Liverpool FC Forum

by **columbia** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:14 pm

To me liverpool f.c have certain values, a soul, something that isnt ever present in modern day football and something that cant be bought. Id hate for us to be taken over by an ambramovich type guy and become a team of footballing mercenaries. As has already been mentioned you dont need money to get success, if you are clever and go about it in the right way you can build a formidable team with a small budget. I like the way our club is run, to me we are one of the only clubs who have mastered the balance between keeping up with modern day football and keeping the clubs principles and values. I think we should keep doing what were doing, we are definitely heading in the right direction.

by **RAFABENITEZ** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:59 pm

bavlondon, you sir are a tool of the highest order.

by **Cool Hand Luke** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:03 pm

Easy mate!

by **johnny b the great** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:15 pm

i think eventually football teams will have to be given a salary cap, like basketball teams in America. The league is way more exciting when clubs that get promoted actually have a chance to win and all all the best players aren't at a few clubs. The reason why people hope Chelsea and to a lesser extent Real Madrid lose is becuase they buy players so other clubs can't have them, hence you never get to see the best players compete against ech other. Imagine arseanl with cudcini (spelling) or man city with SWP or liverpool with Wayne Bridges?

by **115-1073096938** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:35 am

johnny b the great wrote:i think eventually football teams will have to be given a salary cap, like basketball teams in America. The league is way more exciting when clubs that get promoted actually have a chance to win and all all the best players aren't at a few clubs. The reason why people hope Chelsea and to a lesser extent Real Madrid lose is becuase they buy players so other clubs can't have them, hence you never get to see the best players compete against ech other. Imagine arseanl with cudcini (spelling) or man city with SWP or liverpool with Wayne Bridges?

Do you mean Nash Bridges? or Wayne Bridge?

by **drummerphil** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:48 am

johnny b the great wrote:Imagine arseanl with cudcini (spelling) or man city with SWP or liverpool with Wayne Bridges?

arseanl you say......

and which league do they play in.Are they a Saudi team

?

by **Small John** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:39 am

stu_the_red wrote:I don't care how much money anyone costs, money doesn't buy you good players. Money buys you expensive ones. Not all expensive players are great players.

There are players out there like Pennant, Dunn, Ashton, Bullard and Barton who could get into almost if not every side in the country yet managers don't gamble on these players down to fear of getting it wrong.

You say players like Crouch don't win you tournements, correct, neither do players like Gerrard. Team's win you tournements. Everton last year being a good example of a team, hardly any individual could get into our side, yet they finished above us in the league...

You don't need money to be successful.

That is so untrue.

If so many Chelsea players are overated, How come I'd take Essien, Duff, Robben, Drogba and Crespo any day of the week, to make our team one hell of a lot stronger.

Everton only finished above LFc last season in the league, as LFC's overall performance was woeful. Every time Everton got beat, so did we!

Blackburn won the Premiership with Jack walkers money, Chelsea won it once, and soon to be twice.

Money DOES buy you success, as you can bid for the best players on the market. Essien was one of the reasons Lyon were so strong before he left.

When was the last time, LFC bought a player, and you thought "WOW" ...top class player, that will dramatically improve the squad?

?

???
Crouch....No! Cisse.....No!...Morientes...No!....Sissoko..No! Zenden.
Garcia you could argue yes, but i'd never heard of him before, and he's been slated by many fans. ALonso, unkn own before arriving from Real Sociedad.

The difference in the quality signings there, I have to say is massive.

Truth is, Rafa is trying to do things on the cheap, but until he wins the EPL doing that, then you have to say money talks.
Like Agger, only been a pro for 2 years, unproven, Kromkamp, unrated and looks shaky. Paletta, only 20 and unproven.

Well can anyone tell me.....if you guys don't think that chelsea are not that much stronger than LFC with thier money, then how come every top club and manager in Europe rates Chelsea as being better than LFC?, and they are one of the favorites to win the CL, and are more feared than us at home and in Europe? In last seasons CL semi final , both managers in the other leg, AC milan and the other team, thought Chelsea would beat LFC. How come if Chelsea hadnt even won 1 league title at that point? It's about buying class and feared players.

They werent even title contenders before Roman Abromovich came along, and now look.

Its because of the players they have signed.

Doesn't say much for our history and european cup win that does it?

I bet half of you were biting Steve Morgans arm off for his 70m investment, money is important.

