Liverpool Discussion

[LFCMadLad]

5 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

I'm fine with Mignolet as back up. Hated him as number 1 but if he's happy to stick around as Alisson's back up we might as well keep him. As long as he never has to have an extended run in the league or Europe!

That's how I see it. Theres not many clubs that can boast a back up keeper as good as Mignolet. 

First 11 - no

Back up -

[The Artful Dodger]

Liverpool have announced that they are set push their capacity above 60k, rather than settling for 58k. Coincidence it's on the day Everton's plans will become more clear?

Anyway, good news and it should be as close to 70k as possible. Liverpool shouldn't be piddling around with the same as Arsenal, Spurs and Man City, who with all due respect, don't have anything like the same fanbase.

[CaaC (John)+]

 

[The Artful Dodger]

Liverpool are attempting to copyright the name 'Liverpool' now, their greed knows no bounds. 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

4 hours ago, CaaC (John) said:

 

Liverpool don't need him anyway, especially considering how much his wages would be. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Liverpool are attempting to copyright the name 'Liverpool' now, their greed knows no bounds. 

Uh where do you see that? Because googling for it turns up fuck all other than when they trademarked the Liverbird that shows up on our kit.

*edit* Never mind, I've found it. Here's what they say - We are applying to register ‘Liverpool’ as a trademark but only in the context of football products and services." which is nowhere near as sensationalist as trying to say they're trying to claim the name of the city Liverpool as a trademark (because they can't do that). They're trying to do it in reference to football, which makes sense because it's Liverpool Football Club. Although it's a bit shit for all the local t-shirt manufacturers that make their own LFC branded shite that's better than what the club offers imo.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Dr. Gonzo

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Uh where do you see that? Because googling for it turns up fuck all other than when they trademarked the Liverbird that shows up on our kit.

Tinfoilhat.com

[RandoEFC+]

It's been over Twitter all day. There are some tin pot clubs much lower down the pyramid called City of Liverpool FC and stuff like that who would have to change the name of their club (or something) if this were to happen.

One of those cases where the extra few quid they'd make off monopolising Liverpool football merchandise wouldn't be worth the negative publicity of being perceived as the big nasty corporation stamping on the helpless local club teams.

Greed is the word but I imagine the Americans will soon find out that that sort of thing doesn't tend to fly in a city like Liverpool. Most Reds that have commented on it are against the move from what I've seen.

[LFCMike]

6 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

It's been over Twitter all day. There are some tin pot clubs much lower down the pyramid called City of Liverpool FC and stuff like that who would have to change the name of their club (or something) if this were to happen.

One of those cases where the extra few quid they'd make off monopolising Liverpool football merchandise wouldn't be worth the negative publicity of being perceived as the big nasty corporation stamping on the helpless local club teams.

Greed is the word but I imagine the Americans will soon find out that that sort of thing doesn't tend to fly in a city like Liverpool. Most Reds that have commented on it are against the move from what I've seen.

You'd think they'd have learnt that when they took over the club after what happened to Hicks and Gillett. And if not then, they should have when they tried to introduce £77 tickets

[The Artful Dodger]

'Tinpot' or not, City of Liverpool are a club which cater for those Liverpool and Everton fans who cannot afford to go to those games and to those just sick of the rampant commercial side of top flight football. They've risen through the leagues fast and I wouldn't bet against a similar trajectory to someone like FCUM and them being in the upper echelons of the non-league system within a few years. They are a Liverpool club for the people of Liverpool, to have the greedy, grasping behemoth Liverpool FC try and snatch that away from them for a few more pennies sums up that club's arrogance and pure contempt for the general public. It also means small local businesses won't be able to sell non-official goods around the ground or city, meaning fans will have to shell out in the overpriced, shitty club shop.

Awful club and no fan should defend this cuntish move.

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 24/07/2019 at 16:59, Harry said:

I'm pretty sure we were paying him a salary consistent with being our first choice right back.

I'd rather we got rid and replaced him with a backup RB that has a higher likelihood of being physically fit on a given day.

