Manchester_lalala
Well-Known Member
If anyone's feeling a bit sad one day, take a time out and read this post above. What a time to be a blue. You can feel the pain.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Liverpool thread
- Thread starter Martyn
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If anyone's feeling a bit sad one day, take a time out and read this post above. What a time to be a blue. You can feel the pain.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
LOL. Says the fan of a club whose main sponsor is the world's biggest money launderer, having handled the money of Iran (contrary to sanctions imposed), drug lords and terrorists and whose second sponsor is the state airline of a country that has murdered over a million people and been responsible for repression and torture far, far worse than anything the UAE may have done. Wonder if he was so vocal about that?Hey Red Whopper - remind us all who Liverpool's 2nd biggest sponsor is you fucking sanctimonious ****.....
"There should be an anti man city agenda. They're owned by really terrible people, who ruin hundreds of thousands of lives, run a medievalist fundamentalist state, torture dissidents, run an economy on indentured servants, and brutal repression. But because they splashed a bit of cash on Sergio Aguero, everyone thinks that they're great lads altogether."
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
LOL. Says the fan of a club whose main sponsor is the world's biggest money launderer, having handled the money of Iran (contrary to sanctions imposed), drug lords and terrorists and whose second sponsor is the state airline of a country that has murdered over a million people and been responsible for repression and torture far, far worse than anything the UAE may have done. Wonder if he was so vocal about that?
Didn't know El Al sponsored Liverpool.
*dons tin hat*
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Seems we are being criticised for ruining football.
Suppose it depends how you define ''Football''.
I think we ought to plead guilty to ruining the way how they wanted the future to happen. They wanted it to stay the same as the past which frankly we have demolished. We have systematically set about upsetting the ''barrier to entry'' that FFP presented which has upset their owner who bought them based on FFP being imposed.
If they say they can no longer compete because we have taken away their historical right then perhaps they should ask their owner to invest (like our owner) rather than expect a cartel to preserve his share of profits.
Suppose it depends how you define ''Football''.
I think we ought to plead guilty to ruining the way how they wanted the future to happen. They wanted it to stay the same as the past which frankly we have demolished. We have systematically set about upsetting the ''barrier to entry'' that FFP presented which has upset their owner who bought them based on FFP being imposed.
If they say they can no longer compete because we have taken away their historical right then perhaps they should ask their owner to invest (like our owner) rather than expect a cartel to preserve his share of profits.
Matty
Well-Known Member
The bitching and moaning that you get on RAWK about our spending, and how it's unfair, shows a stunning lack of understanding about where their club used to sit in English football's hierarchy, and why. Strange given their obsession with all things historic. Liverpool, in the pre Premier League days, and realistically for the first decade of the Premier League, were one of the wealthiest clubs in England. Before Chelsea and City were taken over you had United, Arsenal and Liverpool at the top of English football, with the occasional interruption from Newcastle and Blackburn. They had the most money around, they spend the most money on players, and they were more than happy to do so. Where they fell down was they procrastinated, they settled, they rested on their laurels, they became complacent. They didn't see the potential for commercial growth, they didn't address the stadium issues, the lack of corporate facilities. They were In the ideal position to secure their "top table" future, however they assumed they were always going to be ok, and allowed the likes of Chelsea and City to have the opportunity to leapfrog over them. With the level of investment Abramovich and ADUG have made Chelsea and City were always going to challenge the established clubs, but why was it Liverpool and not United, or Arsenal, that were so easily brushed aside? Why is it Liverpool, and not United or Arsenal, that have failed to win a single Premier League title? Poor running of the club by those in charge off the field, and by those in charge on the field.
Liverpool had the game rigged, they ran roughshod over most other sides, spending what they wanted, buying who they wanted, and were happy to do so. Now they find themselves on the other side of the equation and they're not happy, suddenly the spending is obscene, it should be outlawed, and they want a return to the days when it wasn't possible. No, they don't. They want a return to the days when it was ONLY possible for Liverpool, United and Arsenal to spend big. They're just not brave enough to say so, so they try and hide it behind a false sense of what's "good for the game". The semantic argument that where your money comes from is far more important than the ability to spend the money is a set of morals they've shoehorned into the argument so they can view a future utopia where Liverpool can still outspend people and feel morally superior, and City can't outspend people. It's self serving bullshit.