BavLondon, I agree with what you say, more investment for bigger names is required.

by **laza** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:55 am

There always a price to pay for instant success
That sort of invesment is not sustainable and sometime down the road there will be a price to be paid just like the MANCs with the Glazer situation.
Soon or later that Suger Daddy will show you the pre nup agreement and send you out the door while he looks for a new interest
Lets see where Chelsea are in a few seasons time

by **vlady16.1** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:03 am

well above is the exact reason for salary caps - the proposed g-14 solution of ~ 75% of turnover is one that is palatable -- beware salary caps have not made the nfl perfect -- the lions suck and new england is good -- interesting point tom brady was not the starter at the u of m -- he wasn't a first round choice( 4th i believe) and is about the best -- money doesn't win, good management does

remember, roman is losing buckets and his turnover is down -- this is not good at all -- man u is still the most profitable which is good for them

let me spend 200 mill on players and i, yes i , could form a winning team-- and russian money has been good for hearts -- i think not

moores has been good for pool and sometimes i really think he is not appreciated- the return of god shows the class

by **115-1073096938** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:26 am

Small John wrote:If so many Chelsea players are overated, How come I'd take Essien, Duff, Robben, Drogba and Crespo any day of the week, to make our team one hell of a lot stronger.

Everton only finished above LFc last season in the league, as LFC's overall performance was woeful. Every time Everton got beat, so did we!

Blackburn won the Premiership with Jack walkers money, Chelsea won it once, and soon to be twice.

Money DOES buy you success, as you can bid for the best players on the market. Essien was one of the reasons Lyon were so strong before he left.

When was the last time, LFC bought a player, and you thought "WOW" ...top class player, that will dramatically improve the squad? ? ???
Crouch....No! Cisse.....No!...Morientes...No!....Sissoko..No! Zenden.
Garcia you could argue yes, but i'd never heard of him before, and he's been slated by many fans. ALonso, unkn own before arriving from Real Sociedad.

The difference in the quality signings there, I have to say is massive.

Truth is, Rafa is trying to do things on the cheap, but until he wins the EPL doing that, then you have to say money talks.
Like Agger, only been a pro for 2 years, unproven, Kromkamp, unrated and looks shaky. Paletta, only 20 and unproven.

Well can anyone tell me.....if you guys don't think that chelsea are not that much stronger than LFC with thier money, then how come every top club and manager in Europe rates Chelsea as being better than LFC?, and they are one of the favorites to win the CL, and are more feared than us at home and in Europe? In last seasons CL semi final , both managers in the other leg, AC milan and the other team, thought Chelsea would beat LFC. How come if Chelsea hadnt even won 1 league title at that point? It's about buying class and feared players.

They werent even title contenders before Roman Abromovich came along, and now look.

Its because of the players they have signed.

Doesn't say much for our history and european cup win that does it?

I bet half of you were biting Steve Morgans arm off for his 70m investment, money is important.

BavLondon, I agree with what you say, more investment for bigger names is required.

Firstly, i never said they were all overated.

Secondly, i don't know why you'd take them. Why are you asking me, why you would take those players?

Third. Blackburn had a good side when they won the league and had good players. All of which weren't bought for stupid money and were well managed.

Fourth. Money doesn't buy success. Look at Real Madrid the last three years.

Fifth, Alonso.

Sixth, Hyypia was signed for 3million, he improved the squad. Fowler, Owen, Gerrard, Carragher never cost a penny. Finnan cost 3million. The only players in Chelsea's team that were value at the back were Terry (Free) and Gallas (5million) the rest were a rip off.

7th, Hustler, change the record. We're all bored of you, don't you understand that?

Now do everyone a favour and fuck off.

by **Espionage** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:39 am

johnny b the great wrote:i think eventually football teams will have to be given a salary cap, like basketball teams in America. The league is way more exciting when clubs that get promoted actually have a chance to win and all all the best players aren't at a few clubs. The reason why people hope Chelsea and to a lesser extent Real Madrid lose is becuase they buy players so other clubs can't have them, hence you never get to see the best players compete against ech other. Imagine arseanl with cudcini (spelling) or man city with SWP or liverpool with Wayne Bridges?

I agree with that the EPL should eventually adopt the NBA system.

If a team goes 2m over the salery cap then they have to donate 2m to a fund that gets divided equally amounsgt all other teams. This gives teams the option of going over, but only for short periods.

by **115-1073096938** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:45 am

Do you not like the game as it is?

Why do you want to change everything?

by **azriahmad** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:05 am

Chelsea has bought instant success with Abramovic's riches...that's true. Chelsea are also spending way over their turnover and has incurred a whopping 140 million loss compared to 80 million in the previous year (just like you and me spending 1,000 pounds a week when the take home salary is only 600 pounds, the remaining 400 pounds coming from a sugar daddy)..that's another fact.

How long can this last? How long will it last? They can't generate super turnover in a short time ala Real Madrid by stepping up merchandising because they are not really an "international brand name" to borrow an American phrase limje Real Madrid, Manure, Milan, Juve and Liverpool.

It will take them that much longer unless they buy David Beckham this summer (he is a marketing phenomenon in football but at 30, time is running out) and start touting anything related to him for money. They have to build some tradition ot history first, by collecting silverware every season. They have the strongest squad in England and can rule the roost at least for the next foreseeable 2 seasons. But they'd have a much tougher time to win the biggest of them all (at this moment), the CL.

