wacko

His dad was banned from all stadia for being drunk at an England game. His defence was, "I wasn't drunk. I always talk like that."

Who? What? Eh? I checked Google for your man: http://stickerish.com/wp-content/themes/mio/sp-framework/timthumb/timthumb.php?src=http://stickerish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/YouDontSayBlackWithTextSS.png&h=500&w=500&zc=2&q=100&a=c&s=&f=&cc=&ct=

Is he? Pretty sure their current loanees cost about as much as the squad we own. Let alone players like our best striker for a good few years barely getting a game. Abramovich is still pumping in cash, but it looks like they're trying to rein in the cost of wages, which is essential to meeting the FFP rules. Wouldn't be necessary to if he's planning to set up some back channel to pump money into the club (like Man City's sponsorship deals with the Sheiks other companies). If he gives them a huge squad before FFP bites, that'll give them a less-blatant-than-a-pile-of-cash buffer while they get their finances together.

He doesn't seem to understand what a "big side" is. As opposed to a rich man's plaything. OTOH, it looks like Abramovich is going to play by the (FFP) rules, unlike Sheik Bottomless Pockets.

Yeah, we have spent more than we generated. The £24m the owners chipped in. That's very small beer compared to the hundreds of millions Chelsea's and Citeh's owners have chipped in. If you want to take the principle-before-all-else route, and declare any club using owner's largesse, regardless of how much or little it may be, as "bad for the game", "impure" (or whatever), that's your prerogative and a reasonable position to take. I just wish you'd stop going on about these "losses", when they're basically just accounting stuff, completely divorced from reality (as if the stadium plans were actually worth tens of millions or Suarez is only worth £14m, and Sturridge < £10m). It's a rare club that doesn't have losses on paper every year (pre-Glazer Man Utd being an obvious exception—they made so much more profit than they ever needed for transfers, the whole Ryan-Giggs-is-worth-literally-zero-on-the-books thing didn't matter to their bottom line). Even Arsenal, often held up as a paragon of a well-run club, is arguably in worse shape that Real Madrid, often vilified for their financial recklessness.

Exactly what we thought too, it was incredible how much beer was flowing just while walking to/from the ground and also during the game, but with no trouble at all. It really is a completely different experience. I went to see Nuremberg play Schalke in Gelsenkirchen once. The clubs have a "friendship", so there was literally no aggro whatsoever and a totally cool atmosphere. There were hardly any police and those that were there were either grinning or looking bored out of their minds. Even when I went to the Leverkusen-Liverpool game in the CL in 2005, the police were totally cool. My mate and I stood at the back of the stand where all the riot police are, and after they'd ascertained that we had tickets (we pointed to our two empty seats a few rows down), they just let us stand there at the top with them. http://u.cnblw.me/images/IMGP0636.JPG World Cup in '06: http://u.cnblw.me/images/P1000377.JPG http://u.cnblw.me/images/P1000376.JPG Me: "What's with the massive boots?" Her: "They're for kicking your nuts in." http://u.cnblw.me/images/P1000445.JPG Sound as fuck are (most) German coppers.

Should have left it at Farcelona, tbh. That one was pretty good.

Oh, I'm not arguing that the owners haven't put any money into the club: that's patently not true. But it's equally untrue that they "bailed us out". You're basically saying that we accidentally/recklessly spent £25m that we didn't have, and they said, "oops! Accidents can happen! This one's on us." That isn't what happened. They said, "here's £25m. Spend it wisely." What I'm saying is that the club is not over-extending itself financially in the way that Leeds did or Chelsea was doing before Abramovich showed up. You're making the assumption that the sponsors were investing in the Liverpool of the last few years and not Fenway. Is it not possible that they were, in fact, buying in due to their confidence in Fenway—and their excellent track record—and not throwing money at some grand marque of old? We'll see for sure in a few weeks, but it's certainly looking like Fenway know what they're doing, and our sponsors have done a pretty smart bit of business, wouldn't you say?

You're just saying the same thing again. What matters wrt whether a club is in sustainable financial shape is income vs actual spending, not losses based on amortisation of player contracts and asset write-downs. This is a more realistic picture of who's spending money they don't have: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lHmeou932qE/UX4WFYIG91I/AAAAAAAAGno/8bJ8aUOZ3cI/s640/12+Cash+Flow+before+Financing+by+Club.jpg And this is after the owners have chipped in (ours gave us £24m): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zFyccuTmPrw/UX4WiEDOhcI/AAAAAAAAGoA/PzBqteLG3JM/s640/15+Cash+Flow+after+Financing+by+Club.jpg So, yeah, we spent £24m more than we earned, which the owners gave us. The bottom line is -£1m. Note: The Man Utd figures are ridiculously skewed on account of the Glazers' dumping their debts on the club. They have a stupidly higher cash flow than every other club. Source.

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." Nonsense. That £15m operating profit came after spending £36m on transfers. Transfers are rarely paid for in lump sums, and we're no exception. £50m is, obviously, even more, but that doesn't mean we can't afford it. The loss is the write-down of assets, not a case of spending more than we're taking in. Big difference.

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.

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.

Perhaps it's just me and my age, but every time I see one of these things, I'm waiting for Mr Cholmondley-Warner to appear.

Aye. Gerrard is many things, but he's not a bottler. He's risen to the occasion and dug us out of the shit many times in the biggest games. Hopefully, that'll rub off on the other players. He's the right man for the moment.

I'd say Villa are a far far bigger club re support and tradition/history than either of those. They've won the European Cup. From what I can tell, Doug Ellis was there more or less from the Sixties till the Noughties. When he did bugger off for a few years, Villa became league and European champions. Then Ellis came back.

I'm not sure the club should provide an interpreter, but they should have definitely made arrangements for one to be able to accompany him. I don't know what they were thinking saying a deaf, half-blind kid with cerebral palsy couldn't bring an interpreter.

Demba. Torres Skrtel has scored more than him

He lost a yard and his bottle. Much like Owen, but Owen was much smarter and better technically.

19 vs 65

That isn't profit, that's just gross sales. Real might have received €300m, but spunked €600m in the same period. NUFC has made a profit of about £50m, though, by my calculations.

Even howler monkeys?

That would be funnier if we hadn't handed most of the cash straight to Ashley.

Yeah. The managers often have to go for established players, not prospects, which significantly increases transfer costs.