kop205

Too late for him, I fear. He's like L4 Lad on speed. I sense that I may be clicking that 'Ignore User's Post' option very soon.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

No, you've lost me. EDIT - think I get it know after looking at the trhead in the general! (Though Sunderland is almost a 400 mile round trip!) Like the one he did ask about why some English people don't support the English national team?

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

We were supporting Paraguay

Like I said then, good luck to you. I obviously have a very different opinion to you - in fact I would go as far as to say that the idea of wanting England to do well is as alien to me as the idea of travelling hundreds of miles to some s***hole to watch your club play in some minor cup game is alien to those most likely to lecture me about not supporting England. I don't have to justify my opinion anymore than England fans have to justify theirs. And I'm certainly not going to criticise those who do want England to do well, in the way that many of those people criticise those of who don't. I'm not referring to you there, like I said, fair play to you. I just don't share your opinion.

Hilarious how much some people take offence at English people not supporting the England football team. What difference does it make to anyone else who I do or don't support? I've tried rationalising it over the years (e.g all of my footballing passions get directed into supporting Liverpool, leaving nothing for England. I want the England rugby and cricket teams to do well, because I don't care about the club/county scene). I freely admit though that there is something irrational and contradictory about my feelings towards the England football team, because I go beyond just not caring about them, I actually want them to lose. And you do you know what is at least partly the reason for that? It is people being up in arms about the fact that I don't support them, telling me how shameful that is, etc etc etc - especially when said people don't really care about football other than for a few weeks every two years when England are in a tournament, and would certainly never consider travelling hundred of miles to some god-forsaken s*** hole like Sunderland to watch their side play in a minor cup competition. If people who are prepared to do that also want England to do well then good luck them, but I am still entitled to my opinion. It is a gut instinct I have and therefore not something I have to justify as such. If that pisses some people off, tough.

It isn't a tough one mate. How do they pay all those wonderful players if Abramovich were to go? IOUs? They'd be royally f***ed, Leeds Utd with bells on. It would be sale of the century time as they desperately tried to reduce the wage bill. And anyone who spends more than they have coming in (which Chelsea are continuing to do, in fact they seem to be getting worse) IS, by definition, living outside of their means. Ultimately that is not sustainable and makes no sense from a business perspective. Of couse it isn't going to bankrupt him at any point in the next 50 years, but that isn't the point. The point is that for all their claims to the contrary, they haven't got a hope in hell of achieving their stated aim of 'sustainability' whilst they continue to spend in this fashion (and as has been pointed out already, their spending is hardly slowing down, the opposite in fact - read Paul Wilson in the Observer today). They will contine to be completely and utterly reliant on Abramovich. The 'living outside of their means' point isn't necessarily anything to do with them going bust anyway (although as Leeds showed, it is a dangerous game to play). It is simply to illustarte that again, depite their claims to the contrary, they are financed in a manner and to a degree that is totally without precedent, and that makes a mockery of their claims that they are only doing what other clubs have always done.

True enough, though Paisley and Fagan both retired due to their age and we all know why Kenny went, and God willing there will never be circumstances like that again. Shankly stayed how long, 15 years? Maybe we are due another long stint (though yes I know it is probably unrealistic and would be a long time away from 'home' for Rafa). Anyway, lets hope we are celebrating him signing another 4 year deal in about 2008!

I don't think that even any of them would actually disagree with you. The line they take is to say that what they are doing now is no different to what other clubs, including Liverpool, have done in the past i.e. they say that the title is ALWAYS bought and it is just their turn to do it now. To even pretend that there is a parallel between what we have done in the past and what they are doing now is laughable. We became wealthy because of our success, not successful because of our wealth (we were 2nd division and playing in a toilet of a ground when Shankly took over and he had to battle for every penny he was given to spend). We have never relied on single benefactors who, were they to jump ship for any reason, would totally shaft the whole club (they seem to think that we enjoyed millions from Littlewoods pools in the 60s - my understanding was it was always Everton who benefitted from that more than us, hence the 'Mersey Millionaires' tag, but correct me if I am wrong). We have never operated beyond our means (in terms of expenditure outstripping income) to the extent that they do now. We have never spent anything like the kind of money on player wages (even as a proprotion of total expenditure) that they know spend. I could go on, but is a tired argument now, they are deluduing themselves if they think that what they are doing now is anything other than an unprecedented, ugly, freakish episode in the history of the game.

