CanadaSaint

There is a well established concept under law called "minority shareholders' rights" and it exists to protect the interests of those who could have their legitimate interests ignored or overpowered by a majority shareholder. Just because Katharina would only retain 20% doesn't mean that she'll have no power. I suspect that the sale documentation is VERY detailed about how the club will be run - and what the majority shareholder's contributions and mode of operation will be. Of course, the situation won't last forever but I'm sure Katharina will retain this power until she's happy enough about how the club is being run to sell the remaining 20%. Lander certainly make me queasy but (whether it's them or someone else) I really do believe that Katharina means exactly what she's said - that she has the club's best interests at heart and will protect them.

In recent seasons we've had some top-eight players, a top-eight manager, a bunch of middle-third players playing above themselves, a strong defence compensating for a bottom-third keeper, and a top-2 recruitment system. Now we have less top-eight players, a bottom-five manager, nobody apart from Romeu playing above themselves, a weak defence showing Forster up for what he really is, and a recruitment system that is not even responding to current needs, never mind "working two years ahead". Black box, my arse. We are in a dogfight, and my fear is that Reed and Puel are not capable of turning this around. We need someone who can pick this team up and carry it on his shoulders, but he's out for another month or two.

We'll never move the ball quickly under Puel because he clearly emphasizes ball retention over everything else. Even when we get the full backs overlapped they turn back far more often than not. The goal came from the only time we really moved it quickly. The rest of the time it was Puel's square-square-back cha-cha. Costa would struggle to score with Puel's tactics.

Too many of you lot are buying into this "rotation" bullsh*t. These are very fit young men who are paid more to play than most of us will see in a lifetime. Give everyone a rest now and then - fine, but this frequent, large scale change is an insult to people who pay good money to watch. The line up he picked today was ludicrous.

A 15% stake isn't really much, and Katharina doesn't need the money, so there has to be something else behind it. This could be less about changing anything inside the club and more about targeting the Chinese market, which is notoriously difficult to crack. The other angle, and probably the more likely one, is the potential development around the ground. I'm sure the club doesn't want to spend a ton of time and money on that because it deflects focus away from core purpose. Lander Sports Development was formerly Lander Real Estate - property development. Does anyone know if the club has right of first refusal on any of that land? The worst case scenario, for me, is that it's step one in a multi-stage takeover, but Katharina's letter suggests that she's still here for the long term.

Hopefully Puel learned something from playing for the draw against Inter Milan. That didn't work then and, with VvD out, it's even less likely to work tonight. Sh*t or bust for me.

I think Vardy came down on the top of VvD's foot, so it's hopefully just an impact injury. If there's no fracture he should be good for Liverpool.

See, now that's one that gets my goat - the notion that someone's opinion is worth less because they don't (or can't) go to matches. I'll happily grant you that some perspectives can only be gleaned by "being there", but there's nobody on this forum who didn't change their mind about something after getting home from the match and seeing it on TV. While I'd love to be at the game, I honestly think that I had a better perspective on most events from my armchair than I would have had if I'd been sitting at the ground and drawing conclusions from 50-100 yards away. Watching things from home doesn't legitimize my opinion but it sure as hell doesn't delegitimize it either.

I seldom post on here any more and didn't bother to renew. Many of the good (IMO) posters have gone, and we're left with a higher proportion of people who couldn't participate in civilized discussion if their lives depended on it. Well, on here at least. I'm sure they don't behave like that in the pub or they'd spend most of their lives in hospital or in prison. So the problem is not the people, it's the conduct some of them choose to exhibit on here. It's not about disagreements, it's about needless disrespect. I don't know how the mods can be expected to resolve that problem. The only people who can make this place work are the posters themselves. I'd happily pay more than five quid to participate in a forum that had some kind of rating system, enabling the mods to ditch people whose rating falls below a certain level. Sure, they could come back in another form but they won't last long. I certainly wouldn't low-rate someone just because I disagreed with them, but I would if they kept slinging insults and making snide remarks aimed at other posters.