I think Hoever's going to be the long term backup to Trent, tbh. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time the season started (and if Clyne was still fit) that Hoever'd be ahead of him in the pecking order - he's the most like for like replacement we've got with Trent and while I think Clyne is solid... he's not really the same sort of fullback to properly fit in our system.

This is shit for the club and for Clyne because Clyne further has his career hampered by injury issues... and now he won't play for a while (maybe not again this season, depending on if we're lucky enough to avoid injuries) and he's missing out on two windows. It also probably destroys what transfer value he might have had for us, he'll be leaving us for much cheaper than he would have otherwise - which is a bit of a shit thing to think after a player you like suffers a bad injury... but at this point, yeah it's first team wages to a player that's far from the first team.

[Burning Gold]

On 25/07/2019 at 11:34, Harry said:

I think we should let migs go also tbh. He's a solid goalkeeper at a club with less pressure and expectation than Liverpool.

He's also a confidence player, do being in the sidelines is not a good arrangement to get the best out of him.

It's not as simple as letting him go, you'd have to find someone to buy him and no one's going to match the wages he's on at Liverpool

I disagree with the part in bold on two counts. First, I always thought he was at his best (by quite a distance) when he came back into the team after being dropped, which is almost the exact opposite of a confidence player. And secondly, the way we get the best out of him is by keeping him as far away from the pitch as possible

 

[Burning Gold]

12 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

'Tinpot' or not, City of Liverpool are a club which cater for those Liverpool and Everton fans who cannot afford to go to those games and to those just sick of the rampant commercial side of top flight football. They've risen through the leagues fast and I wouldn't bet against a similar trajectory to someone like FCUM and them being in the upper echelons of the non-league system within a few years. They are a Liverpool club for the people of Liverpool, to have the greedy, grasping behemoth Liverpool FC try and snatch that away from them for a few more pennies sums up that club's arrogance and pure contempt for the general public. It also means small local businesses won't be able to sell non-official goods around the ground or city, meaning fans will have to shell out in the overpriced, shitty club shop.

Awful club and no fan should defend this cuntish move.

It is a dick move, but I think this is all being overplayed a bit. Firstly, teams like FCUM and AFC Liverpool are as plastic as it gets and absolutely don't need defending. City of Liverpool are a slightly different beast in that they're not a direct spin-off of a bigger club, but I remain skeptical.

Secondly, unless I've missed something, I really don't see this affecting those local businesses all that much given that barely any (if any at all) of their merchandise says Liverpool on it anyway.

[RandoEFC+]

16 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

It is a dick move, but I think this is all being overplayed a bit. Firstly, teams like FCUM and AFC Liverpool are as plastic as it gets and absolutely don't need defending. City of Liverpool are a slightly different beast in that they're not a direct spin-off of a bigger club, but I remain skeptical.

Secondly, unless I've missed something, I really don't see this affecting those local businesses all that much given that barely any (if any at all) of their merchandise says Liverpool on it anyway.

You might be right but Liverpool/scousers are an emotional bunch over this sort of thing. It's just a poorly calculated move from a PR perspective and surely not worth whatever minimal financial or social benefit the people behind this decision think it will bring the club.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, RandoEFC said:

You might be right but Liverpool/scousers are an emotional bunch over this sort of thing. It's just a poorly calculated move from a PR perspective and surely not worth whatever minimal financial or social benefit the people behind this decision think it will bring the club.

I think it's more to go after counterfeiters than to harass the small little clubs that have "Liverpool" in their name

[LFCMike]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think it's more to go after counterfeiters than to harass the small little clubs that have "Liverpool" in their name

As he said though, it's just poorly thought out. Why not reassure those clubs and businesses before making the application?

[LFCMadLad]

12 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

'Tinpot' or not, City of Liverpool are a club which cater for those Liverpool and Everton fans who cannot afford to go to those games and to those just sick of the rampant commercial side of top flight football. They've risen through the leagues fast and I wouldn't bet against a similar trajectory to someone like FCUM and them being in the upper echelons of the non-league system within a few years. They are a Liverpool club for the people of Liverpool, to have the greedy, grasping behemoth Liverpool FC try and snatch that away from them for a few more pennies sums up that club's arrogance and pure contempt for the general public. It also means small local businesses won't be able to sell non-official goods around the ground or city, meaning fans will have to shell out in the overpriced, shitty club shop.

