• This website uses cookies. More information.
  • The This Is Anfield Forums community is moving to a new home. Click here for more information on the transition.

amazingly.....

RedSeven

On the one road
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
5,963
@FreakLFC @DEVGRU
come on lads, cut the crap, dont have a dig at each other. respect each others view. If you disagree you can do it in a subtle manner.


I agree. I would have certainly gone for AVB. Well shame people never considered Rafa. Infact it was surprise rogers got the job.
It's not that i'm having a go at BR.I'm just pointing out that before he signed up he had very,very little support and going by the poll thread(from what i remember)not too many were unhappy when he distanced himself from the job early on,a good number were relieved,so i'd imagine he wasn't even most peoples 2nd or 3rd choice.
Once he got the job his support grew,as you would expect,we all support our manager,but a good number of supporters suddenly knew he was the best manager for the job.Why didn't they express this feeling before he signed up,it's not like they wouldn't have heard of him or seen the work he done with Swansea.
Personally i wouldn't have gone for AVB either,just my own preference.
 

Mascot88

Bootroom Member
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
24,404
The main thing to remember about the poll was that it was set up after Rodgers had ruled himself out, so that will have skewed things.

For me it was always

Rafa > Klopp > Rodgers > AVB.

Perhaps still front of mind was the way his Swansea side, over the course of two games, made us look stupid.
 

DEVGRU

Banned for the umpteenth time
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
10,012
I wonder if the owners felt he was someone well worth looking/speaking to after he said No in the first place. Not that I am a big fan of Martinez or his chairman but you always felt the owners wanted someone to come in with no ties to the club and a fresh perspective.
 

FreakLFC

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
318
They just wanted a cheap option that would make mediocre purchases. There are lots and lots and lots of Managers out there better. Just saying. Its true.
 

DEVGRU

Banned for the umpteenth time
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
10,012
They just wanted a cheap option that would make mediocre purchases. There are lots and lots and lots of Managers out there better. Just saying. Its true.
So, sensible spending is now considered "a cheap option?"
 

FreakLFC

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
318
Yeah a coach who only has imaginary potential and not realistically proven with a back room staff with less experience will cost less than a few experienced ones out there.
 

DEVGRU

Banned for the umpteenth time
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
10,012
Yeah a coach who only has imaginary potential and not realistically proven with a back room staff with less experience will cost less than a few experienced ones out there.
Imaginary potential? I thought you just said you liked Brendan Rodgers. Now you state he lacks experince, is not realistic, not proven and has an inexperinced back room staff, whom, I assume you are stating have no experince.

I mean, why don't you just take over Ian Ayre's job since you think everything is so easy.

I am totally ignoring this guy if you can see. Hes constantly bringing up India and its citizens for I dont know why. Peace please. Peace.
YNWA
These personal digs are not going to help your cause. Stick to the topic please sahib.

thanks.
 

Attachments

RedBaron

Curse you RedBaron!!!!
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Messages
2,456
So, sensible spending is now considered "a cheap option?"
I think QPR is a decent analogy. They have a very small stadium, a small loyal fan base, an owner who understands Sporting Business (F1) and a proven manager.
He could have added 2 or 3 class players. Instead he basically got rid of most of the team that got them in the PL, and replaced them with players on the way down (except possibly Granero) but were relatively cheap (probably high wages). He thought he added quality to the whole squad rather than improving specific areas.
Look where QPR in the league. We had a really good nucleus of players, we needed to add some top players to improve. Instead we got rid of half the club, paid £11m for Borini who may come good, £15m for Allen, who is good, and a half decent looking winger. Look where we are in the table.
Manure have consistency, because they have a good squad and occasionally add the odd really classy player, likeKagawa and van Persie. Yes they owe millions, but as a club they are worth over a billion, more than what they owe.
No one ever said a successful club is a well run club that makes money, look at Blackpool and Stoke. The clubs that win things are the chelski, manure and city's.
We have the wrong strategy, because if by the time our youngsters make it and have "Re-sale" ( I hate that phrase) value, it will be time to sell them to make a profit.
Do you want a profit or have success?
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
Do you want a profit or have success?
See this is where a lot of people get confused with what success actually is, as a modern day football fan. I agree with you completely with the total dismantling of a team to rebuild in each and every season. If a club aim to clear out and restart, they need to spend crazy money, then and only then they might see results on the pitch in a couple of years time. The owners supposedly splash money to buy players, one season later they expect miracles.

