Did Purslow put fans truly in the picture?

Christian Purslow finally made his long-awaited appearance on Liverpool’s official TV channel earlier today, answering questions sent in by supporters some time ago.

It was a chance for him to show fans that the club was being run day-to-day by a leader they could trust. Someone with integrity, someone who wouldn’t tell lies or answer questions in a way he knew was some distance away from being fully open and honest.

One of the most trivial of those questions was about a mural.

He was asked: “Was a mural depicting our amazing Champions League final triumph ripped down from a wall at Melwood to remove any trace of Rafa from the club’s history?”

His answer: “Absolutely not. I can’t say I’m an expert on how we decorate any walls anywhere in our buildings as I do have plenty of other things on my plate, but I have checked. The reality is there was a mural and it was changed to reflect our new shirt sponsor and I’m delighted to say Rafa is smack bang in the middle of it with the Champions League trophy as he should be, celebrating a fantastic night in the club’s history. We celebrate our past; we don’t hide it or are not embarrassed about it.”

Celebrating our past is just about all we can celebrate as supporters of Liverpool Football Club. It’s our present we’re embarrassed about. And those words were written before tonight’s Carling Cup tie against Northampton.

A mural painted on a Melwood stairwell is obviously going to be removed if it’s basically an advert for the club’s former main sponsor, and that’s what the mural he’s referring to was. It featured past and present Liverpool players sporting last year’s Carlsberg sponsored home shirt. Had it been a poster it would have been ripped down; it was a mural so it was painted over.

Why he’s talking about that particular mural is something only he and the club know. Because the club know that the artwork discussed in a story on this website in early July is not the artwork Purslow spoke about today.

This site made an error in July when it referred to a mural featuring Rafael Benítez being taken down from a wall at Melwood.

The error was the use of the word “mural”.

A mural is, according to most definitions, a large painting applied directly onto a wall or ceiling. What had been described to us was clearly not a mural.

What was described to us from the outset was a photograph of Benítez. We were informed this had been taken down on the orders of Purslow. It wasn’t a mural – it was part of a display featuring a number of other photographs and also some quotes. It wasn’t just Liverpool players and managers that were featured. And the idea for this display came from Sammy Lee; it went up soon after his return to the club as assistant manager.

The story clearly hit a raw nerve for someone.

We found ourselves being contacted by numerous people, including some from the club, about “the mural”. We were told we’d got the story wrong, that the only mural being removed from Melwood was the one that basically acted as a big Carlsberg advert.

We’ve never had that amount of contact before telling us one of our stories might be wrong. And never that fast.

It seemed that the club had come up with a set response to questions about the “mural”. And whenever we pointed out that the stairwell painting wasn’t what we were referring to we were greeted on the whole with silence.

Every response we saw from the club referred to the painted Carlsberg ad.

We were willing to accept that somebody with an axe to grind may have deliberately set about giving us false information. Even though we’d asked many questions before running the story, we could see why the information may not be accurate.

But the club were constantly focussing on a painting that had no resemblance to the display we’d had described to us.

In the end we felt it was best to contact Paul Tyrrell, the club’s head of press, to ask for his side of the story.

We referred to the stock answer that seemed to form the basis of any response from the club. We gave him this example: “The image that was removed from the stairwell at Melwood wasn’t about Istanbul. It was a big picture of Gerrard, Torres and Carra in colour in front of a host of legendary players from the 70’s- 90’s all wearing Carlsberg strips with Rafa again in colour at the back alongside Robbie Fowler.

“It’s a great image, but the players were all wearing last season’s strip with the Carlsberg logo plastered all over it. As we have just changed our sponsor to Standard Chartered, the design team is preparing a new image to go up with players wearing the new Standard Chartered kit. Rafa will be part of the new mural alongside the Cup won at Istanbul. LFC is and has always been proud of our amazing history and there’s absolutely no desire to remove Rafa or his achievements from the club.”

