wacko

Aw, go on. We'll throw in a bag of crisps.

Definitely. Not as daft as Chelsea offering the same, when they'd sold him for £4m, though.

I don't think it was quite THAT insane.

That's how shite he is. He's on a hiding to nothing unless he wins every game there because if he doesn't he's taken the squad backwards. He should go with AC Milan, much better rebuild job there. Berlusconi won't give him any cash to spend, though. I can imagine Mourinho trying to raid the Inter squad, like he did with Porto when he moved to Chelsea. Fingers crossed he takes Aquaman off you in exchange for a player who can play football more than 5 times a season. Does he really need to spend? That squad just won the treble. I meant if he went to AC Milan, there'd be little to spend. With regards to Inter, I reckon it's a question of who buggers off to Madrid (if anyone). Obviously, they have a very good squad right now. Not sure he'd be daft enough to buy Aquilani again You never know, he's stubborn enough. Here's hoping...

That's how shite he is. He's on a hiding to nothing unless he wins every game there because if he doesn't he's taken the squad backwards. He should go with AC Milan, much better rebuild job there. Berlusconi won't give him any cash to spend, though. I can imagine Mourinho trying to raid the Inter squad, like he did with Porto when he moved to Chelsea. Fingers crossed he takes Aquaman off you in exchange for a player who can play football more than 5 times a season. Does he really need to spend? That squad just won the treble. I meant if he went to AC Milan, there'd be little to spend. With regards to Inter, I reckon it's a question of who buggers off to Madrid (if anyone). Obviously, they have a very good squad right now. Not sure he'd be daft enough to buy Aquilani again

That's how shite he is. He's on a hiding to nothing unless he wins every game there because if he doesn't he's taken the squad backwards. He should go with AC Milan, much better rebuild job there. Berlusconi won't give him any cash to spend, though. I can imagine Mourinho trying to raid the Inter squad, like he did with Porto when he moved to Chelsea.

Not going to happen. Ever. I dearly hope. Good manager, like, but no thanks. See Obi, that's how its done. You can pretend I believed you if you like. After all, what more reliable a source than the rumour mill.

That's what counts, I suppose. Not going to happen. Ever. I dearly hope. Good manager, like, but no thanks.

Has Parky won then?

Luck that one World Class player (Owen than Gerrard now Torres) was able to turn a game on its head to win something - yeah, that's lucky or perhaps fortunate. 2001 FA Cup Arsenal's game throughout until Michael Owen showed up and scored two goals in the last 10 mins 2003 League Cup Liverpool don't face any real test on the way to the final Round 3[1] Liverpool 3–1 Southampton Round 4 Liverpool 2–2 Ipswich Town (Liverpool won 5–4 on penalties) Round 5 Aston Villa 3–4 Liverpool Semi-final (1st leg) Sheffield United 2–1 Liverpool Semi-final (2nd leg) Liverpool 2–0 Sheffield United 2005 Chamions League An overconfident Milan fall asleep in the 2nd half to allow Liverpool back into the game. Liverpool win on Pens. 2006 FA Cup Gerrard smacks a hopeful long range shot that takes it to penalties. And of course, we received a bye into the final on each of those occassions... Except I'm laughing at you... From where I'm standing, it's funny watching you dig that hole. Then why reply? Though I will stick with that Liverpool are a lucky team (not to the levels I suggested above) and I don't like them very much. Rafa spent loads of money and is now Liverpool's 'Kevin Keegan' where no one else can appreciate what he's done other than the fans. As I said, it's funny watching you dig the hole.

Luck that one World Class player (Owen than Gerrard now Torres) was able to turn a game on its head to win something - yeah, that's lucky or perhaps fortunate. 2001 FA Cup Arsenal's game throughout until Michael Owen showed up and scored two goals in the last 10 mins 2003 League Cup Liverpool don't face any real test on the way to the final Round 3[1] Liverpool 3–1 Southampton Round 4 Liverpool 2–2 Ipswich Town (Liverpool won 5–4 on penalties) Round 5 Aston Villa 3–4 Liverpool Semi-final (1st leg) Sheffield United 2–1 Liverpool Semi-final (2nd leg) Liverpool 2–0 Sheffield United 2005 Chamions League An overconfident Milan fall asleep in the 2nd half to allow Liverpool back into the game. Liverpool win on Pens. 2006 FA Cup Gerrard smacks a hopeful long range shot that takes it to penalties. And of course, we received a bye into the final on each of those occassions... Except I'm laughing at you... From where I'm standing, it's funny watching you dig that hole.

