Liverpool FC Forum

[Greavesie]

Mouriho will end up at the manc!! Fergie the drunk t*sser will pass his reign to mourinho and for the rest well be prepared for more scum glory in the future. Imagine the talent moureen would attract! I would hate the scums even more than now!

he's got Manc scum written all over him for me n all mate

[Dazzer]

Mouriho will end up at the manc!! Fergie the drunk t*sser will pass his reign to mourinho and for the rest well be prepared for more scum glory in the future. Imagine the talent moureen would attract! I would hate the scums even more than now!

he's got Manc scum written all over him for me n all mate

I agree I fail to see how public enemy will ever be manager at liverpool no matter how good he thinks he is.Plus wouldn't his football just be sucky like it was at chelsea and Inter ?

[7_Kewell]

Mouriho will end up at the manc!! Fergie the drunk t*sser will pass his reign to mourinho and for the rest well be prepared for more scum glory in the future. Imagine the talent moureen would attract! I would hate the scums even more than now!

he's got Manc scum written all over him for me n all mate

I agree I fail to see how public enemy will ever be manager at liverpool no matter how good he thinks he is.Plus wouldn't his football just be sucky like it was at chelsea and Inter ?

sucky?

[LFC2007]

If we must discuss Mourinho here, I don't agree when people say we have "no chance" of getting him.

Right now I don't think the chance of getting him would be anything other than very slender (job security, cost).

[Dazzer]

Mouriho will end up at the manc!! Fergie the drunk t*sser will pass his reign to mourinho and for the rest well be prepared for more scum glory in the future. Imagine the talent moureen would attract! I would hate the scums even more than now!

he's got Manc scum written all over him for me n all mate

I agree I fail to see how public enemy will ever be manager at liverpool no matter how good he thinks he is.Plus wouldn't his football just be sucky like it was at chelsea and Inter ?

sucky?

Well I personaly think it was no better to the early stuff we played with Rafa long ball up to front man. I think football chelsea play now is far better then back then.

[Sir Roger]

Yes we can
You two can do the interviews

He wouldn't get the interview with you though would he?

See post above about what your boss would think. 

My boss is a knob as well

[Penguins]

Sigh, this Mourinho wankfest is driving me nuts.

What has he proved?

That he can win if takes on the most finacially strong clubs in a country?
Wow, what an acievement.

I thought we needed  manager that could win without being on top at the start?

He he won't have 50 million to spend on deadwood and all is well anyway.
He won't be able to spend 25 on a drogba here or 25 on an Essien there...
What an achievement to win the league with Inter when Mancini did exactly the same and got knocked out in the CL exactly the same way.
What a achievement to fail to win the CL when given hundereds of millions to buy the players he wants.

[Benny The Noon]

Well Maureen did win the CL with Porto not having bags of millions to spend which put him on the map - not mentioning the UEFA Cup the season before hand . Had a very talented bunch of players there - yes it was a weaker CL that season with the big teams getting knocked out early but he still had to beat the mancs at home .

I hate the guy with a passion and dont think he is as good as been touted and has had a lot of help money wise since leaving Porto but he did well with them .

[Fauxy]

Sigh, this Mourinho wankfest is driving me nuts.

What has he proved?

That he can win if takes on the most finacially strong clubs in a country?
Wow, what an acievement.

I thought we needed  manager that could win without being on top at the start?

He he won't have 50 million to spend on deadwood and all is well anyway.
He won't be able to spend 25 on a drogba here or 25 on an Essien there...
What an achievement to win the league with Inter when Mancini did exactly the same and got knocked out in the CL exactly the same way.
What a achievement to fail to win the CL when given hundereds of millions to buy the players he wants.

Well if he's that sh!te then lets hope he does take over the mancs when whiskey nose retires!

I can see were you are coming from in saying that he had a lot of money to play with at Chelsea but he still had to have his team playing good football to beat us, the mancs and arsenal. Even with a lot of money you do need to be a good manager to do that.

For example.. Mark Hughes at Man city has just bought himself a better team than what Mourinho had in his first year. He has more funds, a stronger team to build on, he has already spent more than what Mourinho spent in his first year and yet was lucky not to loose to Birmingham city today.

[Effes]

Yes we can
You two can do the interviews

He wouldn't get the interview with you though would he?

See post above about what your boss would think. 

My boss is a knob as well

Well, he gave you a job didn't he ?

[tubby]

Yes we can
You two can do the interviews

He wouldn't get the interview with you though would he?

See post above about what your boss would think. 

My boss is a knob as well

Well, he gave you a job didn't he ?

Walked into that one Sir Roger mate.

[Penguins]

Sigh, this Mourinho wankfest is driving me nuts.

What has he proved?

That he can win if takes on the most finacially strong clubs in a country?
Wow, what an acievement.

I thought we needed  manager that could win without being on top at the start?

He he won't have 50 million to spend on deadwood and all is well anyway.
He won't be able to spend 25 on a drogba here or 25 on an Essien there...
What an achievement to win the league with Inter when Mancini did exactly the same and got knocked out in the CL exactly the same way.
What a achievement to fail to win the CL when given hundereds of millions to buy the players he wants.

Well if he's that sh!te then lets hope he does take over the mancs when whiskey nose retires!

I can see were you are coming from in saying that he had a lot of money to play with at Chelsea but he still had to have his team playing good football to beat us, the mancs and arsenal. Even with a lot of money you do need to be a good manager to do that.

