Should "King" Kenny be sacked?

[Ben]

You're an idiot if you can't see how spectacularly bad Liverpool handled the situation.

You're an idiot if you can't see how spectacularly bad the F.A handles the decision. The decision and reasons for it were pretty amusing to be fair.

 

[Joel`]

You're an idiot if you can't see how spectacularly bad the F.A handles the decision. The decision and reasons for it were pretty amusing to be fair.

I didn't deny they handled it poorly in parts. But there's still a reason that Terry's name is never in the headlines at a club level over his racism case, and that's because Chelsea actually know what PR is.

 

[Mike.]

The F.A dragged it out and the fact you're not able to appeal against their decision is laughable, as was the report. That being said we're straying a little from the topic.

You brought it up as a reasoning, and if you cannot see how Liverpool contributed to how it was dragged out along with the FA, I question how rationally you judge the situation.

Zebedee, my internet is playing up, but interested to hear what rationale you have behind any dismissal,I have a few thoughts, will PM them to you tomorrow.

Night all.

 

[ajt09]

Christ, I can't believe I'm sticking up for the manager of our fierce rivals-and just before the Derby too.

This is what I hate about football at times. The manager not being given a chance compared to times when he'd be in charge-regardless of what happened. Why should they sack Kenny? When we finished 17th in the league, did we sack DM? No-and look what happened. For christs sake, it's his first season in charge. Like I said before, he's made a few mistakes, and yes, the Carroll purchase was very rushed. But no-one expected Carroll to implode the way he did. And no I don't enjoy seeing him go that way-I don't like seeing it happen to players, regardless of who they are. Especially at such a young age when they are so gifted.

But Kenny bought in the players who he thought, along with the advice of scouts, could make a difference for the club. And it's backfired. I'm not going to go into the Suarez thing-it's been done to death, but it's obviously had an impact. It was terribly handled PR wise. Anyone who says otherwise-well I'm sorry, BS. I don't care if you think I'm spouting ****, or if you think it's because I'm a rival fan. It's a fact. If it happened at my club I would be equally critical. People I've conversed with regularly know I say it as a football fan-not a rival fan.

And I still say Adam is a very good player IMO. But take away the solid anchor he worked along and he's going to be exposed. It could happen to any player. Be it Man Utd, Chelsea, Swansea...whoever. Injuries can wreck a clubs season. But it's not just the above that are wrecking the season-it's the usual Premier League season. Clubs like Swansea are beating Man City. Blackburn are beating Man Utd. We beat Man City, Chelsea, Spurs. You will never be guaranteed to win games-regardless of what names are on the team sheet prior to kick off. It's going to be down to the players on the pitch. Man City can have their best players on the pitch, and they could still lose, because they switch off. Or because the manager got it wrong tactically perhaps.

No team has a god given right to finish where they want, regardless of who they are, if they spend piles of cash, or who's in charge, or what players they have. Man City have spent **** loads because they wanted the Champions League and the Premier League title-they bought the best players. And look whats happened to their season. Not going according to plan is it?

They need to give Dalglish another term in charge-or at the very least half a season. And if there's no improvement, or if it gets worse than consider his position but not before. But for gods sake give him a chance. He deserves at least a second one.

 

[Zebedee]

I didn't deny they handled it poorly in parts. But there's still a reason that Terry's name is never in the headlines at a club level over his racism case, and that's because Chelsea actually know what PR is.

It's actually because newspapers know what contempt of court is.

edit: sorry, that sounded snippy Joel and it wasn't meant to be. But that's the key difference. Terry is facing criminal prosecution and as such is protected by the laws governing the coverage of what he is alleged to have done. Not a thread to rehash that one though.

 

[Joel`]

It's actually because newspapers know what contempt of court is.

They can report on something without it being in contempt of court.. i.e. If Chelsea gave them the ammunition to do so by parading around with his face on their shirts before a game.

And AFAIK contempt of court only applies to within the context of an actual trial under a Judge's discretion. We have a free press, they can (and do) freely report on the big cases on a daily basis if the public appetite for it is there.

 

[Zebedee]

They can report on something without it being in contempt of court.. i.e. If Chelsea gave them the ammunition to do so by parading around with his face on their shirts before a game.

And AFAIK contempt of court only applies to within the context of an actual trial under a Judge's discretion. We have a free press, they can (and do) freely report on the big cases on a daily basis if the public appetite for it is there.