A 10-year lucky streak? Are you serious?

Lol. Talk about a straw man. Since when have being capable of getting into Europe and being capable of regularly reaching the semis of the CL been even vaguely the same thing? EDIT: 3 Semi's out of 6 - so you got their half of the time, not regular. Which planet do you live on where 3 CL semis in 6 seasons is not outstanding? Where did I say it wasn't outstanding? I simply said it wasn't regular, which you were calamining. What is outstanding is that you got so far in the Champions League via the backdoor, one season the rules even made so you could enter again. Liverpool is the luckiest undeserving club in the Premiership, so this unfortunate coverage of Rafa and a possible demise has got all your backs up. So what's your point then? My criminal misuse of the word "regular" for a series of occurrences that were not actually punctuated by equally sized intervals? Or is "regular" somehow better than "outstanding"? And you honestly believe that winning a competition does not merit inclusion in it the following year? The 4th-placed side in the EPL is more deserving of CL participation than the reigning champions? Deal with what? Your talking shite and then changing the subject because you're argument is nonsense? Lol. Talk about a straw man. Since when have being capable of getting into Europe and being capable of regularly reaching the semis of the CL been even vaguely the same thing? EDIT: 3 Semi's out of 6 - so you got their half of the time, not regular. Which planet do you live on where 3 CL semis in 6 seasons is not outstanding? The CL is designed so that the big teams get to the latter stages. The CL is designed so that the *seeded* teams get past the group stages, and that teams from the same country are kept apart one stage further. That seeding has to be earned by winning games in Europe over a number of seasons. That's how we got to be a "big" team in Europe. That sounds about right to me. I'd be surprised if Man City's wage bill isn't higher than ours now. Their squad certainly cost more than ours (as did Tottenham's). That depends who comes in and who leaves this summer. At the moment, we still have a good side. Rafa just never really got the hang of the English game.

At least you're champions.

Lol. Talk about a straw man. Since when have being capable of getting into Europe and being capable of regularly reaching the semis of the CL been even vaguely the same thing? EDIT: 3 Semi's out of 6 - so you got their half of the time, not regular. Which planet do you live on where 3 CL semis in 6 seasons is not outstanding?

Lol. Talk about a straw man. Since when have being capable of getting into Europe and being capable of regularly reaching the semis of the CL been even vaguely the same thing?

He spent £60m more gross than Fergie from 04/05-08/09. And £60m less than Chelsea in the same period. If you count in 09/10 as well the figures are £90m more gross than Fergie and £38m less than Chelsea. It's not like he hasn't had money to spend is it? So what? Apples and oranges. In summer 04, Fergie already had a fantastic squad that had won the league the previous season. Rafa had a s*** squad full of dross like Diouf and Diao that Houllier had bought. Spurs have spent a similar amount to Liverpool over that period, yet it took us to drop the ball for them to catch us. The thing with Rafa though is that he has continued to buy s*** in some cases. And to be fair Spurs have spent more than you over those seasons, but they are on their 4th manager during this period. So, their board has apparently realised that their managers has bought players who weren't up to it. Much the same as what Rafa has done in some cases. I'm sure you understand this. It's the same with Chelsea really, they're on to their 5th manager in the same space of time. If you don't get the adequate results at a big club, you're out. You can bet your bottom dollar that Wenger would've been out on his arse as well if he had a net spend of over £100m with the same results they've had. At Spurs it's clearly the board that is their problem. Levy doesn't know what he's doing. Yeah, I do agree that Rafa has bought a lot of players who weren't good enough. Yet at the same time, he wasn't given the money to buy enough players who were good enough, anyway. You can talk all day about how much more he's spent than Fergie since Rafa arrived at LFC, or how many players he's bought and sold. The bottom line is, the £85m net he was given to spend was simply not enough money to build a squad that can compete with Chelsea's or Man Utd when you're starting with a squad like Rafa had in 2004. Levy doesn't know what he's doing??? Can't let that one slide. If you mean that he doesn't know what he's doing when appointing managers then, well, sort of, but for Ramos there was Redknapp, for Hoddle there was Jol. If you mean he doesn't know what he's doing running a football club, well that's a bit silly. The figures really do speak for themselves. Why did he fire Jol and hire Ramos in the first place? The money Spurs have spent under Levy, they should have done better than having to wait for us to drop the ball to break into the top 4. Possibly, though when Jol and Arnesen came in our squad was rather worse than yours under Houllier and needed far more money thrown at it, but that's not the point. It's not up to him to decide which players to buy, but to generate the money to buy them. With a relatively small stadium and a team that was struggling to get into Europe at all (let alone get CL money every year) he has managed to supply his managers with plenty of funding and got a great deal back in selling those players on. At the same time, he's kept the wage bill under control - more so than at any club except Arsenal and Man U. He knows what he's doing. It looks like he wanted Ramos in because he and his advisors felt Jol had taken us as far as he could. That might still be the case, and at time getting Ramos seemed like a bit of a coup. Personally, I think he fucked up, but even people who know what they're doing fuck up occasionally. There's no question he's done a great job on the financial side of things, none at all. It's just his football-side decisions that are iffy. It's just my opinion that most missteps Spurs have taken over the last 5-6 years have been ultimately attributable to Levy.