Amazed that you had time to read it, what with being so busy fantasising about 'bringing ickle Michael home' and all that. When it comes to posting s**** mate, you are right up there. Serioulsy though, you are going to have to explain to me just why Mourihno is sooooooo great because I'm just not convinced sorry. He's a good manager, that much is obvious, but so was Houllier in many ways and to airbrush out all that he achieved is shameful. I'm glad he went when he did, but he wasn't the clown that you seem to think. Anyway my basic point, which you ignored, was this - if Mourihno was Liverpool manager, operating within a tight budget, he would have had to have a far better strike rate in the transfer market than he has had at Chelsea. The only real successes he has had there have been the buys that are way beyond our price range anyway, people who he couldn't afford if he was our manager. If Houllier was at Chelsea, the money he wasted on Diouf, Diao etc would have been a drop in the ocean and he would have been given more to replace them the second it became obvious that they weren't the answer (although in reality he probably would have been buying more established stars anyway, as he could afford to). It certainly wouldn't have destroyed his reputation and harmed the club in the way it has here. Houllier rightly gets slated for some apalling buys, but Morihno's transfer record is just as woeful (Essien, Del Horno, Maniche, SWP). The diference is though, the stakes aren't as high for him because there will always be more money to rectify his errors and save his reputation. It is that that gives Chelsea an advantage, more tha being able to overpay for individual players. Struggling to actually understand most of that, sorry. Not sure where all the stuff about 'decent pros' come from, because I've never said that and nor have I said that it is their ability to overpay that gives them an advantage. It is their ability to just constantly and immediately replace their poor buys that sets them apart. One bad summer of transfer activity finished Houllier and set us back at least 2 years. One bad summer of transfer activity at Chelsea and they just rectify it in January. But as I've said all along, we are currently very, very close to being able to challenge them on the pitch cos we have class players who Chelsea can't buy better than, because there isn't better out there so I am still hopeful, whilst remaining aware of how tough it wil be to sustain that challenge. It is the fact that it is tough that makes it exciting though!

Again, I'm not saying Mourihno is a s*** manager and Houllier is great. My point was that any mistakes he makes will not have as big an impact on them as mistakes that managers at other clubs make will have on their clubs. Given their current spending power, I think it is impossible that he could make a mistake that would 'bring the whole edifice down'. That is delusional. They would either just sack him and give someone else a go, or give him another load of blank cheques. I'm more than aware that he has to fit the players into a system and that is why I said I believe we are very nearly in a position to compete with a couple of smart buys, but I stand by the point that there is a greater urgency for us to get the right deals than there is for them, because it is easier for them to rectify mistakes. Long term that does give them an advantage, but I'm not giving anything up, bring the c**** on, money and all I say...

This content is not viewable to guests.

Big Stuff & Xabi34.

I'd argue that in many ways Houllier is vastly superior to Mourihno. He made some great buys for this club (Didi, Sami, Henchoz, Finnan, Dudek, Gary Mc), more so than Mourihno has at Chelsea so far (barring those who were already world stars) and by all acounts has a great knowledge of world football. I know he had his faults, but I think you have been seduced by the myth of the Special One there. Anyway, your coment is irrelevant to my point, which was that one mistake in the transfer market by a Liverpool manager will reverberate in ways which mistakes by Chelsea managers won't becuase they just egt abother bucket ooad of cash to rectify it. Bizaree that you picked that line out really and chose to ignore the main point I was making.

Most think dive, some think clipped, I don't give s***.

Of course we would, in the same way that Souness was a great player but Roy Keane was a c***. When have football fans EVER been consistent? I've said before, given the choice I'd rather Gerrard hadnlt done it but I'm certainly not going to gte all het up about it.

Oh no, quick, we'll have to change his song.

It isn't so much that they overpay for individual players and outbid everyone else, but that they operate with no transfer budget constraints, so if a signing doesn't work out they just go and buy someone else. That is what is worrying because it means that regardless of the skill of the manager, the odds are they get it right eventually. Houllier won trophies for Liverpool and in many ways was a fine manager, vastly superior to Mourihno, yet is almost reviled by some people now because his dealings in his last few years at the club are still hampering us now - having paid 14m for Cisse, we can't just shrug our shoulders and say 'Oh well, he's s***, lets spend 20m on someone else'. That is precisely what they can do and it means the stakes are much higher for us when we bring people in. If Xabi and Momo hadn't worked out, for example, we'd be well up s*** creek because it would mean another part of the team is in need of urgent strengthening. Thank God we have Rafa, and his buys have generally been excellent so far, but there is a pressure facing us that simply isn't there for Chelsea. Their spending is relevant because it is like being able to buy 100 lottery tickets whilst we can only buy 1. Having said that, I am always reminding myself that we can't concern ourselves with what they do and should just concentrate on us, because I still believe that (short term at least), if we get the next set of buys right, we ARE in a position to compete on the pitch. The harder part is sustaining that long term in the face of such relentless spending.

How many has he played in the last 2? His limited appearances at Madrid weren't down to inury, admittedly, but his time there hardly provides eveidence that he is capable of putting ina full season.

He has been a better player than others being talked about, but it also isn't too hard to make a case that his best years are already behind him and that it might be time to gamble on one of those others. For all that he is 'a proven goal scorer in the Premier League', his record in the last two years is not that impressive (and yes, I know it wasn't his fault that Madrd treated him shabbily and that Robinson broke his foot, but all the same it is two years since he was consistently scoring goals at the highest level). Decent enough ratio in that time, but not enough games played. Like I said, I'm not totally against this but I worry when I hear people describing it as a 'no-brainer' when there is evdience to the contrary that merits consideration, and I worry when I hear people talk about 'bringing him home' because it suggests they have an overly nostalgic view of what playing for Liverpool means to Owen and an inflated perception of how motivated it would make him. Fowler, undoubtedly, will try harder for Liverpool than he would for any other club and will actually play above himself - that is why brigning him back was so astute. I'm not sure the same would be true of Owen, so in that sense there would be an element of risk and it wouldnlt necessarily be the 'magic solution' that some seem to think. And the notion that Gerrard or any other player should dictate Rafa's transfer policy is beyond ridiculous.