One of the things that has struck me in recent weeks is that Puel seems to over-emphasize support for the ball carrier, especially out wide. The support closes in too tight, their markers follow, and we effectively take away our own space. Any chance of the angled (and potential killer) through-balls we used to see has gone. Then we have to turn back and start the process over again, with the same result. It seems like a never-ending cycle of push up, take away our own space, turn back, start again. And even if we get something into the box, the defence has had tons of time to organize.

God only knows what Puel has to do before someone at the club has the balls to pull the trigger on him. His tactical style is miserably negative - keep possession and hope to God that someone who can't hit a penetrating pass gets one through to someone who can't score but does. It wouldn't even work if he had some semblance of motivational skill, which he doesn't. I'm normally one of the optimists, but not when it comes to this guy. For Anfield, he's already going over the pitiful hold-the-lead tactical 'package' he used against Inter.

I said "almost", Chez, but since you asked ... Long hasn't been anything like the same player (commitment-wise) since coming back from the Euros, Tadic didn't seem anxious to create anything today (and may have become a little sulky since Boufal's signing), Clasie seems to shrug-off his giveaways without busting his nuts to recover the ball, and Fonte has gone from being a player and a leader to being just a player apparently biding his time. And then there's Redmond, who doesn't seem to score and doesn't seem to create but knows he'll be playing next game anyway. He has no incentive to pick up his game because it doesn't really matter. Having named some names, I'm hesitant to pin it all on the payers because I think a lot of it stems from three things - Puel's dubious motivational skills, Puel's over-rotation, and the club's apparent lack of genuine ambition. That combo can suck the air out of a dressing room and turn into a deadly malaise in a hurry. After three tame surrenders, perhaps it already has, God forbid.

Puel's style reminds me of my youth - loads of passes but seldom any penetration. It's very telling that our best moment was the chance that J-Rod created for himself. The team - the whole club - looks as flat as a pancake, and Puel is a million miles away from being an inspirational figure. It isn't that we've lost three in a row - that happens. What's infuriating and worrying is the fact that we've produced three tame surrenders in three matches. It almost looks as though we have a number of players who'd rather be playing somewhere else and for someone else. I'm not the knee-jerk sort but Puel's pussy football and his addiction to rotation for rotation's sake are really starting to p*ss me off.

I had a queasy feeling that this might happen when Kreuger did so well at the World Cup of Hockey. He was already well regarded in the sport but his coaching at the World Cup took this to a new level and made him a very hot property - a top-line candidate for a big coaching or management position, probably in the NHL. If he has told Katharina that he would like, at some point, to go back to what is probably his first love, she would be losing the only person she completely trusts within the club. If we add that to the sort of number being bandied about, I'd be very surprised if she didn't sell.

Thank God for that. I went to watch it again and they'd taken the video down.

Sometimes I hate "coincidences". The last time we saw a goal like that (and in that top corner of that goal) it came from the right foot of a raving f*ckwit who cost us a shedload of wasted money. God, I sound like Alpine.

Exactly. This forum was awash with "Where's Mané's replacement?" and "Where's Wanyama's replacement?" but they were never going to be "replaced". A good team is the sum of its parts, and I am genuinely happier with what we have now - and its potential. The sum of last year's parts included the issues you raised about Mané - even though I loved what he brought on his good days. It also included a Wanyama who (though a defensive beast) had little idea on the attacking side of halfway, who didn't seem to contribute much to the on-pitch team communication and motivation, and whose propensity for taking needless yellows (and often reds) hurt us on numerous occasions. As usual, those days of angst and panic on here look a little silly now.

Anyone willing to agree that Romeu is looking like an upgrade on Wanyama? He's almost as strong defensively, he's considerably better once over the halfway line, he seems to contribute more to team communication, and he can manage an early yellow card far, far better. I suspect that Wanyma would not have finished that game.

