Rafa Benitez often apologises for a faltering command of the English language. Utterly unnecessarily. Because his use of rhetorical irony in a cutting post-match press conference at Hull City last Sunday was almost Shakespearean.
Six times the Reds boss used the phrase ‘senior sources’.
That’s one more than Mark Antony used in turning a Roman crowd against the noble Brutus – his buzz phrase was “an honourable man” – and it was enough to give Reds fans even more cause for concern.
Despite dispensing with one chief executive he couldn’t work with, Rafa still appears unable to form an open, trusting relationship with the Reds board.
That was painfully transparent at the KC Stadium last Sunday.
“If I stay, I am not thinking about selling Gerrard and Torres – just in case ‘senior sources’ say different things,” he muttered.
He went on: “It depends. ‘Senior sources’ maybe will say different, but it has been the same in the history of football.”
And there was more.
Six separate references to ‘senior sources’ in fact, all of them heavily ironic.
The inference is clear. The Liverpool manager thinks ‘senior sources’ at Liverpool are briefing the media against him.
So is Rafa paranoid?
Does he see shadows on grassy knolls?
Or are there ‘senior sources’ out to get him?
Of course Rafa himself could be the problem.
His track record for falling out with senior executives at football clubs is impressive.
Jesus Pitarch at Valencia, Rick Parry at Liverpool, George Gillett (although few would criticise him for picking that particular fight), and now un-named ‘senior sources.’
Maybe he’s a manager who thrives on creative tension.
Or perhaps he is being undermined.
As Rafa might say, let’s examine the ‘facts’.
A story was ‘broken’ by the BBC on Tuesday May 4.
“Liverpool boss Rafael Benitez has cancelled two scheduled face-to-face meetings with the club’s new chairman, Martin Broughton,” ran the report.
It inferred that Benitez was stalling for time while Juventus courted him.
It certainly painted the Reds boss in a poor light.
If Benitez was irritated so were we, because it appeared we’d ‘missed’ a juicy tale. Except it seems there was no ‘story’ to miss.
A first meeting, scheduled for April 20, was called off because an unexpected cloud of volcanic ash spreading across Europe meant that Rafa Benitez had to spend 48 hours on a train with his players rather than two hours on a plane.
No problem. No-one could have foreseen Mount Eyjafjallajökull erupting.
The next meeting was scheduled for 24 hours before the visit of Chelsea – until Martin Broughton decided he wouldn’t be coming back to Merseyside for the Chelsea game because of his already publicised footballing allegiances.
So no opportunity to squeeze a meeting in there then.
Still no major problem, until the story on the BBC website, which spread in this internet age like a particularly vicious virus.
Forgive me if I’m seeing shadows on grassy knolls now, but it looks like someone was briefing the Beeb against the Liverpool manager.
And further scrutiny of the article shows it was someone inside the Anfield boardroom.
“There is some surprise inside the Anfield boardroom at the timing of Benitez’s call on Tuesday for an urgent meeting with Broughton to discuss the future,” added the BBC story.
There have been other ‘leaks.’
“It is known around Anfield that Christian Purslow has talked to Benítez about his style of management, notably his cold detachment from the players,” wrote the Daily Telegraph last November, adding: “Liverpool can afford to sack Benítez. Compensation would be less than £5 million under the ‘mitigating the loss’ principle if he found employment.”
It doesn’t take a huge leap to work out where the Telegraph might have got their compensation figure from.
That story and the BBC ‘revelation’ may not be linked. Liverpool board members have always spoken to the media – and even after foul-mouthed Tom junior’s resignation there are still several board members remaining.
But board members who brief against a manager should beware.
Remember Noel White?
He spent 21 years at Anfield before falling on his sword for criticising Benitez in a newspaper article.
At the time Benitez said: “The important thing is the club, and such things as this do not normally happen here. This is a big club and there is a way of doing things here.”
That was four years ago. Has that way of doing things gone for good?
It was Bill Shankly who effectively labelled Anfield directors as simply men who sign the cheques.
Rightly or wrongly, that’s an image which has persisted.
Even those Reds fans who want Rafa Benitez out have a huge well of emotion for the man, largely inspired by one emotional night in Istanbul.
