Liverpool FC Forum

Ba has a dodgy knee - it could explode at any time.

The Raven » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:47 pm wrote:Stop all this talk.

I come here to hear about Falco, Turan, Villa, and Sanchez!

Other wise i will go back to Football manager where the board agreed to sign Pedro!

Oh if only the real world could be more like Football manager :-)
i do find it hilarious though how the makers of FIFA 2013 have made it so that Liverpool are fairly cr@p and that Suarez never gets a penalty 

Benny The Noon » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:13 pm wrote:Once again - what are you using to measure these statements ?

You are talking from a football fans view that its just football that exists only.

Basically it's purely red tinted.

We are behind plenty of football clubs currently.


And lets go back to your first point - what money do you expect to be spent ?

Please state the factors that you are using to measure

we are earning more now than we did when rafa was getting us regularly into the CL.
for a start last season we earned £54m (compared to city and united`s £60m) from the premier league and TV rights, then we have signed sponsorship deals with a load of companies (the warrior one alone was worth £125m) and on top of all that tom werner said fsg have the financial clout to compete with anyone in the game.
re the factors, go and ask sky and the bbc for their factors when they claim liverpool and united are the two biggest teams in england.

So you are using money as the measuring stick then ?

Go and read the articles I posted about the size of sporting clubs in the world etc - Not in the top 50 going by Forbes. Football clubs alone not even in the top 20 - only 5th in this county behind - Utd,City,Arsenal and Chelsea.

Sky talk Sh*t - I'm pretty sure you most know that by now.

Benny The Noon » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:22 pm wrote:So you are using money as the measuring stick then ?

Go and read the articles I posted about the size of sporting clubs in the world etc - Not in the top 50 going by Forbes. Football clubs alone not even in the top 20 - only 5th in this county behind - Utd,City,Arsenal and Chelsea.

Sky talk Sh*t - I'm pretty sure you most know that by now.

show me where i said money was the definative yardstick for determining the size of an sporting institution?
your getting 2 seperate questions mixed up.
there is no one variable that decides the size of a sporting institution, its down to multiple factors like the age of the institution, success it`s had, size of stadium, size of fanbase (domestic and worldwide), fame, wealth etc
the mythical king solomon could buy tranmere rovers tomorrow and make them the wealthiest club on the face of the planet but that wouldnt make them a bigger sporting institution than manchester united.
to say chelsea or man city are bigger clubs than liverpool is laughable, in the near 130 year history of league football those 2 clubs have managed the grand total of 7 league title wins between them, and the majority of those were won in the last decade.
there`s an argument for arsenal being a bigger club than liverpool but it`s not a very good one.
you dont become a sporting institution overnight

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:54 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:22 pm wrote:So you are using money as the measuring stick then ?

Go and read the articles I posted about the size of sporting clubs in the world etc - Not in the top 50 going by Forbes. Football clubs alone not even in the top 20 - only 5th in this county behind - Utd,City,Arsenal and Chelsea.

Sky talk Sh*t - I'm pretty sure you most know that by now.

show me where i said money was the definative yardstick for determining the size of an sporting institution?
your getting 2 seperate questions mixed up.
there is no one variable that decides the size of a sporting institution, its down to multiple factors like the age of the institution, success it`s had, size of stadium, size of fanbase (domestic and worldwide), fame, wealth etc
the mythical king solomon could buy tranmere rovers tomorrow and make them the wealthiest club on the face of the planet but that wouldnt make them a bigger sporting institution than manchester united.
to say chelsea or man city are bigger clubs than liverpool is laughable, in the near 130 year history of league football those 2 clubs have managed the grand total of 7 league title wins between them, and the majority of those were won in the last decade.
there`s an argument for arsenal being a bigger club than liverpool but it`s not a very good one.
you dont become a sporting institution overnight

Well you were the one going on about money earned by the club when i ask what factors you are measuring.

So your going by history over 130 years ? How about history over the last 10 years or 20 years when we have dropped behind plenty over teams.

Basically you will pick any factor that will point us to being at the top as opposed to the reality of the situation that is some fans need to drag their asses out of the past and start to look at the present - we have dropped away in pretty much every single department.

We are no longer at the pinacle of sport - our instituion is fading and has done over the last 20years. Other clubs are growing and growing on a daily basis and overtaking us - Forest won two CL in the 80's - does that put them above City or Chelsea ? No it doesnt - it time to stop living in the past because it hold us back and has done for years now.

Calling us one of the top 2 sporting institues in the country is baseless.