Awful club and no fan should defend this cuntish move.

Kinell chill out 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, LFCMike said:

As he said though, it's just poorly thought out. Why not reassure those clubs and businesses before making the application?

I don't think trademark protection works like that, unfortunately. I think you try to register the trademark and then anyone in opposition files their opposition to attempt to either get you to withdraw your attempt at registering it, or to get you to amend your registration (so maybe here it'd be adding FC after the word Liverpool).

I think if they do nothing though, they risk losing the right to claim a trademark on their merchandise - which means they risk losing a claim against various counterfeiters.

I think the smaller clubs will be fine using shit like City of Liverpool in their club names. I think the people who've got the most right to be annoyed are the local shirt manufacturers that make better t-shirts for LFC related stuff than the club, because they'll likely have their businesses more impact. But going back to those other clubs using "Liverpool" in their name - I think because of those clubs existing prior to the club trying to register any mark... they'll likely fail to successfully register the trademark.

But I think from a legal standpoint, if a business is seen to be doing nothing to try to protect it's intellectual property, then that can be used as evidence as to why they wouldn't care about future trademark, copyright, patent, etc... infringements in the future. I remember when there was an outcry about the attempt for the club to trademark the Liverbird (not just any Liverbird generally, but specifically the one that's got a talon over a football... the one we use on our kits). That was done over concern about counterfeiting - I suspect that this attempt to trademark the word Liverpool is the same. But I think in this instance, courts would find that you can't just trademark "Liverpool" broadly in a football sense, they'll need to add "Liverpool Football Club" or Liverpool FC" to the registration. Because there are 3 football clubs in England (that I know of) with Liverpool in the name, so I think it's unlikely they'd succeed in registering a trademark that'd fuck those clubs over.

[LFCMadLad]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't think trademark protection works like that, unfortunately. I think you try to register the trademark and then anyone in opposition files their opposition to attempt to either get you to withdraw your attempt at registering it, or to get you to amend your registration (so maybe here it'd be adding FC after the word Liverpool).

I think if they do nothing though, they risk losing the right to claim a trademark on their merchandise - which means they risk losing a claim against various counterfeiters.

I think the smaller clubs will be fine using shit like City of Liverpool in their club names. I think the people who've got the most right to be annoyed are the local shirt manufacturers that make better t-shirts for LFC related stuff than the club, because they'll likely have their businesses more impact. But going back to those other clubs using "Liverpool" in their name - I think because of those clubs existing prior to the club trying to register any mark... they'll likely fail to successfully register the trademark.

But I think from a legal standpoint, if a business is seen to be doing nothing to try to protect it's intellectual property, then that can be used as evidence as to why they wouldn't care about future trademark, copyright, patent, etc... infringements in the future. I remember when there was an outcry about the attempt for the club to trademark the Liverbird (not just any Liverbird generally, but specifically the one that's got a talon over a football... the one we use on our kits). That was done over concern about counterfeiting - I suspect that this attempt to trademark the word Liverpool is the same. But I think in this instance, courts would find that you can't just trademark "Liverpool" broadly in a football sense, they'll need to add "Liverpool Football Club" or Liverpool FC" to the registration. Because there are 3 football clubs in England (that I know of) with Liverpool in the name, so I think it's unlikely they'd succeed in registering a trademark that'd fuck those clubs over.

Brilliant post! 

What Gonzo said 

[LFCMike]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't think trademark protection works like that, unfortunately. I think you try to register the trademark and then anyone in opposition files their opposition to attempt to either get you to withdraw your attempt at registering it, or to get you to amend your registration (so maybe here it'd be adding FC after the word Liverpool).

I think if they do nothing though, they risk losing the right to claim a trademark on their merchandise - which means they risk losing a claim against various counterfeiters.