Here's an article in the Mirror that sums up well what I, and many other Liverpool fans, think. Rafa is a very special manager.

He spent £60m more gross than Fergie from 04/05-08/09. And £60m less than Chelsea in the same period. If you count in 09/10 as well the figures are £90m more gross than Fergie and £38m less than Chelsea. It's not like he hasn't had money to spend is it? So what? Apples and oranges. In summer 04, Fergie already had a fantastic squad that had won the league the previous season. Rafa had a s*** squad full of dross like Diouf and Diao that Houllier had bought. Spurs have spent a similar amount to Liverpool over that period, yet it took us to drop the ball for them to catch us. The thing with Rafa though is that he has continued to buy s*** in some cases. And to be fair Spurs have spent more than you over those seasons, but they are on their 4th manager during this period. So, their board has apparently realised that their managers has bought players who weren't up to it. Much the same as what Rafa has done in some cases. I'm sure you understand this. It's the same with Chelsea really, they're on to their 5th manager in the same space of time. If you don't get the adequate results at a big club, you're out. You can bet your bottom dollar that Wenger would've been out on his arse as well if he had a net spend of over £100m with the same results they've had. At Spurs it's clearly the board that is their problem. Levy doesn't know what he's doing. Yeah, I do agree that Rafa has bought a lot of players who weren't good enough. Yet at the same time, he wasn't given the money to buy enough players who were good enough, anyway. You can talk all day about how much more he's spent than Fergie since Rafa arrived at LFC, or how many players he's bought and sold. The bottom line is, the £85m net he was given to spend was simply not enough money to build a squad that can compete with Chelsea's or Man Utd when you're starting with a squad like Rafa had in 2004. Levy doesn't know what he's doing??? Can't let that one slide. If you mean that he doesn't know what he's doing when appointing managers then, well, sort of, but for Ramos there was Redknapp, for Hoddle there was Jol. If you mean he doesn't know what he's doing running a football club, well that's a bit silly. The figures really do speak for themselves. Why did he fire Jol and hire Ramos in the first place? The money Spurs have spent under Levy, they should have done better than having to wait for us to drop the ball to break into the top 4.

