Liverpool make the final...again & the Mancs don't

[pantherschampions]

extremely good game well done liverpool. morinheo or whatever his name is he really does come out with some rubbish "best team lost" haha thats total rubbish liverpool should have won in the first 90 mins

[oldman]

rob think we are fighting a loser with sunbeam either very bitter gooner, re owen cup final robbery or got selective memory, or could be just trying to rewrite history. if he is a gooner just three letters PSV should do, glad to see arsenal got the team over the last few years without spending a lot of money!

[oldman]

you may not be aware sunbeam but it is a totally different linguistic rules with emails and message forums, so you use commas instead of full stops.

i was in fact commenting on that posters need to swear rather than acceptable english.

[oldman]

shinobi when did i say cantona and shearer were not important players, just said they had good partners, take drogba out of the chelsea equation this year and there is not a lot of scorers around.

we will have to disagree about your version of football history, as i have supported liverpool since 1960 and in the second division, i know that we bought a young rush from chester, a young hanson, ian callaghan home grown, phil thompson same, got souness for not a lot , sammy lee local, joey jones wrexham and the best ones clemence and keegan from scunthorpe, later sold keegan to hamburg and bought dalglish and still made a profit, not quite the same as 25 million for a sub and also the german captain, essien, drogba, all the best west ham players, cech, how many players have chelsea bought and loaned out rather than allow anyone else get them. Duff, wright phillips, gary charles, etc .

but hey we will never agree but were you around in the 60,s

[sawchuk]

oldman said:

shinobi when did i say cantona and shearer were not important players, just said they had good partners, take drogba out of the chelsea equation this year and there is not a lot of scorers around.

we will have to disagree about your version of football history, as i have supported liverpool since 1960 and in the second division, i know that we bought a young rush from chester, a young hanson, ian callaghan home grown, phil thompson same, got souness for not a lot , sammy lee local, joey jones wrexham and the best ones clemence and keegan from scunthorpe, later sold keegan to hamburg and bought dalglish and still made a profit, not quite the same as 25 million for a sub and also the german captain, essien, drogba, all the best west ham players, cech, how many players have chelsea bought and loaned out rather than allow anyone else get them. Duff, wright phillips, gary charles, etc .

but hey we will never agree but were you around in the 60,s

My version of football history? I'd really like you to explain that one, because while I can hold a constructive logical debate, you've lost me with that quip.

Also, please for the love of God, will you formulate a sentence correctly. I'm not being rude, but it really does allow a person to follow your arguement with clarity.

Oh and by the way, Sunbeam is a Forest fan, not a Gooner.

[oldman]

sorry old chap how would you like me to formulate this sentence?

Your version of football history is to equate a team who always had a constant backroom staff and scouts either bringing on local lads or buying potentially good talent from the lower leagues.

With a team that were nowhere and suddenly overnight can buy any player they want a bit like picking your fantasy team.

I know i am biased but i cannot see how you can link these two together, when Souness got rid of the boot room and then started buying big, they were in the main rubbish panic buys, I.e. julian dicks, type of player and also roy evans with the collymore farce.

Chelsea completely turned the prem over with their sudden wealth and whichever way you look at it no russian money no title, therefore could be said they bought the title.
At the time no infrastructure no successful youth policy.

just a short list of recent players brought through the youth policy:

gerrard.
carra.
thompson.
warnock.
potter.
owen.
murphy.
mcmanamann
fowler.
phil thompson
etc

some are not still at the club but are still playing at the top

Now that is history as i see it but hey could be wrong!

[sawchuk]

oldman said:

sorry old chap how would you like me to formulate this sentence?

Your version of football history is to equate a team who always had a constant backroom staff and scouts either bringing on local lads or buying potentially good talent from the lower leagues.

With a team that were nowhere and suddenly overnight can buy any player they want a bit like picking your fantasy team.