Chelsea spent big 2 seasons in a row for them to win the league, and they weren't really a mid-table team at that time. Man City spent 2 seasons in a row to get them into Champs League and 3 seasons to win the league. By spending I don't mean 24mil net, or 35mil net. By spending I mean, 60-70mil net.

Now Rodgers were brought in and asked not to spend too much money, while clearing out the old stock. Now they make the manager buys "potential", young kids with low fee and higher chance of not losing money. That made the team suffer from lack of depth in the playing squad.

So to some success = profit, that is a business fan, not a football fan in my book.
 

denos666

TIA First Team
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
3,673
thank god the amnesty happened. I was worried the people who were banned previously for being tossers would revert back to type again. oh wait...
 

DEVGRU

Banned for the umpteenth time
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
10,012
Now Rodgers were brought in and asked not to spend too much money, while clearing out the old stock. Now they make the manager buys "potential", young kids with low fee and higher chance of not losing money. That made the team suffer from lack of depth in the playing squad.

So to some success = profit, that is a business fan, not a football fan in my book.
I just wonder if this will work in the long term..and if there was any hope of working, how long before we actually have a side that can challenge for the title consistently.
 

lancashirelad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
835


Whoever the two of you who are bickering ( my apologies I'm new here) just remember this, we are all one family, and our differences are not really important in the long term and life is too short
 

Toby

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
381
See this is where a lot of people get confused with what success actually is, as a modern day football fan. I agree with you completely with the total dismantling of a team to rebuild in each and every season. If a club aim to clear out and restart, they need to spend crazy money, then and only then they might see results on the pitch in a couple of years time. The owners supposedly splash money to buy players, one season later they expect miracles.

Chelsea spent big 2 seasons in a row for them to win the league, and they weren't really a mid-table team at that time. Man City spent 2 seasons in a row to get them into Champs League and 3 seasons to win the league. By spending I don't mean 24mil net, or 35mil net. By spending I mean, 60-70mil net.

Now Rodgers were brought in and asked not to spend too much money, while clearing out the old stock. Now they make the manager buys "potential", young kids with low fee and higher chance of not losing money. That made the team suffer from lack of depth in the playing squad.

So to some success = profit, that is a business fan, not a football fan in my book.
The sheik bought ManCity for 170 million quid. FSG bought Liverpool for 300 million quid. At the time the sheik bought ManCity the club didn't have the wages of LFC. While both clubs are in the Premiership, they are not the same financially. And that is the root problem with some fans not recognizing this vital fact. Keep in mind the sheik didn't face FFP as FSG have at the beginning of their ownership. Nor did the sheik have to face a ownership group of 20, he spent what he chose.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
The sheik bought ManCity for 170 million quid. FSG bought Liverpool for 300 million quid. At the time the sheik bought ManCity the club didn't have the wages of LFC. While both clubs are in the Premiership, they are not the same financially. And that is the root problem with some fans not recognizing this vital fact. Keep in mind the sheik didn't face FFP as FSG have at the beginning of their ownership. Nor did the sheik have to face a ownership group of 20, he spent what he chose.
FFP? What FFP that they are facing? The Sheikh to date has invested more than half a billion quid on top of 170mil that you mentioned. Now that would give them 670mil give and take. And do bear in mind that they have not sold their prized possession for some hefty fees, they would even go as far as keeping them till they find a way to offload them while paying half the player's salary - Adebayor. So however you want to deflect from our current style, which is as close to farming players as you can get apart form Arsenal. Lacking squad depth saw Arsenal from a serious contender to trying to keep up the pace.

The last bit.... Boy, please. You think Sheikh Mansour's job is far easier than Henry's? I guess you have never dealt with the Emirs.
 