I think the smaller clubs will be fine using shit like City of Liverpool in their club names. I think the people who've got the most right to be annoyed are the local shirt manufacturers that make better t-shirts for LFC related stuff than the club, because they'll likely have their businesses more impact. But going back to those other clubs using "Liverpool" in their name - I think because of those clubs existing prior to the club trying to register any mark... they'll likely fail to successfully register the trademark.

But I think from a legal standpoint, if a business is seen to be doing nothing to try to protect it's intellectual property, then that can be used as evidence as to why they wouldn't care about future trademark, copyright, patent, etc... infringements in the future. I remember when there was an outcry about the attempt for the club to trademark the Liverbird (not just any Liverbird generally, but specifically the one that's got a talon over a football... the one we use on our kits). That was done over concern about counterfeiting - I suspect that this attempt to trademark the word Liverpool is the same. But I think in this instance, courts would find that you can't just trademark "Liverpool" broadly in a football sense, they'll need to add "Liverpool Football Club" or Liverpool FC" to the registration. Because there are 3 football clubs in England (that I know of) with Liverpool in the name, so I think it's unlikely they'd succeed in registering a trademark that'd fuck those clubs over.

I get most of that and from what I understand from what Moore has said it is to stop the counterfeiters so hopefully the local businesses selling LFC related stuff will be ok too. But whether it's the exact process or not, I don't get why they couldn't have contacted clubs like CoLFC and businesses HSOAB to say 'this is what we're doing, it won't affect you, you've nothing to worry about'. It would have saved a lot of this backlash. It's not like they didn't know this would be the reaction given it was similar with the liverbird situation a few years ago or whenever it was.

[Dr. Gonzo]

12 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

I get most of that and from what I understand from what Moore has said it is to stop the counterfeiters so hopefully the local businesses selling LFC related stuff will be ok too. But whether it's the exact process or not, I don't get why they couldn't have contacted clubs like CoLFC and businesses HSOAB to say 'this is what we're doing, it won't affect you, you've nothing to worry about'. It would have saved a lot of this backlash. It's not like they didn't know this would be the reaction given it was similar with the liverbird situation a few years ago or whenever it was.

Yeah I agree with you, they could have told those clubs their plans and let them know they may be needing to file opposition... but at the same time, I think they'll have seen the reaction before with the Liverbird situation and seen how it eventually blew over without much fuss. And I think they're thinking the long term benefits of being able to better go after counterfeiters outweigh the short term benefit of negative PR before it all blows over.

I understand both sides of the argument and I'm not particularly arsed as long as local businesses can still sell their "unofficial" LFC merch and if stuff like the Boss Nights can carry on unimpeded.

[The Artful Dodger]

The drive to get rid of 'counterfeit' stuff is nothing to do with a care for quality but just to try and make as many people as possible pay the rip off price they sell the official merch too. Many of the stalls you see around town or by anfield will effectively be made illegal, is that what they want? I see the spirit of shankly have come out against it and quite rightly. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I just watched some clips of Fowler in his prime. What a fucking player, we’d walk the league with him in our front 3.

[CaaC (John)+]

Harvey Elliott: Liverpool sign Fulham teenager

Harvey Elliott made his Fulham debut aged 15 years and 174 days in a Carabao Cup tie at Millwall in September 2018

Liverpool have signed 16-year-old midfielder Harvey Elliott from Fulham.

Elliott became the youngest player to feature in the Premier League when he came on as a substitute against Wolverhampton Wanderers in May, aged just 16 years and 30 days.

The England youth international cannot turn professional until his 17th birthday next April.

Liverpool says he will be in their squad for Sunday's friendly against Napoli in Edinburgh at 17:00 BST.

Elliott, who attracted attention from Real Madrid, Paris St-Germain, Arsenal and Manchester City, will become the second emerging talent to join Liverpool this summer after 17-year-old Dutch defender Sepp van den Berg moved from PEC Zwolle.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49143438

 

[Inverted]

Edinburgh is absolutely packed with Liverpool fans for the Murrayfield friendly today.