Liverpool thread 2020/21

[SilverFox2]

Well said. Supporters of other clubs need to check the facts before spouting vitriol about City. Yes, it did seem like we won the lottery at the time but what we have done since has been a great example to others. Not just turning us into a successful and self-sustaining business but the investment in Manchester and creation of jobs in what was a run-down area of the city. Liverpool have had 2 successive owners - Hicks & Gillett who drove them to within a whisker of administration, and now FSG who as you say seem to be doing what Yank owners seem to do with all their sports interests.

The problem with taking out too much of football profits is that I suspect they risk breaking the investment rules that FFP sees as deeply offensive should they change policy and invest heavily.
I think they are more likely to depend on history giving them the financial opportunity to share in CL etc..
Until then the fans will continue to celebrate "Conditional Victories" (as Prestwich B detailed) and ignore reality.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

At some point it became an undeniable footballing fact that any trophy we win has an Asterix next to it and is a hollow win because "nobody cares" and our club "has no soul". In reality it's only a fact on RAWK and they care so less that there is currently 313 pages of them telling each other that "nobody cares" in classic posts such as this one:-

" No-one gives a fuck about them winning, and no-one will remember it even if they wanted to. No-one gave a shit about their treble"

So you are unable to remember us winning the treble but you do remember nobody gave a shit-ok?!

I don't care that they don't care. And they don't care that I don't care that they don't care. Who cares?

 

[Bozzie]

Try and ignore the fact that Salah is a Liverpool player, and lets focus on the laws of the game.

You say ‘there was contact,’ and you are right. But it is clear that Salah first raises his arm to hold Dias off, preventing him from closing the gap.

If ‘contact’ is the offence, why was the correct outcome not a free kick to City?

And if ‘contact’ is not enough, why was a penalty awarded, because there is no way Dias pulled him to the ground? Do the laws of the game really say that in that situation Salah is allowed to fend Dias off, but Dias is not allowed to pull Salah’s arm out of the way?

Seems to me like those defending the penalty are trying to have their cake and eat it.

I had exactly the same conversation with my lad at the time who was, and still is, adamant it was a penalty because 'there was contact'. If attackers are allowed to fend off defenders with their arm then defenders should get the same leeway. For me, I'd change the criteria from being entitled to go down to 'could he have stayed on his feet?'. From the small comparison clips shown on here, it looks very much like Salah has overrun the ball but that might be just the viewing angle.

 

[Wretched Vengeance]

///Everything you say is true. But on the other hand I wouldn’t want my club to be owned by a sugar daddy. I never want to see my club sack Gerrard the way Chelsea sacked Lampard. It’s just not who we are.

When people talk about catching up with City, I think they don’t realize they are talking about a team that spent more than half a billion ONLY on defenders in the last 2-3 years. There is no catching up unless you get petrol money and that’s a fact. I am in no way saying they influence referees or there is match fixing, but I can say that they somehow have some influence on FIFA and UEFA. They are allowed spend money like there’s no tomorrow, either barely regulated or even if regulated they find loopholes with sponsorships and other ways that I am not clever enough to understand. Football is completely different than what it was, and it is very easy to get lost in it. We have to be careful with our spending.

Young and new supporters are more enthusiastic about stats, silverware and big names and I absolutely understand that, but I just can’t be arsed about those. I mean of course silverwares are great, but for me Liverpool is more than that. It’s just for me though, so I am not saying this is how it should be for everybody.//

//Honestly, the FSG approach is logical in any other business then football, when you compete against owners like Man City who treat their clubs as vehicles for sports washing. It's a bloody fact that absent their corrupt capital, we win in 13/14, we win in 18/19. Am I sad we did not reload when the iron was hot? Yes, but I also hate that we have to compete against that lot and their ill-gotten gains.//

You really should have made it clear from the beginning that they are not yours, but someone else's quotes.

EDIT: Sorry, mate. I see you've already addressed this :)

 

[Gingers Dad]

Although he was a bit of a knobhead he made some good points -

Dave "Klopp didn't bring a defender in early enough"
Talksport "He's playing Henderson there"
Dave " But they're losing"
Talksport " Well, Henderson is a midfielder"

Is that the same Perry Groves that played for Arsenal, he looks very different?

 

[TheThirdDeano]

I feel really sorry that Liverpool are the only people and team in the world who are suffering from the pandemic.

Poor fuckers, someone get me a wreath!

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Try and ignore the fact that Salah is a Liverpool player, and lets focus on the laws of the game.

You say ‘there was contact,’ and you are right. But it is clear that Salah first raises his arm to hold Dias off, preventing him from closing the gap.

If ‘contact’ is the offence, why was the correct outcome not a free kick to City?

And if ‘contact’ is not enough, why was a penalty awarded, because there is no way Dias pulled him to the ground? Do the laws of the game really say that in that situation Salah is allowed to fend Dias off, but Dias is not allowed to pull Salah’s arm out of the way?

Seems to me like those defending the penalty are trying to have their cake and eat it.

We can analyse the LotG till the muffins are on the table for tea, but after we have analysed every last sentence, clause, phrase, word, syllable, letter, smudge, the deciding factor in awarding the pen rests on the usual nonsense - contact (more Danny Muppet bollocks will be hard to find), hitting the ground, emulating a good shaped 'starfish' (Stevie would be proud!), perhaps a little yelp from the diver to indicate to the ref his sacred person had been assaulted, and whether the ref had stuck his Euro Millions lottery ticket behind a picture of Bill Shankly or the GPC! It's only the shame of not awarding a blatant pen that the rest of the PL ever get one. Could The Bottler really have ignored the foul on Raheem? Well, yes, 'cos we saw a blatant pen on Sergio down at Southampton a few seasons back that the panicking Corporal Jones adjudged to have been a dive.

 

[Gingers Dad]

Penalty

Dive

Anyone know who the ref is that books Aguero?

 

[stonerblue]

You’re not allowed to sing that anymore, or “Sign on...”. Apparently it’s an insult to the homeless and all those living below the poverty line and relying on foodbanks.
They’re still allowed to sing songs about Shipman being an honorary scouser and us Mancs being a town full of smackheads though. Nothing wrong with those as they’re football banter.

Fuck that.

 

[waspish]

If Salah was outside the box when Dias made that contact 100% he stays on his feet and try desperately to get in the box hoping for the same contact so he can dive!

Think that’s what referee should look at if a player tries his best to stay on his feet and not dive outside the box but inside a slight touch they go down Var should intervene and call them out for cheats divers.