Liverpool had the game rigged, they ran roughshod over most other sides, spending what they wanted, buying who they wanted, and were happy to do so. Now they find themselves on the other side of the equation and they're not happy, suddenly the spending is obscene, it should be outlawed, and they want a return to the days when it wasn't possible. No, they don't. They want a return to the days when it was ONLY possible for Liverpool, United and Arsenal to spend big. They're just not brave enough to say so, so they try and hide it behind a false sense of what's "good for the game". The semantic argument that where your money comes from is far more important than the ability to spend the money is a set of morals they've shoehorned into the argument so they can view a future utopia where Liverpool can still outspend people and feel morally superior, and City can't outspend people. It's self serving bullshit.
The bitching and moaning that you get on RAWK about our spending, and how it's unfair, shows a stunning lack of understanding about where their club used to sit in English football's hierarchy, and why. Strange given their obsession with all things historic. Liverpool, in the pre Premier League days, and realistically for the first decade of the Premier League, were one of the wealthiest clubs in England. Before Chelsea and City were taken over you had United, Arsenal and Liverpool at the top of English football, with the occasional interruption from Newcastle and Blackburn. They had the most money around, they spend the most money on players, and they were more than happy to do so. Where they fell down was they procrastinated, they settled, they rested on their laurels, they became complacent. They didn't see the potential for commercial growth, they didn't address the stadium issues, the lack of corporate facilities. They were In the ideal position to secure their "top table" future, however they assumed they were always going to be ok, and allowed the likes of Chelsea and City to have the opportunity to leapfrog over them. With the level of investment Abramovich and ADUG have made Chelsea and City were always going to challenge the established clubs, but why was it Liverpool and not United, or Arsenal, that were so easily brushed aside? Why is it Liverpool, and not United or Arsenal, that have failed to win a single Premier League title? Poor running of the club by those in charge off the field, and by those in charge on the field.
Liverpool had the game rigged, they ran roughshod over most other sides, spending what they wanted, buying who they wanted, and were happy to do so. Now they find themselves on the other side of the equation and they're not happy, suddenly the spending is obscene, it should be outlawed, and they want a return to the days when it wasn't possible. No, they don't. They want a return to the days when it was ONLY possible for Liverpool, United and Arsenal to spend big. They're just not brave enough to say so, so they try and hide it behind a false sense of what's "good for the game". The semantic argument that where your money comes from is far more important than the ability to spend the money is a set of morals they've shoehorned into the argument so they can view a future utopia where Liverpool can still outspend people and feel morally superior, and City can't outspend people. It's self serving bullshit.
Great post fella.
Seeing how they like 'istree so much you think they'd know that to get to the position they were in the 1970's/80's, winning leage titles and European cups took a sugar daddy owner to use his own cash... not 'earned' cash... and bought top class players for high fees... they were in the second tier of English football when they started this splurge too!
Absolutely no different to us today, in fact worse imo. Shankly even admits in his autobiography that Liverpool bought some players just so other teams couldn't have them – the club banned his book from sale in their club shop!
It's incredible how they manage to continue spinning the 'we're a big club' myth given that they've had one finish inside the top 5 in the last six years. The league tables would indicate that they're on a par, if not one step behind, Spurs at the moment and have bern for several years. However, all is not quite as gloomy as it may first appear - they've got Jordan Ibe and he's better than.....well everyone!
It's incredible how they manage to continue spinning the 'we're a big club' myth given that they've had one finish inside the top 5 in the last six years. The league tables would indicate that they're on a par, if not one step behind, Spurs at the moment and have bern for several years. However, all is not quite as gloomy as it may first appear - they've got Jordan Ibe and he's better than.....well everyone!
Ah yeah, Jordan Ibe, true Scouser, born and bred in... Bermondsey, South London!
Gotta laugh, they bang on about him as though he's been at their academy since he was a foetus – he was 15/16 when they bought him from Wycombe - and he'd already made a senior debut for them!
M
M
mat
Guest
Liverpool - A former European Giant who will be remembered as the British Borrusia Monchengladbach.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Liverpool - A former European Giant who will be remembered as the British Borrusia Monchengladbach.
Except Gladbach are in the Champions League this year. The British Parma would be better.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.