Boardroom v Benitez: Bust-ups, Battles And Barry

Anticipating the fixture to round off the month of August, I thought this is the most opportune time to provide the final views on the long running issue of the summer. Liverpool travel to the Midlands to face Aston Villa, and as we now know, Gareth Barry will be staying a Villain. That is until the next chance to switch arises.
For me there is little competition between the midfielders at the centre of the saga: Barry and Alonso. I feel the Englishman outweighs his Basque counterpart in almost every aspect of the game. Barry is better equipped offensively (delivery, penetration, goals, assists, set-pieces), defensively (tackling, marking, endurance, ball-retention, concentration) and generally (versatility, composure, acceleration, decisiveness, leadership).
The fact is Gareth Barry would be a stellar addition to Liverpool FC, and all the evidence, being both statistical and anecdotal, displays Barry as top player. Our abject left side is a major concern, which may be soothed with a new arrival (Riera is taking a medical today), and Barry could have been a short-term solution. His sheer consistency in the Premier League is commendable, and alongside his box-to-box attributes he is often see as the lynch-pin of the Aston Villa team. His adaptability creates a wealth of options over the field, and for such an investment, the lack of injuries he has picked up guarantees his availability for a full season. And as he is English he contributes to UEFA domestic league quota legislation, which may be preventing the sale of Pennant or Finnan.
The man, originally from the South coast, has been subject to constant media speculation, taunts from his home crowd and the loss of his testimonial match. Lucrative incentives prevented him from handing in a transfer request, but an unauthorised newspaper interview took place criticising his manager. Administrative procrastination and politics then took place, with Benitez publicly urging an early conclusion towards the capture of his top target. Multiple bids were lodged and rejected over the months, with mixed messages from the owners over finances and willing for the deal to happen. The stumbling block seemed to be with deal-breaker Rick Parry, who has been under fire from all corners, and most recently from the manager, again. A statement released on the official website, with the notable exception of the owners names, read that the fee was "too high". Much has been reported in the media of the movement towards football being controlled by money more than ever. Players are often seen as assets and property, or as Blatter and Ronaldo stupidly see it: "slaves". Liverpool may have considered residual or sell-on value for Barry and deemed that they would not recoup enough on a sale of a player that haven't purchased yet.
I believe in today's relative economic climate, the market dictates the cost of players with prices rising year on year in spite of fears for global recession. Martin O'Neill and Randy Lerner have clear reasoning over the matter, with players in similar roles such as Hargreaves, Essien and Mascherano costing upwards of £18million. This price has obviously been baulked at, as a major factor in this transfer is the age of the player in question, and also the premium prices for English players. Benitez himself can be seen as delusional and hypocritical for demanding £16million for Xabi Alonso. Even though some could say he is protecting the interests of the club, he regularly excuses his chances of winning the league by referring to the spending power of the top 2 sides and the difficulties in beating teams with the likes of Carrick, Anderson and Mikel warming the bench. Such an inflated value has warded of interest from Juventus and league rivals Arsenal, but one stark development is the absence of interest from Spanish teams. The clubs make regular homeward bound calls for their ex-patriots through the press, but haven't even been rumoured to put in a bid.
As the seasons have rolled on, Alonso has been depreciating in form and value. He established himself in his first two seasons as an expensive import who could control the flow of the game, setting a tempo and rhythm to our play with clear vision and passing; the consummate professional. But subsequently has been laid off to the treatment room and been replaced by Mascherano, Lucas and most recently Plessis, playing bit-part roles with varying success.
I think there may be a future for the Barry deal, and the first opportunity will the the January transfer window. One point that supports this idea is that his UEFA Cup appearance in Iceland cup-tied Barry until the knock-out stages of the UCL this season, which get underway in February. This is when the competition really starts to take shape and a big-money name at such a time would be a great boost, even though such agreements are usually sealed in the summer. The structure of the deal would change, concerning the payment schedule, involving a lower price and perhaps instead significant add-on clauses or compensation.
But the most important reasoning to secure Barry is the necessity to bring in the right player for the team.

Turnover Above Tradition?