That statement is obviously a very well crafted, “sent from above”, type of statement. And we’d have no issue with the response at all – if anyone was actually asking about that particular piece of artwork.

But nobody was.

The denials were something like being asked if Steven Gerrard is fully fit and responding by saying Pepe Reina hasn’t got an injury worries. Nobody asked about Pepe, but time and time again that’s the response. Nobody asked about a Carlsberg advert, but time and time again that’s the response.

We pointed this out to Mr Tyrrell. We gave him details of what it was we were referring to.

We made it absolutely clear that we were not talking about the painting in a stairwell. He responded: “I am glad that the confusion surrounding the replacement of the stairwell image appears to have been sorted out.”

There never was any confusion about that particular image. Not until the club started to refer to it anyway.

But at least his next comment showed he’d realised this. He added: “I am mystified at the suggestion that another piece of artwork has been taken down in Melwood. Perhaps you could ask your source to clarify what and where this alleged image is and I will be able to assuage you.”

Although his response was fairly fast (just less than 24 hours after we’d contacted him) it was much slower than the earlier reaction to the story. By the time we got it we’d already run a piece on the website – “More on the missing picture” – about our mistaken use of the word “mural” and how the club were issuing denials about the wrong piece of artwork.

We replied to Mr Tyrrell with the link, explaining it should provide the clarification he’d asked for.

Mr Tyrrell replied again soon after. Out of courtesy we asked if we could use the contents of that reply, we felt it would be good to be able to publish some comments from the club that actually related to the picture in our story instead of an unrelated stairwell advert.

Unfortunately Mr Tyrrell declined: “Happy for you to use the first email I sent you but would be grateful if you would keep the second one between you and I.”

There’s nothing particularly groundbreaking in that second email, and as much as we felt it was disappointing not to be able to use it we also understood and respected his reasons for asking us to withhold the contents.

And on balance we felt the story was now at a stage where it would probably be best left alone. The club knew we weren’t referring to a painting in a stairwell, and although they weren’t willing to go on the record to deny our claims; when all was said and done it was becoming something of an old story.

The departure of Benítez didn’t please everyone, nor did the retention of Purslow. Roy Hodgson’s appointment was surrounded by controversy, but none of that was the new manager’s own doing.

Hodgson was now two weeks into the job and needed to be given a chance to prove the doubters wrong.

More importantly a sales process was – supposedly – underway. Martin Broughton had told fans about this the day he introduced Roy Hodgson to the media, the day he suggested Hodgson was here to “steady the ship”. He said it was all going well and should be done by the end of August.

As summer went on the focus moved away from questions about Christian Purslow and his conduct over the course of his first season at the club. It was disappointing to see a fourth consecutive transfer window end with Liverpool making a profit on transfer fees, but at least this time Purslow didn’t take supporters for fools by claiming there had been a net spend of £20m.

There actually seemed to be some light at the end of the tunnel. We actually seemed to be on the verge of being sold. If that happened – and if it was to reputable owners who understood what really makes this club tick – Purslow wouldn’t be able to stick around taking supporters for fools.

It seems a long time now since the article about the picture went out on this site. The call for fans to send in their questions for Purslow went out on July 20th, over two months ago, yet he was only shown answering them today.

The questions are out of date, are the answers? Would it not have been better to ask for fresh questions or to just postpone the interview until after the deadline in three weeks?

Was it Rafa’s comments about unnamed Liverpool directors and their lack of football knowledge that prompted the interview to go out?

We’re weeks away from a deadline that defines the future of the club and we still don’t know if we can trust the man who is running the club day to day.

Can we trust a man if he can’t even be open and honest in his response to one simple, trivial, question about a photograph on a wall at Melwood? How likely is it that he was open and honest in his answers to any of the far more important questions posed to him in today’s interview?

Is he still taking the supporters for fools?

Are there many supporters who could say, hand on heart, they really believe every word of every answer he gave today?

More questions, but the main question must be – will it matter by the end of next month?

