Liverpool sold

[Howaythelads]

yeah - they will distance themselves even further from the likes of us now..... f*** sakes - the divide in english football is getting bigger all the time...

 

Aye, our chances of winning anything meaningful have taken another hit today, but with Liverpool now bought, what other realistic options are there left for anyone wanting to takeover in the greatest league in the world?

 

Come on Bill Gates! 

 

 

 

Aye, Liverpool football club perhaps having even greater resources added to the fact they are prepared to employ top footballers ignoring self righteous bollocks from the naive makes it more difficult for us to win owt.

 

Of course it makes it easier, my mistake.

 

 

 

It would if they operated the way appear to advocate. Now that would be a mistake.

[GeordieDazzler]

http://www.jasonrh.com/kits/mclfc.jpg

 

http://www.gringo.is/temp/liverpoolinc1.jpg

 

http://www.jasonrh.com/kits/lfcmenu.jpg

[Guest Rodimus Prime]

Lets not kid oursleves, they are going to have a good bit of cash to spend, they already have a good manager and a very good nucleus of a squad - the only way they are going is up.

 

Agreeing. Rafa has wasted a ton of cash though. Hopefully that trend will continue. For every good signing, he's made 3 bad ones.

[GeordieDazzler]

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6997/verminqp3.jpg

[Dokko]

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6997/verminqp3.jpg

 

 

 

PS: Taxed, 

[GeordieDazzler]

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8359/liverpoolstealerspn3.gif

[Dan Gleebals]

To think that 10 years ago the table looked like this:

 

1.Manchester United

2.Newcastle United

3.Arsenal   

4.Liverpool       

 

 

 

It did, but we are sadly no where near that and for people to think we are even close to LFC right now are seriously mental.

 

We are not even a top six side, not even close.  To get back to where we were will take 3-5 years and that is WITHOUT shepperd and roeder in charge..

[Guest Rafa]

 

Agreeing. Rafa has wasted a ton of cash though. Hopefully that trend will continue. For every good signing, he's made 3 bad ones.

 

No he hasn't. He's had signings that havent worked, but then who hasn't. His overall record is very good.

 

Of the 10 players he's signed that cost over £5 mill each, Alonso, Garcia, Reina, Crouch, Sissoko, Agger, Bellamy, Kuyt have been very good signings for us. Jury will forever be out on Pennant. The 'big' signing that didn't work was Morientes, and at 6 mill that was hardly big bucks.

 

But after that what money has he lost/wasted, not much really. Josemi arrived for 2 mill, was swapped for Kromkamp who was then sold for £2 mill.  Barragan was sold for a profit after one year, as was Nunez, so no wasting of cash there (and both Nunez and Josemi helped the team win the CL which in itself made it a good return). Carson will be sold for a profit easily if he wants to leave.

 

The problem Rafa has  had is having to sell to buy each summer, and having to go for 2nd best (Pennant), cos he couldn't afford Kuyt AND Alves last summer.

 

Transfers is the least of my concern, I just want the new ground sorted. Rafa hasn't done too shabily for a manager who's spent around £40m net the last 3 seasons.  So he does't need an extra 200mill ala Maurenho. But every manager would like some more and not have to sell to buy.

[Dokko]

 

Agreeing. Rafa has wasted a ton of cash though. Hopefully that trend will continue. For every good signing, he's made 3 bad ones.

 

No he hasn't. He's had signings that havent worked, but then who hasn't. His overall record is very good.

 

Of the 10 players he's signed that cost over £5 mill each, Alonso, Garcia, Reina, Crouch, Sissoko, Agger, Bellamy, Kuyt have been very good signings for us. Jury will forever be out on Pennant. The 'big' signing that didn't work was Morientes, and at 6 mill that was hardly big bucks.