Any ‘senior sources’ inside Anfield who try to take him on will do so at their peril.
Six times the Reds boss used the phrase ‘senior sources’.
That’s one more than Mark Antony used in turning a Roman crowd against the noble Brutus – his buzz phrase was “an honourable man” – and it was enough to give Reds fans even more cause for concern.
Despite dispensing with one chief executive he couldn’t work with, Rafa still appears unable to form an open, trusting relationship with the Reds board.
That was painfully transparent at the KC Stadium last Sunday.
“If I stay, I am not thinking about selling Gerrard and Torres – just in case ‘senior sources’ say different things,” he muttered.
He went on: “It depends. ‘Senior sources’ maybe will say different, but it has been the same in the history of football.”
And there was more.
Six separate references to ‘senior sources’ in fact, all of them heavily ironic.
The inference is clear. The Liverpool manager thinks ‘senior sources’ at Liverpool are briefing the media against him.
So is Rafa paranoid?
Does he see shadows on grassy knolls?
Or are there ‘senior sources’ out to get him?
Of course Rafa himself could be the problem.
His track record for falling out with senior executives at football clubs is impressive.
Jesus Pitarch at Valencia, Rick Parry at Liverpool, George Gillett (although few would criticise him for picking that particular fight), and now un-named ‘senior sources.’
Maybe he’s a manager who thrives on creative tension.
Or perhaps he is being undermined.
As Rafa might say, let’s examine the ‘facts’.
A story was ‘broken’ by the BBC on Tuesday May 4.
“Liverpool boss Rafael Benitez has cancelled two scheduled face-to-face meetings with the club’s new chairman, Martin Broughton,” ran the report.
It inferred that Benitez was stalling for time while Juventus courted him.
It certainly painted the Reds boss in a poor light.
If Benitez was irritated so were we, because it appeared we’d ‘missed’ a juicy tale. Except it seems there was no ‘story’ to miss.
A first meeting, scheduled for April 20, was called off because an unexpected cloud of volcanic ash spreading across Europe meant that Rafa Benitez had to spend 48 hours on a train with his players rather than two hours on a plane.
No problem. No-one could have foreseen Mount Eyjafjallajökull erupting.
The next meeting was scheduled for 24 hours before the visit of Chelsea – until Martin Broughton decided he wouldn’t be coming back to Merseyside for the Chelsea game because of his already publicised footballing allegiances.
So no opportunity to squeeze a meeting in there then.
Still no major problem, until the story on the BBC website, which spread in this internet age like a particularly vicious virus.
Forgive me if I’m seeing shadows on grassy knolls now, but it looks like someone was briefing the Beeb against the Liverpool manager.
And further scrutiny of the article shows it was someone inside the Anfield boardroom.
“There is some surprise inside the Anfield boardroom at the timing of Benitez’s call on Tuesday for an urgent meeting with Broughton to discuss the future,” added the BBC story.
There have been other ‘leaks.’
“It is known around Anfield that Christian Purslow has talked to Benítez about his style of management, notably his cold detachment from the players,” wrote the Daily Telegraph last November, adding: “Liverpool can afford to sack Benítez. Compensation would be less than £5 million under the ‘mitigating the loss’ principle if he found employment.”
It doesn’t take a huge leap to work out where the Telegraph might have got their compensation figure from.
That story and the BBC ‘revelation’ may not be linked. Liverpool board members have always spoken to the media – and even after foul-mouthed Tom junior’s resignation there are still several board members remaining.
But board members who brief against a manager should beware.
Remember Noel White?
He spent 21 years at Anfield before falling on his sword for criticising Benitez in a newspaper article.
At the time Benitez said: “The important thing is the club, and such things as this do not normally happen here. This is a big club and there is a way of doing things here.”
That was four years ago. Has that way of doing things gone for good?
It was Bill Shankly who effectively labelled Anfield directors as simply men who sign the cheques.
Rightly or wrongly, that’s an image which has persisted.
Even those Reds fans who want Rafa Benitez out have a huge well of emotion for the man, largely inspired by one emotional night in Istanbul.
Any ‘senior sources’ inside Anfield who try to take him on will do so at their peril.