I know i am biased but i cannot see how you can link these two together, when Souness got rid of the boot room and started buying big in the main they were rubbish panic buys, I.e. julian dicks, type of player and also roy evans with the collymore farce.

Chelsea completely turned the prem over with their sudden wealth and whichever way you look at it no russian money no title, therefore could be said they bought the title.
At the time no infrastructure no successful youth policy.

Now that is history as i see it but hey could be wrong!

So Chelsea bought two Premiership titles using Abramovich's oil money? Yeah of course that helped Mourinho, but I doubt that had the man himself not been in charge, the club wouldn't have won those titles. The entire Premiership is built on Sky money so please don't lecture us that Liverpool have got where they are without spending any.

Liverpool have spent vast sums of money & yet failed to win a league title since 1990. Naturally they aren't alone, as ManYoo have spent huge sums too ala Rooney, Ferdinand, Stam, Cole & Van Nistelrooy. Hell, in 1989 Fergie threw the cash about in a desperate attempt to win a league title (£2.5m on Pallister which at the time was a lot of cash.)

I haven't compared the current Chel$ki team with the great Liverpool sides, not once have I done that so quite where you get that absurd notion from I don't know. My original point (something that you obviously don't agree with) is that arrogance comes from winning trophies. Chelsea & Mourinho are arrogant, but given their recent success I fail to see why they can't revel in their achievements.

Like I said earlier on, the Liverpool sides that dominated the domestic & European games were arrogant, they worked hard & won. There's no difference between Liverpool doing it then & Chelsea doing it now.

As for Chelsea's youth set up, can't comment as I'm not a fan of their's, but I will say that Liverpool may have youth set up, but I rarely see these players playing for the 1st XI. Infact with the exception of Gerrard and Carragher, which player is playing for the XI?

The only youth players that have come through I recall have been Stephen Wright, Neil Mellor & Stephen Warnock, all of whom were sold.

I also recall your team buying the likes of Salif Diao, Djimi Traore, Sander Westerveld, Frode Kippe, Igor Biscan, Milan Baros, Sami Hyypia, Daniel Agger, Mark Gonzalez, Jerzy Dudek, John-Arne Riise, Vladimir Smicer, Rigobert Song, Patrik Berger, Sean Dundee, Titi Camara, Fernando Morientes, Erik Meijer, Vegard Heggem, Bjorn Tore Kvarme, Brad Friedel, El-Hadji Diouf & Fabio Aurelio to name but a few...

Some good players, but the majority, absolute poo.

*edited for typos*

[Rob #12]

sawchuk said:

oldman said:

sorry old chap how would you like me to formulate this sentence?

Your version of football history is to equate a team who always had a constant backroom staff and scouts either bringing on local lads or buying potentially good talent from the lower leagues.

With a team that were nowhere and suddenly overnight can buy any player they want a bit like picking your fantasy team.

I know i am biased but i cannot see how you can link these two together, when Souness got rid of the boot room and started buying big in the main they were rubbish panic buys, I.e. julian dicks, type of player and also roy evans with the collymore farce.

Chelsea completely turned the prem over with their sudden wealth and whichever way you look at it no russian money no title, therefore could be said they bought the title.
At the time no infrastructure no successful youth policy.

Now that is history as i see it but hey could be wrong!

So Chelsea bought two Premiership titles using Abramovich's oil money? Yeah of course that helped Mourinho, but I doubt that had the man himself not been in charge, the club wouldn't have won those titles. The entire Premiership is built on Sky money so please don't lecture us that Liverpool have got where they are without spending any.

Liverpool have spent vast sums of money & yet failed to win a league title since 1990. Naturally they aren't alone, as ManYoo have spent huge sums too ala Rooney, Ferdinand, Stam, Cole & Van Nistelrooy. Hell, in 1989 Fergie threw the cash about in a desperate attempt to win a league title (£2.5m on Pallister which at the time was a lot of cash.)