 

But after that what money has he lost/wasted, not much really. Josemi arrived for 2 mill, was swapped for Kromkamp who was then sold for £2 mill.  Barragan was sold for a profit after one year, as was Nunez, so no wasting of cash there (and both Nunez and Josemi helped the team win the CL which in itself made it a good return). Carson will be sold for a profit easily if he wants to leave.

 

The problem Rafa has  had is having to sell to buy each summer, and having to go for 2nd best (Pennant), cos he couldn't afford Kuyt AND Alves last summer.

 

Transfers is the least of my concern, I just want the new ground sorted. Rafa hasn't done too shabily for a manager who's spent around £40m net the last 3 seasons.  So he does't need an extra 200mill ala Maurenho. But every manager would like some more and not have to sell to buy.

 

I expect to see a few players exit the doors though, and replaced with proper quality.

 

Dudek

Hyypia

Paletta ? (is utter shite but will Rafa keep)

Aurelio

Zenden

Kewell

Fowler

 

IMO will all be sold and replaced with good quality players. (although Carson coming back replaces Dudek)

 

Liverpool need a new CB (1st team), LB (squad) L-wing (1st team) & a worldclass striker.

 

If they went and got Curtis Davies, Baines or Bale, Torres & a mint young left winger then the team wouldn't even need investing in for some time, and if they promise to buy a worldclass player every year after that initial investment then Liverpool will quickly catch ground on Chelsea.

 

Fuking bastards. 

 

 

 

 

[LooneyToonArmy]

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1894/4992936franchiseek5.jpg

[brummie]

Just to check, of the 20 Premiership clubs we now have

 

Chelsea (Russian)

Man U (American)

Liverpool (American)

Aston Villa (American)

Portsmouth (Russian)

West Ham (Icelandic)

 

30% of the league wholly foreign owned. Of these clubs only Man U actually acts like a business, in that it makes profits and invests sanely. Four of the rest live beyond their means, and with Liverpool it's too early to tell what they're going to do, but I'd guess that with a new stadium they could be self supporting and compete at the top level.

 

 

How do Aston Villa live beyond their means?

 

Last year was the first in ages we made a loss, and since then we've only had one transfer window in which Lerner could spend money, and we only spent 8m on Young and 1 on Maloney.

 

Hardly spending to excess. I don't doubt it will happen in the future, in fact i hope it does, but to suggest it has already happened is a bit amiss, tbh. In fact, Villa live less "beyond their means" than Newcastle do, judging by the size of your debt.

 

I'd also say that, yes, Portsmouth have spent more than they earn, Chelsea are absolutely in a world of their own.

[NE5]

To think that 10 years ago the table looked like this:

 

1.Manchester United

2.Newcastle United

3.Arsenal   

4.Liverpool       

 

 

and what was 10 years before that ?

 

1. Everton 86

2. Liverpool 77

3. Spurs 71

4. Arsenal 70

5. Norwich 68

6. Wimbledon 66

7. Luton 66

8. Forest 65

9. Watford 63

10. Coventry 63

11. Man U 56

12. Sheff Wed 52

13. Southampton 52

14. Chelsea 52

15. West Ham 52

16. QPR 50

17. Newcastle 47

18. Oxford 46

19. Charlton 44

20. Leicester 42

21. Man City 39

22. Villa 36

 

We really punched our weight before the Halls and Shepherd with all those boards that "were the same as now".

 

2 years later we finishe bottom - again, like we did in 1978 - and stayed down until the Halls and Shepherd came in.

 

Oh and Villa had gone backwards under Doug Ellis since winning the European Cup.

 

 

[1878]

Just to check, of the 20 Premiership clubs we now have

 

Chelsea (Russian)

Man U (American)

Liverpool (American)

Aston Villa (American)

Portsmouth (Russian)

West Ham (Icelandic)

 

What about Fulham? Egyptian owner

[NE5]

To think that 10 years ago the table looked like this:

 

1.Manchester United

2.Newcastle United

3.Arsenal   

4.Liverpool       

 

 

and what was 10 years before that ?

