manager out there, but definitely not diabolical.

 

[Acker79]

That's not entirely fair...let us not forget it's 20 years since they last won the league and pause to remember the others- Roy Evans, Graeme Souness and Gerard Houllier- who have also played their part in Liverpool's comedy decline.

Benitez was merely fortunate that he somehow fluked a Champions League win to temporarily mask his crap tactical abilities and completely dismal record in the transfer Market.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1235602/Martin-Samuel-Rafael-Benitez--lucky-won-Graeme-Souness-Liverpool.html

Rafael Benitez - you are lucky to have won more than Graeme Souness at Liverpool
Last updated at 10:57 AM on 15th December 2009
Comments (45) Add to My Stories

Graeme Souness, as Rafael Benitez pointed out, did not have a great record as Liverpool manager. There was one season when Liverpool looked potential title winners, but that challenge quickly fizzled out and, for the most part, he filled the squad with ordinary players, and won the FA Cup.

Notice any similarities? Take away an incredible first year culminating in Istanbul in arguably the greatest comeback in the history of club football and Benitez’s record is not really all that different over the last four years.

These are altered times and the wealth gap generated by the Champions League has largely cemented an elite four in place, but the circumstances are broadly alike. There was an FA Cup win, a procession of mediocre signings and, right now, Liverpool lie seventh, a position all too familiar to those who remember the Souness years (he came sixth in his two full seasons at the club).

A team who have won three matches in 15 can no longer be said to be experiencing a blip. The 2-0 win over Manchester United in October: that was the blip. That was the result that is still hard to explain. Liverpool have lost more matches in the Premier League than Stoke City this season and have the same number of points as Birmingham City. So statistically, there was nothing in the least surprising in defeat by a weakened Arsenal team yesterday. Liverpool are living off a name, a reputation for invincibility, particularly in the big games at Anfield. They surrendered that in the Champions League this season, and now in the domestic championship, too.

Indeed, in the present climate, the less Benitez seeks comparison with the Souness era, the better. The period from April 1991 to January 1994 is not recalled with fondness at Anfield, and understandably so, but Souness did not work for Liverpool at a time when losers could enter the European Cup. And that is a big difference.

Failure was a lot easier to come by under the old rules of engagement. There was no thrilling battle for fourth place, as is being played out now. No popping of champagne corks at trawling in 21 points behind the league leaders, as Benitez did in 2006-07. Benitez finished 37 points off the pace in his first year, but won the European Cup. That route was not open to Souness.

Back then, the Champions’ Cup lived up to its name. In Souness’s first season — he only took over in April, mind you — Liverpool came second in the old First Division, but qualified for the UEFA Cup, a tricky tournament, full of ambitious, thrusting wannabes, not the moribund Thursday-night snore fest it became. Liverpool were removed by Genoa at the quarter-final stage.

So Souness had his chance and did not take it. Benitez got his with an inferior Liverpool team in the 2004-05 Champions League campaign, defeated AC Milan against all odds, and greatness was assured. Yet Liverpool only finished fourth under Gerard Houllier the previous season and in Souness’s day that would not necessarily have guaranteed European qualification, at any level. And no Champions League final, no Rafa the genius.

Benitez is sensitive right now. He sees Souness as his inferior, in coaching terms rightly so, and resents his criticism. Yet bristling defensively at every remark smacks of a man who knows his problems are mounting. Earlier this month he had a dig at Jamie Redknapp, claiming he was looking to undermine Liverpool for the benefit of his father, Harry, the manager of Tottenham Hotspur. Redknapp, like Souness, gave an honest opinion, which is what he was required to do.

And face it, Liverpool are not losing because of what is being said in television studios. They are losing because they sold Xabi Alonso and five years of frantic transfer traffic has left a pedestrian squad, emboldened by a sprinkling of exceptional individuals.

Souness assembled an ordinary group, too, but at least he left Liverpool with Steve McManaman and Robbie Fowler on the horizon. What is there to look forward to currently? A summer of speculation around Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres unless circumstances improve.

For all his faults as a manager, Souness still won three league championships and seven national cups across three countries. He was not a fool. More importantly, he was a wonderful midfield player for Liverpool and if they had more like him now, they wouldn’t have taken fewer points from eight home league games than Blackburn Rovers. In short, he is entitled to his view, just as Benitez is to his spiky response.

Always providing, of course, that in more reflective moments, he acknowledges that a lot of successful modern coaches would find the plaudits less forthcoming if they had been working at a time when first was first and second was nowhere; let alone fourth