I haven't compared the current Chel$ki team with the great Liverpool sides, not once have I done that so quite where you get that absurd notion from I don't know. My original point (something that you obviously don't agree with) is that arrogance comes from winning trophies. Chelsea & Mourinho are arrogant, but given their recent success I fail to see why they can't revel in their achievements.

Like I said earlier on, the Liverpool sides that dominated the domestic & European games were arrogant, they worked hard & won. There's no difference between Liverpool doing it then & Chelsea doing it now.

As for Chelsea's youth set up, can't comment as I'm not a fan of their's, but I will say that Liverpool may have youth set up, but I rarely see these players playing for the 1st XI. Infact with the exception of Gerrard and Carragher, which player is playing for the XI?

The only youth players that have come through I recall have been Stephen Wright, Neil Mellor & Stephen Warnock, all of whom were sold.

I also recall your team buying the likes of Salif Diao, Djimi Traore, Sander Westerveld, Frode Kippe, Igor Biscan, Milan Baros, Sami Hyypia, Daniel Agger, Mark Gonzalez, Jerzy Dudek, John-Arne Riise, Vladimir Smicer, Rigobert Song, Patrik Berger, Sean Dundee, Titi Camara, Fernando Morientes, Erik Meijer, Vegard Heggem, Bjorn Tore Kvarme, Brad Friedel, El-Hadji Diouf & Fabio Aurelio to name but a few...

Some good players, but the majority, absolute poo.

*edited for typos*

I fink you two have crossed arguements. Oldman was answering the person a few pages back who suggested Liverpool bought the title success in the 70's/80's which was rubbish. It was either homegrown talent or unknown talent. Certainly no where near the scale of the Chelsea of today.

You can't argue that without the money, Chelsea would not have won what they have today. They might have done, but it wouldn't have been Mourino at the helm as he was on the verge of coming to LFC, he was first choice ahead of Benitez, but Chelsea offered him more money at the last minute. So yes, without rich man's millions, I do still think Chelsea would be challenging Tottenham for 4th/5th place.

Out of all those players you have listed (and Liverpool have still spent an enormous amout of money) how many were better or at the top of their game before they came to us? The only one I can see listed is Fernando Morientes. The rest were unknowns or prospects. Some made it, a lot didn't. This is totally different to what Chrelsea has done, buying top players at the top of their game. Cech, Ashley Cole, Makalele, Essien, Shevchenko, Lampard, Joe Cole, Ballack, Robben, Wright-Phillips.

They have bought some prospects, but again they have done this OTT, by offering contracts to nearly every bit of talent in the hope of stopping other teams from getting them. The constant throwing around of money by Chelski, is by definition, buying their way to the top. Only they have proven money only goes so far and doesn't buy you anything. Surely it's not co-incidence that the first time Chelsea get some money behind them, they actually start to win something.

I know that you aren't comparing the two teams (Liverpool and Chelsea) Shin, but others have and I just wanted to add my two peneth.

[DaveE]

newpanther said:

loonypeter said:

As long as Liverpool still finish the job in the prem and thrash Fulham and Charlton for us, i wish you the best of luck!

Don't worry, Pete. I think United are in a good position to stay up (although if my league predictor is right, Fulham will beat Liverpool 1-0 ;D)

I love being right ;D

[loonypeter]

newpanther said:

newpanther said:

Don't worry, Pete. I think United are in a good position to stay up (although if my league predictor is right, Fulham will beat Liverpool 1-0 ;D)

I love being right ;D

I hate you being right

[DaveE]

loonypeter said:

newpanther said:

I love being right ;D

I hate you being right

Ah quit yo' jibber-jabber

You know you'll end up staying up

[sunbeam]

Few things:

Obviously Liverpool's spending in the 80s was not comparable to Chelsea's today. That's because the mega-money arrived in 92 and nobody has ever spent like Chelsea. However Liverpool were consistently the biggest spenders along with Man U for many, many years.

