RED WATCH: Hicks' concerns over Parry had ring of truth to them

Apr 16 2008

George Gillett with Rick Parry in the directors box _320

WARRING parties can often be the stuff of epic fiction: the Greeks and the Trojans; or the Montagues and the Capulets.

Just our luck then to be saddled with Punch and Judy. Our co-owners have certainly been taking turns with the policeman’s truncheon to knock seven bells out of each other; the only difference being that in this particular show, it looks like the children are the performers and the adults i.e. us, are in the audience.

Some of the announcements and leaks attributed to our American friends in the last couple of weeks have defied belief in their resemblance to antics more commonly associated with the playground than a leading football club.

“It wasn’t me, it was him” cries one. “Well if it was me, then Rick was there too!” responds the other. The gangs have been formed, with apparently Tom, Rafa and Ian Ayre hanging round one street corner, and George, Rick and David lurking in the bike sheds. And the Emiratis from the ‘posh’ school up the road lob the occasional rotten tomato into the mix, before retreating to the safety of their bejewelled palace.

This is how it must look to the outside world. You can hardly hear yourself think above the laughter emanating from Goodison and Old Trafford; Stamford Bridge and the Emirates Stadium have thankfully got their own problems at the moment, or they’d join in too.

None of the parties involved have covered themselves in glory in the last couple of weeks, contributing only to the general impression of a club consuming itself in bitterness and rancour. Our subtle friend Mr Hicks started the latest round of egg-throwing when he publicly demanded Rick Parry’s resignation.

Now it has to be said that the substance of Hicks’ complaints had more than the ring of truth about them. Anybody who has ever tried to buy something off the club shop website will be sympathetic with his accusations of a lack of commercialism, more vividly illustrated by a turnover approaching £60m behind Chelsea, which can’t all be explained by high ticket prices.

Frustration over protracted or abortive transfer negotiations also bring to mind the scandalous delay offering Gerrard his new contract in 2005, which almost lost us the services of the best footballer in Britain to one of our rivals. And his assertion that there was a lack of communication between Parry and Rafa seems to be borne out by Parry’s ludicrous offer to hold ‘clear the air’ talks with Benitez; surely the CEO and the team manager should be conversing daily, with no opportunity for misunderstanding arising?

The real problem with Hicks’ announcement, once again, was its manner and its timing. Given the present constitution of the board, Hicks knew he had no hope of forcing this through, so it was either a misguided PR stunt to try and garner popular support, or the start of a war of attrition to make Parry’s position untenable. Neither a particularly honourable objective.

As for David Moores entering the fray, was I alone in finding his plaintive cries singularly unimpressive?

Despite his undoubted love for the club, it was him and Rick Parry who ended a three-year search for investment with a last- minute U-turn away from DIC and towards Hicks on the flimsiest of ‘gut feel’ about the suitability of the Emiratis – nothing to do of course with the extra money on the table.

His touching but naïve declaration that he took the Americans at their word without seeking written assurances also beggars belief.

That’s the way to do it? I think not Mr Punch.

Agree with this? Have your say at Liverpool Banter