Let’s hope not.

37 thoughts on “Did Purslow put fans truly in the picture?”

  1. As egotistical as I think Purslow appears to be at times I thought he answered some pretty challenging questions well, at no point did I get the impression he was anything more than slightly big headed but still looking out for the club’s best interests. Perhaps he did play a part in a confusing game of, what is now, Chinese whispers about the photo/painting. I have bigger questions about the initial allegation, was there really another photo in question or do they keep repeating the story about the mural because they have no clue about what the other thing could be?

    I did have issues with how long the piece took to come to light as the questions were asked much earlier however it was part of a series with 3 board members and the 2nd was released 2 months after the 1st and the 3rd was released 2 months after the 2nd.

    This post seems a bit too conspiratorial for me. More speculation about CP being a nasty man.

  2. Im a fool I wnt Purslow, Broughton and Mr Hicks and Mr Gilette to stay and take our club on to new levels of division 2 long may they rein the king is dead long live the king, I think Hicks and Gilette have shown Liverpool Football Club the way forward in this complicated and fragile economic system and we must not forget to give full appreciation to Mr Purslow and Mr Broughton (although the latter have more than likley leaked to the press behind the managers back) what a wonderful job of finding a new buyer and keeping the fans informed, a round of applause for the board, ps how long before they sack Roy this is about the third step to becoming third rate, again please stand up and applaud a wonderful board..signed elated of Halewood

  3. Why the mural fu00 the question f@@@ the answer Purlows and Broughton must go no matter what happens in the future, Purslow sacked Rafa for non footballing reasons, that says it all for me, Hicks Gilette ,Purslow must go

  4. I have just read my two previous comments and now realise I have been watching the LibDem conference, and it made me a bit Hippy and lovey what we should do to Hicks, Gilette purslow & co is douse them in petrol stick a tyre round the kneck and light it…. signed Winnie the pyromaniac from Halewood

  5. Just had a visit from the local fire bobby he said tyres and petrol was a bit dangerous and most likley against the law, he suggested we keep sending emails rather than burn people, on reflection I think its good advise
    signed extinguished from Halewood

  6. If only Moores was not such a inbred nupty head I could have gone to bed a lot earlier,,,,, signed tired from Halewood

  7. The reds are coming up from Halewood they all laugh at us they all mock at us they all say are days are numbered born to be scouse…. Signed by Dyslexic from Hollywood

  8. What rubbish!

    Why waste your breath on the mural, mate? Who cares??? You might as well complain about the colour of the carpet, it has no relevance whatsoever to the future of the club.

    Rafa was (a) incompetent in the final reckoning and (b) too vocal with the media – firstly (at the beginning of every season) to get all of his excuses in and secondly to criticize the hierarchy. He had to go – good riddance!

    Did you even watch the interview? Anybody objective who listened to CP could tell that he was sincere. He doesn’t have a contract, he isn’t angling for a long-term job (unlike Parry), and he isn’t trying to self-promote himself into a better position. He wants the Yanks out as badly as we all do and he’s trying to accomplish that. Let him get on with his job!

    Listen, if a few weeks turns to a few months and he’s still making the same noises, fine. But he was pretty unequivocal there – he didn’t give himself any room for manoeuvre. He can’t tell you everything he knows (why would you think otherwise?) and he’s right in stating that talks like these are always conducted in confidence – at least if they are going to be successful.

    Stop talking s#ite and stop splitting hairs about f#cking murals, eh?

    You’ll Never Walk Alone.

  9. jim, thanks for fighting the fight. without your diligent work, i certainly would not know how much of a dishonest snake Purslow is. i hope people understand that there was a tremendous amount of word smithing that went into his responses. i trust none of them.

  10. If Purslow is telling a pack of lies, bare-faced doesn’t really do them justice.

    The timing of the release of these answers does indeed leave Purslow with the “my comments were accurate at the time of asking” disclaimer, however with speculation becoming more frenzied as repayment deadline day approaches, they probably thought they had to say something.