Good job you're not the editor of a paper then, or you'd be skint and/or wondering what Bubba would like you to wear tonight when he gets back to the cell.

 

[Joel`]

Good job you're not the editor of a paper then, or you'd be skint and/or wondering what Bubba would like you to wear tonight when he gets back to the cell.

Sigh.

 

[Zebedee]

And AFAIK contempt of court only applies to within the context of an actual trial under a Judge's discretion. We have a free press, they can (and do) freely report on the big cases on a daily basis if the public appetite for it is there.

Ok, let's put it bluntly. You're wrong. Once a case is 'active' (which is defined in a couple of ways but the usual way is for charges to be made), then reporting restrictions kick in. Anything which may be considered prejudicial to the outcome of a case may be classed as contempt. The severity of the punishment and the likelihood of any action being taken depends on the time between when the offending piece was done and when the trial takes place as well as the reach of the piece (judged primarily on how many people are likely to have seen/read/heard it).

So once charges are placed against someone, it's not public appetite, amazing PR or someone being a thoroughly loveable human being which keeps the story out of the newspapers but that anything published which may be deemed to be prejudicial to the outcome of the 'active' case will be punished. Once the trial reaches court, the events in court may be reported in full and that report (with some provisos) is then protected.

Fail to observe the law here, and you're facing fines and/or imprisonment to encourage you not to do it again.

So the long and the short of it is... if Suarez had been charged for the police for racially aggravated behaviour, there would have been no media fuss. None. At least until his trial began. And then within certain restrictions. But as it was an FA case with no civil, let alone criminal, implications, Suarez was fair game for the press.

There ends tonight's lesson in 'How to avoid going to prison as a journalist, part 72'.

 

[ajt09]

I think it's best to keep it on the subject at hand rather than going over old ground tbh-it'll just open a can of worms again.

 

[Joel`]

Ok, let's put it bluntly. You're wrong. Once a case is 'active' (which is defined in a couple of ways but the usual way is for charges to be made), then reporting restrictions kick in. Anything which may be considered prejudicial to the outcome of a case may be classed as contempt. The severity of the punishment and the likelihood of any action being taken depends on the time between when the offending piece was done and when the trial takes place as well as the reach of the piece (judged primarily on how many people are likely to have seen/read/heard it).

So once charges are placed against someone, it's not public appetite, amazing PR or someone being a thoroughly loveable human being which keeps the story out of the newspapers but that anything published which may be deemed to be prejudicial to the outcome of the 'active' case will be punished. Once the trial reaches court, the events in court may be reported in full and that report (with some provisos) is then protected.

Fail to observe the law here, and you're facing fines and/or imprisonment to encourage you not to do it again.

So the long and the short of it is... if Suarez had been charged for the police for racially aggravated behaviour, there would have been no media fuss. None. At least until his trial began. And then within certain restrictions. But as it was an FA case with no civil, let alone criminal, implications, Suarez was fair game for the press.

There ends tonight's lesson in 'How to avoid going to prison as a journalist, part 72'.

It's based on if the publication poses substantial risk to the course of justice. If you want to claim Liverpool did nothing ridiculous that could have earned headlines without substantially impeding the course of justice, fine. If Chelsea paraded his face on T-shirts proclaiming his innocence, the newspapers publishing that does nothing to impede the course of justice within a court, and even if it did, the club would be the ones who are first and foremost at fault in contempt for parading it on live TV.

I already researched everything you just typed after my AFAIK statement in 1 minute, but thanks for wasting your time lecturing me.

 

[Zebedee]

It's based on if the publication poses substantial risk to the course of justice. If you want to claim Liverpool did nothing ridiculous that could have earned headlines without substantially impeding the course of justice, fine. If Chelsea paraded his face on T-shirts proclaiming his innocence, the newspapers publishing that does nothing to impede the course of justice within a court, and even if it did, the club would be the ones who are first and foremost at fault in contempt for parading it on live TV.

I already researched everything you just typed after my AFAIK statement in 1 minute, but thanks for wasting your time lecturing me.

Wasn't a waste of time if you learned something and stop spouting nonsense like Terry's racism case isn't getting headlines because Chelsea know how to do PR Just an aside, but 'substantial risk' may not mean what you seem to think it means if you're using it as some kind of get out clause.

