Liverpool FC Forum

Benny The Noon » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:55 pm wrote:They get CL every year and they are financially sound - failure ?

Yes as a business Benny it wouldn't be a failure. However success in football equates to trophies and Arsenal have gone nearly a decade without a single trophy. Is that success? Maybe to you it is, but to me it isn't. And if Arsenal were so successful, then why are all their best players walking away? Nasri and Cesc last summer, RVP has said he's leaving and there are strong rumours that Walcott might well be leaving as well as he enters the final two years of his currrent contract.

Making profit and qualification for the Champions League every season is not success in most people's book.

What else are clubs supposed to do ? Spend above their means trying to compete with the wages and fee's offered by City and Chelsea thus ensuing they go into debt ? If you don't have a sugar daddy it's hard to throw money at the club.

Despite that they still spent over 50 mil last summer

Clubs make a choice and Arsenals is the sensible one ensuring the club stays alive and afloat - they still are paying the debt for the stadium as well.

We won a trophy last season yet it was called a failure ?!

Manchester United are still the best club in England despite Chelsea and Manchester City spending mammoth amounts of money.

Boxscarf » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:16 pm wrote:Manchester United are still the best club in England despite Chelsea and Manchester City spending mammoth amounts of money.

And Man Utd are over 600 million in debt .

Benny The Noon » Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:18 pm wrote:
And Man Utd are over 600 million in debt .

United make a profit, the debt on United is the Glazers debt. Even so, they're still the best team in England.

Boxscarf » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:25 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:18 pm wrote:
And Man Utd are over 600 million in debt .

United make a profit, the debt on United is the Glazers debt. Even so, they're still the best team in England.

The debt is against the club - just like ours was against our club. Manchester United are 600 mill in debt.

The best team in England is the title holders - that isnt United. They won zero trophies last season and are going to struggle to compete with the others now.

Struggle to compete with others? That sounds like Liverpool and Arsenal, not Manchester United, the most successful team in the history of English football.

Boxscarf » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:44 pm wrote:Struggle to compete with others? That sounds like Liverpool and Arsenal, not Manchester United, the most successful team in the history of English football.

Liverpool are the most successful team in England - go and check the records. Yes they will start to struggle in the coming years as City and Chelsea start to pile more money through and United have to pay off their massive debts

One more league title, two fewer European cups make it at best debatable, but it still surprises me that any Liverpool fan would place the Manc's ahead of us in their reckoning of the most successful sides in the history of English football. Even if I felt it to be true, which I don't, I would never be so heretical as to admit it.

Mate, wrong thread for debating this, but it's more likely the Filth will win more league titles and dare I say a CL final before we challenge for another of either. We've gone backwards the past decade or so.

I think he is nailed on for City.  Probably to replace Tevez.

I would far rather our club followed Arsenal's sustainable model than that of the Sheikhs and Chavs. Ever since '89 when Arsenal were just class following the tragedy of Hillsbororough I have had respect for them. In many ways they remind me of us in that we are both 'proper' football clubs with a rich history. A brand new stadium and annual participation in the Europe's elite competition - surely that is what we should be aspiring to. I personally hate the sugerdaddy model and think it has ruined football. Sincerely hope the FFP works.

scum £24m. Their strength in depth is really becoming quite something

Greavesie » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:00 pm wrote:scum £24m. Their strength in depth is really becoming quite something

a striker was hardly their priority. they'll still have decimated the majority of dross in the league without van persie.

they're still weak in central midfield and at fullback imo.

stmichael » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:09 pm wrote:

Greavesie » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:00 pm wrote:scum £24m. Their strength in depth is really becoming quite something

a striker was hardly their priority. they'll still have decimated the majority of dross in the league without van persie.

they're still weak in central midfield and at fullback imo.

They've needed a creative midfielder for years now, Scholes is the only one they have and grantaed he's one of the best but he can't play every game. Right back has always been an issue for them as well

I'm still thinking its in the middle where they'll suffer, they still look static - Cleverly and Kagawa could change that if it clicks but it still looks a bit flat. I always live in false hope about the scum tho