And as for money we earn being spent - it was - on players and wages. We will break even this year maybe even operate on a loss.

Benny The Noon » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:20 pm wrote:

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:54 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:22 pm wrote:So you are using money as the measuring stick then ?

Go and read the articles I posted about the size of sporting clubs in the world etc - Not in the top 50 going by Forbes. Football clubs alone not even in the top 20 - only 5th in this county behind - Utd,City,Arsenal and Chelsea.

Sky talk Sh*t - I'm pretty sure you most know that by now.

show me where i said money was the definative yardstick for determining the size of an sporting institution?
your getting 2 seperate questions mixed up.
there is no one variable that decides the size of a sporting institution, its down to multiple factors like the age of the institution, success it`s had, size of stadium, size of fanbase (domestic and worldwide), fame, wealth etc
the mythical king solomon could buy tranmere rovers tomorrow and make them the wealthiest club on the face of the planet but that wouldnt make them a bigger sporting institution than manchester united.
to say chelsea or man city are bigger clubs than liverpool is laughable, in the near 130 year history of league football those 2 clubs have managed the grand total of 7 league title wins between them, and the majority of those were won in the last decade.
there`s an argument for arsenal being a bigger club than liverpool but it`s not a very good one.
you dont become a sporting institution overnight

Well you were the one going on about money earned by the club when i ask what factors you are measuring.

So your going by history over 130 years ? How about history over the last 10 years or 20 years when we have dropped behind plenty over teams.

Basically you will pick any factor that will point us to being at the top as opposed to the reality of the situation that is some fans need to drag their asses out of the past and start to look at the present - we have dropped away in pretty much every single department.

We are no longer at the pinacle of sport - our instituion is fading and has done over the last 20years. Other clubs are growing and growing on a daily basis and overtaking us - Forest won two CL in the 80's - does that put them above City or Chelsea ? No it doesnt - it time to stop living in the past because it hold us back and has done for years now.

Calling us one of the top 2 sporting institues in the country is baseless.

no benny thats your view, the vast majority of people within the game and within the country regard liverpool and manchester united as the 2 biggest clubs in the country, just deal with it.
and re money, we have a chairman who has said that we (fsg) have the finances to compete with anyone in the game, that is a fact, unless you think he was bevvied when he said it and it was all ale talk.

And we have been up there spending with the majority of clubs

I don't care what the "vast majority" think - its once again another baseless comment and means sweet FA in the grand scheme of things .

Titles prove your credentials - we have none in over 20 years
We aren't even in the CL and haven't been for 3 years - I think even Newcastle have had 5 years in the CL in the past.

Winning in the now shows the football world how big you are as opposed to living off past glories.

Benny The Noon » Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:06 pm wrote:And we have been up there spending with the majority of clubs

I don't care what the "vast majority" think - its once again another baseless comment and means sweet FA in the grand scheme of things .

Titles prove your credentials - we have none in over 20 years
We aren't even in the CL and haven't been for 3 years - I think even Newcastle have had 5 years in the CL in the past.

Winning in the now shows the football world how big you are as opposed to living off past glories.

dont talk rubbish, we have won more european cups than barcelona, infact out of the thousands of professional football clubs throughout the continent of europe only 2 (real madrid and AC milan) have won more.
whats more madrid won a lot of theirs in the early years of the competition when teams were invited to compete, in the era where you have to qualify by your league position we`ve won more than even them.
and i dont know where you are getting all this living off past glories sh*te, the only thing we havent won in the past 20 years in the league title, apart from that we`ve been quite successfull.
over the past decade or so we`ve -
won the european cup (and got to another final)
won the UEFA cup
won the european super cup twice
won the F.A cup twice (and got to another final)
won the league cup 3 times (and got to another final)

some clubs would be proud of that over 100 years never mind a decade. even in our wilderness years we have won as many european cups as all those london `giants` chelsea, arsenal, spurs etc have put together.

League is the bread and butter.

That's where you earn your crust

We are currently nowhere

League cups, European Super Cups ?! I'm surprised you didn't mention charity shields.

The CL in 2005 is the one "significant" trophy in the last 20 plus years.

Birmingham and Middlesboro have won the league cup , Portsmouth won the FA Cup !

Both Barce and Madrid are the top clubs who get close to Utd in Europe.

We are behind the lot now.

So about signing darren bent.................

The Raven » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:02 pm wrote:So about signing darren bent.................

Would rather look for someone else

of course you would, cos you didn't suggest it. you like to just go against whatever is said.

No I would prefer a better standard of player