The Fowler Book

[6TimesaRed]

Only just got round to reading it whilst on holiday ... Great Book...

Top bloke.. Gives you a real insight to how the club got things so wrong overt the years...

Everton Fans truly are uber cunts, with the 'he does coke' bandwagon..

The lad really did set the benchmark on how players should negotiate their contacts though in terms of image rights.... Given the money in football these days, you cannot blame them either.

We totally fucked up with the mcmanaman contract and the lack of funds for Roy Evans

The sad thing is, it also gives you an insight to the fact that you won't see many rags to riches stories in football like this.. these days...

 

[Woland]

I thought the vast majority of footy player's stories are a rags to riches thing?

 

[6TimesaRed]

I thought the vast majority of footy player's stories are a rags to riches thing?

I meant in the way fowler did it. .

He didn't sign to Liverpool till he was sixteen... Although he trained with their academy..

These days kids with potential are signed up whilst they are literally still in nappies... And given foreign players tend to take preferance with academies these days you will be hard pushed to see a story like his resurface in this day an age

 

[6TimesaRed]

Ian Wright was always a player I admired too..

Thought his way up the Football pyramid right to the very top level...

 

[Woland]

Oh right, yeah, academies have changed the way stuff gets done now... But it's only a shift in the age at which it generally happens rather than the impact it has on someone's life.

 

[gkmacca]

It's a good job this numbnut didn't expose the book to this kind of blistering fact checking analysis:

Revealed: Alex Ferguson's book contains 45 inaccuracies prompting publishers to offer refund

17 Nov 2013 22:30
One customer has been offered his money back after pointing out multiple factual errors in Fergie's tell-all autobiography

Fact check: Fergie's book contain's 45 factual errors

PA
Publishers of Sir Alex Ferguson’s autobiography have agreed to refund a customer – aftermultiple inaccuracies were found in the book.

Fergie’s second account of his life, entitled My Autobiography, became the UK’s fastest-selling non-fiction book since records began, shifting 115,547 copies in its first week on sale.

But eagle-eyed readers have spotted as many as 45 factual errors in the 402-page account, which has prompted publishers Hodder and Stoughton to offer to reimburse one disgruntled customer.

Hodder and Stoughton CEO Jamie Hodder-Williams is said to have replied by email to the customer in question, offering a full refund in exchange for the return of Ferguson’s autobiography.

Mr Hodder-Williams wrote: “We did in fact go through several stages of fact-checking with this book, with a reading from within Manchester United as well as from a specialist football fact-checker.

“Although a very large number of corrections were made we plainly did not pick up everything.

“Possible corrections that have so far been helpfully pointed out are being checked and will be included in future reprints.

“I am sorry that you feel that your expenditure on the book was not worthwhile. If you would like to send the book to me at our head office address, stating where you bought the book and at what price, we will refund your expenditure and postage.”

Among the inaccuracies in Ferguson’s account of the latter half of his 26-year Old Trafford reign are his claim United had 11 years out of former captain Roy Keane, when it was actually 12.

Ferguson also claims “Rio Ferdinand excelled against Manchester City in the semi-final second leg [of the Carling Cup] in 2009 at Old Trafford” when the year in question was 2010.

The former United boss even managed to get wrong the date he had a pacemaker fitted, stating the procedure was done in April 2002, when it was actually carried out in March 2004.

The book also states United legend Ryan Giggs made his debut for the club aged 16, when the midfielder was actually 17 when he first appeared for them.

A spokeswoman for Hodder and Stoughton said: “A member of the public did write in saying that he had found errors in the book and was not happy.

"He didn’t say what the errors were.

“We have written to him and said that if he is not happy with his purchase he should send in the book and we will refund the purchase price.”.

 

[Dreambeliever]

What book doesn't have errors?

 

[Dreambeliever]

Apart from the Bible of course.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Apart from the Bible of course.

Well it's not possible to make an error in any work of fiction.

