Liverpool 2-1 Newcastle United (31/08/2022)

[Rompe]

Dont like Klopp, but he's got a point. 4 or 5 clubs having endless amounts of money to spend isn't good for the game.

[Unbelievable]

10 minutes ago, Rompe said:

Dont like Klopp, but he's got a point. 4 or 5 clubs having endless amounts of money to spend isn't good for the game.

Klopp would have never become Liverpool manager if they didn’t have the ability to outspend many other clubs in the word.

[Turnbull2000]

The Liverpool fans on RAWK are fucking ghastly.The levels of entitlement are staggering. It's cult like. Fans on most other forums seem quite reasonable, especially City and Man United oddly enough.

[Rafalove]

53 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Klopp would have never become Liverpool manager if they didn’t have the ability to outspend many other clubs in the word.

 

 

This is true. They’ve taken many a player from us down the years.

[Danh1]

42 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

The Liverpool fans on RAWK are fucking ghastly.The levels of entitlement are staggering. It's cult like. Fans on most other forums seem quite reasonable, especially City and Man United oddly enough.

I think cult is a great word to describe them. It’s incredible reading and not in a positive or exciting way.

 

Think they’re morally superior to everyone 

[Guest]

I hate them as a fanbase. 

[jack j]

Fucking vermin the lot of them

Makes me sick when I see the city of Newcastle and the people compared to them self pitying horrible cunts

[McDog]

3 hours ago, Chris_R said:

If teams are to compete fairly, surely we have to factor out those with more global fanbases too? Is it any more fair to return to a time when Man United and Liverpool could outspend everyone because of their global brand? Have a salary cap and transfer cap per team, not based on revenue at all. Then I'll be interested.

 

Otherwise you're not trying to create a level playing field at all, you're just trying to pull the ladder up and maintain the status quo.

 

That's one option. Not sure I'd like it but it would make sense. In American sports baseball has no cap and the rich buy all the best players more or less like English football. American football teams are under the same spending restrictions but some teams seem to be better at it than others. I love the English pyramid so in a sense I like it as it is. To be perfectly honest, if creating a fair playing field is the goal then FFP isn't the answer, it would be uniform spending limits regardless of income but again, I don't really have a horse in this race other than watching Newcastle play every week and enjoying the great game.

[Guest]

Also pretty sure we've had more trophies than them for longer in our histories, than they've had more trophies than us, so how far back do we go to reach our ceilings?

[Nobody]

3 hours ago, midds said:

Refuse to be lectured to by a bloke working for those owners who signed the deals to leave British football and join the ESL. This wasn't some idea they were just kicking around and mulling over, they talked about it, agreed it all, signed the deals and then put it into operation. They slit the throat of the footballing pyramid in this country to further their own bank balances and only rowed back on it because of the adverse fan attention it created. That shit was done - cut and fucking dried. Contracts signed, done deal. They did it, all 6 of them. And now they all have another new challenge and they're throwing their collective toys out of the pram.

 

We're all aware that the Saudi's are pretty reprehensible cunts tbh. The shit they do is shady as fuck and pretty bleak and I'm not happy about any of it tbph. But to paint the other owners as these paragons of virtue, whiter than white and absolutely sound as fuck is just blatant fucking gaslighting. The ESL 6 held a pistol to the head of the English game and gladly pulled the fucking trigger. The fact they almost got away with it isn't lost on all fans thankfully. 

I fucking love reading your posts mate, always absolutely spot on

[NEEJ]

9 hours ago, Nobody said:

I fucking love reading your posts mate, always absolutely spot on

Hell hath no fury like midds scorned. 

[Rompe]

11 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

Klopp would have never become Liverpool manager if they didn’t have the ability to outspend many other clubs in the word.

Yeah okay, but so what? There's always been differences in wealth, but in previous years clubs couldn't spend whatever they wanted to without possible concequences.

It's impossible for the likes of PSG, Manchester City, and us too, to go bankrupt. It's literally endless amounts of money that can be spent without fear of "doing a Leeds" or whatever.

It's not good for the game.

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, Rompe said:

Yeah okay, but so what? There's always been differences in wealth, but in previous years clubs couldn't spend whatever they wanted to without possible concequences.

It's impossible for the likes of PSG, Manchester City, and us too, to go bankrupt. It's literally endless amounts of money that can be spent without fear of "doing a Leeds" or whatever.

It's not good for the game.

Owner’s wealth <> club wealth though. The suggestion that Liverpool cannot compete with Newcastle United is ridiculous at this point in time, wouldn’t you agree?

[Rompe]

14 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Owner’s wealth <> club wealth though. The suggestion that Liverpool cannot compete with Newcastle United is ridiculous at this point in time, wouldn’t you agree?

I disagree, our owners wealth is in effect our wealth. The comparison between Newcastle and Liverpool is too soon to make, but it's only a matter of time until we become what Manchester City is now. Liverpool has put up a good fight in the last years, but Manchester City has been the dominant team and will continue to dominate, one reason for their dominance is that they can buy whomever they want without worry if it will work out.

