The College Dropout

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."

Oh and Wacko based on what you have said is 'legitimate' - would Atletico count?

L'pool owners have speculated (unprofitably this far) in he hope that they can accumulate down the line based on stadium, CL and a brand with ginormous potential. But they haven't been run within the normal means of a club. The owners have had to dip Into their pockets. They haven't spent insane sums. But this isn't like Arsenal winning the league. A club that is 100% self sufficient at the moment.

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.

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. Chelsea are a more successful club than you are giving them credit for. The 5/7 years prior to Abramovic they won a number of trophies and consistently finished in the top 6 with some fantastic players. Zola, Desailly, Hasselbaink etc. They legitimately qualified for the CL the season he bought them.

That really is f***ing sad to see. We could have really pushed on and almost replicate the 5th place finish but the people above had other f***ing ideas. The first half of the season has really amounted to nothing - I can't really look at our win at Old Trafford with much pride now seeing as we've not pushed on from that point. How sad. We went through a spell of looking very difficult to beat and had the foundations in the squad to push on, with some desire and specific investment in January. Pardew was making some decent decisions and several players were playing well. Instead we signed no one and sold our best player. If we were a club that wanted to succeed, we could've feasibly been where Everton are now. This season has been a bizarre compression and summation of the past few years. First half of this season = 11/12 Second half of this season = 12/13 Had we had any decency and class we would be in that bunch around Spurs & Man Utd. There's a chance West Ham and even Palace could overtake us.

I didn't think L'pool could win all 14 in a row but right now it's a distinct possibility. With City having some tough fixtures and Chelsea in the CL they may be able to draw a game and still win it,

Let's agree to disagree before it takes over this thread I'll stick to what I said. I used to follow that Milan side and that year without Sheva they came 4th in the league, I think it was the year they lost both derbies as well and without Kaka there's no way in hell they'd won the CL. The year after they missed out on CL spot as well I think. They finished a distant third when they should have moonwalked it against L'pool.

That's one of the most popular myths on here. We rarely controlled the midfield that season. Often up against mlidfield 3's by themselves. They held their own and helped us use our two strikers well. Whenever they came up against a genuine 2-man midfield they put in very good performances. As much as I like Tiote, I do hope Anita can one day anchor the midfield by himself.