Liverpool Discussion

[Dr. Gonzo]

19 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

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"... 

I remember Newcastle's Keegan spending a lot of money. But I'm not sure it was quite as obvious as the Blackburn/Chealsea/City sugar daddy approach?

I honestly couldn't tell you though. Maybe I remember Blackburn better because it was more successful & Newcastle's attempt at buying the league is easier to forget since they lost? I think a part of it, to me at least, is that I've always viewed Blackburn as a pretty small club - even when they were rich. Newcastle I've always felt of as a pretty big club, even though they've not won things in years (same with Chelsea pre-Roman tbh, but Newcastle have the advantage of being a one club city whereas in London there's quite a few decent sized clubs) . Especially in the 90s though, I remember them playing sexy football and having some of the best fans in England (in terms of atmosphere). I was only a kid though so my brain wasn't developed 

I should probably take your word for it. Respecting elders and all of that jazz.

[Bluewolf]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I remember Newcastle's Keegan spending a lot of money. But I'm not sure it was quite as obvious as the Blackburn/Chealsea/City sugar daddy approach?

I honestly couldn't tell you though. Maybe I remember Blackburn better because it was more successful & Newcastle's attempt at buying the league is easier to forget since they lost? I think a part of it, to me at least, is that I've always viewed Blackburn as a pretty small club - even when they were rich. Newcastle I've always felt of as a pretty big club, even though they've not won things in years (same with Chelsea pre-Roman tbh, but Newcastle have the advantage of being a one club city whereas in London there's quite a few decent sized clubs) . Especially in the 90s though, I remember them playing sexy football and having some of the best fans in England (in terms of atmosphere). I was only a kid though so my brain wasn't developed 

I should probably take your word for it. Respecting elders and all of that jazz.

I would probably agree with you about the Newcastle spend but would be interested to see what the total was for them that period compared to others?? It might have been more a case of Keegan bringing who he wanted and money was no object rather than it being a hideous amount for each player...

Just googled it, they spent a total of 34Mill on players half of which went on Shearer alone in 94/95 and that was 20 odd years ago. By comparison we spent 5.5Mill on players the same season so yea, could be argued that both them and Blackburn were all about throwing cash about to win things from sugar daddies long before the likes of Chelsea/City were doing it... We just did the same thing only our sugar daddies were bigger than theirs... 

[Spike]

Some bloody weird arguments in this thread. All the English teams spend absolutely astronomical amounts of money whether it comes from investment or sponsors, and you'd have to go far down the pyramid to find a sincere grassroots club. Wolverhampton just threw 40,000,000 at a Portuguese teenager for crying out loud! Liverpool bankrolled by a American sporting conglomerate... that is terrible stuff really; a conglomerate? How sterile. Not as a bad as a Russian gangster or an oppressive/authoritarian/whatever sovereign state; but I don't think it's really productive talking about if you'd prefer a kick to the left nut or the right nut. Thai retail, Chinese gambling, Italian television businessmen, NFL franchises, Sheffield is owned by a Saudi, a dodgy Sports Shop in Tyne, Egyptian billionaires, Everton is owned by steel and energy,  a fucking pornograher owns half of West Ham.. and it goes on. Have you blokes looked at who owns these clubs? Chelsea and Manchester are just the posterboys of a much larger issue that covers Premier League top to bottom. Who is actually British owned and not by a billionaire? Burnley...

Every team buys success, it is the nature of the sport. The cat may have been skinned differently but it;s still skinned.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Spike

[Rick]

Reckon Thiago makes the bench for Sunday? Surely he’s fit having trained with Bayern. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 minutes ago, Spike said:

Some bloody weird arguments in this thread. All the English teams spend absolutely astronomical amounts of money whether it comes from investment or sponsors, and you'd have to go far down the pyramid to find a sincere grassroots club. Wolverhampton just threw 40,000,000 at a Portuguese teenager for crying out loud! Liverpool bankrolled by a American sporting conglomerate... that is terrible stuff really; a conglomerate? How sterile. Not as a bad as a Russian gangster or an oppressive/authoritarian/whatever sovereign state; but I don't think it's really productive talking about if you'd prefer a kick to the left nut or the right nut. Thai retail, Chinese gambling, Italian television businessmen, NFL franchises, Sheffield is owned by a Saudi, a dodgy Sports Shop in Tyne, Egyptian billionaires, Everton is owned by steel and energy,  a fucking pornograher owns half of West Ham.. and it goes on. Have you blokes looked at who owns these clubs? Chelsea and Manchester are just the posterboys of a much larger issue that covers Premier League top to bottom. Who is actually British owned and not by a billionaire? Burnley...