He spent £60m more gross than Fergie from 04/05-08/09. And £60m less than Chelsea in the same period. If you count in 09/10 as well the figures are £90m more gross than Fergie and £38m less than Chelsea. It's not like he hasn't had money to spend is it? So what? Apples and oranges. In summer 04, Fergie already had a fantastic squad that had won the league the previous season. Rafa had a shit squad full of dross like Diouf and Diao that Houllier had bought. Spurs have spent a similar amount to Liverpool over that period, yet it took us to drop the ball for them to catch us. The thing with Rafa though is that he has continued to buy shit in some cases. And to be fair Spurs have spent more than you over those seasons, but they are on their 4th manager during this period. So, their board has apparently realised that their managers has bought players who weren't up to it. Much the same as what Rafa has done in some cases. I'm sure you understand this. It's the same with Chelsea really, they're on to their 5th manager in the same space of time. If you don't get the adequate results at a big club, you're out. You can bet your bottom dollar that Wenger would've been out on his arse as well if he had a net spend of over £100m with the same results they've had. At Spurs it's clearly the board that is their problem. Levy doesn't know what he's doing. Yeah, I do agree that Rafa has bought a lot of players who weren't good enough. Yet at the same time, he wasn't given the money to buy enough players who were good enough, anyway. You can talk all day about how much more he's spent than Fergie since Rafa arrived at LFC, or how many players he's bought and sold. The bottom line is, the £85m net he was given to spend was simply not enough money to build a squad that can compete with Chelsea's or Man Utd when you're starting with a squad like Rafa had in 2004.

He spent £60m more gross than Fergie from 04/05-08/09. And £60m less than Chelsea in the same period. If you count in 09/10 as well the figures are £90m more gross than Fergie and £38m less than Chelsea. It's not like he hasn't had money to spend is it? So what? Apples and oranges. In summer 04, Fergie already had a fantastic squad that had won the league the previous season. Rafa had a shit squad full of dross like Diouf and Diao that Houllier had bought. Spurs have spent a similar amount to Liverpool over that period, yet it took us to drop the ball for them to catch us. It's very rare, because it would be a retarded thing to do, financially. A large part of the value of a club is the name, the fanbase and the league licence. You can't sell those. It is possible that the stadium is on very valuable land, but otherwise, I can't see the sum of assets of any club approaching their nominal value. They can do what the f*** they want and they will totally f*** you over. They own you - if they want to whack their debts onto the club they can do that in two seconds. You're f***ed - not them. Of course they're not f***ed. The club is owned by a holding company. But what would be the point of transferring the debt to the club? None. Same difference. The point is, LFC is a profit-making proposition if you separate it from the debt incurred to buy the club. We are not Portsmouth or Chelsea. The club is only in the red, because it's being asked to pay for itself, which it can't do. It's possible that the Yanks could run the club into the ground, but that would be very stupid from their point of view. Either they sell up fast, or the bank will take the club and sell it. There's not profit in asset-stripping a club like Liverpool, because it's inherently worth more than its actual assets. We're owned by a holding company mate - it just protects the owners arse further. The point is, like I said earlier, the club itself is a money-making proposition (the club makes money, the holding loses more), it's just not a viable candidate for the private-equity model Hicks & Gillett tried.

My reading of the scenario is that the banks are in control, the yanks and the pack of dimwits that run your club are pretty much fucked. SORRY to see it btw as historically it is a very important institution. We are simply not in the same kind of danger as Palace or Portsmouth. At least, I hope not. Obviously, it could all go really, really, really tits-up, but I'm confident that we'll be right back up there within two seasons.

They can do what the fuck they want and they will totally fuck you over. They own you - if they want to whack their debts onto the club they can do that in two seconds. You're fucked - not them. Of course they're not fucked. The club is owned by a holding company. But what would be the point of transferring the debt to the club? None. Same difference. The point is, LFC is a profit-making proposition if you separate it from the debt incurred to buy the club. We are not Portsmouth or Chelsea. The club is only in the red, because it's being asked to pay for itself, which it can't do. It's possible that the Yanks could run the club into the ground, but that would be very stupid from their point of view. Either they sell up fast, or the bank will take the club and sell it. There's not profit in asset-stripping a club like Liverpool, because it's inherently worth more than its actual assets.

But £80m would only be 20% of the debt. It doesn't matter what they sell; since the financial crisis, the Yanks can't borrow the money cheaply enough that the club can pay off the loans, which was their plan, like Glazer. Glazer is still holding on--Man Utd generates a lot more money than LFC--but Hicks & Gillett have to sell. They might well sell any or all of the above players, but that won't change the situation, I reckon.

Parky, which part don't you understand. The club is not £400m in debt, the owners are. They have to sell up. If they only get £200m for the club, that's their problem, not LFC's.