In any case, good night. Regards to Bubba if you were at one point a newspaper editor

 

[Joel`]

Wasn't a waste of time if you learned something and stop spouting nonsense like Terry's racism case isn't getting headlines because Chelsea know how to do PR Just an aside, but 'substantial risk' may not mean what you seem to think it means if you're using it as some kind of get out clause.

In any case, good night. Regards to Bubba if you were at one point a newspaper editor

By your logic the mere publication of an article is contempt, the fact is that a publication may be in contempt pertaining to its contents.

Substantial risk is defined by:

[FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]

In making an assessment of whether the publication does create a substantial risk of serious prejudice the court will consider:

​

[/FONT]

• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]The likelihood of the publication coming to the attention of a potential juror.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]The likely impact of the publication on an ordinary reader at the time of publication.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]The residual impact of the publication on a notional juror at the time of trial.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]AFAIK, he doesn't require a jury trial and is tried on the judgement of a judge. The above factors of newspapers influencing jurors are much less likely to be found in contempt in non-jury trials as it is expected that judges are able to keep an impartial judgement regardless of media influence.[/FONT]

 

[Zebedee]

By your logic the mere publication of an article is contempt, the fact is that a publication may be in contempt pertaining to its contents.

Substantial risk is defined by:

[FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]

In making an assessment of whether the publication does create a substantial risk of serious prejudice the court will consider:

​

[/FONT]

• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]The likelihood of the publication coming to the attention of a potential juror.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]The likely impact of the publication on an ordinary reader at the time of publication.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]The residual impact of the publication on a notional juror at the time of trial.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]AFAIK, he doesn't require a jury trial and is tried on the judgement of a judge. The above factors of newspapers influencing jurors are much less likely to be found in contempt in non-jury trials as it is expected that judges are able to keep an impartial judgement regardless of media influence.[/FONT]

We should break this off into 'discussions of how journos get locked up' or something

No, my logic doesn't lead to that conclusion. What it leads to is the conclusion that opinion pieces on active court cases in national newspapers are bad mojo. And almost everything covering the Suarez case has been opinion pieces. It wouldn't be contempt of court to discuss racism in football and to cite Suarez/Evra as an example of why it is now a concern. But it may be judged to be contempt to spend 1500 words demanding that Suarez should be banned for life for racially abusing Evra in the lead up to the trial (the hypothetical one where Suarez gets charged - replace Suarez for Terry for the Terry case specifically).

Not sure where you've pulled that bit from - CPS document maybe? Jurors, magistrates and judges aren't the only people who are considered able to be prejudiced. Witnesses can be prejudiced too which is why media steer clear even in judge only trials. Another factor to consider is that prejudicing a case can be done in both directions - campaigns for 'he's innocent' in the lead up to the trial can be considered prejudicial. Which goes back to t-shirts. And of course, there's the fairly recent moves to introduce 'serious misconduct' as an alternative to contempt which allows courts to claim the costs of a case back if things collapse due to prejudicial reporting.

McNae's is a useful guide to law as it applies to journalism btw. Last from me on it now though. And as I said, didn't mean to sound snippy in that first post.

edit: final edit to save yet more google links being thrown my way. Here's a piece specifically about the Terry case and Joey Barton. In this instance, charges were not brought against Barton. Note however the concern was not about whether a few tweets from Barton would influence the judge in the Terry case but rather that they would influence a witness. Can we stop this now please? http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/feb/06/time-to-educate-about-contempt-law

=======

Anyways, tying that back to the thrust of this thread. There may be a feeling that our current owners are juggling too many balls at the moment and let two or three drop during the Suarez incident. Which kind of leaves the manager fronting up in the absence of any other leadership at the club. Not healthy.

 

[LiverpoolLad]

So whats up with Suarez saying he is open to PSG? I hope this is a bullshit report.

 

[GodCubed]

I can't help thinking that you're both right. Liverpool didn't do themselves any favours by wearing the 'support Suarez' shirts. On the other hand, contempt of court rules means that Zeb is completely technically correct.

Anyway.

So whats up with Suarez saying he is open to PSG? I hope this is a bullshit report.

It's not a bullshit report, I'd wager, seeing as it has quotes from him. Perhaps it's a little worked. Doubt he'll leave, mind.

 

[bell1276]

liverpool need players but who does he buy. man city comes with there big money and thats the end off it. football all about money not the love off it any more. liverpool playing well but there cant hit the net and who do there buy to do that for them.