Thanks for that - I should have given the Club more credit. It's going to be a long week.

I'm very supportive of the Club ownership and management and what they're trying to do, including the fiscal responsibility regarding transfer fees and wages. But during today's match commentary I heard something rather annoying. Apparently, the team has to connect through Tel Aviv because "there's no direct fight to Be'er Sheva". Given the challenges of fixture congestion long distance travel, and the danger that this will impact on performance, is it too much to expect the Club to pay for a charter?

Culture of entitlement guarantees misery

There are some huge overreactions in here - even from people who aren't serial over-reactors. Yes, we should be looking to beat Sunderland and disappointed if we don't, but what we're seeing IMO is role unfamiliarity, not lack of quality. We have very good players all over the pitch but we're missing Pelle's pressing up-front (all the more so if Long doesn't start) - it was much too easy for Sunderland to get out of their own end. And I would MUCH rather see Tadic playing wide. When (if) Boufal arrives we may well see that change, and start to see much more from Hojberg, who went missing when Sunderland reversed our early dominance - he didn't seem to know what part he was supposed to play. I DON'T think we're missing Wanyama that much because Romeu is defending quite well and doing something with the ball when he has it. Austin needs an early ball but he won't get it as long as the midfield is looking for a square pass rather than a penetrating one, or if Tadic wants to put his foot on the ball and look around while Austin runs offside. It's ridiculous to turn on Puel when we won't see what he brings until the players settle into their roles. Start judging after ten games, not three FFS.

I said "better IN central D" - because I wasn't very impressed with him at LB, which is where LvG used him a fair number of times. And the position we wanted him for when Luke was on his way out. I didn't mean he's better there than Fonte, because he certainly isn't.

I know 1) what the Club's policy is/seems to be, 2) that Fonte is an aging asset, 3) that he has seen others go for bigger paydays, 4) that this has usually happened with a final contract year looming, 5) that we have been able to command big transfer fees for outgoing key players, and 6) that we have generally replaced departing assets very well. Fonte is contractually obliged to play for us until Summer 2018 unless we choose to let him go, so 4) doesn't apply. Given his age, he doesn't qualify for the big transfer fee, so 5) doesn't work here either. And I have my doubts about 6) as well - quality central defenders are hard to find and expensive, and we haven't been linked with any for several months. Rojo could do the job (IMO he's better in central D) but there will be wage issues and could be attitude issues. But I also know 1) that Fonte dovetails very well with VvD, 2) that Cedric would be exposed more often if he didn't have a linguistic partner right next to him, 3) that Yoshida and Gardos are not of PL starting calibre, and 4) that we're caught between the jaws of a season-already-started and a closing window. For me, this one decision has the capability of making the difference between an 8th place finish and a 14th place finish. Given that continuous development has been a cornerstone of club policy, we're about to find out whether that cornerstone is more important than the supposed club policies you guys reference.

I really like Fonte and greatly admire what he's done on the pitch and in the dressing room. But at some point the Club has to draw a line in the sand for its own long term well being. We've effectively failed numerous of these vital tests over the past three years and we just can't afford to fail yet another. We have to break the cycle. Not only would we lose a player with 2-3 good years left in him, and a working dovetail with (possibly) the best central defender in the PL. We would also, I suspect, see a significant downturn in Cedric's effectiveness. I'm sure there's a ton of in-game communication between Fonte and Cedric (who is coverage and concentration error-prone) - and I'm certain that this communication isn't in English. And this with the season already underway and precious few potential replacements available. It's much easier to draw that line in the sand with a player valued at 8 million and with 2-3 years of contract left. As for the "gentlemen's agreement", it would only carry weight with me if both gentlemen and their representatives acted like gentlemen. If the player's agent starts touting the player around behind the scenes, everything changes. What is José going to do if we stand firm?