Every team buys success, it is the nature of the sport. The cat may have been skinned differently but it;s still skinned.

Weird how not all of these foreign billionaire cunts act the same way though. I think the Blackburn/Newcastle/Chelsea/Man City/PSG comparison for these clubs is apt because they've all sort of just built on the blueprint of Blackburn's "LETS THROW MILLIONS AT GOOD PLAYERS AND GOOD MANAGERS AND WIN WIN WIN" with varying degrees of success (I feel like I only had to say that because of Newcastle lol).

I don't think people are wrong when they say money and foreign ownership have damaged the soul of the game in England, very few of these owners actually care about the local fans and community that originally built those clubs into what they are - and the ones that do are pretty rare, tbh.

There's a fair bit of resentment when you've got a league where clubs could get promoted up in the 70s and 80s and immediately start challenging for the title... that's now so loaded with cash that you'd literally never expect that from a promoted club ever. And when/if it happens (but more realistically, if they do what Sheffield United have done this season) it's treated as some huge success story... even though in British history, those sort of "achievements" aren't really much compared to what some other promoted clubs have done (not to take away from what Sheffield United have done; it's a different era so you've got to take that into consideration).

I think hearing stories of how there was so much parity in British/English football back in the day and comparing it to how it is now... it's easy to have that sort of resentment.

Then you account for the many billionaire owners that "care" about the local fans/community for PR purposes, but we've seen numerous times loads of shit owners that really couldn't give a fuck about the local communities. Mike Ashley's an easy example, also the dickheads that bought Blackburn and took them straight down to league one.

I don't necessarily expect the foreign fans to care too much, but if local fans are alienated too much... I think the league loses a lot of marketabilty.

[LFCMike]

7 minutes ago, Rick said:

Reckon Thiago makes the bench for Sunday? Surely he’s fit having trained with Bayern. 

Doubt it. Not even officially announced yet and there's a cut off point for registering him

[Rick]

1 minute ago, LFCMike said:

Doubt it. Not even officially announced yet and there's a cut off point for registering him

Reading murmurs that he's gonna be annouced and that tomorrow. Hopefully theres a cut-off of about 3pm.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Weird how not all of these foreign billionaire cunts act the same way though. I think the Blackburn/Newcastle/Chelsea/Man City/PSG comparison for these clubs is apt because they've all sort of just built on the blueprint of Blackburn's "LETS THROW MILLIONS AT GOOD PLAYERS AND GOOD MANAGERS AND WIN WIN WIN" with varying degrees of success (I feel like I only had to say that because of Newcastle lol).

I don't think people are wrong when they say money and foreign ownership have damaged the soul of the game in England, very few of these owners actually care about the local fans and community that originally built those clubs into what they are - and the ones that do are pretty rare, tbh.

There's a fair bit of resentment when you've got a league where clubs could get promoted up in the 70s and 80s and immediately start challenging for the title... that's now so loaded with cash that you'd literally never expect that from a promoted club ever. And when/if it happens (but more realistically, if they do what Sheffield United have done this season) it's treated as some huge success story... even though in British history, those sort of "achievements" aren't really much compared to what some other promoted clubs have done (not to take away from what Sheffield United have done; it's a different era so you've got to take that into consideration).

I think hearing stories of how there was so much parity in British/English football back in the day and comparing it to how it is now... it's easy to have that sort of resentment.

Then you account for the many billionaire owners that "care" about the local fans/community for PR purposes, but we've seen numerous times loads of shit owners that really couldn't give a fuck about the local communities. Mike Ashley's an easy example, also the dickheads that bought Blackburn and took them straight down to league one.

I don't necessarily expect the foreign fans to care too much, but if local fans are alienated too much... I think the league loses a lot of marketabilty.

I think you lot need to be more critical and aware of it. Yeah you can say that the owners of Leeds and and Manchester City act a little differently in terms of financing but is it really that different? Let's not pretend these clubs are being represented by local men. Who does Liverpool have for instance? Trent Alexander-Arnold and who else? It is fantastic that he is playing so well and is able to represent Liverpool, that is what a bloke likes to see but let's not pretend that players like Virgil van Dyke and Sergio Aguero are in England for anything but money and success. In the 70s why would Sergio Aguero be in England and not a team like River Plate or at a stretch one of the Spanish clubs? Why would Virgil van Dyke be in England and not Ajax or Feyenoord? The competition wouldn't be much different and I'd imagine the monetary gain would be similar as well. England will never win an international trophy because the talent pool is neglected at the highest level for international 'ready made' players. Except for extraordinary talent or circumstances British players don't particularly have much chance playing for the competitive teams. It's all about money and only ever will be.