 

1. Everton 86

2. Liverpool 77

3. Spurs 71

4. Arsenal 70

5. Norwich 68

6. Wimbledon 66

7. Luton 66

8. Forest 65

9. Watford 63

10. Coventry 63

11. Man U 56

12. Sheff Wed 52

13. Southampton 52

14. Chelsea 52

15. West Ham 52

16. QPR 50

17. Newcastle 47

18. Oxford 46

19. Charlton 44

20. Leicester 42

21. Man City 39

22. Villa 36

 

We really punched our weight before the Halls and Shepherd with all those boards that "were the same as now".

 

2 years later we finishe bottom - again, like we did in 1978 - and stayed down until the Halls and Shepherd came in.

 

Oh and Villa had gone backwards under Doug Ellis since winning the European Cup.

 

 

now - why did I think nobody would respond to these FACTS.

 

Especially thickmick or even toons taylor who appears to think he knows all about the club, yet is oblivious to these FACTUAL league positions.

 

 

[Spider Jerusalem]

To think that 10 years ago the table looked like this:

 

1.Manchester United

2.Newcastle United

3.Arsenal   

4.Liverpool       

 

 

and what was 10 years before that ?

 

1. Everton 86

2. Liverpool 77

3. Spurs 71

4. Arsenal 70

5. Norwich 68

6. Wimbledon 66

7. Luton 66

8. Forest 65

9. Watford 63

10. Coventry 63

11. Man U 56

12. Sheff Wed 52

13. Southampton 52

14. Chelsea 52

15. West Ham 52

16. QPR 50

17. Newcastle 47

18. Oxford 46

19. Charlton 44

20. Leicester 42

21. Man City 39

22. Villa 36

 

We really punched our weight before the Halls and Shepherd with all those boards that "were the same as now".

 

2 years later we finishe bottom - again, like we did in 1978 - and stayed down until the Halls and Shepherd came in.

 

Oh and Villa had gone backwards under Doug Ellis since winning the European Cup.

 

 

 

It is terrifying at times to look at the likes of Forest and QPR.  These were our comptitors ten years back and these two were 'too good to go down'.  Now they're nowhere near 'good enough to come back up'.

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

 

now - why did I think nobody would respond to these FACTS.

 

 

Should have made a point to go with them, really.  Something along the lines of us being closer to the table as of 20 years ago in terms of position, than that of ten years ago, would be fine.

[OzzieMandias]

 

now - why did I think nobody would respond to these FACTS.

 

 

Should have made a point to go with them, really.  Something along the lines of us being closer to the table as of 20 years ago in terms of position, than that of ten years ago, would be fine.

 

How about 40 years ago? Or 39. The 1967-68 season was the first year I went to matches. We finished tenth, which is where we're sitting now. Man U, Liverpool, Everton, Chelsea and Arsenal were all above us, like now. Tottenham were a few points ahead of us, like they'll probably be after we play the scousers and they go to Sheffield. Our manager was a former player, like now. We had some decent players -- Wyn Davies, Bobby Moncur, Pop Robson, Frank Clark -- but the big fish of the day were at other clubs, like now, and there was that constant nagging feeling that we were a long way behind them. Like now.

 

I feel, like, this is where I came in. For all the club's been through in the last four decades we're still in the same place.

 

Despite our mid-table position, we managed to qualify for the Fairs Cup through a quirk of the rules, which also seems wearily familiar. Went on to win the thing, though, and that, at least, was different.

[Howaythelads]

The board of 40, 39 and 20 years ago had no ambition to finish above mid table, the board of today does.

 

When the board of 40, 39 and 20 years ago appointed a decent manager they didn't back him to build a team. Whenever we looked to be in a good position and needed just a couple of quality players to break into the top 6, they sold our best players instead. Note I'm saying break into top 6, I'm not saying challenge for the title.