Liverpool have spent huge sums in the last ten years. Best part of £200m at a guess and they haven't got an awful lot back in sales. I may not be a Gooner but I respect Wenger for winning 3 titles despite spending £50m net in over 10 years. And they play a style of football only Man U can match.

What Liverpool need to do next season is actually threaten to win the Prem. Now if you were to ask how many Liverpool players would make the Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea teams I'd say no more than 3 or 4.

Cech, Finnan, JT, RicCal, Cole, Essien, Gerrard, J Cole, Ballack/Robben, Drogba, Sheva.

VDS, Neville, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra/Heinze, JavMas, Gerrard, Ronaldo, Giggs, Rooney, Kuyt.

Reina, Eboue, Gallas, Toure, Clichy, JavMas, Gerrard, Fabregas, Rosicky, Henry, Van Persie.


Yeah you can argue a few spots, Carragher in particular, but the bottom-line is that Rafa will have to spend his money well this summer.

BTW I hope Liverpool win the UCL as I know how upset Man U fans will be. And Fergie!

[Doughnut]

So Liverpool spend a lot of money? So what? That's what it takes to be a top European football club these days.

Maybe I'm missing something ... I read the Forest thread and see Forest fans complaining about some of their best players being sold and/or let go at a time when they need points to go up a league. I then read this thread and see Forest fans saying they don't like Liverpool because they spend too much money. It doesn't make sense. It just looks like a load of bitter Forest fans to me. I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining if Forest bought a load of expensive players and actually started playing good football and winning things.

[pantherschampions]

doughnut said:

So Liverpool spend a lot of money? So what? That's what it takes to be a top European football club these days.

Maybe I'm missing something ... I read the Forest thread and see Forest fans complaining about some of their best players being sold and/or let go at a time when they need points to go up a league. I then read this thread and see Forest fans saying they don't like Liverpool because they spend too much money. It doesn't make sense. It just looks like a load of bitter Forest fans to me. I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining if Forest bought a load of expensive players and actually started playing good football and winning things.

shouldn't they be complaining about chelsea then because they spend a hell of a lot more thn liverpool???

[sunbeam]

doughnut said:

So Liverpool spend a lot of money? So what? That's what it takes to be a top European football club these days.

Maybe I'm missing something ... I read the Forest thread and see Forest fans complaining about some of their best players being sold and/or let go at a time when they need points to go up a league. I then read this thread and see Forest fans saying they don't like Liverpool because they spend too much money. It doesn't make sense. It just looks like a load of bitter Forest fans to me. I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining if Forest bought a load of expensive players and actually started playing good football and winning things.

Yes you are missing something. All we're saying is that Liverpool buy success just like Man U and Chelsea. Success in Europe that is; not in the Prem.

[oldman]

not sure still were your coming from sunbeam are you saying that any club would not strive to win trophies, at every level of football you try to improve your team, if you equate improving your squad bit by bit to buying success then every team would be guilty of that, except it works for just a minority.

The point being made about Chelsea is that they did not gradually improve their squad they turned the whole of the transfer market on its head in the time it took the tsar to sign the cheques.

They were able to pay large prices for established quality footballers knowing that at the time no other club had the same financial clout, (I.e. buying the league) that does not say the players did not work hard or that they have a good coach.

If the tsar had not arrived at chelsea we would not have all the foreign investors in now, the money they aquired and the power that gave them over every other club raised the bar, and because of that all the top teams had to look for a major cash injection from someone.

One thing to look at though( and quite alarming for some) is that liverpool have not started to spend the yankee dollar yet on footballers and are still in the CL final.

[Doughnut]

sunbeam said:

doughnut said:

So Liverpool spend a lot of money? So what? That's what it takes to be a top European football club these days.