TFC

TIA Squad Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
7,464
And do bear in mind that they have not sold their prized possession for some hefty fees, they would even go as far as keeping them till they find a way to offload them while paying half the player's salary - Adebayor.
Sorry but thats just out there man. One could easily just say Aquilini in response to that.

Abedayor wasn't a 'prized possession' that they held onto.
 

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,750
You misread it TFC. Eddie sad they have not sold their prize possession (ie recouping 50M or something). In fact they are so rich can keep unhappy players (eg Tevez) letting them rot, or pay half their wages elsewhere eg Abedayor at Spurs

Statement more to do with money, than talent
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
Sorry but thats just out there man. One could easily just say Aquilini in response to that.

Abedayor wasn't a 'prized possession' that they held onto.
Wait a minute. Aquilani? We loan him out, Adebayor, they sold him off and still pay his wages for him. See the difference?

Oh while we are on the subject, I did not say Adebayor was their prized possession, in fact a 24mil striker is just a 24mil striker for them, not really a prized possession that they felt the need to hold on to. See the difference again? I can guarantee you if someone were to come in to try and buy Silva and Aguero from them for 50mil, what do you think they would say? Imagine if someone were to come in for Suarez with that amount, what do you think our boys in the hood would say?

Out there, really?
 

1988greatestteam

Wishing for number 6
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
545
Amazingly this Rafa to Chelski thing is gathering momentum....argh no please dont please dont Rafa, dont associate yourself with the plastic flag waving posh boy no history club...you will get the sack anyway when the other fella is off his hols....
 

TFC

TIA Squad Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
7,464
Wait a minute. Aquilani? We loan him out, Adebayor, they sold him off and still pay his wages for him. See the difference?

Oh while we are on the subject, I did not say Adebayor was their prized possession, in fact a 24mil striker is just a 24mil striker for them, not really a prized possession that they felt the need to hold on to. See the difference again? I can guarantee you if someone were to come in to try and buy Silva and Aguero from them for 50mil, what do you think they would say? Imagine if someone were to come in for Suarez with that amount, what do you think our boys in the hood would say?

Out there, really?
We loaned out Aqua.
They loaned out Abedayor.

We sold him off and had to pay most of his wages.
They sold him off and have to pay most of his wages.

Abedayor was a 24 mp striker who they didn't feel they need to hold onto.
Aquilini was an 18 mp midfielder who we didn't feel we need to hold onto.

There is very little difference, except that neither was a prized asset.

As for Torres - In hindsight that was only a bad move because Carroll turned out to be shit. Torres wasn't a prized asset any longer. There also is something that you fail to realize - if the money isn't being spent by the owners, why would you think that they are directly making decisions like that? They don't have anything to gain from selling him since they aren't taking money out of the club, so its rather naive to think that decision was theirs. Either way Torres wasn't the same Torres we fell in love with, he was a 25mp player someone offered us 50mp for.

You did say the same thing your saying about Suarez now about Agger in August by the way. Oh those dirty owners are going to make us sell him! When the owners start taking money out of the club to line their pockets I'll start believing that, until that happens its very odd to think that they are making football decisions like that.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
As for Torres - In hindsight that was only a bad move because Carroll turned out to be shit. Torres wasn't a prized asset any longer. There also is something that you fail to realize - if the money isn't being spent by the owners, why would you think that they are directly making decisions like that? They don't have anything to gain from selling him since they aren't taking money out of the club, so its rather naive to think that decision was theirs. Either way Torres wasn't the same Torres we fell in love with, he was a 25mp player someone offered us 50mp for.
Sell Torres to buy Carroll, turn out to be shit or not is besides the point. He wasn't prized asset? He scored most of our goals before he left. It is only in the eyes of some fans who wants Lucas type of player in a striker that thinks he is not a prized asset. Who did Man City sell for them to buy players like Aguero, Dzeko and well those crazy lot?

They came into the club at a time where they need to be very careful with how the deal with money. Having seen what was done by Hicks and Gillett, so happened they also are from the same part of the world, skeptical fans are watching. Unlike Hicks and Gillett, they did not try coming in and sell themselves like a used car salesmen. So if you imagine we sell Torres and Babel. And at the same time, we only bought Suarez. What do you think is going to happen? Pitchforks will be out again. That is a calculated move which involves the money made out of the sale of Torres - Our Prized Asset.