For example.. Mark Hughes at Man city has just bought himself a better team than what Mourinho had in his first year. He has more funds, a stronger team to build on, he has already spent more than what Mourinho spent in his first year and yet was lucky not to loose to Birmingham city today.

But you can't compare him to Hughes and city. You have you to compare to Rafa and Liverpool. Here he must overachive with little funds and not have a huge finacial backing which has been the case whereever he has been.

Sure, you need to be a good manager to win the league if you have shedloads of cash, but what kind of manager do you then need to be if you have to win the league with no money?

I'm not so sure that kind of manager exist today that can win titles with less money than 5-6 other teams.

[bigmick]

Sigh, this Mourinho wankfest is driving me nuts.

What has he proved?

That he can win if takes on the most finacially strong clubs in a country?
Wow, what an acievement.

I thought we needed  manager that could win without being on top at the start?

He he won't have 50 million to spend on deadwood and all is well anyway.
He won't be able to spend 25 on a drogba here or 25 on an Essien there...
What an achievement to win the league with Inter when Mancini did exactly the same and got knocked out in the CL exactly the same way.
What a achievement to fail to win the CL when given hundereds of millions to buy the players he wants.

Well if he's that sh!te then lets hope he does take over the mancs when whiskey nose retires!

I can see were you are coming from in saying that he had a lot of money to play with at Chelsea but he still had to have his team playing good football to beat us, the mancs and arsenal. Even with a lot of money you do need to be a good manager to do that.

For example.. Mark Hughes at Man city has just bought himself a better team than what Mourinho had in his first year. He has more funds, a stronger team to build on, he has already spent more than what Mourinho spent in his first year and yet was lucky not to loose to Birmingham city today.

But you can't compare him to Hughes and city. You have you to compare to Rafa and Liverpool. Here he must overachive with little funds and not have a huge finacial backing which has been the case whereever he has been.

Sure, you need to be a good manager to win the league if you have shedloads of cash, but what kind of manager do you then need to be if you have to win the league with no money?

I'm not so sure that kind of manager exist today that can win titles with less money than 5-6 other teams.

Here you go again with the "no money" line    They do say that if you repeat a lie often enough eventually people will believe it, we'll see.

[tubby]

Sigh, this Mourinho wankfest is driving me nuts.

What has he proved?

That he can win if takes on the most finacially strong clubs in a country?
Wow, what an acievement.

I thought we needed  manager that could win without being on top at the start?

He he won't have 50 million to spend on deadwood and all is well anyway.
He won't be able to spend 25 on a drogba here or 25 on an Essien there...
What an achievement to win the league with Inter when Mancini did exactly the same and got knocked out in the CL exactly the same way.
What a achievement to fail to win the CL when given hundereds of millions to buy the players he wants.

Well if he's that sh!te then lets hope he does take over the mancs when whiskey nose retires!

I can see were you are coming from in saying that he had a lot of money to play with at Chelsea but he still had to have his team playing good football to beat us, the mancs and arsenal. Even with a lot of money you do need to be a good manager to do that.

For example.. Mark Hughes at Man city has just bought himself a better team than what Mourinho had in his first year. He has more funds, a stronger team to build on, he has already spent more than what Mourinho spent in his first year and yet was lucky not to loose to Birmingham city today.

But you can't compare him to Hughes and city. You have you to compare to Rafa and Liverpool. Here he must overachive with little funds and not have a huge finacial backing which has been the case whereever he has been.

Sure, you need to be a good manager to win the league if you have shedloads of cash, but what kind of manager do you then need to be if you have to win the league with no money?

I'm not so sure that kind of manager exist today that can win titles with less money than 5-6 other teams.

Here you go again with the "no money" line    They do say that if you repeat a lie often enough eventually people will believe it, we'll see.

You would know.   

[Fauxy]

Sigh, this Mourinho wankfest is driving me nuts.

What has he proved?

That he can win if takes on the most finacially strong clubs in a country?
Wow, what an acievement.

I thought we needed  manager that could win without being on top at the start?

He he won't have 50 million to spend on deadwood and all is well anyway.
He won't be able to spend 25 on a drogba here or 25 on an Essien there...
What an achievement to win the league with Inter when Mancini did exactly the same and got knocked out in the CL exactly the same way.
What a achievement to fail to win the CL when given hundereds of millions to buy the players he wants.

Well if he's that sh!te then lets hope he does take over the mancs when whiskey nose retires!

I can see were you are coming from in saying that he had a lot of money to play with at Chelsea but he still had to have his team playing good football to beat us, the mancs and arsenal. Even with a lot of money you do need to be a good manager to do that.

For example.. Mark Hughes at Man city has just bought himself a better team than what Mourinho had in his first year. He has more funds, a stronger team to build on, he has already spent more than what Mourinho spent in his first year and yet was lucky not to loose to Birmingham city today.

But you can't compare him to Hughes and city. You have you to compare to Rafa and Liverpool. Here he must overachive with little funds and not have a huge finacial backing which has been the case whereever he has been.

Sure, you need to be a good manager to win the league if you have shedloads of cash, but what kind of manager do you then need to be if you have to win the league with no money?

I'm not so sure that kind of manager exist today that can win titles with less money than 5-6 other teams.

Yes he would come here and not have great funds or financial backing, but he would have a team already set up for him that is capable of winning big competitions.

Wenger has spent less than us, man u, chelsea, city and tottenham yet Arsenal are challenging for the title, which shows that it can be done if you dont have the funds but you do have the players.