leffe186

Still at least three teams worse than them this year, though.

I like that reffing on the header. Feel like I've seen too many such challenges recently where the ref gets conned into giving a free-kick to the guy who's not actually trying to head the ball.

If it's any consolation, I've got Villa on as well here, and they're far worse than you guys.

Best reaction to a goal ever .

Just shows how little of a shit we give .

I guessed that with that line-up your bench must be ace. Guess not.

If we get a proper manager, they could build a team round him for the next decade. Or the next two years, before someone taps him up.

Holtby will be a big miss for them. At least we've got through the first 15 without letting in two goals. We've got an almost completely makeshift defence (I include Rose in that, frankly). Can see our typical game: let in a couple of silly goals but our classy players making a couple too.

Bit of a nothing game this.

We've gone all Pardew - two left backs - although maybe we actually do have ten first-teamers out .

Supposedly it's his agent touting him out. Better had be.

I'm forty, and I'm actually jealous.

(I didn't mean your comment Bimpy )

That is unbelievable, there is no club without us ffs. Honestly, comments like that make we want to walk away from all this. That's about as far removed from my vision of fandom and whole ethos about football as it's possible to get.

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 shit 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.

...and as such, has no NFL, MLB or NBA team. I like that. Officially the 15th largest city in the US too .

Get stuffed. Crew average attendance over 16000, placing it 12th of 19 clubs, and 80% of capacity in a soccer-only stadium. The biggest % increase in attendance this year, despite the team not being that great, and not having any big stars any more.

I'm coming in halfway here, but the point is still that your cashflow was minus 21M, due to maintaining a huge wage bill and spending a lot on transfers (although you recouped a lot that year). You were bailed out by your owners giving you a wodge of cash. When fans talk about clubs spending more than they're taking in, they usually (effectively) mean cash flow before financing. If they talk about financial doping, they usually mean exactly what Liverpool did - owners giving the club a wodge of cash to keep them in the black. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's not sustainable in the long run. I mean, Man City could sustain a wage bill of 500M in the long run because their owners have a stratospheric amount of cash available. It just gets a bit annoying .

It's a pretty amazing achievement like. Only five Prem clubs last year had a turnover >200M and wage bill >100M. They were one of those five. Their wage bill was 34M more than the next team - 130.8M against 96.1M - ours wasn't even three-quarters of theirs. They have played a grand total of five games on top of the Premier League this year. We have (for example) played 16. It's a great achievement, but let's not pretend it's amazing. Arsenal, Man U, and, frankly, Spurs have all made a pig's breakfast of this year and they have taken advantage. Well we know that only a few clubs can realistically win the league because of those numbers you've mentioned. But I don't think anyone expected Liverpool to be one of those. I know they've exploited weaknesses in other clubs (particularly Man Utd I guess) but I still think to go from 7th to 1st is pretty amazing, and to play such class football and use young players well while doing it. Rodgers has done a fantastic job, and they've been terrific, but just about everything has slotted into place. They have been underperforming versus their resources for years due to poor management. It just hasn't amazed me, if it has amazed you then fair play. It has some elements of the Villa win in 81. Man City played five cup games in January alone, the same amount Liverpool have all season. Villa only played four in 80-81, and famously only used 14 players all season. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great achievement, but it does go some way to explaining it.

It's a pretty amazing achievement like. Only five Prem clubs last year had a turnover >200M and wage bill >100M. They were one of those five. Their wage bill was 34M more than the next team - 130.8M against 96.1M - ours wasn't even three-quarters of theirs. They have played a grand total of five games on top of the Premier League this year. We have (for example) played 16. It's a great achievement, but let's not pretend it's amazing. Arsenal, Man U, and, frankly, Spurs have all made a pig's breakfast of this year and they have taken advantage.

Just a tiny thing, but: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26970496 http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/fa-pay-tribute-to-hillsborough-victims-with-96-liverpool-scarves-placed-on-wembley-seats-picture/ One of the supporters killed, Colin Andrew Sefton, was a Spurs fan. He was the only one of his mates (mainly Liverpool fans) who had a car. I don't mean to be disrespectful - certainly not as disrespectful as those who seem to have forgotten this in their (rightful) need to remember those who were killed - but I can't help but feel that one Spurs scarf among 95 Liverpool ones would actually be rather powerful, in more ways than one.

We did our bit...twice.

Red Bull? Dunno, my wife's Villa, she suggested a Man City type deal.

Rumours that Villa are about to be bought out by someone with a LOT of money.