The College Dropout

I think the loan system is fine. Only issue I have is that they should be able to play against their parent club.

I can see OT going the way of those stadiums if they struggle for a few more years. The silence....

The Emirates, SJP & SOL have got to be the worst stadiums in the PL to be the home team for.

Ba & Dzeko are better players. Hernandez would score more goals if he where a first team regular. Giroud's a good player. But better than Ba or Dzeko? Nope. Not at all.

Nobody has accused Liverpool reckless spending. Although you wouldn't have been able to support a further 4 years without CL football. But you've spent more money than the club has generated while taking some big losses. Only L'pool or a club with its potential could get away with that.

I think he's a bit of a flat track bully and offers pretty much nothing for them in the bigger games. As a pure #10 he could do something. On the wings against top sides his lack of athleticism is a real killer and makes him a weakness defensively.

"We can't attract players if we aren't in the Champions League" I keep hearing. Do people not realise L'pool are on the verge of winning the league? They haven't been in the CL for 4 years now? 5?

The mistakes he made at the weekend where all of his own doing. Demichelis had a decent game. Kompany didn't.

People have said here and other places - Demichelis has gotten the blame for a handful of Kompany mistakes, at least.

Spurs and Arsenal (the way they have been operating) would be something. L'pool are old money, using (less) new money.

'And even then......' Read the whole thing. They've been a broke club as long as Simeone has been there. Which is a magnificent achievement.

According to Swiss Ramble our wage to turnover is 63%, Spurs 65%. https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/media There are other tables on there which you might be interested in. According to Transfer League Liverpool have spent 17 million net per season over the last 5 years or 309m gross. Spurs gross is 310m but their sales bring that down to a very low net spend per season. Regards the accounts. "Meantime club bank debts decreased by 29 per cent – due in the main to a £46.8m interest free, inter company loan to the Reds via owners Fenway Sports Group. That was used to pay off debts relating to previous failed stadium projects under the ousted Hicks and Gillett regime." I'm not sure what conversation you're having here. I was just making the point that Liverpool's owners were writing cheques to keep paying a wage bill that would have been putting them miles into the red otherwise. That's all. There's another conversation to be had about the spectacular commercial deals that Fenway have brought in. All fair and above board (none of the ludicrous deals that Man City have used to circumvent FFP), but completely disproportionate compared to what's been happening on the pitch. They've just successfully maintained and exploited a brand image, notably in the US. In the 2012/13 figures they got nearly 20M more than Chelsea (who have finished above Liverpool in 10 of the last 11 years), 50% more than Arsenal (above Liverpool in 9 of 11), more than twice that of Spurs and more than five times that of Newcastle. That's impressive, but leaves me feeling empty inside, and just adds to my disillusion with the game. As a Spurs fan, I know more than most the importance of keeping the bullshit going through the fallow years after being one of the top clubs. Despite being s*** for years, we tried to keep the perception in some parts of the media and fandom that we were a snoozing giant. With the capable assistance of the media and Fenway, you've managed the same (despite not falling quite as low), and are now reaping the rewards. THIS THIS THIS. The L'pool owners have dug into their pockets because they know they can turn L'pool into Manchester United. The brand is one of maybe 8, in worldwide football with that type of appeal. None of the others could have been bought. They wouldn't have tried it with any other club. This is not some type of victory for football. A 100% self sufficient club like Spurs or Arsenal winning the league would be a victory for football. Atletico Madrid haven't spent any net transfer money in 3 years.. them winning either (or both) La Liga/CL would be a legitimate win for football. And even then they had overspent in the preceding 5 years.

You simply do start/play for England without some expectations. Shaw, Sterling and Barkley are very young and will be given some leeway. I would be surprised if more than one of those 3 starts. But Henderson and Sturridge? Nah.

Jordan Henderson will turn 24 during the tournament. He's over 5 years older than Shaw ffs. Almost 4 years older than Barkley who has what, 50 Premiership appearances? He's not in the same boat as them at all.