    Conversely, perhaps the sales process, which a lot of folk currently have little faith in because they are not party to all the information, has kept him so busy that it is only now that he has had time to sit down and provide responses?

    I found it interesting that he said he doesn’t have a fat contract to cash in when new owners take over…he may appear to be a nasty man to some, but at least he won’t strip any money out of the club by seeking some sort of compensation if he’s turfed out.

    I wish I could focus on the missing mural, but for me, that really is a side issue, we’re rapidly approaching end game now. I hope this “small number” of interested parties who are – alledgedly – carrying out due dilligence are still interested. If he’s referring to Mr Huang and Papa John’s Pizza man…oh dear oh dear.

    What gives me a small ray of hope to cling to is that he didn’t duck any questions, “no comment” was conspicuous by its absence and he has made it clear that the three man non-owner board members are opposed to refinancing by the present incumbent(s). I did note that he didn’t say he’d stop them at all costs though, probably because they can’t…

  11. I think we should all keep cool. It’s clear that Hicks is scrambling around to try and get additional financing. God knows why. As a businessman it seems a terrible decision which will lead to higher interest payments which the club can’t sustain, further underinvestment leading to the departure of key players and increased fan disillusionment and ultimately boycotts. This in turn will lead to a decline in revenues and profitability thus leading to a decline in eh ultimately the value of the club. I think this is what GSO saw as well as the Non-Exec Directors. It will be really interesting to see how this all comes to a head but my instinct is telling me that the non-exec directors will be bound by law to vote against any extension of loan facilities that will ultimately affect the potential for LFC to be a going concern with growing profits. Long way of saying I reckon in the next three weeks Hicks will be told he has to sell by a combination of the Board and RBS. Throw into the mix the Uefa rules and I can’t really see what Hicks is hoping to achieve unless he can get a loan extension with lower interest rates that decrease our payments to any lenders. That might be possible but I really doubt it…YNWA!

  12. Jeff the mural isn’t a side issue it’s part of the whole issue it’s 1 lie after another. the mans a liar rafa was sacked, were 20million plus profit player transfers last 4 windows yet we couldn’t find a striker apart from carlton cole and that was supposed to be a swop deal.
    And the reason they didn’t give king kenny the job is because if they treated KK the way they treated rafa it would be more than his job on the line and he knew it. Never mind yanks out all of the lying b******s out.

  13. The boards intentions will be made clear in the next 3 weeks. Its endgame for the club and if they have been trying to string everyone along and if they have been hiding the truth well they wont be able to do so for much longer.

    According to Purslow a few small parties are still in the running and in the middle of due diligence. According to Keith Harris his client completed due diligence some time ago. Therefore by the RBS deadline day there should be a number of clubs in a position to make an offer.

    If at that point offers are made but Purslow and the board claim any sale will take months then I think they will be shown up as fraudsters with their own agendas using their own stalling tactics.

    But one thing is for sure they only have a few weeks for their story to date to stack up

  14. Warren:

    The mural/painting/photo isn’t really important, certainly not two months down the line. Despite us getting some criticism on the back of the version of events used by “the club” there really wasn’t any great desire to bring the subject up again for us. But, for whatever reason it was, that question was one of the 21 picked from what we have to assume must have been hundreds put forward by fans.

    They know exactly what the other thing is, they knew before they even asked fans to pose questions to Purslow, yet Purslow was still asked questions about something entirely different.

    Anecdotes like these about Purslow are not few and far between, but as you point out, in most cases there is nothing else to go on other than taking the word of whoever passes the anecdote on.

    For me personally I’ve heard enough from people I trust, and enough from people who unwittingly give little things away despite trying to defend him, to make my own mind up about him. He’s yet to do anything to convince me I’m wrong, but I’m always willing to listen.