Look, we don't have a great owner. We have a group of people who wants to keep the ship afloat while waiting for it to set sail into Champs League football, and that is where the money is. We don't have drunkard sailors as our owners, who spent for the sake of it. We do have a group of people who wants to be prudent, with the CLUB's money, essentially they are the owners and while we fans are their - Customers.

They did not sell Agger because the offer is not concrete enough, numbers did not meet. If City were to come on and put the money we asked for, like what Chelsea did, Agger would have been force out and guess what? Our PR crew will do the same as they did to Meireles and Torres - "he put in his transfer request at the last minute, there is nothing we could do".

As for football decisions, they are making a lot of odd ones. We just chose not to see it.... or rather some chose not to see it.
 

TFC

TIA Squad Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
7,464
Sorry my mistake. You are right, all the poor footballing decisions are made by the owners, while the good ones are made by the managers. Its all very clear.
 

Wathik_LFC

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
776
Man city also had to spend big on players as their club doesn't have the prestige and lure that clubs like Liverpool has. I think the owners at city have done a fantastic job. They have invested heavily and have shown faith to the manager. They have also started to act more financially responsible now that they are set up. They could've easily gotten RVP but they didn't think it was value for $.

Put it this way. If they bought us and bought the same players as aguero, tevez, silva, toure would any of you be objecting right now? If we won EPL last year on goal difference against man united, would u not want that?

Back to reality. Liverpool has a history and tradition with a huge fanbase. All FSG has done was promote and tap into a market they had experience in. They didn't take Liverpool to the next level, we've always been there.

It's simple to be successful at a club like Liverpool, even hicks and Gillette got us a CL trophy and they were buffoons.

A heavy investment is needed to kick start. Without having to relly on player sales, talking about investing for a cpl transfer window till we have a squad with quality depth then you can start to place a wage structure based on the success.

If you are going to half ass invest each window and also work with player sales then you will end up spending more money in the long run and it will also slow down the players value from increasing.

Not saying FSG have half ass invested since they got hear but last years summer window hurt us, also losing the vision of our previous manager before he could complete it and bringing a new manager with his own style and players also slows success down farther.

Sometimes I feel that people don't realize how big Liverpool FC is and the power it holds. Yes we were very close to admin but we had more than 1 buyer who wanted us, I don't believe for a second we would've gone into Admin. It went down to the wire but that's business. Drag things out to get the best price possible.

FSG knows how powerful Liverpool FC is. They know the name has a global reach.

Infact FSG knew nothing of football yet they still knew the true value of Liverpool FC and its massive potential. It's like someone asking you if you wanted to buy the Yankees and knew nothing of baseball, you still know who Yankees are.


Think about that, they were willing to invest that massive money even though they knew nothing of football but they do know the value of a company and could see that LFC is already one of the greatest football institution of the biggest sport in the world.

We will always find success on the pitch even if it might take us a few years. We just need an owner who understands the tradition and smoothes out the edges. We won't accept owners who look at us as just cash cows, ask our previous owners.

FSG have done some great work and have messed up in some parts too. They can still make us successful lets hope they do indeed want trophies cause we won't put up with an Arsenal mentality.

The quicker the manager can get the players he wants to play the way he wants the quicker success and value come and it will also keep us on par with other teams who are investing and improving each window

Players like Suarez, Sterling, Torres, Alonso etc choose Liverpool cause of our history, imagine if we could compete with the elite clubs financially, we would be unstoppable
 

HarryFloyd

TIA First Team
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
2,751
Sorry my mistake. You are right, all the poor footballing decisions are made by the owners, while the good ones are made by the managers. Its all very clear.
Sorry, did not realise that piss poor decision making by FSG was all because of the mistakes made by Kenny and Comolli.

I suppose apologies are in order.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
Sorry my mistake. You are right, all the poor footballing decisions are made by the owners, while the good ones are made by the managers. Its all very clear.
Didn't realise we are counting mistakes by each party.