A popular train of thought for many Liverpool FC fans concerns the apparently impending ownership change, and a new and improved attitude from the new investors, especially regarding money. If the American duo decide to sell to D.I.C. then I am in no doubt a large majority of fans and pundits would welcome such a move with open arms (as they did the last time), but I do not share the same naive theory (SOS DIC).
The overriding positive of this move would be the exponential increase in funding for the improvement of Liverpool Football Club on and off the pitch. Dubai is renowned for its lavish settings, luxurious infrastructure and expensive lifestyle as an oil rich nation. Therefore the investment branch of the sovereign country will pour countless millions of pounds into the club without hesitation. Clearly this assertion is totally unfounded and unrealistic. Fans are anticipating a revolution and an influx of world class stars flocking to the club and D.I.C. to continually bankroll such expenditure and be happy to do so as their CEO (Sameer al-Ansari) is a Liverpool fan... They intend to enter the lucrative Premier League market, borrow, invest and make a substantial profit. And this is substantiated with the published confidential documents revealing their 7 year plan in 2006. I am also apprehensive that this organisation would usher in widespread upheaval on all levels, irrespective of football matters, and treat us as a business acquisition and not as an institution for passion and dedication, compromising the integrity of the club.
It is commonplace, particularly among Liverpool fans who are steeped in a working class history, to ridicule and condemn the goings on at Chelsea FC. Roman Abramovich has used his personal wealth to buy and finance the club, and in doing so often spending massive amounts of money with a disregard for the clubs solvency. Fans undermine these methods in relation to winning the Premier League in 2005 & 2006 plus FA and League cups, and additionally question their fans allegiance and longevity. But would it not be blatantly hypocritical to encourage similar proceedings to occur here at Liverpool FC?
Another facet of the prospective takeover would result in the clearance of debt on the club, that the Americans have plunged us into (£350m + £28m interest each year). I assume the purchase of the club would include this figure and also allow for both Americans to earn a tidy profit. A company would not want to waste unnecessary millions on certain aspects of the club, and would therefore cull what they deemed disposable. They would introduce a totally new board of directors that would have questionable knowledge on the running of a football club and would want instant success for such a hefty price. Buying new players is a dangerous and unforeseeable investment, so funds for such assets would be limited and redirected towards a new stadium on Stanley Park. It would be integral to build it quickly and rush through plans in order to maximise profits, additionally imposing high priced seats, commodities and entertainment. The management would be under the highest scrutiny and if results were not going well, then large scale removals would have to take place (it was alleged they had lined up Mourinho for the vacated manager's office - which had to be publicly denied). Fans would become customers (and such an adoring following would provide a constant source of income) and the Liverpool brand would be plastered worldwide at often extortionate prices for merchandise. Fan power would be worthless as ruthless business people only make their mind up once, and street protests will fall on deaf ears (unlike the November Benitez parade over the Klinsmann debacle and the "As always I am focused on training and coaching my team" press conference).
It is widely known to Liverpool fans about the nature of business conducted by DIC and their representatives. David Moores had his reasons for not selling to them originally when they offered a higher price and forced a hostile ultimatum (as they have done with the current owners) which did not prove successful for them. Amanda Staveley of PCP Capital Partners represents D.I.C. and is the chief negotiator (mooted to replace Rick Parry if D.I.C. prove triumphant). Several attempts of varying complexities were offered to the pair, with the main deal involving D.I.C. becoming a minority share holder of 49%, buying out George Gillett. But this was rejected by Hicks after discussion and considerable exchange of communication. The co-owners have publicly stated the irreparable damage to their relationship, with Gillett choosing Canadian radio station "590 Fans" to express his derisive opinion on Hicks and upon receiving death threats from furious fans.