  15. @ 1truered,

    I understand what you’re saying. If we look at it from the perspective of lies being told, then no, it isn’t a side issue at all. I’m looking at context and wider ramifications. Anyway, I did say “for me” the mural is a side issue. In my opinion, it has no bearing on the sale and future of our club and I believe that is a vastly more important issue than the mural. Sorry.

    It’s plain as the nose on your face that Rafa was dismissed, because of his affection for the club, he walked away with less than he was entitled to.
    I can’t speculate on the treatment Dalglish would or wouldn’t have received if he got the job.

    I think more attention will be paid to getting a striker in the next window. When he arrived, Hodgson had players in his ear (well, Ryan Babel at least) telling him that they should be deployed in a more advanced role. How many folk have bemoaned players being played out of position? This is a chance to see if these boys are capable of what they suggest they are. It wouldn’t be fair to just go out and get someone without giving what you have a chance.

  16. “JamesYNWA”

    We didn’t raise the subject again: two months down the line, “the club” did. They obviously care, so it’s only fair we respond.

    I’m glad you’ve got your views of Rafa off your chest – we all had our views on whether or not he “had to go” and now we know yours. Lots of people share your views on Rafa, but I’ve not seen quite so many be this protective of the hierarchy.

    We were, on the whole, letting CP “get on with his job” – for quite some time now we’ve held back from spending too much time repeating our concerns, concerns that remain unresolved and have far more to do with his relationship with the owners, potential investors and the banks than they do with his dealings with Rafa.

    There are other things I’d like to say now, in time I hope I get the opportunity to do so (or better still I hope somebody else does) but for the time being I’m going to have to keep those thoughts off this site.

    I suggest you go back and watch the interview again, read it even, and see if you can spot the numerous ways he made sure he had room to manoeuvre. In fact you seem to have spotted this already, hence the mention of the obvious about him being unable to discuss certain issues because of confidentiality issues.

    That said, just because someone won’t discuss something confidential on the record don’t assume they don’t let little details out as and when it suits off the record.

    The mural or photograph is irrelevent to the main point of this piece – the main point of this piece is the way “the club” set about denying the story.

  17. DP: Me too to be honest. More than I can say at times.

    Cory: He certainly knows how to answer a question in a way that suggests something different to what he really means. Probably good at crosswords.

    Jeff: If the sales process has held him back from having the time to do the interview that’s fine by me, priorities and all that. However surely it wouldn’t have hurt to freshen up some of the questions.

    I’ve not asked, but given how long he took to authorise those SOS meeting minutes that time it wouldn’t surprise me if this was recorded weeks ago.

    Roy Hodgson was criticised in the press recently for comments that had actually come from an interview in early July but had been held back until September. People from the club and elsewhere jumped to his defence to point out how old the quotes actually were and how in context they could be read differently.

    It will be disappointing if all Purslow’s answers relate to the state of play some weeks ago rather than this week.

    He says parties are carrying out due diligence. According to his superiors, I understand, there are no other parties carrying out due diligence, there are no serious bidders at the table. Maybe his superiors were lying again, but in the context that information was offered (and who it was offered to) it doesn’t seem likely.

    He can’t stop them refinancing – the board are legally unable to prevent him from paying RBS off and getting the finance from a new backer.

    Steve Dowling:

    I think, in short, the reason Hicks is scrambling about looking for additional financing is because he’s in danger of losing the £70m cash he put into the club. Gillett seems to have borrowed his £70m, if he lost the club he’d not personally lose the £70m. It seems Hicks would.

    To him perhaps it’s literally a case of seeing it as either he loses the £70m now or he fights a bit longer to see if he can hang onto the club long enough for someone to turn up with an offer that gets him some or all of that cash back. If he’s going to lose the money anyway it’s easy to see why he might try to change things.

  18. Juan – the key point there is that time will tell, as you point out.

    Most of the speculation surrounding the club is hotly debated by us all but most of the time the only way we find out the true answer is to let time go by and for deadlines to pass or predictions to come true.