You could say that the clubs are meant to represent the people that support it, but how can you when the players don't?

[Stan]

6 minutes ago, Rick said:

Reading murmurs that he's gonna be annouced and that tomorrow. Hopefully theres a cut-off of about 3pm.

Think it's 5pm Fridays.

[The Artful Dodger]

I really don’t think Jack Walker, born in Blackburn, raised there and made his money there, is the same as a Russian crook and a Middle Eastern state.

Yes, there has always been money, yes there has always been plenty wrong with how football operates but Chelsea 2005 was a new era. It was global power being put into football. Now we have Qatar/UAE and Saudi fighting it out for power within the game. It’s not a dig at Chelsea inherently, a club with a proud history before Abramovich but come on, it’s dodgy.

[The Artful Dodger]

Basically it’s tv/sky that’s the problem. That’s when football became a money fix up.

Ideally we should have no games on telly and football goes back to being gate receipts only. People want to be entertained from their sofa, that’s why the UK is an obese nation. 

[Spike]

Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

I really don’t think Jack Walker, born in Blackburn, raised there and made his money there, is the same as a Russian crook and a Middle Eastern state.

Yes, there has always been money, yes there has always been plenty wrong with how football operates but Chelsea 2005 was a new era. It was global power being put into football. Now we have Qatar/UAE and Saudi fighting it out for power within the game. It’s not a dig at Chelsea inherently, a club with a proud history before Abramovich but come on, it’s dodgy.

I don't mean it that way though. Just that the only reason English football is the way it is; is because of the money, regardless of it being Jack Walker, Ken Bates investing in electric fencing, or a foreign billionaire. Walker had a more sincere reason to invest in Blackburn the effect is still the same,  the only reason they players were at Blackburn was because of the money, not because of Blackburns quality of living, or their history of putting together winning teams. Sure it's a more logical career decision for a player like Alan Shearer to join Blackburn, than Real Madrid, but the same wouldn't be true for a foreign player right? Why would a French player choose Walker's Blackburn over say a team like Marseille or Bordeaux? Money, not only does that mean one less chance for a local or British player but it has also damaged the quality of Ligue 1.

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 minutes ago, Spike said:

I think you lot need to be more critical and aware of it. Yeah you can say that the owners of Leeds and and Manchester City act a little differently in terms of financing but is it really that different? Let's not pretend these clubs are being represented by local men. Who does Liverpool have for instance? Trent Alexander-Arnold and who else? It is fantastic that he is playing so well and is able to represent Liverpool, that is what a bloke likes to see but let's not pretend that players like Virgil van Dyke and Sergio Aguero are in England for anything but money and success. In the 70s why would Sergio Aguero be in England and not a team like River Plate or at a stretch one of the Spanish clubs? Why would Virgil van Dyke be in England and not Ajax or Feyenoord? The competition wouldn't be much different and I'd imagine the monetary gain would be similar as well. England will never win an international trophy because the talent pool is neglected at the highest level for international 'ready made' players. Except for extraordinary talent or circumstances British players don't particularly have much chance playing for the competitive teams. It's all about money and only ever will be.

You could say that the clubs are meant to represent the people that support it, but how can you when the players don't?

I'm not sure I agree with any of this.

1.) Yeah there's a huge difference in terms of the financing between Leeds and Manchester City. Both in the scale of the financing and with the end-goal of what both owners are doing with their clubs.

2.) I think in the 70s plenty of South Americans were playing in Italy/Spain. In the 80s, Liverpool had signed Danish and Swedish players. Juve signed foreign players as early as the 30s. Yes, players like Virgil would likely be staying at big clubs in their home land... but maybe not (Cruyff joined Barca, didn't he?). It's just players moving about was more rare.

3.) England were just in the semi-finals of the World Cup? And didn't we do pretty decently in that bullshit "tournament" UEFA's created? And I've seen Greece win an international tournament in my lifetime.

Plus international football is largely a load of shite.

4.) Idk, but plenty of club legends at clubs all around England didn't come from their local communities and still managed to feel like they represented the people that supported the clubs they played for. But I do think the club having a connection with it's local fans is important, certainly much more important with a club having a connection with it's other fans that aren't local. And certainly much more important than having a good relationship with foreign broadcasters.

But it's a business filled with billionaires. And billionaires are mostly sociopaths who don't give a shit about anything other than themselves. I don't think that makes it wrong for people to complain about the vultures that own football clubs and the greedy fuckers that have put football in this place.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'm not sure I agree with any of this.