Staveley has been attributed to manipulation of the media (leaked comments, legal documents, personal correspondents) to engender both support from the fans and incite opposition and dissent towards Tom Hicks (which isn't too hard considering the mistakes he makes himself). This was seen to be a devious strategy being highlighted by Hicks, referring to D.I.C. as "masters of the British tabloid spin" and Staveley and her consultants directly who "put out misinformation" to "stir the pot of Liverpool", for example the fan on the board furore. Their latest plan is to purchase 50% equity of the club (the often rumoured veto clause will expire) and apply financial pressure to Hicks (who is reportedly being pressed by banks to sell who are pulling in their loans), making assurances of revenue for players and the stadium which could not be matched by Hicks. However he has expressed publicly that he is not willing to enter in such a partnership and via his Sky Sports News interview (dubbed the Fire-side Chat) has said intentions from D.I.C. to spend excessively to be untrue when in negotiations with them.
The recent anger over at Eastlands regarding their owner, Thaksin Shinawatra, culminates in his unruly decisions over the management, players and conduct at the club. It has be strongly rumoured he wants to sack popular manager Sven Goran Eriksson, hold a fire-sale of his whole squad and force employees in Manchester into Thai customary traditions. This is the man who not only passed the 'Fit & Proper Persons' test from the FA (there have been strong links of him controlling the nation by a dictatorship as PM and includes corruption, many human rights injustices and his exile and freezing of his assets) but also had a vested interest in owning our beloved club. Dubai is reported to be rife with human rights violations: delayed or withdrawal of payment, excessive working hours and poor working/living conditions, premature termination of services and repatriation blockades for thousands of immigrants, who labour on construction sites of real estate. I think Liverpool fans should become more educated on the background of prospective owners and learn from mistakes of ourselves and others. I would advocate us to be vigilant and careful with future dealings over the selling of our football club, and not blindly enthusiastic seeing only the pounds and dollars.

Benitez Targets English Mid-table Maestros

This summer will provide clear indications of the direction the club is heading in, and if we will have a realistic chance of challenging for the Premier League title. One of the main issues during this close season will be the transfers in and out of the club to ensure we have a quality starting XI, that could theoretically be rotated less by the manager. Benitez seems keen to recruit Englishmen to the side, specifically home-grown midfielders that are at the heart of some of the teams who populate the second tier in the league, below the 'top 4'. Gareth Barry (Aston Villa), David Bentley (Blackburn), Michael Johnson (Manchester City) and Stewart Downing (Middlesbrough) are the four most prominent English players that currently ply their trade in the second tier of the Premier League.
Their was some speculation that Rafa was concerned with the '6+5' rule that may be implemented to the game, championed by FIFA President Sepp Blatter and supported by UEFA President Michel Platini. This prospective legislation would force six domestic players to be in the starting team of the club, in addition to five foreign players. This quota system is opposed by the EU as it contravenes Article 39 of the EC Nice Treaty: "Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment." It was previously thought that it did not breach the European Labour Law on the freedom of movement, as clubs would still be free to buy as many foreign players as they wished, with the important difference being that clubs would have to field six players who were eligible for the national team of the country.
However, the European Commission supports UEFA's home-grown player rule that sets quotas of locally trained players at clubs and does not discriminate on players' nationality. The organisation bodies would collectively investigate the objectives of the '6+5' rule within limits of the law, as such an initiative has been deemed illegal, and the UEFA idea has similar objectives and has been formally accepted.
Currently Liverpool FC have 4 English players that are in or on the fringes of the first team squad: Gerrard, Carragher, Crouch and Pennant, plus 3 English players that are out on loan: Hobbs, Guthrie and Carson. However of these seven players, four are expected to leave, which further highlights Benitez's problems if this bill were to be passed.
The predominant English player that seems to top our transfer list is Gareth Barry. There has been volleys of verbal warfare through the media between Benitez and O'Neill, as the news of an official bid was made known to the public before the conclusion of the season. This was seen as an underhand tactic employed Benitez, as it would unsettle Barry and the team, who were in the race for 5th in the league and therefore the UEFA Cup spot. Another reason for the dispute was the nature of the bid, as O'Neill was unimpressed with the "mish-mash" of players (Carson? Riise? Crouch?) in a part exchange/cash deal that seemed to the Villa boss as undervaluing his captain, who he is determined to keep. O'Neill is adamant that Aston Villa are not a 'selling club' and has asked owner Randy Lerner to join him when he meets with Barry, and commences negotiations over his future. The prospect of Champion's League football and a title challenge at Liverpool FC may out weigh assurances of improving the small Villa squad and building towards breaking the top 4, especially as he is 27 years old and may seek top flight football during his prime years as a footballer. O'Neill's intentions were also evident after he axed Patrik Berger (ex-Red) from his squad and the club after he advised Barry to make the move to us, as such an opportunity wouldn't come around often.