    This time next month we’ll know a lot more than we do today.

  19. Jim,

    It’ll be more than disappointing, it’ll be an effin’ disgrace!!

    If there are no serious bidders at the table, I have no idea where we go from here…certainly puts Hick’s refinancing attempts in context, that and the fact that he could lose a cool 70 mil…

    I’m still holding out some hope, I can’t help it…

  20. Jim – thanks for the acknowledgment, and please don’t think my weariness has anything to do with your excellent reporting.

    I’m just fed up hoping that something good/tangible will happen, to the point where I dread the early morning news trawl. (This morning was not much fun.)

    Keep up the good work.

  21. Jeff – I think you’ve got to hold out that hope, at times it feels like it’s all we’ve got left. I’m still cautiously optimistic.

  22. The missing pictures have been found. They were on a dump heap in Milan along with the ones of Jose Mourhino that Rafa Benitez had removed from the Inter traning facilities. What goes around, comes around

  23. …….and the whole sorry affair continues. The ups & downs that LFC is going through on an almost hourly basis are enough to make anyone seasick. One day we’re being sold, the next Hicks is trying to strong arm the board, our captain Stevie says we’re improving, then we get humiliated by a league 1 side. And on top of all that no one at the club seems to give a toss enough about the supporters to give us a straight answer.

    I’m sick to the teeth with the whole damn thing!

  24. Jim aside from all of the ownership issues going on how do you think Roy has performed as manager to date?

    Like I did with Rafa I will give Roy time to have a fair crack of the whip. I’m not so sure if I would afford him the same amount of time but I will certainly give him a season to show us what he can do.

    Off the field, in the media, dealing with players Roy has been a breath of fresh air. Rafas political mind games had become tedious and Roys approach is fresh.

    But judging him solely on the the teams performances to date and solely on the players at his disposal I dont believe his performance as manager on the field has been up to scratch. Its early days but already he looks far tactically inferior to Benitez. In a way his style of play resembles that of Rafa’s and thats not exactly a positive. He has come across as being tactically naive and his willingness to use his substitutes to change a game seems worryingly lacking.

    Dont get me wrong I’m not one of these people that will look to sack a manager 5 minutes into his tenure and thats not what I’m suggesting. I am simply giving my own honest reflection as to how I think hes performed on the field so far.

    At the moment I feel time may tell that hes out of his depth.

  25. BDB – It was League 2.

    I know what you mean about being sick of it all, we’ve just to try and keep the faith it’s all going to turn out for the best.

    I can’t see the future including any more of this 50-50 ownership that’s kept us in limbo. One or both of the owners will be gone soon.

  26. @ Jeff
    So it was fair to try and sell insua without a left back already in place. My biggest concern is that roy is a yes man to these liars and all the interviews and the things that have gone on since he arrived havn’t done anything to dispel these concerns. a few examples of this , everything rafa was criticised for last season he’s gone completly the oppisite way as though he is trying to curry fovour to get people on his side especially the pundits and the press i.e substitutes or lack of them , sitting down looking clueless,instead of standing trying to change things man to man at set pieces instead of zonal how vunerable do we look now ,trying to sell last years scapegoats, sorry loaning out after saying everyone gets a fair crack and if you go by his first buy poulson to slow for italian football and no better than lucus. and we wont buy for the sake of buying is that the new were skint. my advice to roy be your own man and produce on the pitch and quickly.

  27. @ Mr F

    If that report is to be believed it is only delaying the inevitable sale of the club.

    It also stands to contradicts the boards suggestion that there are genuine investors waiting in the wings.

    Surely if RBS really wanted their money back they would take control of Liverpool, sell it on at a realistic knock down price and get their money. Extending the deadline at this stage would surely only scupper any potential takeover as investors supposedly waiting in the wings would once again have to pay Hicks inflated valuation.

    RBS would be as much the villans in this as Hicks in all of this should they extend again.

