Liverpool Discussion

[Bluewolf]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You also have to remember those "Coutinho situations" are essentially what allowed us to make those record signings

Funny that.. we had a 'Hazard situation' that was very similar to that.... 

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The thing is Lampard seemed to get a bit offended at what Klopp said... but I think it was more of the reporter looking to cause offense with the way he worded what Klopp had said. Because if you look at what Klopp's said, he's said there's a pandemic and not all clubs can be spending like Chelsea can right now.

Yeah that doesn't account for the fact that Chelsea didn't spend for a year because of their transfer ban - but he's not wrong, Chelsea are spending more than most clubs do during this pandemic and most clubs won't be coming anywhere close to that kind of spending.

You also have to remember those "Coutinho situations" are essentially what allowed us to make those record signings - so I wouldn't necessarily expect us to always make signings like that.

Can't see it mate. 

Lampard went on to praise Klopp and how Liverpool are run.They only point Lampard was making was that it makes no difference how the funds come in, you need to spend to compete. Liverpool spent to be where they are. The managers have no say on how the money is generated. When its available, they will spend it. As did Klopp. As did Lampard. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Bluewolf said:

Funny that.. we had a 'Hazard situation' that was very similar to that.... 

Yeah and a transfer ban. But let's not pretend you're not owned by a Russian oil oligarch  - it's the most obvious reason why Chelsea seems so much less fussed about pandemic spending than other clubs. Because they know their finances at the end of the day will be completely fine. Same with City as well.

[Bluewolf]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah and a transfer ban. But let's not pretend you're not owned by a Russian oil oligarch  - it's the most obvious reason why Chelsea seems so much less fussed about pandemic spending than other clubs. Because they know their finances at the end of the day will be completely fine. Same with City as well.

I think that certain individuals who shall remain nameless have continued to pour scorn on our transfer funding coming from our own 'Coutihno moment' while even you admit that the reason you could bring in players of value at a higher transfer cost was off the back of that.... It would seem as though we both have decent elastic bands.... 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

I think that certain individuals who shall remain nameless have continued to pour scorn on our transfer funding coming from our own 'Coutihno moment' while even you admit that the reason you could bring in players of value at a higher transfer cost was off the back of that.... It would seem as though we both have decent elastic bands.... 

I mean I think Chelsea will always spend money, regardless of whether you've sold players or not - it's why Roman bought the club. I think him having a successful football team is just a happy byproduct of him being a billionaire using a football club for his primary purpose of being a laundromat for Russian oligarch money.

I just think Well Fed Frank's being a bit hypersensitive about Klopp saying "hey we can't all spend like Chelsea this summer."

[Bluewolf]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think him having a successful football team is just a happy byproduct of him being a billionaire using a football club for his primary purpose of being a laundromat for Russian oligarch money.

Well we obviously dispute that horrendous claim... 

Secondly... 

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I just think Well Fed Frank's being a bit hypersensitive about Klopp saying "hey we can't all spend like Chelsea this summer."

[LFCMadLad]

I think anyone comparing our spending to Chelsea's needs to go and have a check up. 

[Cicero]

4 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

I think anyone comparing our spending to Chelsea's needs to go and have a check up. 

So your squad didn't cost you £356m? 

You need to separate the argument of 'Spending to compete' vs 'How the money is made'. 

The only thing comparable is the former. To which it's undoubtedly true. 

Edited September 14, 2020 by Cicero

[LFCMadLad]

Just now, Cicero said:

So your squad didn't cost you £356m? 

You need to separate the argument of 'Spending to compete' vs 'How the money is made'. 

The only thing comparable is the formal. To which is undoubtedly true. 

Oh do fuck off with that shite 

[LFCMike]

Was interested to see this because I'm always seeing people say that Salah never fills them with confidence when taking a penalty. And I don't know why because there's so much variety to his penalties. Only one miss, way back in 2017.

 

[The Artful Dodger]

18 hours ago, Cicero said:

So your squad didn't cost you £356m? 

You need to separate the argument of 'Spending to compete' vs 'How the money is made'. 

The only thing comparable is the former. To which it's undoubtedly true. 

Liverpool have spent and wasted vast sums prior to Klopp no doubt but you simply can not liken what he has achieved to anything Chelsea have. It is far more worthy of praise and respect because they can’t just get whoever they want with infinite funds.

The analogy with the public school kid is fair. Chelsea are the spoiled kid, gets private tuition and goes to Eton, well done on getting into Oxford but it is not the same as someone who has to work hard for it and make sacrifices for it etc. It’s why nobody really respects Chelsea’s success. Like Man City/PSG.

Edited September 15, 2020 by The Artful Dodger

[Cicero]

Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

Liverpool have spent and wasted vast sums prior to Klopp no doubt but you simply can not compare what he has achieved to anything Chelsea have. It is far more worthy of praise and respect because they can’t just get whoever they want with infinite funds.

The analogy with the public school kid is fair. Chelsea are the spoiled kid, gets private tuition and goes to Eton, well done on getting into Oxford but it is not the same as someone who has to work hard for it and make sacrifices for it etc. It’s why nobody really respects Chelsea’s success. Like Man City/PSG.

Congratulations on winning the argument I never made 

[LFCMadLad]

3 hours ago, Cicero said:

Congratulations on winning the argument I never made 

He's right though. Not many football fans in general respect clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG. 

[Cicero]

28 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

He's right though. Not many football fans in general respect clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG. 