1.) Yeah there's a huge difference in terms of the financing between Leeds and Manchester City. Both in the scale of the financing and with the end-goal of what both owners are doing with their clubs.

2.) I think in the 70s plenty of South Americans were playing in Italy/Spain. In the 80s, Liverpool had signed Danish and Swedish players. Juve signed foreign players as early as the 30s. Yes, players like Virgil would likely be staying at big clubs in their home land... but maybe not (Cruyff joined Barca, didn't he?). It's just players moving about was more rare.

3.) England were just in the semi-finals of the World Cup? And didn't we do pretty decently in that bullshit "tournament" UEFA's created? And I've seen Greece win an international tournament in my lifetime.

Plus international football is largely a load of shite.

4.) Idk, but plenty of club legends at clubs all around England didn't come from their local communities and still managed to feel like they represented the people that supported the clubs they played for. But I do think the club having a connection with it's local fans is important, certainly much more important with a club having a connection with it's other fans that aren't local. And certainly much more important than having a good relationship with foreign broadcasters.

But it's a business filled with billionaires. And billionaires are mostly sociopaths who don't give a shit about anything other than themselves. I don't think that makes it wrong for people to complain about the vultures that own football clubs and the greedy fuckers that have put football in this place.

1. What is the end goal? Man City want to win everything. What do Leeds want? Surely the want to win everything as well but you don't fight fire with fire...it might be a different shade but it is still the same colour.

2. It started more in the 80s. Very, very infrequent until then. But think about it, it makes more sense for an Argentine with Italian parents to play in Italy than England right? Just like it makes more sense for an Irishmen or an Australian to play in England than Spain. The occasional superstar might have moved by now it is typical of teams to be made up nearly entirely of foreigners, in a lot countries too. Three players from the Dutch 1974 squad were not playing in the Netherlands, one in Spain, and the other two...in a Dutch speaking country; Belgium. The only foreigners playing in England weren't even really foreigners, Scottish players.

3. So? That was last tournament and the semis aren't winning. Greece has nothing to do with England. Can you honestly look at me and say that the cultural state of English football, English media and expectation, and say outside of a extraordinary circumstances that England can win an international tournament? Your country cares more about taking photos of the footballers at the pub than the actual World Cup.

4. Yeah that ties in with my point from the second. It's a more logical career path for a player like Jordan Henderson to move from Sunderland to Liverpool, than Sunderland to Lazio. Think about it, until the proliferation of huge money in certain countries and certain clubs international player movement wasn't common, and it was the usual suspects, in 1985 would you suspect Ian Rush being replaced by a Brazilian? Or Stevie Nichols by a Ghanain or Dutchmen?

[Spike]

@Dr. Gonzo Also another thing I want to add, it makes more sense for successful South-Americans to immigrate to Europe than vice-versa right? Outside of the usual Europeans escaping for a new life in the new world, why wouldn't anyone trade an unstable military dictatorship that is liable to be overthrown by the CIA for a stable military dictatorship that probably won't throw you out of a helicopter. Probably better Franco than Pinochet.

Also the proliferation of cheaper and more available air travel, etc, yadda yadada

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 minutes ago, Spike said:

1. What is the end goal? Man City want to win everything. What do Leeds want? Surely the want to win everything as well but you don't fight fire with fire...it might be a different shade but it is still the same colour.

2. It started more in the 80s. Very, very infrequent until then. But think about it, it makes more sense for an Argentine with Italian parents to play in Italy than England right? Just like it makes more sense for an Irishmen or an Australian to play in England than Spain. The occasional superstar might have moved by now it is typical of teams to be made up nearly entirely of foreigners, in a lot countries too. Three players from the Dutch 1974 squad were not playing in the Netherlands, one in Spain, and the other two...in a Dutch speaking country; Belgium. The only foreigners playing in England weren't even really foreigners, Scottish players.

3. So? That was last tournament and the semis aren't winning. Greece has nothing to do with England. Can you honestly look at me and say that the cultural state of English football, English media and expectation, and say outside of a extraordinary circumstances that England can win an international tournament? Your country cares more about taking photos of the footballers at the pub than the actual World Cup.

4. Yeah that ties in with my point from the second. It's a more logical career path for a player like Jordan Henderson to move from Sunderland to Liverpool, than Sunderland to Lazio. Think about it, until the proliferation of huge money in certain countries and certain clubs international player movement wasn't common, and it was the usual suspects, in 1985 would you suspect Ian Rush being replaced by a Brazilian? Or Stevie Nichols by a Ghanain or Dutchmen?