 

[Jack Fulham]

Well Hodgson's contract is up at the end of the season. Bet he could get the best out of average players like Carroll, Downing, Adam and Henderson.

 

[PZW]

No he wont. Kenny has the backing of the fans, Hodgeson did not. Dalglish needs 2 things, firstly he needs both Lucas and Gerrard fit for majority of a season and 2. He needs to buy a decent striker upfront with Suarez cause seriously Carroll is beyond a joke in that position now.

Ill add to that by saying he needs to remove some deadweight to, get rid of Stewart Downing (He is beyond useless) and bench Adam. Its not Kenny that is failing, some of his players just arent coming to the party.

Stewart Downing isn't 'beyond useless', if you have watched him at all this season! He's not been the best of players, but he is by no means a massive flop like Andy Carroll. He's shown glimpses of his obvious talent, but he just seems to lack consistent here, although he has seemed to pick up his game recently (especially in the Carling Cup Final).

I agree we need a striker, it's as clear as crystal. We need someone who can poach a goal or two even when they're not on form, someone in the mould of Javier Hernandez or Robin Van Persie! I think Demba Ba wouldn't be a bad shout, although Newcastle wouldn't really be willing to sell!

Again, Carroll has talent and is still young, but his development at the club is just frustrating. If he could only show his talent in his play, then maybe he would be decent for us. At the moment, he is deadwood and may find himself out of the club in the summer. I want him to stay, though, as I hate it when fans are quick to jump on the bandwagon. As they say, class in permanent, form is temporary (although he has been really poor for quite a while now!).

Also, it is part of the manager's responsibility to ensure players are playing well for the club. Yes, it's often unfair when they get sacked for the player's under performing, but that's just how it works! Clubs often use the manager as a scapegoat, as shown in the case of André Villas-Boas (although AVB wasn't completely innocent)!

Yes, very much so. In my opinion anyway.

But will he? I can't see it.. A large majority of the fans have there head stuck so far up his ****, it's unreal, and I can't see the board risking upsetting 80/90% of our fans, who want him as manager.

His tactics/team selections for most games have been wrong, and this is one of the things the majority of Liverpool fans seem to agree on, I'm also not sure he knows that we do have subs on the bench, as once he does use them it's normally around the 80th minute, with which they can't really make an impact, which they're suppose to do once coming on.

Adam has been pretty **** this season for us, despite being top of our assist leaderboard, but he has been poor, and he should have been dropped from the team, and Henderson should be playing CM, while he's been there he's been much more effective then when he's been out-wide, then that opens the wide space for Kuyt/Maxi, and onto Maxi, he has the best goal/game ratio in our team this season, yet he can't get a game? His well-timed runs into the box are what we've lacked, if you watch us.. Once Downing/whoever is wide get's a cross in, we rarely have more then 1/2 players in the box waiting for it. Which is one reason why we've lacked with goals.

His tactics/decisions aren't always right. I don't think he is the right man to take us forward, so I can only hope he gets the sack, or realises this and step's aside. And I want Rafa back.. He got his tactics right most of the time, unlike Kenny, and unlike Kenny his signings were quality.

Reina; Arbeloa, Skrtel, Agger, Aurelio; Alonso, Lucas, Mascherano; Benayoun, Torres, Riera - All signed by Rafa for a cost of £88m

I think we paid pretty much the same for Downing, Carroll, Suarez & Henderson... And with the exception of Suarez, the other 3 have been useless, although I blame Henderson's poor season on being played in the wrong position.

I agree some fans have been a little bit too quick to praise King Kenny, but I don't think he really deserved the blame you are giving him. I don't like it when fans are quick to criticise a manager (as it's a hard job), but you do have a few points.

I personally wouldn't really want Rafael Benítez back, he was good but I just don't really rate him personally. He was the one who was at the helm of our downfall, don't forget (I'm not blaming him, mind)! Yes, King Kenny's tactics or signings haven't been brilliant, but he clearly inspires the players and has won a trophy!

Charlie Adam was a great signing, in my opinion, as he clearly has brilliant talent and hasn't been extremely poor this season (if someone was really bad they wouldn't have got so many assists) and has had to put up with Lucas being injured, which has been a massive blow to the midfield. Rafa's signings were astute, but remember, they were years ago. For £8 million (what we got Adam for), I doubt you could even sign Emile Heskey!