Benitez has said many times that they need to secure targets quickly (recently and after the UCL final), and wants to sign players preferably before the end of May. This may be a veiled criticism of the American owners and his request for guaranteed funding, or CEO Rick Parry, who is notorious for stalling on transfer discussions. However this approach justifies the early movement for Barry, which begun with a phone call 20 days prior to the public fracas, and was designed to gage the stance of O'Neill and inform him of the forthcoming bid. Rafa also moved to quash rumours that Barry was a replacement for Alonso in centre midfield alongside Mascherano, and further indicates he may be played on the left. It would be beneficial for the synergy and balance of the team to have a left-footed player on the left of midfield, as even though the decision to play Babel there had its reasons, I believe his incessant runs cutting inside and lack of crosses from the left wing may limit our attacking options. Another observation may be that fact both Lucas and Mascherano will be at the Beijing Olympics for the first few weeks of the 08/09 Premier League season and Champions League qualifiers, therefore Barry may partner Alonso in the centre during their absence. Barry is definitely a versatile and creative player who would be a promising signing, but perhaps not the most popular amongst fans.
David Bentley is the second English player most attributed to our club. It is said that he has rejected a new contract that was offered to him as a reward for his endeavours this season, that would substantially improve his current deal, boosting his wages considerably to approximately £50,000 a week. Manager Mark Hughes has denounced any ideas for the sale of his prized asset and is bullish on such suggestions, as he wants to add more quality to his team. He claims that it is his, and not the players decision if they are to be sold, and reaffirms the fact that Bentley has 3 years left on his current contract. Bentley could similarly wish to perform in the world's biggest club tournament, but also seek to secure a regular place on the right wing for the national team, and once and for all oust David Beckham from the role. I think Bentley is a competent player who has consistently good performances for Blackburn and the national team, and is a predominantly attack orientated player, which will appeal us fans who like to see exciting football. He has accurate delivery achieving 10 assists (matched by Barry and 1 less than Gerrard), supplying Santa Cruz and basically gifting him goals - the media either ignore Cruz and his 19 goals or eulogise over his apparent proficiency, when in reality he has had numerous tap-ins provided by Bentley. Both Barry and Bentley are estimated to cost £15million.
News reports also claim Benitez has reignited his interest in Manchester City play-maker Michael Johnson. The ownership upheaval at Eastlands (we dodged the bullet over Thaksin) may signal trouble for the club, culminating in a player exodus following the mistreatment of Sven Goran Eriksson and plans emanating from the club to revamp the squad. Benitez tried to sign Johnson last season and was rebuffed, but the player is rumoured to be stalling on a new contract, and is valued at around £8million; at 20 years old he would be a wise investment. Stewart Downing is the final English midfielder to be linked with our club, and is viewed as the most unlikely of the four to move to Anfield. He represents the second choice behind Barry for the left midfield, and would cost about £12million. However he has recently signed a new lucrative deal at Middlesbrough, extending his stay till 2013. Recent outings show him to be a skilful player, exemplified in the 8-1 thrashing of a relenting City team where he scored 2 goals, and he also proved his resolve when he scored against us at home after Torres had scored yet another hat-trick.
My verdict comprises of both optimism and pessimism, as I would gladly welcome such stellar additions to our first team, but I am unsure if we will be successful in securing their signatures as their managers and chairmen clearly do not want to part company. The lure of a top 4 club, UCL football and playing at Anfield may be attractive, but I am apprehensive in placing all my faith in the acumen and ability of our owners and chief negotiators when dealing with steadfast and stubborn opponents (both the selling and rival clubs) who are in the position to hold out for exorbitant prices, which we may not be able to match or better.