  28. @Juan see the post I made after the post your talking about. I think and hope that one is true, he seems to think that RBS are currently in talks with lawyers to see if they can take control of the club without sending it into administracian,

  29. @ Mr F

    Yeah read that after.

    Hopefully RBS will step up and do whats right. I wouldnt be surprised if they dont simply because they are making so much from interest and penalties.

    If they do go ahead and push back the deadline there would have to be a wave of serious action from the fans. Account closed and all that as David MAddock talks about in his mirror article.

  30. 1truered,

    I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at? Hodgson already enjoys a good relationship with the media from his time at Fulham…

    The debate about the pros and cons of zonal marking will rage on for some time to come, the truth is, both methods of marking concede goals, it’s just a question of preference, Hodgson likes man to man (ooer!) marking so once the boys get used to it, it’ll be no better or worse than zonal…

    With all due respect, Benitez is one of the most animated managers I’ve ever seen, each man has their own style…how Hodgson looks is a matter of conjecture.

    Christian Poulsen may well surprise you sooner rather than later, although how much time you’ll give him to do that is down to you. It appears as if no-one likes Lucas. he gives his best everytime he plays, what do think playing out of position for three years has done for him? attract criticism, that’s what.

    To the left back issue. It was clear that Insua was playing too much for his age. Jay Spearing would suffer similar dips in form if he was a regular starter in our midfield right now, same goes for Amoo, Eccleston, Irwin et al. Fabio Aurelio is back and is getting the proper medical help he needs…Daniel Agger filled in there, so we’ve never been without a left full-back. Fair or not, it’s a decision the new manager took and that was that. oops, nearly forgot Konchesky!!

    I don’t see Hodsgon as a yes man, he is someone who knows his own mind and the way he wants his teams to play. Perhaps he doesn’t see the merit in voicing his transfer frustration in public? After all, don’t we all already know the restraints our club has been forced to work under? What should he do? tell us all he asked for a table but was given a lamp?

    Not sure how to respond to the lack of substitutes…you could set your watch by the subs Benitez made, regardless of how they were playing, his most famous decision last season leaving Gerrard and Torres looking like they thought they’d left the gas on at home…

  31. Juan,

    If I’m being totally honest I’m find it very hard to be positive about Roy. But I’m trying, and I do think we’ve got to try.

    You mention the politics. Roy’s shown plenty of signs of his own political skills so far, but I’ll not dwell on that just now. Part of that’s down to the new era of club propaganda that’s kicked in this summer. I’ve never known the club try so hard to tell us everything’s rosy. It’s fake and it shows.

    As to his performances on the field, he’s way below what I actually imagined he might be. And so that means that even I can see how he can get much better.

    I don’t think it’s going to help anyone if we really get on his back though. He knows it’s not working (I hope) and he’ll be doing all he can to stop the slide. He does need more time, he does need our support.

    We need new owners and a new board. By the time that happens it should be much clearer if Roy’s having a bit of a bad start or if he really is out of his depth.

  32. @ Jeff
    What i’m getting at is i want him to shut up and produce results and performances can’t see what he’s trying to do, if its without the scapegoats then fair enough but stop talking and get on with it. also thought the way he slaughtered some of the kids to the media last night very classy, the new liverpool way. I’ll finish with do we give him to january to produce like he did to babel, because i havn’t seen anything yet to convince me things will get better. Hope i’m wrong very wrong and its because he’s been employed by the lying b******s that i can’t see what he’s doing or trust him.

  33. I think the defeat to the Cobblers has started the clock ticking on Roy. Up till then I think most people were happy to give him a chance and accept that he’s in a difficult position and that it takes time for his team to come together and gel. But losing at home to the lowest ranked team in the competition is disgraceful, and he can’t hide from that. No disrespect to Northampton intended.

    And just my two cents on Hicks. I think this looking around for finance is just more manoeuvring – perhaps hoping to get potential buyers back to the negotiating table who are otherwise waiting for the October deadline day.

Comments are closed.