When you think our front 4 could includ - Kane, Bellingham, foden, Rushford, grealish, maddison, youve got to think most teams should fear us. Full backs we're well stocked in and then there's Rice and Stones in the middle. It's a fantastic squad.

Bellingham is 20 years old - ludicrous!

This is the only thread I'm going to be checking for the next couple of weeks I think 🤣 Of course the recent run is cause for concern but I do feel like once everything clicks we could be a handy little side. Moran, siggy, Sammy, a fit Ennis is a decent front 4. I think there's a player in Markanday somewhere and if Dolan found his form again then that's not a bad back up. Midfield players are good just need the right balance and defence is good if a little lacking in depth. I think out best 11 fully fit and played in the right system would be unplayable.

I thought the same. You'd thought there would be a standard process for each review i.e. state what you're reviewing, what the onfield decision was and then after running through a checklist state clearly what the decision is. Other sports do it.

My favourite part was "Oh [expletive]"

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/every-word-var-audio-released-27827502?s=08 Transcript from the var room

🤣🤣 always a pleasure chaddy

Okay. I'm not sure why Fifa rules say it has to be a ref in the VAR room

My changes would be - Move to an appeals system like in cricket. VAR only gets involved if a team appeals a decision. They have to say specifically what they are appealing to avoid speculative appeals (as much as you can) - The ref is in charge and its their decision. When an appeal is made, the ref is immediately over to the monitor and discussions with VAR is a sounding board only. The VAR doesn't recommend anything and doesn't make any decisions, it can give its opinion but the ref makes the final call. - A new one following this weekend but have a bit of a script. Like in cricket when an appeal is made you hear a clear process "player review for LBW, on field decision is not out" they then go through a checklist of things and then clearly say "recommend you change your decision to out". The explanation of what happened at Spurs gave the impression there was some guy sat back in his chair with a bag of crisps and a beer "Yeah it's all good move on pal". Much clearer communication is needed. I'm not sure why it needs to be a ref in the VAR room. If it's the ref making the final decision anyone who knows the slightest thing about football can say "you need to take a look at that"

It's difficult to see where Liverpool can go with this as they're not going to get points or cash compensation (imagine the can of worms that would open up!). However they need to kick up a fuss over this as the list posted higher up shows that there has been some absolute VAR shockers and the bigger fuss the bigger likelihood of some reforms.

The big decisions were wrong but the whole game was poorly reffed. 9 yellows and 2 reds would have you think it was a dirty scrappy game and it was far from it, it was a trigger happy ref who gave fouls at random. Fouls were given against both teams that just weren't fouls and a yellow card came out shortly after. Same ref as the United Wolves game so you'd think his days in the top flight are numbered. Shame, that had potential to be a cracking game and instead all we were talking about was the ref the whole way through.

How many errors is that they've admitted to so far this season and its only September. This season has been shambolic for refereeing.

What's confusing me about it is how quickly the review happened. That looks clearly onside, at the very least it's borderline enough to atleast take a few looks at it which didn't seem to happen. They made the decision very very quickly that he was offside and then to not give sky the images with the lines on like they normally do. Makes me think the technology cut out or something which is farcical.

Like with most fouls it's subjective and yeah you could shoe horn in an argument to justify it but if that's a red the game has gone. All round its been with one of the worst refereeing performances I've seen in a long time.

The fact that red cards can get rescinded, like Macallister's did, shows that VAR is not fit for purpose. That decision was made on a freeze frame. They froze it at the worst possible moment and showed that to the ref first. Shocking shocking decision and shocking decision making process.

Liverpool got some good luck with VAR a few seasons ago but they have been royally fucked over this season with red cards. Curtis Jones just got one of the softest red cards I've seen.

Obviously a very big game but of the big teams we could have got, it's the one where we could most likely cause an upset.

Not to mention the extent of their fraud testing involves asking the directors to sign a letter promising there has been no fraud in the organisation.

Torn on this one. Audit is a sham profession and couldn't find fraud if there was an invoice titled "fraudulent invoice £123,456,789.99"

What's the point of a tax dodge if its not to make some sort of financial gain? That was the earlier claim that they have to write off £20m no more no less to get a tax benefit. I would love to know why venkys own us but let's cross this theory off the list. For context I'm a chartered accountant for a massive company and I'm involved in their corporation tax process albeit not down I'm the weeds of the detail. However I don't lead with this as I hate appeals to authority when debating - so came at it with an open mind willing to be disproved. I only mention it now to give context to my "I'm no good at tax" claim (i also find it insanely dull to work in). I know more than Joe bloggs but would happily give way to someone who specialises in tax if there was someone on here (I know there are a few accountants on here)

My last on the matter. Losing £20m in cash for £0 return £0 in asset creation all for a couple of million tax relief is not a wealth creation tool. Indian GAAP is not sufficiently diverged from IFRS (of which a few on here will have detailed knowledge) as to reverse basic mathematics. I have no idea why venkys own us, but I'm highly certain it's not to make a profit.

Same - although tax isn't my area of interest or deep knowledge - but good to know I wasn't going crazy!

My logic is if you spend 20m to save 4m in tax you've lost 16m which gives you no advantage whatsoever given they don't then have 20m worth of assets as a result of expenditure. It is. But they're not increasing the value of that asset by pumping 20m into it per season. Whether you rent or buy an asset you spread the cost over many years rather than take the hit all in one go. Unless you do cash accounting which the venkys most definitely won't given their size. But ignoring that bit. If you buy or lease a machine, at the end of the day you have a machine. The descion to buy or lease will depend on a multitude of factors, one of which will of course be tax efficiency. Of course I don't know what their reasoning is for continuing to own is or the thought process behind their strategy (or lack of). What I'm certain is that you're not on the right path. No textbook, no business class, not even a shady get rich quick scheme would say "you know how to make more money? Flush £20m down the toilet each year, don't buy anything" Clearly No argument there, they're crooks.

So essentially you don't know and have assumed the venkys own us for a tax dodge based on very flawed logic. Cos I wasn't disputing that point. But that's an example of an actual tax dodge- buy a 7m asset, claim it as a business expense to save £Xm in tax. End result is you pay less tax and have a £7m asset. No they don't they either a) make it look like they're making a loss - massage income into a future period, over state expenditure etc (they've not actually lost money here) b) buy a load of tax deductible stuff to reduce their profits (they've lost money but gained stuff) What they don't do is lose actual money and gain no stuff (on purpose) Sharing group losses is beneficial. Creating losses for no gain is not Please gain some basic knowledge of tax and accounting.

That's not how tax brackets work. Take the UK for example. If you earn 12.5k you pay zero income tax If you earn 22.5k you pay 20% on the 10k over 12.5k If you earn 60k you pay 0% on the first 12.5k 20% on 12.5 - 50k and 40% on the final 10k. You don't pay 40% on the full 60k. If you sum it all up the tax you pay on 60k is like 19% in total. Your logic would say that if I earn 60k I would be paying 24k in tax taking home 36k and i would be better off losing £10k so I'd only pay £10k in tax and take home £40k. I have no doubt venkys engage in dodgy dealings in order to avoid paying tax. The annual funding of a football club is not one of them. For starters it doesn't even work mathematically. Even if it did work, there's far easier ways to lose money than to buy a football club and conspire to relegate it and play a game of spin the plates in order to keep them in the second tier. "Promotion and a sudden injection of 200 million also causes problems as you now can't write off 20 million in losses." You absolutely could. If we had £200m in revenue, they could sanction spend of £220m. Just because we have revenue doesn't mean we have to run at a profit. Its not unusual for PL teams to run at a loss it wouldn't arose suspicion.