 

I imagine some of you will think I'm lying, you believe it's impossible for a board to fail to back a manager, ironically that's due to the ambition of the board since the early 90's, they still have that ambition now.

 

I don''t believe any of you anti-board types wiill understand what I'm posting here.

[OzzieMandias]

I don''t believe any of you anti-board types wiill understand what I'm posting here.

 

We understand perfectly. We just can't believe anyone can be so gullible and naive.

 

A mediocre squad and a mediocre manager in a mediocre mid-table position is still a mediocre squad and a mediocre manager in a mediocre mid-table position no matter how much "ambition" the board is alleged to have.

 

"Ambition" is a pretty useless quality if you haven't got the intelligence, financial acumen, managerial suss or skill in making appointments that are necessary to realise it.

 

Still, I suppose the thought might be comforting for some.

 

What are your thoughts on the Tooth Fairy?

[Howaythelads]

I don''t believe any of you anti-board types wiill understand what I'm posting here.

 

We understand perfectly. We just can't believe anyone can be so gullible and naive.

 

A mediocre squad and a mediocre manager in a mediocre mid-table position is still a mediocre squad and a mediocre manager in a mediocre mid-table position no matter how much "ambition" the board is alleged to have.

 

"Ambition" is a pretty useless quality if you haven't got the intelligence, financial acumen, managerial suss or skill in making appointments that are necessary to realise it.

 

Still, I suppose the thought might be comforting for some.

 

What are your thoughts on the Tooth Fairy?

 

It says something about you that you don't understand.

 

Since you're claiming you were going to matches in the 60's it's astounding you don't understand the frustration of over decades selling our best players for no reason other than a lack of ambition, as opposed to one bad managerial appointment setting the club back. Or is it really so astounding?

 

Waiting for you to get to your favourite subject of nobs.

[NE5]

I don''t believe any of you anti-board types wiill understand what I'm posting here.

 

We understand perfectly. We just can't believe anyone can be so gullible and naive.

 

A mediocre squad and a mediocre manager in a mediocre mid-table position is still a mediocre squad and a mediocre manager in a mediocre mid-table position no matter how much "ambition" the board is alleged to have.

 

"Ambition" is a pretty useless quality if you haven't got the intelligence, financial acumen, managerial suss or skill in making appointments that are necessary to realise it.

 

Still, I suppose the thought might be comforting for some.

 

What are your thoughts on the Tooth Fairy?

 

It says something about you that you don't understand.

 

Since you're claiming you were going to matches in the 60's it's astounding you don't understand the frustration of over decades selling our best players for no reason other than a lack of ambition, as opposed to one bad managerial appointment setting the club back. Or is it really so astounding?

 

Waiting for you to get to your favourite subject of nobs.

I don''t believe any of you anti-board types wiill understand what I'm posting here.

 

We understand perfectly. We just can't believe anyone can be so gullible and naive.

 

A mediocre squad and a mediocre manager in a mediocre mid-table position is still a mediocre squad and a mediocre manager in a mediocre mid-table position no matter how much "ambition" the board is alleged to have.

 

"Ambition" is a pretty useless quality if you haven't got the intelligence, financial acumen, managerial suss or skill in making appointments that are necessary to realise it.

 

Still, I suppose the thought might be comforting for some.

 

What are your thoughts on the Tooth Fairy?

 

you and thickmick are the only 2 people I know of that think the old board had ambitions like the current board. I thought the only people who thought that, were people who didn't support the club during the 1960's, 70's and the 80's. Obviously, that is still the case, despite what you say to the contrary.

 

A good manager is a useless thing to have too, if the board don't back him. I don't suppose you will understand that, like the vast majority of people like you, despite you only being attracted back to the club by the board you now slate.

 

 

[NE5]

 

now - why did I think nobody would respond to these FACTS.

 

 

Should have made a point to go with them, really.  Something along the lines of us being closer to the table as of 20 years ago in terms of position, than that of ten years ago, would be fine.

