Hicks’ madness does not veil the role of destructive Parry

PARRY AND HICKS MUST BOTH STEP DOWN

Many Liverpool fans have been waiting for a while now for someone in their right mind to call for Rick Parry to resign from the club. Unfortunately for those of us that love the club, it is not someone in their right mind that has called for it, it is our un-beloved chief, Tom Hicks.

So let us state the case for Rick Parry before that against him. In 1998 he was appointed Chief Executive of Liverpool Football Club and oversaw the Houllier era, an era that saw us make a mark in the Champions League’s illegitimate younger brother, the Uefa Cup, win the FA Cup and the Carling Cup (against Birmingham, I know). What followed was a period of denial and stress as Parry attempted to bring success to Liverpool.

Granted, he has been on the money in appointing managers that have been able to further the club in Europe but has, thus far, been unsuccessful in his attempts to bring the league title to Anfield. This alone, however, is not enough to condemn the man. Here come the facts that achieve that feat.

Much like Sir Alex Ferguson’s brief was to topple Liverpool upon his signing for our illustrious rivals, Parry was charged with engineering Liverpool’s renaissance in domestic football. So let us reflect on the following. Since his appearance on the scene, Liverpool have finished second just the once in the league and struggled to achieve anything more domestically ever since.

The appointment of Rafa Benítez was an inspired choice given what he achieved in Spain with Valencia. However, from that moment onwards Parry was found wanting under a manager that knew what it would take to achieve success in England.

Make no mistake, when Rafa talks in the press of Liverpool’s transfer dealings taking an inordinate amount of time, a length of time suitable for the club’s rivals to beat them to certain targets, he is speaking about the operations of a certain Mr Parry.

Far be it from Rafa to speak out publicly and directly against the man that hired him but let us be clear that, during the moments of criticism from Rafa, Parry was, and is, the person with sole responsibility for transfer dealings at the club. Rafa’s comments in the aftermath of the Champions League defeat to Milan were a call to arms, a request, if you will, from the top to ask if he could negotiate transfer dealings himself.

A disparaging remark against the “abilities” of the club to lure the top targets or wrap deals up in a succinct fashion was a comment on Parry’s negotiating prowess and his ability to prevaricate whilst others moved decisively.

When Parry took over as CE in ’98, Manchester United were certainly the major force in English football but Liverpool were arguably still the most famous English club in the world. Whatever your thoughts on this issue, it is clear that there was little between the two clubs.

Commercially though, United, Arsenal and Chelsea have surpassed us in terms of global commercial value and enterprise. Martin Edwards, Peter Kenyon (not a likeable character by any means) and David Dein in his time took their respective brands beyond Liverpool globally to an embarrassingly large lead in terms of commercial value overseas and no amount of pre-season trips to Thailand will reverse this situation.

Tottenham Hotspur’s current sponsorship deal with Mansion was of greater value at its completion than our “renewal” with Carlsberg. Tottenham Bloody Hotspur… who finished where in the league in the last 15 years? Who won how many European trophies in my lifetime?

Alas, much has been made of some of the “poor” signings Rafa has made. And let’s be clear, there have been a few. But there have also been successes. Here is the pertinent point. When Rafa got rid of the expensive squad that Houllier had assembled, Parry procured for the club zero return on investment.

The “Benítez failures” have all been let go within a season, were signed as a part exchange or sold for more money than we paid for them. Making European champions out of Milan Baros, Vladimir Smicer, Igor Biscan, Djimi Traore and Djibril Cisse is one thing, to do it with them all in the same line-up is another. And what did we receive for these players? What did we spend on them and what did we receive in return?

In contrast, Benítez’s failures have been rare in terms of expenditure. That Ryan Babel, still unproven and only 21, cost a lot less than Cisse speaks volumes. That the players signed under Parry and Houllier cost us a small fortune and returned nothing goes unmentioned.

Then, in Benítez’s first season, he wins the Champions League with this inadequate squad and proceeds to sell off its assets, players that should never have been representing the club in the first place. The squad is rebuilt with a few band-aids strewn across the body of the club but it once again reaches a European final.

Most tellingly, though, was in 2004 and 2005 when Liverpool almost lost Steven Gerrard to another English club. Somehow, the club conspired to allow Gerrard to believe that he was not invaluable to the club, by his own admission Gerrard did not feel “loved or wanted” and this in a year where he was the first Liverpool captain to lift Europe’s most illustrious trophy in over 20 years.

Now, if it is not Parry’s job to assure the Champions League winning captain of his hometown club that this is where his future lies then whose is it? It is down to the manager also, but Rafa had only been there a short while and was as unsure as to the club’s position on Gerrard as Gerrard was himself. Don’t forget that in recent seasons players such as McManaman and Owen had been let go for a far cry from their market value (thank you again Mr Parry) so it was not inconceivable that Rafa felt Gerrard’s future may be a boardroom decision.

Then comes the issue of new investment. Now, it pains me too much to go in to the depths of the ownership wrangle we are currently involved in but let us reflect on a few facts. Before we obtained new ownership, Parry authorised plans for a new stadium with no room to extend (and that is the crux of this argument) at 60,000 capacity. The idea was to build a stadium that would help us compete with Manchester United (76,000 and growing every year) and the billionaires at Chelsea.

Say what you want about the Americans but had it not been for them (yes, even them Americans) pointing out that this was a ludicrous decision then we would not have the current plans of a 60,000 seat stadium with room to grow. 10 years from now, with United up to 80 or 90,000 capacity and earning millions more than us at each home game, we would be still pondering how to catch up had it not been for the revised plans of the Americans.

Now, please do not get me wrong, I am not a fan of the US ownership. It has been a shambles since day one. And why? Well, as we all remember, a certain Mr Parry advised his boss that the last minute bidders we knew nothing about were a more sure fire bet than the Arabs who threatened Parry’s very position at the club (and still do for that matter) such were their misgivings about him. And where did they nurture these misgivings, I hear you ask. Well, during their dealings with him of course.

The only dark sides to Hicks’ call for Parry’s resignation are twofold:

1 – That they come at a time when the club needs everybody behind the team

2 – That they come from a figure as vilified as Hicks, not someone viewed in a positive light. If anything, his remarks have strengthened Parry’s position at the club.

And please, let us not forget how these Americans, appointed by Parry, have violated our club in so many ways, not least of which involved their courting of an untried German manager in what turned out to be a very public arena. A gold star and lollipop to the first person that can quote one sentence that came out of the mouth of Mr Parry during all of this unrest. Yet, of course, there was no word from him at all. God forbid he should speak out against the people that pay his wages whilst simultaneously destroying the club he claims to love.

Over the weekend, his silence may have finally been explained to us. He could not speak out about the meeting with Klinsmann because it now appears likely that he was the mastermind (tongue is very firmly in cheek) behind it. Still further, it is coming to light that Parry was actually at the meeting as well so it is of little wonder that he was conspicuous by his silence.

Moreover, Parry’s suit trousers never seem to reach his shoes and, whilst I am not a man of superficiality, one must question the judgement of a Chief Executive who goes in to an industry-changing meeting wearing short trousers by accident.

Mr Parry, like Lady Macbeth and OJ Simpson before you, you have blood on your hands Sir! Mr Hicks being the architect of the calls for your resignation undermines the key issue, which is that you should no longer be at the club. For as long as Hicks has a place at the club you will seem like the fairy godmother but we must all bare the responsibility of relativity. And whilst you are no Peter Ridsdale, you must leave the scene of the crime and turn yourself in immediately as far as I am concerned for you may just become the wicked witch of the north-west.