 

[gkmacca]

Right, I'm not going anywhere until the publishers have refunded the £10.95 I paid Amazon - in all good faith - for a book, The Doritos Bumper Book of Facts, that was riddled - RIDDLED - with shocking errors. To take just a few examples: on page 43, The Way to Amarillo lists various pointless chart positions from the Hit Parade but signally fails to provide so much as one RAC-approved route instruction to wherever this wretched place may be. Then on page 65, a picture has Denis Compton hit a ball at the Pavilion end of Lord's to score a century in 1952 when he actually hit the crucial shot from the OPPOSITE end! Then on page 72, in a list of Pipe Smokers of the Year, you claim that 'Sir Patrick Moore' won the title in 1983, when anyone could tell you that Patrick Moore was not knighted until 2001!!! (You also fail to note the great Pipe Smoker of the Year scandal of 1968, when Mr Freddie 'Parrot Face' Davies won the award only to be forced to renounce it when it was revealed that he did not actually own a pipe, let alone smoke one!) Then, on the very next page, you claim that Felicity Kendall was named 'Ear of the Year' in 1981 - she was, of course, named 'REAR of the Year'! I mean, what the hell would be the point of naming her Ear of the Year? Which ear is that when it's at home? Eh? Who do you think she is - Vincent van Gogh??? Then on page 87, you refer to Noel Edmonds as 'Noel EdmUnds' - another horrible error. I could go on, and I will. On page 90... [continues on the next slow news day]

 

[Judge Jules]

Only just got round to reading it whilst on holiday ... Great Book...

Top bloke.. Gives you a real insight to how the club got things so wrong overt the years...

Everton Fans truly are uber cunts, with the 'he does coke' bandwagon..

The lad really did set the benchmark on how players should negotiate their contacts though in terms of image rights.... Given the money in football these days, you cannot blame them either.

We totally fucked up with the mcmanaman contract and the lack of funds for Roy Evans

The sad thing is, it also gives you an insight to the fact that you won't see many rags to riches stories in football like this.. these days...

I'm afraid I was a lot less impressed with that book than you are. There is some interesting stuff in it but a fair bit of utter bollocks as well. Examples off the top of my head (I read it some time ago) include:

(a) Whatever blame the club deserves over McMoneyman, the essential mistake they made was to trust him, and that's a criticism - a socking great big one BTW - of McMoneyman far more than the club.

(b) Souness, when he was manager, gave Robbie a lot of help, for which Robbie is grateful. That's fair enough, but the whitewash he applies to Souness' managerial record at LFC is not.

(c) The stuff Robbie says about Nico Anelka is piffle. Stevie G, Carra and Thommo have all said Nico was exemplary during his time with us. Robbie's just pursuing a personal agenda on this subject because Nico replaced him in the side and, while that kind of thing's to be expected in an autobiography, it needs to be taken with a VERY large pinch of salt.

 

[FoxForceFive]

I'm a massive, huge fowler fan (he was the player that came through & I idolised at that perfect age when footballers can become so much more to you) & I've met him a couple of times & he's a truly lovely fella.

However I thought much of his book was shite, like Jules said, he seems to view life in way that skews facts dependant on his personal opinion. Well, that or he downright lies, I prefer the former.

 

[6TimesaRed]

Thompson was an utter dick. Why the club brought him back in is beyond me..

Fowler really did not like Houllier.. It always baffled me why they let a proven scorer like fowler go. Arguably he did not help himself and he would be the first to admit that. But he was definitely pushed out, his face simply did not fit.. He was on fire that in his first season for leeds. . It really does make you think would we have won the title that year if he had stayed.. ???

 

[hmmmmm1]

Thomson was outstanding whilst GED was in hospital. Highest points total in the league during that period....

Evans was backed handsomely, he spent 3 million plus on Phil babb....

 

[gkmacca]

Yes, I agree with Jules, Fowler's a great lad but I got the feeling he was really bending the truth quite a bit at times. I hope he writes another book because I think, by this stage, he's much more likely to relax and admit that things weren't so black and white when it came to his last season or so at the club.

 

[6TimesaRed]

Thomson was outstanding whilst GED was in hospital. Highest points total in the league during that period....

Evans was backed handsomely, he spent 3 million plus on Phil babb....