With the change of format and the introduction of the knock-out phase by UEFA, it is not necessarily the strongest squad that wins, partly is doen to the luck of the draw and partly down to how well the coach and the team square up against more illustrious opposition, apart from pure squad strength.

How long can Abramovic wait and still spend a stupendous amount of money? When he gets tired of Chelsea and finds other "passion", Chelsea will be staring at financial ruin. Peter kenyon has been talking about Chelsea breaking even by 2010, and for that to happen, they'd have to increase their ticket prices and going by the "pragmatic football" preached by Mourinho, this will only drive some of their fans away.

For us, we will always have loyal and passionate support, and Anfield of the new stadium will always be filled by the red half of Liverpool. Our turnover, if not augmented by merciless merchandising, would still be in the top 10 if we qualify for the CL every season (incidently we are at no 8 with 182 million compares to Newcastle who only collected in 128 million as a comparison to a forum member who said that we can't compete with Newcastle in the transfer market, we are more prudent not poorer).

If it takes another season or two for Liverpool to wing th EPL by carrying on like this, I'd be happy as long as we finish near Chelsea, qualify for the CL with a good run every season and play football like we used to play and win the odd cup or two. We can't compete financially with Chelsea who can dish out 21 million pounds for a squad player, thus we will never have their strength in depth in the EPL, and I can live with that until the playing field is level again, and this will happen. However, football is a game of human endeavours and while it is unlikely that Chelsea can collapse anytime soon, it may happen in the future and this gives me hope.

by **Liverpool 4 EVA** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:14 am

In a word, NO.

It's just not our way.

I'm immensley proud the way we are, and we will continue to be extremely successful with the same ethics and traditions.

by **Homebooby** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:05 am

bavlondon wrote:Everybody hates the way Chelsea just buy the market out with the russians billions but the Hearts chairman made a good point yesterday when he was talking about the emergance of Russian billionaires targeting big football clubs. So far in Britain we have seen Chelsea, Portsmouth and Hearts taken over by Eastern European funders and this has helped at least 2 of them secure silverware for the fist time in years.

You dont have to lecture me about Liverpools history as one of this countrys biggest clubs who never sold out but the fact is that after the recent 2-0 loss i thought to myself. Yes it was nice knocking them out last year but this sqauad needs more depth, more players ie: more money. We have some but isnt enough.

Just for argumens sake we had been taken over by a russian investor, we might have had the correct funds required to bring Michael Owen back, or tempt Theo Walcott to his dream club instead of relying on players who in their own rights are good players (Crouch) but simply lack the all round game needed to compete. The guy is 6ft 7 but how many goals has he scored with his head this season. We might have even had the funds to secure Simao instead of being suckered into stonewall and having to shift our skipper out of position to fil that gap. Things could be a lot more rosier if we had similar funding to Chelsea and im sure that the majority if not all of you would have been really happy had we brought back Owen or signed Simao or Joaquin or our CB without all the hassle withe their clubs because we have limited funds. I afraid to think how many more tropheys Chelskum will win before another big team is taken over. We are lucky we have special players liuek Gerrard and Carra but this isnt enough. Those are player to build a club around but we need to spend ahell of a lot more if we are serious about competeing on all fronts in the future.

Im expecting some opposite views on this subject but try to think open minded and remember that this game is always evolving with time due to money. And maybe somewhere in the not to distant future David Moores and Rick Parry will realise this and truley help this clubs future.

Besides the worries of selling ourselves out and the unsavoury links to the russian goodfellas, I think that the illusion of a club drowning in money is what we should be concerned about.

First of all, Chelsea are reporting massive losses at the moment, allegedly due to one off investments. I guess time will tell here, but imagine the impact of Abramovich pulling his support. The club would be ruined overnight and there is no way it could support the squad wages currently being dished out.

There has to be some return for Abramovichs'investment into the club. I have no figures here, but I wonder how much he is pulling out of the club. If the return for him isn't financial, but perhaps legitmacy (a legal financial outlet?), is that something that we really want to be offering LFC up for. I would prefer we avoid anything 'dodgy'.

Last but not least, I get the distinct impression that Chelsea is a passing fad for him. With so much money, the challenges often lie in turning something around or doing something noone has done before. They won the league, (stage 1). They look like they will repeat it again this year (stage 2). Move on to CL success and maybe tie in EPL victory with it and where is there for the club to go? If they get that far, I don't see him hanging around for too long and then what? The same applies for the scenario where Chelsea don't succeed as much or as quickly as he would like. How long will he stick with it?

I really have doubts that it is nothing more than a passing fad for him and LFC should remain supported and funded by people who have had a lifelong love for the club, where financial gain takes a backseat to what is best for the club.

Liverpool FC Forum

We need our own abramovic! - Dont slate me just yet!

Who is online