Since I hav been on bluemoon, I hav never mentioned money. I hav always stuck to non controversial stuff and left a lot of the bile alone. Bit like if I was in the home end of an away ground. If you are a guest, you take whats what. Lack of Self awareness and entitlement is what you want.
Lookit, by and large, you seem a decent enough lad. I'm sorry if some of the language I used was out of order (actually, not if, it was - sorry, again) but it's nonsense to suggest that the timing of the Littlewood's original investment and final withdrawal chiming perfectly with Liverpool's rise and eventual demise is coincidental.
If Shankly could freely admit it how much of a game-changer the Littlewood's money was, I don't know why Liverpool fans - all of whom seem to strike their breast in reverie at the mere mention of his name - can't take his word for it.
There's a reason why, for instance, Ian Rush turned down City (who, if you're not old enough to remember, in the grand scheme of things, would have been placed say, where Spurs are today - but having had success at home and abroad too, in recent memory at that time) and went to Liverpool. He may well have had his bedroom papered in posters of Anfield greats, as the story goes now but, at the time, nobody had any compulsions about admitting that City couldn't live with the money Liverpool were offering for a player from the lower divisions. (Not one if Swales better decisions admittedly - and please don't ask whom he did spunk money on. It's quite painful).
Similarly, Paul Lake was being strongly linked with a £1m move (huge money for a kid, at that time) to Anfield before his injury. A year later, whilst he hadn't even kicked a ball, Liverpool were reportedly offering double that. I know 2m sounds like chicken feed today but, believe me, very few clubs were in a position to resist that kind of money, back then. So, please don't tell me what I lived through and saw with my own eyes. Liverpool were a huge financial force throughout their successful reign. Ironically, their own greed in setting up the Big 5 Deal with ITV allowed other clubs (albeit only the other four of the five who shared half of all TV revenue between them) compete with them - then Sky came in, needed a Man Utd winning team to ensure reward on Murdoch's investment - and Liverpool have never been quite the same force since.
Now, City (and Chelsea) are rolling in it and Liverpool, despite playing at their best level in a long time probably (!) won't be able to sustain a challenge because there'll have to be more mega-sales out of the club to keep up and nobody is lucky in the development of players and dabbling in the bargain bin of the transfer market all the time (ask Southampton).