Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How long until the media realise that bar a blip of a year in 2004 (?) Liverpool have been irrelevant as a 'top top' club since the mid 90s.

 

No young players will know/care about how great they were pre Premier League and the Champs League win is very much a blip.

Don't think we'll ever see this day.

 

I've seen small kids in countries far and wide with L'pool shirts. Glory hunting dads and that. they've been competitive enough to keep newer fans. You've called it a blip but they got to the CL final the year after. QF's and Semi's for a good few years thereafter. Won the UEFA, a number of domestic cups.

 

L'pools potential is massive. That brand could be very powerful. It's still pretty useful now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

How long until the media realise that bar a blip of a year in 2004 (?) Liverpool have been irrelevant as a 'top top' club since the mid 90s.

 

No young players will know/care about how great they were pre Premier League and the Champs League win is very much a blip.

 

'05.

 

TBF, they're just as 'top' a club as Arsenal are really. They've nearly won the title twice too. I don't like them, but they're not irrelevant as a top club like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus they were in the final in 07 and in the years after that were always a contender. They were also able to attract world class players at the time like Macherano, Alonso and Torres.

They've always been able to attract that calibre of player tbh. Highly rated at the time but not firmly "world class". Madrid wouldn't stump up the 13m for Alonso. You have to remember they bought him before winning the CL. Bought Suarez fro top dollar too - no Europe.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucrative would've been a better word.

 

Not really when he was on about bigger clubs not being in for Suarez.

 

Liverpool are of course a historically bigger club than Chelsea (who I can't stand) but Chelsea have been a bigger draw to players for years and not just for the wages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're a much bigger club these days in the context Astroblack was talking, i.e. ability to sign top players.

 

I don't think he meant that. If he did, why wasn't Man City mentioned over (or at least alongside) their poorer neighbours?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long does it take for Chelsea to be bigger than Liverpool? Their record over the past 10 years isn't even comparable, Chelsea have been far more successful. They have a growing number of fans around the world because of their success, much like Liverpool grew their fanbase in the 80s when they were successful. If Chelsea get a new stadium they will have the advantage in terms of infrastructure, chance of success, quality of players, financial means and recent history. They will be a bigger club than Liverpool. Just because they came from money doesn't mean they can't turn it into something sustained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool turned their dominance in the 80s into something that has been able to sustain them financially today. If Chelsea continue to be successful for the next 5-10 years, they will have a very large mindshare in terms of fans around the world, something that will manifest in financial power. The only thing they lack is a big stadium but even then, Stamford Bridge is only a tiny bit smaller than Anfield. It's not Old Trafford v The Dell we're talking about, it's 6,000 seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...