1. City are sportswashing to get people to change their opinions on the UAE. So that's the end goal there. I think that's a bit different to pretty much every other club in England, I don't even think Roman Abramovich gives a shit if Chelsea rehabilitates oligarch mobsters like himself.

2. Didn't know Danish & Swedish people were just Scottish 

3. "England won't win an international tournament because the talent pool is neglected." Mate, that's bollocks and Greece proves that because they won an international tournament despite not having much talent. Now you've just shifted goalposts to make it about the cultural state of English football. Also yeah, our media is beyond fucked up - I blame everyone associated with any sort of tabloid journalism, but a special mention to Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. Is there anything in the world that man and his company haven't fucked up? Hope he dies painfully tbh.

4. Not sure what not having a "logical career path" means re: players feeling like they've represented the local fans where they've played for tbh.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

1. City are sportswashing to get people to change their opinions on the UAE. So that's the end goal there. I think that's a bit different to pretty much every other club in England, I don't even think Roman Abramovich gives a shit if Chelsea rehabilitates oligarch mobsters like himself.

2. Didn't know Danish & Swedish people were just Scottish 

3. "England won't win an international tournament because the talent pool is neglected." Mate, that's bollocks and Greece proves that because they won an international tournament despite not having much talent. Now you've just shifted goalposts to make it about the cultural state of English football. Also yeah, our media is beyond fucked up - I blame everyone associated with any sort of tabloid journalism, but a special mention to Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. Is there anything in the world that man and his company haven't fucked up? Hope he dies painfully tbh.

4. Not sure what not having a "logical career path" means re: players feeling like they've represented the local fans where they've played for tbh.

1. You're probably right.

2. I didn't say that. I said in the 1974 World Cup the only foreigners representing English teams were Scottish.

3. Who gives a fuck what Greece did? This is England,, and I sincerely doubt England will ever do what Greece did because if it were so easy every year a team like Greece would win, that is why you are brining it up because it's unusual. England don't have the talent nor the cultural mindset for that. It could happen but I wouldn't bet a cent on it.

4. Point being that it was more likely for an Englishmen from one city to represent another and make another city their home because it was a more likely career path (if that makes sense, having trouble disseminating that thought). Do you think Henderson feels like he represent the locality more than Shaqiri? Liverpool and Sunderland are both English, so that makes more sense than some Albanian from Switzerland.

[Mel81x+]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

Reckon Thiago makes the bench for Sunday? Surely he’s fit having trained with Bayern. 

Even if hes fit theres so much more required like learning the team and playing and getting to know the manager's approach to games. Its too late in the window to think he'll feature right away. Maybe the next game but I doubt we'll see him play against Chelsea.

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, Mel81x said:

Even if hes fit theres so much more required like learning the team and playing and getting to know the manager's approach to games. Its too late in the window to think he'll feature right away. Maybe the next game but I doubt we'll see him play against Chelsea.

I agree with that take too

[Mel81x+]

Looks like the transfer engine goes on and the club have made contact with Watford to try and get a deal in for Sarr. Asking price from Watford ranges around 36m. 

[LFCMike]

There's obviously long term interest there from Liverpool but I've not seen this latest one reported by any of the usual reliable journos. Having said that, they only break it when it's about to happen these days! It was only on Wednesday James Pearce was saying Liverpool wouldn't be signing Thiago without Wijnaldum leaving Now the opposite is being reported.

I'd defo take him though. Still very raw, his end product needs work as we saw at Anfield last season when he missed one or two sitters if I'm not mistaken? Only 22 and plenty for Klopp to work with

Edited September 18, 2020 by LFCMike

[Rick]

I’d be delighted if we got in Sarr. Showed against us last season what he’s capable of doing and it’s be an upgrade on our bench. Send somebody the other way as a makeweight. 

[Stan]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

I’d be delighted if we got in Sarr. Showed against us last season what he’s capable of doing and it’s be an upgrade on our bench. Send somebody the other way as a makeweight. 

Buying players to improve squad depth?! Surely not ?!

[Dr. Gonzo]

I’m pretty excited about Thiago & Diego Jota.

Thiago’s just bossed every midfield he played against in the CL. World class, looking forward to seeing him at work with us.

Diego Jota’s a player that 2 seasons ago I thought “ah, shame he’s at Wolves, I think he’d make a good signing for us.” Idk why I didn’t consider that we might sign him from Wolves , but it’s always cool when a player you like is on the cusp of joining your club.

[Rick]

Jota & Jiminez have torn teams apart in this league. I think Jota is a signing that ticks all the boxes for us. Great signing.