Maybe I'm missing something ... I read the Forest thread and see Forest fans complaining about some of their best players being sold and/or let go at a time when they need points to go up a league. I then read this thread and see Forest fans saying they don't like Liverpool because they spend too much money. It doesn't make sense. It just looks like a load of bitter Forest fans to me. I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining if Forest bought a load of expensive players and actually started playing good football and winning things.

Yes you are missing something. All we're saying is that Liverpool buy success just like Man U and Chelsea. Success in Europe that is; not in the Prem.

By "buy success" do you mean "invest in improving the squad"? If so, then so what? I refer back to my original point - that's what's necessary to compete at the top level in football just as in any other professional sport.

Maybe you'd prefer it if Premiership football went back to the "good old days" when the players were amateurs who played for their local team with a hangover and a couple of cigarettes at half time, then went out and tried to maim the opposition because they didn't have the skill to play as well. If so, I think you're out of luck because I can't see that happening any time soon. You might get close to that watching Forest or County though.

[sunbeam]

doughnut said:

sunbeam said:

Yes you are missing something. All we're saying is that Liverpool buy success just like Man U and Chelsea. Success in Europe that is; not in the Prem.

By "buy success" do you mean "invest in improving the squad"? If so, then so what? I refer back to my original point - that's what's necessary to compete at the top level in football just as in any other professional sport.

Maybe you'd prefer it if Premiership football went back to the "good old days" when the players were amateurs who played for their local team with a hangover and a couple of cigarettes at half time, then went out and tried to maim the opposition because they didn't have the skill to play as well. If so, I think you're out of luck because I can't see that happening any time soon. You might get close to that watching Forest or County though.

Yes and I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with that. I'm just saying that they are no different to Chelsea. Too many Man U and Liverpool fans have slagged off Chelsea for 'buying success'.

Anybody would do the same if they had the money which is why I'm fed up with Chelsea being portrayed by fans and media alike as the bad guys.

[Doughnut]

sunbeam said:

Yes and I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with that. I'm just saying that they are no different to Chelsea. Too many Man U and Liverpool fans have slagged off Chelsea for 'buying success'.

Anybody would do the same if they had the money which is why I'm fed up with Chelsea being portrayed by fans and media alike as the bad guys.

Ah, I see. Well I can't say I agree with you, I do see a difference between Man U & Liverpool compared with Chelsea's overnight limitless budget. I'll not bother going into it though as it seems to have been done to death already, but if you don't see the difference, that's your choice.

Obviously I wouldn't complain if a team I was a fan of suddenly had an ambitious owner with bottomless pockets - I think I'd understand others resenting it though. Personally it's not the budget that makes me dislike Chelsea, it's the moaning and cheating - I'm thinking of Mourinho and Drogba in particular.

[dodit]

sunbeam said:

Few things:

Obviously Liverpool's spending in the 80s was not comparable to Chelsea's today. That's because the mega-money arrived in 92 and nobody has ever spent like Chelsea. However Liverpool were consistently the biggest spenders along with Man U for many, many years.

Liverpool have spent huge sums in the last ten years. Best part of £200m at a guess and they haven't got an awful lot back in sales. I may not be a Gooner but I respect Wenger for winning 3 titles despite spending £50m net in over 10 years. And they play a style of football only Man U can match.

What Liverpool need to do next season is actually threaten to win the Prem. Now if you were to ask how many Liverpool players would make the Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea teams I'd say no more than 3 or 4.

Cech, Finnan, JT, RicCal, Cole, Essien, Gerrard, J Cole, Ballack/Robben, Drogba, Sheva.

VDS, Neville, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra/Heinze, JavMas, Gerrard, Ronaldo, Giggs, Rooney, Kuyt.

Reina, Eboue, Gallas, Toure, Clichy, JavMas, Gerrard, Fabregas, Rosicky, Henry, Van Persie.


Yeah you can argue a few spots, Carragher in particular, but the bottom-line is that Rafa will have to spend his money well this summer.

BTW I hope Liverpool win the UCL as I know how upset Man U fans will be. And Fergie!