He was a bit If a cunt though. The younger players where not a fan. His methods where prehistoric.. At the end of the day he was sacked twice, that says something.

Evans never got the players he wanted. . As he wouldn't get backed by the board.

A lot of that was Largely down to the fuck up purchase that was Stan Collymore.. No one could forsee the kid had mental problems... Collymore just didn't have the mentality to be a Liverpool player.

I was one of Evans biggest critics, I wasn't a fan despite the lovely football we played.. He didn't know how to get his team to defend and beat the lower teams... He struggled to buy a decent Centre Half, and in his defence that was probably down to not being backed by the board

Regrading Houllier he pretty much ran the team from his bedside when he was ill, thommo was just his puppet.

In the end Houllier fucked up big time in the transfer market spending millions on utter dross.. Selling fowler on was just one of his many mistakes, imho

 

[vikas]

I idolised Fowler, but Houllier sold him at the right time and for a good amount of money in those days...

 

[gkmacca]

Maybe also if Robbie had responded as well as Carra did to Houllier's advice on fitness he would have realised his full potential. I think he thought if his work rate was okay - which it was - then Houllier was being unfair in moaning about his condition, which was his problem.

 

[Ryan]

Thompson was an utter dick. Why the club brought him back in is beyond me..

Fowler really did not like Houllier.. It always baffled me why they let a proven scorer like fowler go.

Because 11M (at that time) for someone who was perenially injured, and went on to do next to nothing for the rest of his career was too good an offer to refuse.

Emotion aside, the decision was the correct one.

 

[6TimesaRed]

I

Because 11M (at that time) for someone who was perenially injured, and went on to do next to nothing for the rest of his career was too good an offer to refuse.

Emotion aside, the decision was the correct one.

There is that.. But we then spanked it on shite replacements

His season at Leeds however was superb goal scoring wise...

Who is to say he would of got that freak injury whilst he was still at Man City if he was still playing for us..

 

[Ryan]

I
His season at Leeds however was superb goal scoring wise...
.

In his best season (I assume that's the one you're referring to) at Leeds, he scored 12 goals.

You think that's superb?

 

[6TimesaRed]

In his best season (I assume that's the one you're referring to) at Leeds, he scored 12 goals.

You think that's superb?

Ok superb was probably a touch to far. .
He had a decent season. .

14 goals in 30 games

I just think he would of been a better option to keep at the time than the dross we signed

 

[Richey]

Ok superb was probably a touch to far. .
He had a decent season. .

14 goals in 30 games

I just think he would of been a better option to keep at the time than the dross we signed

Yes of course he would have been but he would never have been able to be an 'option' would he? As long as he was at the club the manager would have been under pressure to play him, and ultimately he was well past his best by the time we sold him. It seemed a bit brutal but it was a good deal.

I do suspect that Houllier wanted rid of Fowler from word go but couldn't sell him early on because of the reaction of the fans. Once Houllier had won the treble he thought he could get away with it, and actually he largely did at first. If he had bought someone else other than Diouf to replace Fowler then I really don't think it would have been an issue.

 

[gene hughes]

I agree with Jules. It's a crap book. I liked him less after reading it.

 

[gkmacca]

Yes of course he would have been but he would never have been able to be an 'option' would he? As long as he was at the club the manager would have been under pressure to play him, and ultimately he was well past his best by the time we sold him. It seemed a bit brutal but it was a good deal.

I do suspect that Houllier wanted rid of Fowler from word go but couldn't sell him early on because of the reaction of the fans. Once Houllier had won the treble he thought he could get away with it, and actually he largely did at first. If he had bought someone else other than Diouf to replace Fowler then I really don't think it would have been an issue.