Expectation is probably the lowest it's ever been going into a tournament. Obviously the media will still write the inevitable headlines how s**** we were but don't think anyone will say i told you that ‘X kid’ was a s*** player over a few games in Brazil in a tough group. Learning curve for a fair few of them. If you say so. We write players off because they get outclassed in friendlies. We write young players at NUFC based on sub appearances. I'm telling you now. Not surprised with comments like 'He'll get found out in the summer', you're part of the 'We' It's his first major tournament at this level on the back of his first standout season in a good side, he's going there with nothing to lose. We don't expect him to standout in Brazil or provide a real threat. He'll give it his all and if that falls short of the required level, he'll take that experience back to Liverpool and try to keep improving his game and come back again in the Euros. If you believe an England side or any of its players are going to a WC with "nothing to lose" you are deluded.

Expectation is probably the lowest it's ever been going into a tournament. Obviously the media will still write the inevitable headlines how s**** we were but don't think anyone will say i told you that ‘X kid’ was a s*** player over a few games in Brazil in a tough group. Learning curve for a fair few of them. If you say so. We write players off because they get outclassed in friendlies. We write young players at NUFC based on sub appearances. I'm telling you now.

Aye I'm sure if England get knocked out in the group stage, none of the young players will get any criticism.

This is my point.

Disagree. He's perfect for this L'pool system. I doubt he could play so well under Hodgson or for England. He'll get found out in the summer imo

Much like the 15m op profit is from 12-13, of which you made a total of 50m loss. This is excluding '13 transfers of which you spent 50m net.

Behind rodgers for manager of the season for me. Agreed. Nobody thought Palace would survive anyway, least of all when Pulis joined and they were 20th.

Milner should definitely be on the plane at least.I'm a little scared there will be too many L'pool players and they'll look like shit

£41m loss one year, £50m the next. Then spend £50m net in transfers. A win for football indeed.

I would never begrudge a self financed side winning the league, that's why I always wanted of the 3, Man Utd, Chelsea and City, Man Utd to win the league because whatever they achieved they did it as a football club and not because of the billions from their owners. Take the Arabs away from City and they would be us at best, the mackems at worst. Take Abramovic away from Chelsea and they would be Spurs at best, us at worst. I detest Liverpool fans and many other things about that club but them winning it would be a good thing for our game I think. Rodgers alone has transformed them which is a huge thumbs up to good old fashioned coaching, player development and a footballing philosophy. They are not "self" financed. They are not ploughing profits back into the club like a Spurs or Arsenal. They have an owner who is willing to invest in the club and team.. get them back into the CL regularly... build a new stadium so they can reach their full potential - then start banking some profit or selling it on for a huge profit. Despite selling some players on for good money, they spent over £53m net in transfers. No other club in the league except Manchester United would do that. What are you getting at? Rodgers has spent £53m. In the same period, Man Utd have spent £113m, Chelsea £120m and Man Citeh £100m (all net). Depends on what you mean by "legitimately". Given the context, I assume you're referring to money. They weren't bankrolled by a billionaire at the time, but they were bankrolled by debts the club couldn't service. They were £80m in the hole when Abramovich stepped in. liverpool are the only big club outside of Oil Money teams to spend a lot of money on transfers while not making profit. They made a 50m loss then spent a net of 50m the next summer. Liverpool are successfully doing what Chelsea tried to do in the early 00's. Or what we tried to do after Bobby. With greater intelligence. The £50m was mostly a write-off of the defunct stadium plans. The club didn't spend £50m more than it made. There was an operating profit of £15m before write-downs/amortisations. You're the one who mentioned "legitimate", not me. I don't know what's going on at Atletico. No it did. Liverpool made a 50m loss (and a 15m operating profit) then spent £50m net on transfers. "The £50m loss, which follows £41m reported for a ten-month period to 31 May 2011, appears to put Liverpool's total loss very much higher than the €45m (£37m) total permitted by Uefa for this two-year period under its financial fair play rules. The club, which stated that the figures show it is making "good progress" financially, did not comment on whether it is likely to be considered in breach of FFP when Uefa assesses clubs in the next two months. The rules do, however, include exemptions Premier League clubs expect to rely on in order to pass, including expenditure on youth development, stadium and other infrastructure, which Uefa encourages, and an allowance for players' contracts entered into before the rules came into force in 2010. The accounts predate the summer signings, which included Simon Mignolet for £9m from Sunderland and Mamadou Sakho, £18m from Paris Saint-Germain, and the £15m sale of Andy Carroll to West Ham, for whom Liverpool paid £35m in the early months of ownership by the Boston-based Fenway Sports Group. The total net spending on these players to augment Brendan Rodgers's squad was £53m, the accounts state."