Anyway, I think King Kenny should be given until the start of next season to rebuild, and then if he is still clearly making lots of stupid decisions and mistakes, then maybe it would be the time to move on and get a consistent and young manager in for the long term (that is what I hope, anyway - someone like Paul Lambert would be brilliant, although I understand he is very inexperienced and may not be able to cope with the pressure)!

​- PZW

 

[GodCubed]

Stewart Downing isn't 'beyond useless', if you have watched him at all this season! He's not been the best of players, but he is by no means a massive flop like Andy Carroll. He's shown glimpses of his obvious talent, but he just seems to lack consistent here, although he has seemed to pick up his game recently (especially in the Carling Cup Final).

I agree we need a striker, it's as clear as crystal. We need someone who can poach a goal or two even when they're not on form, someone in the mould of Javier Hernandez or Robin Van Persie! I think Demba Ba wouldn't be a bad shout, although Newcastle wouldn't really be willing to sell!

Again, Carroll has talent and is still young, but his development at the club is just frustrating. If he could only show his talent in his play, then maybe he would be decent for us. At the moment, he is deadwood and may find himself out of the club in the summer. I want him to stay, though, as I hate it when fans are quick to jump on the bandwagon. As they say, class in permanent, form is temporary (although he has been really poor for quite a while now!).

That's all well and good, but how many strikers can you find that can poach a goal even when off form? It's notoriously difficult to do. Rooney can't do it, as evidenced by his drought a while back, and Torres has spent a whole day's worth of playing time proving he can't either. In the Prem, who is there that can really just get a goal out of nowhere? Robin Van Persie, yes. Hernandez, yes. Past them? Darren Bent has proved time and again he can do it. Ba, probably. Sergio Aguero, most likely. But apart from those five or so, it's hard to think of anyone who can pop up with a goal even when out of form.

So out of those five, we can immediately rule out Van Persie, Hernandez and Aguero, for obvious reasons, leaving Ba and Bent. Demba Ba has no motive to leave, what with Newcastle being above Liverpool in the Prem, a lethal new strike partner and compatriot in Papiss Demba Cisse alongside him, and a club that is totally against selling him. Bent, on the other hand, is at a club that is having its potential crippled by a poor manager. On the other hand, not only will Villa be loathe to sell, but they'll demand a huge price for him. Stewart Downing and James Milner both went for exorbitant fees when Villa dug their heels in, and Bent was bought for around £20 mil. We're looking at a price tag of AT LEAST £25 mil, for a 28 year old striker who, once bought, will almost certainly not be sold for a profit. Part of the ethos of the new owners at Anfield is buying players with resale value, and Bent doesn't fit.

Form is temporary, class is permanent, sure. But Fernando Torres has class, and you wouldn't sign him on the basis of what he's produced over the course of a year. Class may be permanent, but it's only useful if you can actually get a run of form going. However, I would argue that Carroll certainly isn't dead wood. If nothing else, he seems to give Suarez a foil to work off and work to his best. He's also beginning to hit form. I think that with a bit of luck, Carroll could come good in a spectacular way.

I personally wouldn't really want Rafael Benítez back, he was good but I just don't really rate him personally. He was the one who was at the helm of our downfall, don't forget (I'm not blaming him, mind)! Yes, King Kenny's tactics or signings haven't been brilliant, but he clearly inspires the players and has won a trophy!

Rafael Benitez was the one who managed to take Liverpool to the next level. If nothing else, he won the Champions League. 'He was good' doesn't really begin to cover it in regards to his success at Liverpool.

Charlie Adam was a great signing, in my opinion, as he clearly has brilliant talent and hasn't been extremely poor this season (if someone was really bad they wouldn't have got so many assists) and has had to put up with Lucas being injured, which has been a massive blow to the midfield. Rafa's signings were astute, but remember, they were years ago. For £8 million (what we got Adam for), I doubt you could even sign Emile Heskey!

Bobby Zamora, Chris Brunt and Danny Murphy have all managed just one fewer assist than Adam. It isn't a measure of how good they are, particularly when you're meant to be a set-piece specialist and thus take the majority of your team's set-pieces, vastly increasing the likelihood of an assist. Adam hasn't been poor, but he's hardly been good; he gives away the most fouls in the 'Pool squad, has been the most dribbled player, and is dispossessed at a relatively frequent rate. He's undoubtedly a gifted long passer, but he lacks mobility, intelligence and the ability to play effectively in a midfield two.