I think it was a bit more complicated than that. All managers are egomaniacs, yes, but all of them - if they are smart - realise that good players, no matter how irritating they might be, aid their ambition. To watch Fowler in training he would have seen an astonishingly talented finisher. That's an asset. Houllier was no mug - he must have salivated when he thought what Fowler could do at top form. So I don't think he immediately dismissed him. I think he came to rage at the way, on Ged's terms, he was wasting his talent. He didn't get rid of Fowler. Fowler got rid of Fowler. All Fowler worried about was his ability to score. Houllier wanted him fitter, more mobile, more tactically aware, more alert. That was the difference. Fowler thought he could come in after being on the ale, getting into scrapes, etc, and so long as he got some shots on target all was well with the world. Carra used to be like that but he changed. Fowler didn't. I'm more intrigued by Rafa bringing him back. Rafa is way too shrewd to think he's getting anything other than a naturally talented finisher who is physically wrecked, so it's a very out of character and very romantic move by him (unless, I guess, he was winding the owners up whilst playing the fans). I'm so glad he did it, but it never made much sense.

 

[Dreambeliever]

Fowler is my favourite player ever to wear the red but you have to think his book is a little one sided to say the least.

I wouldn't have sold him though and comparing what he did after he left to what he might have done if stayed at the club he loved is pointless.

We got a decent fee for him but if he had stuck it out I think we could be talking about a 250+ goals Liverpool striker now.

 

[Richey]

I think it was a bit more complicated than that. All managers are egomaniacs, yes, but all of them - if they are smart - realise that good players, no matter how irritating they might be, aid their ambition. To watch Fowler in training he would have seen an astonishingly talented finisher. That's an asset. Houllier was no mug - he must have salivated when he thought what Fowler could do at top form. So I don't think he immediately dismissed him. I think he came to rage at the way, on Ged's terms, he was wasting his talent. He didn't get rid of Fowler. Fowler got rid of Fowler. All Fowler worried about was his ability to score. Houllier wanted him fitter, more mobile, more tactically aware, more alert. That was the difference. Fowler thought he could come in after being on the ale, getting into scrapes, etc, and so long as he got some shots on target all was well with the world. Carra used to be like that but he changed. Fowler didn't. I'm more intrigued by Rafa bringing him back. Rafa is way too shrewd to think he's getting anything other than a naturally talented finisher who is physically wrecked, so it's a very out of character and very romantic move by him (unless, I guess, he was winding the owners up whilst playing the fans). I'm so glad he did it, but it never made much sense.

Yes, that certainly makes more sense. I don't think Houllier had any kind of agenda against Fowler at all, I just think he realised that he was past his best and wasn't likely to change.

In regard to Benitez bringing Fowler back, it was a strange one. I guess he saw it as a win-win in some ways. He was getting a great finisher for nothing, he could use him as back up and he was loved by the fans. Even if Fowler had proven to be a failure when he returned (which he wasn't. He did the limited job he was required to do) then Benitez was unlikely to face criticism. It would have been a case of 'oh, well Fowler obviously is past it then. Nice try though Rafa', whereas if he had bought an aging foreigner instead he would've gotten the blame for it if it went wrong.

 

[Richey]

Fowler is my favourite player ever to wear the red but you have to think his book is a little one sided to say the least.

I wouldn't have sold him though and comparing what he did after he left to what he might have done if stayed at the club he loved is pointless.

We got a decent fee for him but if he had stuck it out I think we could be talking about a 250+ goals Liverpool striker now.

At the same time though, if we hadn't wasted the money on Diouf, but bought a decent player instead then we would have been thinking it was a fantastic deal.

Don't get me wrong, Fowler was my favourite player too, but the deal to sell him was a good one. The subsequent deal to replace him was an awful one. But they are separate deals.

 

[peterhague]

I think Fowler's book is the only footballer's autobiography I've read apart from Keane's, so I don't really know how it compares to the average but I'd have to agree with most on here that I thought he came across badly. Gene put it well when he said he liked him less after reading it.

I remember being surprised just how candid he was about money, and doing whatever it took to get the best deal he could. I'm not saying he did anything wrong, just that the total cynicism was slightly depressing. And that the final attempt at self-justification was fairly contemptible, something like 'Where did it all go wrong? Actually, for a lad from Toxteth with all my millions, things have gone rather spectacularly right.' Hmmmm.

Houllier was definitely right to sell him by that point.

 

[Rosco]

I agree with Jules. It's a crap book. I liked him less after reading it.

I find that to be par for the course with players books.