Liverpool 4-1 Norwich - Friday 9th August, 2019

[LFCMadLad]

1 hour ago, shut up said:

liverpool have won one trophy in 8 years(?) and have massively underachieved in the premier league era, yet they still get disproportionately talked about. They have gotten the same amount of coverage as Man utd, despite doing nothing really.

Calm down kid, anyone would think you are Everton with all this bitterness. 

What the fuck is all this about anyway? 

Oh and Celtic are bigger than Arsenal, without a doubt. 

[LFCMike]

The two Scottish clubs are defo bigger. Look at Rangers in the UEFA Cup final in 2008. Arsenal would have taken their allocation and that's it. Rangers took hundreds of thousands

[RandoEFC+]

Having debates about who is a bigger club is one of the most tedious and childish things that you can discuss.

Okay, Celtic are a bigger club than Arsenal. Whoop dee doo. I don't know whether that's based on historical relevance, crowd numbers, the population of Glasgow, but it doesn't matter at the end of the day. None of it stopped Tierney from moving to Arsenal this summer. Likewise, Ajax are a huge club, and they should be respected as well, but it doesn't stop their best players routinely moving to the bigger leagues and managers treating the job there as a stepping stone. But yeah, they're a bigger club so that means... something. But my Dad could batter your Dad so I win the argument.

As for the Liverpool not getting credit thing, I'm not having that at all. The media love their narratives and love to pedal an ongoing narrative. The last few years, all Liverpool-related narratives have been pro-Klopp and pro-Liverpool, and that is fair, just like it's fair that Poch and Spurs, for example, get similar treatment from the media most of the time. Before the end of last season, both clubs were questioned by some in the media about not having won anything for all their good football, which was also fair before Liverpool delivered the Champions League. If anything, Spurs got it a bit worse than Liverpool getting called bottlers by most neutrals and the media pointing out more often that they hadn't won anything. Maybe that's because Klopp won trophies elsewhere and Poch has not.

Other examples include the way that most live games turn off all commentary and build up to listen to "You Never Walk Alone" before kick off, which they don't do for any other club, and I'm pretty sure Salah or Van Dijk have won one of the national football writers awards in the past two years, and if they haven't there are journalists up and down the country who quite rightly touted them for it and will have voted for them. There's no way there's some sort of agenda against that club going on in the media.

It's all pointless anyway. Everton fans cry on Twitter all the time when they perceive us as not getting sufficient attention but the fact is that we're a pretty boring club who haven't made a cup final this decade, vaguely troubled the top four once, and haven't had a horrendous downward spiral into a relegation fight, so the media don't like us because the best narrative they can come up with is "keep spending loads of money and don't go anywhere" even though that only happened in one transfer window.

And now I'm annoyed because I was determined not to get involved with this. Don't @ me.

[The Artful Dodger]

10 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

The two Scottish clubs are defo bigger. Look at Rangers in the UEFA Cup final in 2008. Arsenal would have taken their allocation and that's it. Rangers took hundreds of thousands

100%. This is what I'm getting at. Having a load of gap year students turn up at the Emirates with their lattes is not the same as a horde of proper fans who will travel anywhere for their club. That is what fans are really about. Celtic and Rangers are huge clubs, wedded into the fabric of the society that produced them. 

I know its not important but in an era when all that counts is your sponsorship and twitter likes I think it's important to point out that two clubs (Chelsea and arsenal)that  claim to be big sent back the allocation that they moaned about a week before. They're not giant clubs in the same way the clubs I mention are. 

[LFCMike]

15 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

100%. This is what I'm getting at. Having a load of gap year students turn up at the Emirates with their lattes is not the same as a horde of proper fans who will travel anywhere for their club. That is what fans are really about. Celtic and Rangers are huge clubs, wedded into the fabric of the society that produced them. 

I know its not important but in an era when all that counts is your sponsorship and twitter likes I think it's important to point out that two clubs (Chelsea and arsenal)that  claim to be big sent back the allocation that they moaned about a week before. They're not giant clubs in the same way the clubs I mention are. 

Look at Arsenal in 2006 for the European cup final in Paris. A train away but they took their allocation and that's it. Liverpool took 70,000 to Madrid.. Celtic and Rangers would have been similar I think

[LFCMadLad]

5 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Look at Arsenal in 2006 for the European cup final in Paris. A train away but they took their allocation and that's it. Liverpool took 70,000 to Madrid.. Celtic and Rangers would have been similar I think

More than 70'000 mate, much more. 

Unless you mean that were actually in the stadium?

There were hundreds of thousands on the streets. Spanish police said they have never seen anything like it. 