 

well, it wasn't for you. But the bollocks you post - as usual - is expected. If you don't understand, and don't want to understand, its your problem. I only hope we don't replace the current board with a Bob Murray type and why you think such a thing is impossible, is amazing.

 

 

[NE5]

To think that 10 years ago the table looked like this:

 

1.Manchester United

2.Newcastle United

3.Arsenal   

4.Liverpool       

 

 

and what was 10 years before that ?

 

1. Everton 86

2. Liverpool 77

3. Spurs 71

4. Arsenal 70

5. Norwich 68

6. Wimbledon 66

7. Luton 66

8. Forest 65

9. Watford 63

10. Coventry 63

11. Man U 56

12. Sheff Wed 52

13. Southampton 52

14. Chelsea 52

15. West Ham 52

16. QPR 50

17. Newcastle 47

18. Oxford 46

19. Charlton 44

20. Leicester 42

21. Man City 39

22. Villa 36

 

We really punched our weight before the Halls and Shepherd with all those boards that "were the same as now".

 

2 years later we finishe bottom - again, like we did in 1978 - and stayed down until the Halls and Shepherd came in.

 

Oh and Villa had gone backwards under Doug Ellis since winning the European Cup.

 

 

 

It is terrifying at times to look at the likes of Forest and QPR.  These were our comptitors ten years back and these two were 'too good to go down'.  Now they're nowhere near 'good enough to come back up'.

 

 

 

Indeed it does mate. Football has changed, but one thing that hasn't is the potential of Newcastle United, which was the same then as now. It's quite incredible looking at the state we were in for all those years, yet people are quite unable to even look at league positions and listen to people who attempt to explain to them just how s**** the club really was.

 

You only have to look at where the likes of Leeds are now, and how Sheffield Wed, mackems have been recently to see, how are these clubs where they are ? The answer is the same as why were were we in the same position ourselves for so long. Leeds particularly, are exactly where we were when the Halls and Shepherd came in, with Keegan as manager. Going down, bust, a failed share issue and staring at bankruptcy.

 

 

[Mick]

 

you and thickmick are the only 2 people I know of that think the old board had ambitions like the current board. I thought the only people who thought that, were people who didn't support the club during the 1960's, 70's and the 80's. Obviously, that is still the case, despite what you say to the contrary.

 

A good manager is a useless thing to have too, if the board don't back him. I don't suppose you will understand that, like the vast majority of people like you, despite you only being attracted back to the club by the board you now slate.

 

 

 

The ambitions of the board are the same now as they were back then, to take as much out of the club as possible, if Shepherd had any ambitions for success he'd resign and appoint somebody who knew what they were doing.  I don't suppose you'll understand that.

 

A shite manager is a useless thing to have, to give him almost £50 million is financial suicide.

[NE5]

 

you and thickmick are the only 2 people I know of that think the old board had ambitions like the current board. I thought the only people who thought that, were people who didn't support the club during the 1960's, 70's and the 80's. Obviously, that is still the case, despite what you say to the contrary.

 

A good manager is a useless thing to have too, if the board don't back him. I don't suppose you will understand that, like the vast majority of people like you, despite you only being attracted back to the club by the board you now slate.

 

 

The ambitions of the board are the same now as they were back then, to take as much out of the club as possible, if Shepherd had any ambitions for success he'd resign and appoint somebody who knew what they were doing.  I don't suppose you'll understand that.

 

A s**** manager is a useless thing to have, to give him almost £50 million is financial suicide.

 

by selling our best players, locally born lads with their best years ahead of them who wanted to leave because the club wasn't worth playing for. Aye, right. When did Shearer leave the club for Spurs then LOL

 

What do you think of those league tables I posted ? There are a few teams there who have gone backwards isn't there, or is it us who have gone forwards, or a bit of both. Sensible, serious question.

 

PS what do you think of Villa finishing bottom of the league 7 years after winning the European Cup ? Going backwards or not