Liverpool FC Forum

by **Owzat** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:49 am

Kermit fears the league may be "bought" with the arrival of wealthy businessmen like Abrahamovic at Chelski. Nice one Kermit, now there's a revelation none of us had considered......

taken from teletext
Liverpool manager Gerard Houllier believes the English game could be in for a worrying time if other clubs were bought out like Chelsea.

The West London club have spent over £100m since being taken over by Roman Abrahamovic in the Summer

Houllier said " It is worrying because, if two or three other clubs did the same, we could have a situation where trophies are won with a chequebook"

How does he think manu have managed to sustain success - with £30m and £19m purchases. Not that he hasn't spent a fairly large chunk of money on players himself, a few of them lingering on in the reserves. I think the name Kermit suits him, he really is a muppet

by **JBG** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:02 am

I might be wrong here, but if you look back over the past 13 years, pound for pound, given the value of players on the transfer market at the particular time, Liverpool have outspent everybody in the Premiership with little or no reward.

Remember Souness' spending spree on Saunders, Walters, Wright, James, Jones, Thomas, Dicks, Ruddock, Stewart, Clough etc? At the time it was an incredible spending spree, a bit like what Chelsea did in the summer.

Then Roy Evans went out and spent loads on the likes of Babb, Scales, Ince, Collymore, McAteer and Berger.

by **greenred** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:43 pm

we could have bought a lot of the players chelski have now
duff or diouff?
heskey or mutu?
makele or our assorted bunch of million pound misfits?
abramovich has bought proven quality and it looks money well spent.youve got to admire the bloke.
chelsea are still a bunch of london t#s#ers though.

by **Owzat** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:16 pm

I think the fact is money well spent is still no guarantee of success. O'Leary spent a lot and look at what happened to Leeds Utd under him. The idea that the person who spends the most money will win everything is ludicrous but manu have spent a fair amount on a few players and they are still successful

by **Cleman** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 9:13 am

i am interested to know if GH is the manager for Chelsea and how he would spend over the 100m invested ?

maybe there are two possibilities :
he may spend the money with unproven players, so-called "new Zidane", "new Veira", "new Ronaldo", "new Owen", "new Figo", "new Beckham", "new Henry", "new Pires", "new Ballack" etc

or he may spend the money with great players, but the players can't perform under his game tactic and strategy..

by **cheesecakery** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:39 am

Houlier talks out of his a#se,
if money buys success why hasnt he done better?

its not as if he hasnt been given any ,
anyway Man u payed 1 million for Cantona , and he was the catalyst for their success of last ten years , along with their 'home grown' kids,
(eh Hansen ;-) who cost nothing ,
and they havent spent much since , only Veron and Rio,

how much was heskey and what impact has he made?

Anyway Chelsea have won f##k all yet

by **JBG** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 12:56 pm

While it is generally true that money alone cannot buy you success (look at Inter Milan, Liverpool, Spurs, Newcastle etc), it does reach a point where if someone goes out and spends ridiculous amounts of money on absolute top class and proven players, success will be inevitable.

Blackburn went out and bought some of the best players in Britain between 1992-1995: Sutton, Shearer, Batty, Le Saux, Sherwood, Flowers, Hendry etc and it eventually paid off. Lazio bought the likes of Crespo, Veron, Stankovic, Mihailovic, Peruzi etc and they won the league in Italy. Also look at Real Madrid and Bayern Munich's domination of the Bundeslegia.

If Chelsea continue to buy some of the best around it'll be inevitable that they'll win the Premiership. Even if half their players turn out to be flops, the other half are good enough to win it.

The difference with Liverpool is that we blew are money mostly on unproven wasters from France or simply made a lot of bad buys.

by **Owzat** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 2:27 pm

It is unlikely that a club which has little spending power will win the league but spending £100m is no guarantee of success. The base of the Liverpool squad has plenty of experience and still we are no closer to challenging. I suspect Kermit's comments are just a way of suggesting we can't compete with Chelski and manu ie another "hidden" excuse

by **LiverpoolFC_Kopite** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 3:34 pm

Chelsea have spent 110 million in 1 season on proven players, Liverpool spent 100 mil over 5 seasons on unproven players.

Plus I don't see how Chelsea will do a Leeds, with Abrahmovich's billions.

Liverpool FC Forum

Houllier - Fears success may be "bought"

Who is online