Chelsea and Arsenal fans just wave plastic flags. 

[LFCMike]

14 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

More than 70'000 mate, much more. 

Unless you mean that were actually in the stadium?

There were hundreds of thousands on the streets. Spanish police said they have never seen anything like it. 

Chelsea and Arsenal fans just wave plastic flags. 

Probably was much more. I know that fan park that Jamie Webster played held 50,000 and there was loads more over there 

[Dan+]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

Having debates about who is a bigger club is one of the most tedious and childish things that you can discuss.

Okay, Celtic are a bigger club than Arsenal. Whoop dee doo. I don't know whether that's based on historical relevance, crowd numbers, the population of Glasgow, but it doesn't matter at the end of the day. None of it stopped Tierney from moving to Arsenal this summer. Likewise, Ajax are a huge club, and they should be respected as well, but it doesn't stop their best players routinely moving to the bigger leagues and managers treating the job there as a stepping stone. But yeah, they're a bigger club so that means... something. But my Dad could batter your Dad so I win the argument.

As for the Liverpool not getting credit thing, I'm not having that at all. The media love their narratives and love to pedal an ongoing narrative. The last few years, all Liverpool-related narratives have been pro-Klopp and pro-Liverpool, and that is fair, just like it's fair that Poch and Spurs, for example, get similar treatment from the media most of the time. Before the end of last season, both clubs were questioned by some in the media about not having won anything for all their good football, which was also fair before Liverpool delivered the Champions League. If anything, Spurs got it a bit worse than Liverpool getting called bottlers by most neutrals and the media pointing out more often that they hadn't won anything. Maybe that's because Klopp won trophies elsewhere and Poch has not.

Other examples include the way that most live games turn off all commentary and build up to listen to "You Never Walk Alone" before kick off, which they don't do for any other club, and I'm pretty sure Salah or Van Dijk have won one of the national football writers awards in the past two years, and if they haven't there are journalists up and down the country who quite rightly touted them for it and will have voted for them. There's no way there's some sort of agenda against that club going on in the media.

It's all pointless anyway. Everton fans cry on Twitter all the time when they perceive us as not getting sufficient attention but the fact is that we're a pretty boring club who haven't made a cup final this decade, vaguely troubled the top four once, and haven't had a horrendous downward spiral into a relegation fight, so the media don't like us because the best narrative they can come up with is "keep spending loads of money and don't go anywhere" even though that only happened in one transfer window.

And now I'm annoyed because I was determined not to get involved with this. Don't @ me.

It's a massively overhyped debate. I frequently get a Liverpool fan at work make the odd jibe about Leicester to me, "this is why you'll never be a big club like Liverpool" etc... but I just don't really care? What am I meant to do about it? It's always going to be a debate but it's a bit of a waste of breath in my eyes. I couldn't give a toss. People will always define it to suit their own club.

Oh and Rodgers coming here is another one. Was I really meant to give a shit how big a club Celtic are when he came here? Loads of their fans calling us tinpot, nobodies etc... yeah, maybe so, but their manager came here. I'm more bothered about that. Why fight an irrelevant battle that you'd never win? Boring.

[LFCMike]

Liverpool are the biggest club in the world, accept it

[Honey Honey]

If Liverpool took 70k then surely they should build a 125,000 seater stadium and sell it out every week, even under Roy Hodgson  

Celtic, 6 million fans in Seville but 20,000 empty seats against Kilmarnock 

These occasions make fair weather folk crawl out of the woodwork.

[Stan]

5 hours ago, LFCMike said:

Liverpool are the biggest club in the world, accept it

Real Madrid and Barcelona are bigger. 

(not that it matters and I think @RandoEFC post was excellent) 

[Inverted]

I think the whole "big club" debate that endlessly comes up is more just resentment between fans of rich clubs and the rest of the world of football, and how they look at football differently. 

For a lot of English fans and also some fans around the world, the Premier League's prominence somehow rubs-off on their club. A club's importance becomes related to what's around it - the amount of exposure it gets, the size of the league it's in, the sort of level it operates on in the market. If you play in what you are constantly told is a league unlike any other, how can you not think that by default this makes your club more important than most?

For other football fans, that's not the case. A football club stands alone in its community as an institution, with its own purpose, its own history, and its own achievements. Those are constants which remain absolutely unaffected by whatever else happens. The "size" of the club and the intensity of the feeling it provokes aren't relative to what goes on around it or what value the market has assigned to it. 

The modern Premier League and the way it has changed how we think about football has created two types of mindsets and value-systems, and fans across this split are basically doomed to talk at cross-purposes forever. 

