Page 1 of 2
City or now
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:30 pmby Dundalk
All we here nowadays is football has become all about money, well here is a simple question.
Would you prefer our beloved Liverpool to be in the position it is in at the moment which is heavily in debt, owned by a pair of muppets and not having money to spend on transfers but second in the table and having a name in football players would like to play for but not knowing what the future holds or in what direction we are going in financially
or
Would you prefer us to be struggling at the moment in the league but the future ahead looks very bright as we have unlimited funds to buy players, the only problem being it might be hard to get then here as we wouldn't have a big name
Well?
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:34 pmby Zidane
Dundalk wrote:All we here nowadays is football has become all about money, well here is a simple question.
Would you prefer our beloved Liverpool to be in the position it is in at the moment which is heavily in debt, owned by a pair of muppets and not having money to spend on transfers but second in the table and having a name in football players would like to play for but not knowing what the future holds or in what direction we are going in financially
or
Would you prefer us to be struggling at the moment in the league but the future ahead looks very bright as we have unlimited funds to buy players, the only problem being it might be hard to get then here as we wouldn't have a big name
Well?
Edit, I didn't fully read your post. If we're literally turning into City and not LFC anymore than you have to decline that.
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:36 pmby SupitsJonF
Even though were in a title drought I don't want the first one we win a long time to be bought. Rather wait a couple of seasons then be like Chelsea or City.
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:43 pmby Madmax
City are financially secured at the moment and for real they seem to have a bright future ahead of them. Will take time though with consistency and the right players arriving at the club. They will have to become a bigger club to attract the bigger players.
As you stated we are in a good position, good squad etc but cack owners.
Even though our owners are clowns i would still prefer to be liverpool.
Citeh will take alot of time in my oppinion to become a club known through europe and the building of the squad to infiltrate the top four will not be easy. citeh must make a claim in the premiership and must break into the champions league elite. Will not happen for a few years yet.
AS for us we have a great squad already and are doing well in europe aswel. We do have a prob with the owners though but i would still prefer to be us.
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:44 pmby LegBarnes
I voted to be like city only cos if it got rid of the owners we have , i take a bottom half finish for 1 season any day of week.
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:31 pmby RUSHIE#9
The thing with Citeh is, you just know that before long it's all gonna go tits up!
They're already finding out that it's gonna be harder to get to the loftier echelons of the league than just splashing cash all over the show.
They got lucky signing Robinho but not every player is gonna get confused and think they are actually signing for the Salford Shite!!! 
As they say, it's always better to have the points in the bag!!
Posted:
Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:36 pmby crazyhorse
I voted for the second option.. however the older ones among us will know that City have won things in the past...For the longer sighted footballer there is a chance that the club could attract bigger players.. Not the Kakas of this world but the Ronaldos (the Brazilian version), Figos ect would look at them and for a year or two do a job, see the club progress and climb the table and the really big names will follow.
Five years and they will be another Chelsea (if the owner does not lose interest)
Posted:
Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:24 amby account deleted by request
Maybe this shouldn't go in here , but it made me laugh
Manchester City waste £17m on de Jong
Thursday, 22 January 2009
De Jong could make his debut against Newcastle on Wednesday
Reports suggest that Manchester City overspent on new signing Nigel de Jong by as much as £17m.
City completed the signing of the Netherlands international yesterday, paying in the region of £19m. Yet reports today suggest that if the Eastlands club had waited until the end of the season, they could have secured his services for £2.3m.
It is believed that the midfielder had a release clause inserted into his Hamburg contract, allowing him to leave in the summer for a cut-price fee.
It is unknown whether City chiefs knew about the small print, or if they wanted to carry on regardless in order to sufficiently bolster their squad so that they are not sucked into a relegation battle.
De Jong is expected to meet up with his new team-mates in Tenerife, as the Manchester City players are put through their paces at a winter training camp. He could make his debut next Wednesday against Newcastle
Posted:
Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:26 amby Dundalk
I dont think it matters if they knew or not because money dose not seem to be an issue at all with these people
Posted:
Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:44 amby Reg
I dont want to buy the league, I want medium priced players playing out of their skins for the glory of Liverpool. Chelsea's titles mean nothing.
Pride above all.
Posted:
Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:37 amby Owzat
Can't afford to dally any longer, fact is citeh have lots of money (understatement) and even if their manager is a muppet they can soon change that position same as any other. The Premiership is becoming much tougher to win, more rich owners joining all the time won't make it any easier. Makes me more p1ssed off with Houllier in particular and Souness, if only we hadn't given them so much time to do nothing or nothing much more than Evans* did in the league - Houllier may have finished 2nd but how much did that 'feat' cost? Houllier had opportunities to win a title that Rafa is finding hard, he arrived the same time as Mourinho who took over a good Ranieri team AND had more money. Then the mancs picked up again and so Houllier arguably missed plenty of chances to make a title bid.
*Evans finished 3rd twice and 4th twice - once level on points with 2nd, and did so without the funding Houllier and Rafa enjoy(ed wasting) For all the money Houllier spent, his points per game record in the league is only 0.01 better than his predecessor Evans.
Posted:
Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:09 amby Redbilly1960
Manchester City will never win the league no matter how much money they throw at it. I take my hat off to Kaka for telling them were to go and not taking the arab shilling. If you think about it City will always be in the shadows of the other lot and these foreign players will be asking "Manchester who?" When Chelski splashed the rouble greedy mercenary players were attracted to the bright lights of London.The only club you could say bought the title honestly was Blackburn but Jack Walker spent his money on hard working players.
No team has the richness in History, Glory and Winning than Liverpool Football Club. 18 League Titles, 5 European Cups and the best supporters ALL PRICELESS
Posted:
Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:21 amby Judge
Posted:
Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:24 pmby maypaxvobiscum
unlike City, LFC are a global brand. if the Kuwaities did take over us, we wont end u like City. but if we stuck with the current owners who cant afford to buy players or build a stadium, then we would be worse then City. having said that, i would chose option (1) as though we're at the bottom currently, at least things can be done to improve the situation.
Posted:
Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:27 pmby dawson99
