The Liverpool Thread

[stlouismag]

Brendan Rodgers @brodgers_lfc

Thatcher's dead, Fergie's retired and Liverpool are on course to win the league. Somewhere there's a Scouser with a lamp and no wishes left.

 

Liverpool-supporting friend of mine retweeted that earlier. Gave me a laugh.

[Minhosa]

I, for one, will feel honoured to be royally humped 7-0 off them on the final day.

 

I'll also welcome the endless 'Stevie G' Tylergasms from here until eternity, the cocksure scousers constantly referring back to the 'Class of 14' and the inevitable 'Rodgers is our God' banners.

 

The Scousers I've met are for the most part, the most self-appreciating, attention seeking and arrogant set of fans going.......closely followed by Spurs Fans.

 

I've got everything crossed that they fuck it up. Can't see it now though.

[themanupstairs]

Game. Set. Match. Title going to Anfield imo, and it's no less than they deserve.

[Flip]

Game. Set. Match. Title going to Anfield imo, and it's no less than they deserve.

 

How exactly? A loss to Chelsea and it's open for everyone to win again. I actually think they'll have problems to beat Chelsea and it be amazing (not saying it won't happen) but absolutely amazing to see them end the season with 14 straight victories.

[mrmojorisin75]

it's mourinho's time now like, years gone by you'd just know he'd waltz into anfield (or wherever) and waltz out with a 0-1

 

feels like he has something to prove at the moment tbh

 

EDIT: by his time i just mean his time to show something, a win at anfield and they're right back in it...big assumption for man city to think they'll win 6 straight now

[The College Dropout]

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,

[The College Dropout]

It is an achievement for the 5th most financed side to win the league. They could be Manchester United big rather easily.

 

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.

[wacko]

It is an achievement for the 5th most financed side to win the league. They could be Manchester United big rather easily.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

[The College Dropout]

 

It is an achievement for the 5th most financed side to win the league. They could be Manchester United big rather easily.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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 College Dropout]

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.

[Guest DebuchyAndTheBeast]

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 totally agree. The only difference is that Liverpool haven't been able to attract the so called big names because they weren't in the CL competitions.

[The College Dropout]

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

[Guest firetotheworks]

It's a change and I'd rather it was Arsenal, but a change is good. Chelsea and Man City winning the league isn't good for anyone and Man United winning would be dull as fuck. Really surprised that it isn't Chelsea, although obviously it's not over yet.

[wacko]

 

It is an achievement for the 5th most financed side to win the league. They could be Manchester United big rather easily.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

You're the one who mentioned "legitimate", not me. I don't know what's going on at Atletico.

[colinmk]

Think it's good for football if they win it, they aren't buying success like the others.

[Kimbo]

They've hardly done it on the cheap.

[mrmojorisin75]

They've hardly done it on the cheap.

 

the fact they might do it at all is a borderline miracle lets be honest

 

 

[Incognito]

They've hardly done it on the cheap.

 

They have compared to their direct competition.

[Kimbo]

Obviously there are 3 teams that should be above them, but they've had a net spend over the last 5 seasons of £90m, not to mention the amount they can pay in wages. I can't see this as some sort of underdog story.

[mrmojorisin75]

Obviously there are 3 teams that should be above them, but they've had a net spend over the last 5 seasons of £90m, not to mention the amount they can pay in wages. I can't see this as some sort of underdog story.

 

90m is what citeh and chelski spend in single summers - besides you have to factor in where they were when rodgers took over and how rapidly they've rose to challenge

 

 

[The College Dropout]

 

It is an achievement for the 5th most financed side to win the league. They could be Manchester United big rather easily.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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."

[The College Dropout]

£41m loss one year, £50m the next. Then spend £50m net in transfers.

 

 

A win for football indeed.

[hakka]

Obviously there are 3 teams that should be above them, but they've had a net spend over the last 5 seasons of £90m, not to mention the amount they can pay in wages. I can't see this as some sort of underdog story.

 

90m is what citeh and chelski spend in single summers - besides you have to factor in where they were when rodgers took over and how rapidly they've rose to challenge

 

[Minhosa]

Obviously there are 3 teams that should be above them, but they've had a net spend over the last 5 seasons of £90m, not to mention the amount they can pay in wages. I can't see this as some sort of underdog story.

 

90m is what citeh and chelski spend in single summers - besides you have to factor in where they were when rodgers took over and how rapidly they've rose to challenge

 

 

Just think.........if we'd manage to nab Rodgers he might have been allowed to aim for the heady heights of 8th too.

[Kimbo]

We know Chelsea and Man City spend alot, but that is 2 clubs out of the other 19 in the league. Liverpool are paying Glen Johnson over 100k a week, never mind the likes of Gerrard and Suarez. Them underachieving in recent years doesn't mean they aren't one of the rich "elite" clubs.