[SirBalon]

7 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Having a load of gap year students turn up at the Emirates with their lattes

I hate the fact you've written that but it's almost true and hilarious 

[Inverted]

I've never understood the latte stereotype. It's actually one of the most accessible types of coffee, if anything it's less hipsterish than the likes of an espresso or a macchiato. 

[SirBalon]

I don't know about Rangers around the world because I think they've been carried by the Old Firm Derby and Glasgow Celtic... But Celtic are a true football phenomenon around the world which pre-dates the explosion of the Premier League and what that started by decades.

I've been involved in this sort of debate before and I was stating that Liverpool are an absolutely massive institution that for me is actually bigger than Manchester United itself. Man Utd got an extra boost during the Premier League explosion years (I know they were already massive before) while Liverpool is an authentic mega-giant and this is an argument I've maintained always even when Liverpool were crap for so many years.

Arsenal don't compare but Arsenal are indeed a very big club, very very big with an important football history mixed with an embedded local identity which is quite rare for London clubs. A lot of that is lost now and it lives off marketing which the club was able to capitalise on due to what I've just written about Arsenal... When you talk to foreign Premier League aficionados (I'm talking about those that live outside these shores), they find it hard to understand what Arsenal were pre-Wenger and that's where the issue lies because Wenger (as in the rest of this post) was carried by the Premier League explosion and thus the club's current status.

The fact Liverpool Football Club are one of the greatest football institutions on the planet is proved by the fact Shut-Up used the argument of Liverpool not having won in the Premier League era and yet their image has been easily repaired to the modern fans' eyes with two years in 30 of notoriety.

[SirBalon]

6 minutes ago, Inverted said:

I've never understood the latte stereotype. It's actually one of the most accessible types of coffee, if anything it's less hipsterish than the likes of an espresso or a macchiato. 

Like some peope using iPads at games as a label of the type of fan that attends and I'm sure others prefer and rate other brands of tablets. 

[LFCMike]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

Real Madrid and Barcelona are bigger. 

(not that it matters and I think @RandoEFC post was excellent) 

Don't see either taking about 100,000 to European Cup finals

[LFCMike]

1 hour ago, Harvsky said:

If Liverpool took 70k then surely they should build a 125,000 seater stadium and sell it out every week, even under Roy Hodgson  

 

You're right and it's mistakes of previous owners and the current ones as to why we don't. Liverpool should have a stadium that's closer to Old Trafford in terms of capacity rather than West Ham or Newcastle

[Stan]

6 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Don't see either taking about 100,000 to European Cup finals

Not sure if serious or not but didn't know a big club is purely decided on how many fans go to European Cup finals?! 

[LFCMike]

Just now, Stan said:

Not sure if serious or not but didn't know a big club is purely decided on how many fans go to European Cup finals?! 

Not completely serious but I do think Liverpool's size is underestimated a bit when it comes to people who want to actually get involved. The stadium is far too small

[SirBalon]

Juventus (who in Italy are seen as an internationalist club and isn't even the most supported club in its own city of Turin) made a new stadium and the capacity is 41,500+ (plans to expand but not by that much) in a very smart move considering what modern football is and has become, where the main revenue comes from.

Pinpointing factors is difficult.

[LFCMike]

9 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Juventus (who in Italy are seen as an internationalist club and isn't even the most supported club in its own city of Turin) made a new stadium and the capacity is 41,500+ (plans to expand but not by that much) in a very smart move considering what modern football is and has become, where the main revenue comes from.

Pinpointing factors is difficult.

From Liverpool's point of view it's probably a smart business decision to have a limited capacity as demand far outweighs supply. But the problem is you risk losing the next generation of match going support.

It's got better over the last few years with them selling cheaper tickets to locals but there's still room for improvement

[DeadLinesman]

Liverpool’s support and ticket demand fluctuates like anyone else. Had a chat with my boss recently, he’s been a season ticket holder since the mid 70’s and he said you could easily get tickets in the late 90’s up until the last 2/3 years when they’ve become gold dust again. Think clubs always cap season tickets as it looks good from a commercial point of view when there’s a list. Same at Old Trafford. I had my season ticket, then membership up until about 2012 when the kids came along. Tickets again like goldust for the derby, Liverpool and Arsenal etc, but everything else they’ve been going on general sale since 2014. 

[LFCMike]

Nothing wrong with general sale tickets. Why should people pay £30 a year membership to just have a chance of getting a ticket?

[DeadLinesman]

Most memberships just allow you first dibs on the tickets before general sale don’t they? I remember that dependant on the amount of tickets bought that year, you’ve a better chance for the bigger games? That loyalty should reward you compared to average Joe that only wants to see the big games.