Take Kalvin Phillips for example, 42 million, what if he doesnt work out? Doesn't matter, they don't need to think about resale value or wages, in fact they can just buy another player in that position for an equal sum, or even more. No worries. That's a luxury that's not afforded to Liverpool.

[Unbelievable]

32 minutes ago, Rompe said:

I disagree, our owners wealth is in effect our wealth. The comparison between Newcastle and Liverpool is too soon to make, but it's only a matter of time until we become what Manchester City is now. Liverpool has put up a good fight in the last years, but Manchester City has been the dominant team and will continue to dominate, one reason for their dominance is that they can buy whomever they want without worry if it will work out.

Take Kalvin Phillips for example, 42 million, what if he doesnt work out? Doesn't matter, they don't need to think about resale value or wages, in fact they can just buy another player in that position for an equal sum, or even more. No worries. That's a luxury that's not afforded to Liverpool.

Of course it is. Liverpool splunked 35m on Carroll, hardly utilised him and brought in Suarez, Salah and co to fire them up the league. The likes of Liverpool and Man U have outspent the likes of us for decades and replaced managers and players who didn’t work out for them with ease, picking the best players and managers of less fortunate clubs like us. Now the tables are reversed (with Man City, not even us yet) they cry foul. It’s pathetic.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Unbelievable

[Rompe]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

Of course it is. Liverpool splunked 35m on Carroll, hardly utilised him and brought in Suarez, Salah and co to fire them up the league. The likes of Liverpool and Man U have outspent the likes of us for decades and replaced managers and players who didn’t work out for them with ease, picking the best players and managers of less fortunate clubs like us. Now the tables are reversed (with Man City, not even us yet) they cry foul. It’s pathetic.

 

 

 

Liverpool spunked 35m on Carroll after selling Torres for 50m in the same window, Suarez cost them 7,5m and they sold him for like ten times that much to Barcelona.

Of course they are spending money, but in terms of net spend they are nowhere near Manchester City who has won the Premier League 4 out of the 5 last seasons, and they will win this year too.
Its complete domination and as I've already said it's not good for the game.

[madras]

1 minute ago, Rompe said:

Liverpool spunked 35m on Carroll after selling Torres for 50m in the same window, Suarez cost them 7,5m and they sold him for like ten times that much to Barcelona.

Of course they are spending money, but in terms of net spend they are nowhere near Manchester City who has won the Premier League 4 out of the 5 last seasons, and they will win this year too.
Its complete domination and as I've already said it's not good for the game.

Not now. Man City after a few years of that are now self funding. Which because of FFP we'll have to be. 

 

[Tiresias]

I wonder if the cost of borrowing going up is going to have an effect on how much clubs are willing to spend, and this may put even more of a gulf between a lot of clubs and the really rich ones (like us, albeit we are severely restricted by ffp). 

 

It's terrible for the league, and I want to compete for the league on merit not on spunking all the money in the world at it, but alas nothing is going to get done to cut back on ludicrous spending. 

[Interpolic]

19 minutes ago, Rompe said:

Liverpool spunked 35m on Carroll after selling Torres for 50m in the same window, Suarez cost them 7,5m and they sold him for like ten times that much to Barcelona.

Of course they are spending money, but in terms of net spend they are nowhere near Manchester City who has won the Premier League 4 out of the 5 last seasons, and they will win this year too.
Its complete domination and as I've already said it's not good for the game.

 

Suarez cost Liverpool £20m+.

[Rompe]

25 minutes ago, madras said:

Not now. Man City after a few years of that are now self funding. Which because of FFP we'll have to be. 

 

Thanks to hugely inflated sponsorship deals they are yes. Not every club can have those.

[madras]

2 minutes ago, Rompe said:

Thanks to hugely inflated sponsorship deals they are yes. Not every club can have those.

Liverpools dominance was based on Shankley and Littlewoods money.

[Rompe]

6 minutes ago, madras said:

Liverpools dominance was based on Shankley and Littlewoods money.

What dominance? And what has that got to do with Klopps point?

 

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Rompe

[madras]

13 minutes ago, Rompe said:

What dominance? And what has that got to do with Klopps point?

 

 

 

Being the most succssful club throught the 70's and 80's  and the cache that brings. Klopps point twas that we have no ceiling, we have as much a ceiling as they have and they have many years running things. Rememeber the private inyerview of Rick Parry ?

[Jonas]

18 hours ago, Rompe said:

Dont like Klopp, but he's got a point. 4 or 5 clubs having endless amounts of money to spend isn't good for the game.

I felt that way. Every new one that comes along inflates things. Gave up completely with Man City though.

But without these clubs the premier league would have been won by Manchester United and Arsenal every year since its inception with Blackburn (Bankrolled themselves), Leicester and Liverpool popping in once and that was even worse for the game. It was getting like Scotland. We were 3rd behind them and knew we couldn't overhaul them so what chance did anybody else have?

That's what they all said to me about Chelsea. Not saying so much now the same people.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Jonas

[Nate]

This result gets more frustrating as time goes on. Would love for us to still be unbeaten.