Try and recognise the point i'm presenting for a change instead of continuously relying on red herrings that's directing the both of you to an argument I've never made. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Cicero

[The Artful Dodger]

It’s not really any of those clubs fault, it’s the circumstances of the game. The advent of the premier league was at the behest of the greedy 5 (liverpool, Everton, spurs, arsenal and Man Utd), they wanted a league sewn up for the ‘big clubs’. Obviously it didn’t work out for Spurs and Everton who found themselves towards the botttim of the league in the 90s and even for Liverpool. The league was sewn up between Arsenal and Manchester United. The only way to break it, consistently, was with exorbitant investment. 

[RandoEFC+]

6 hours ago, LFCMadLad said:

He's right though. Not many football fans in general respect clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG. 

Sadly this is changing too as for younger football fans Hollywood football is becoming normalised through the increasingly Americanised pay per view coverage, the celebrity status of even squad players in the Premier League, including the absurd micro analysis of utterly boring transfers and stuff like FIFA Ultimate Team commercialising elite players by making them difficult to obtain. They even have a reveal day for the updated player ratings weeks before the game is released each year now. The modern football fan will spend 1000% more time arguing about whether Salah should be an 89 or a 90 on EA Forums for the rest of their life than actually being in a football stadium.

[Dr. Gonzo]

The worst thing about winning the league is the huge number of plastics that have flooded our subreddit.

[Stan]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The worst thing about winning the league is the huge number of plastics that have flooded our subreddit.

You must have had fuck loads way before the title surely?

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

You must have had fuck loads way before the title surely?

Yeah but never like this.

And these new ones are the worst.

[The Artful Dodger]

I think that’s just football now, 

It’s all

’ don’t get it twisted..’

’ the streets remember..’

These people should be nowhere near football. 

[Danny]

On 14/09/2020 at 15:46, The Artful Dodger said:

I think you’re giving your owners too much credit there. You CAN spend but ultimately that would mean less profit for your owners. They are here to make money for themselves, nothing else. You’ve got arguably the best manager in the world and he will win things for you, they won’t spend unless they think it’s essential to increase revenue. That is all they care about...making money. You’re facing opponents who literally don’t care about that; they have so much it doesn’t matter. 

This is the erosion of football’s soul caused by Chelsea and Man City. They are literal cancers on our game. Just like their small time fans who know nothing about the history of the clubs they support. Liverpool should be better than that, they are a far bigger club and part of the pantheon of football history which neither of those clubs can ever hope to reach.

This is just wrong, clubs like Man City and Chelsea are a symptom of the problem. Association Football is brutally capitalistic and has been long before the oil clubs took over, the revolution of English football with the Premier League gave big time investors the green light. Man Utd made their riches from foreign fans through merchandising, they were so good at it they opened the door to what a Premier League side could achieve off the pitch. If there was adequate regulations in place that prevented financial doping this wouldn't be an issue, something similar to the American sports which ironically resemble communism more than anything.

Man City and Chelsea are not the cancers, they didn't ruin the game, they're just a pair of lumps and pains in a testicle.

[The Artful Dodger]

9 minutes ago, Danny said:

This is just wrong, clubs like Man City and Chelsea are a symptom of the problem. Association Football is brutally capitalistic and has been long before the oil clubs took over, the revolution of English football with the Premier League gave big time investors the green light. Man Utd made their riches from foreign fans through merchandising, they were so good at it they opened the door to what a Premier League side could achieve off the pitch. If there was adequate regulations in place that prevented financial doping this wouldn't be an issue, something similar to the American sports which ironically resemble communism more than anything.

Man City and Chelsea are not the cancers, they didn't ruin the game, they're just a pair of lumps and pains in a testicle.

If you read on I do actually qualify that statement, I agree Man City and Chelsea are just the aids to the games HIV. Still doesn’t mean we should all not want AIDS though.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, shut up said:

With or without thiago, liverpool still retain the title.

Bold call.

But if I remember right, you've made some bold calls before and been right before... so I hope you're right again pal!

I think Thiago's going to be one hell of a signing in our midfield though.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, The Artful Dodger said:

If you read on I do actually qualify that statement, I agree Man City and Chelsea are just the aids to the games HIV. Still doesn’t mean we should all not want AIDS though.

Didn't Blackburn do the City/Chelsea/PSG thing first though?

I think a big part of the soul in English football died when clubs broke the league off from the Football League. It opened the door to over commercialisation of the sport and globalism made the league and the clubs in it rich as fuck. I don't think there's any stop to the soul further dying in European football unless there's some sort of global salary cap imposed in football. But then how do you enforce a global salary cap? If it's a universal cap... rich clubs are going to hate that idea. If the cap accounts for different leagues and the revenue coming in and out of those leagues... maybe it does something, but chances are that will further stratify European leagues where the gaps between the "big leagues" and the rest of Europe just grows.

At this point, I'm not sure there is any saving the soul of football. We just have to hope that there's enough outrage against the idea of things like a super league. But even if there is outrage, I doubt it stops people like UEFA and FIFA... because I think the UEFA Nations League and FIFA's expansion of the Club World Cup are two things that nobody asked for and I'm not really sure anyone wants (although... sure some people like the Nations League as it's basically just dressed up those pointless mid-season international friendlies into something that appears more palatable). So I'm sure if those at the top say "it's time for a super league" we might be shit out of luck.

[Bluewolf]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Didn't Blackburn do the City/Chelsea/PSG thing first though?

They did mate, often gets overlooked and then didn't Newcastle do something similar under Keegan??? 

I remember the running joke at that time was "What do you have if you have 10Mill in one pocket and 15Mill in the other"??? 

"Kevin Keegans trousers on"...