I have to disagree. Liverpool spent around 30 mill this year.
Bellamy 8.75
Pennant 7
Gonzalez 1.2
Paletta 1m
Arbeloa 2m
Agger 2m
Aurelio Free
Kuyt 11m
Mascherano 2m

Now if my calculations are correct that's only 35 mill and bearing in mind most of them are young prospets.

Arsenal have an excuse because they rely on their youngsters most games.

[sunbeam]

I'm not sure what you're dsiagreeing with Spike. What I will say is that I think Rafa will now spend more than £30m on far fewer players. BTW, my understanding is that MSI still own JavMas. Very grey area.

Bottom line - all four Champ League simi-finalists are owned by billionaires.

[oldman]

sunbeam said:

I'm not sure what you're dsiagreeing with Spike. What I will say is that I think Rafa will now spend more than £30m on far fewer players. BTW, my understanding is that MSI still own JavMas. Very grey area.

Bottom line - all four Champ League simi-finalists are owned by billionaires.

A heck of a lot of the top nfl, and nhl teams owned by billionaires as well, what is that supposed to mean in fact now it is the same billionaires,

part of the deal if we buy mas is that they cut all ties with MSI beforehand.

AS most top teams in europe with the exception of barca are owned by millionaires/billionaires odds were good for all four teams being owned by billionaires.

I do think we have now exhausted this debate you think liverpool and man unt gradually improving their squads was the same as chelsea turning the transfer market and wage demands of players on its head.

I dont but hey you are welcome to your opinion and i respect your right to voice it even if i think you are totally wrong.

stick with the panthers though hey.

[Rob #12]

sunbeam said:

BTW, my understanding is that MSI still own JavMas. Very grey area.

You are right here, this is a grey area. Some say we paid West Ham £1.5m - £2m to make his move permanent. Others say we paid £10m to MSI for Javier.

Either was he seems happy where he is and he should be a Liverpool player next year.

[Dan]

oldman said:

i call it a lack of education there are always other words you can use, or at least stick to the rules, you signed up for that, not been on this forum long but you need to realise this is not some dodgy low ability football forum ok.

These dodgy low ability football forums have a damn sight more intellect on them than the majority on here. Anyway, let's introduce you to Mr Capital Letter and Mrs Full Stop.

That's my bitchyness out the way for the day. Spike, nobody should ever say only 35 million

aspertarion said:

sunbeam said:

BTW, my understanding is that MSI still own JavMas. Very grey area.

You are right here, this is a grey area. Some say we paid West Ham £1.5m - £2m to make his move permanent. Others say we paid £10m to MSI for Javier.

Either was he seems happy where he is and he should be a Liverpool player next year.

It's certainly an odd transfer. How much did Wham pay for his services? It was about £10m wasn't it? To sell him on for just £2m suggests something is up...

[oldman]

To get back to the point without initially the need to drag up some of your dubious posts from two or three pages back, although i will refer to one comment later. You appear to be making no worthwhile contribution to this debate.

(A) It is West Ham United not and old pop group that paid for their services.

(B) The league has ratified the deal done by Liverpool, would say not such a grey area then.

(C) After 35 Million you needed Mrs Full Stop not young Master Smiley, if you want to trade semantics could be an interesting summer my friend.

(D) I would however agree about the standard on here sometimes especially the ones that get too angry and think using swearwords with blanks in them is acceptable. Cannot remember who does that though?

(E) Also sometimes not how they write it, but what they say is quite alarming, such as:
"Liverpool got us chucked out of Europe" (Upshall page 1).
Which may have been grammatically correct but factually inacurate. A group of hooligans with cockney accents wearing Liverpool Shirts does not make it the responsibility of Liverpool F.C.

(F) Factually! Hooliganism throughout the English Game got clubs thrown out of Europe. Something that sadly reappeared this year with Manchester United games and was in no way the fault of that club. ;D