Did we 'buy' titles?

[ratcatcher]

With citeh joining the chavs and filth in the big spending league, I see more and more fans of these club's say we should shut up about spending big since we 'bought' our titles back in the 70's and 80's.

 

Now I dont agree with that for one minute. LFC were never big spenders especially in the 70's and 80's. It took us years to spend a million on 1 player and hardly ever set a transfer record for player in that time.

 

The only time I think we splashed big on the team was when Dalglish bought aldo, barnes and beardo.

[Antynwa]

Not so sure, but if we do end up winning it again money would definitely have plenty to do with it

[ratcatcher]

Not so sure, but if we do end up winning it again money would definitely have plenty to do with it

 

There's no doubt we have to spend big in an effort to win it now. Not convinced we outspent all of the teams challenging for the title back in the 70's and 80's though.

[Red Banjo]

With citeh joining the chavs and filth in the big spending league, I see more and more fans of these club's say we should shut up about spending big since we 'bought' our titles back in the 70's and 80's.

 

Now I dont agree with that for one minute. LFC were never big spenders especially in the 70's and 80's. It took us years to spend a million on 1 player and hardly ever set a transfer record for player in that time.

 

The only time I think we splashed big on the team was when Dalglish bought aldo, barnes and beardo.

 

Crap. The Mancs and Notts Forest always outspent us back then. We relied on a mixture of ace local product from the bootroom, some shrewd business from Scotland and the odd big signing.

 

From my memory the only time we've ever had the spending record was when we signed Dean Saunders for £2.9m in 1990 and Stan Collymore for £8.5m in 1995. Neither brought the title to Anfield.

[drewy]

The mancs, blueshite and forest all broke the transfer record in the 70's.

[Eldrich]

We bought Dalglish with the money we got for Keegan. We bought Barnes & Beardsley with the money we got for Rush going to Italy. Beardsley was our first million pound plus player in 1987, 7 years after Trevor Francis went to Forest for a million. There were numerous big transfers in the 80's by other clubs before we spent big eg Bryan Robson 1.5 million in 1981. We only started really spending big out of our own pockets when we brought Rushie back from Italy in 1988.

[goatboy59]

Tell them to check the 77 European Cup winners.

 

Tell them to find out where each player originated.

 

Then tell them to shut their fucking mouths.

[Anubis]

We didn't. As others have said, there were other teams regularly outspending us back then. We just bought carefully. A lot of players coming to LFC were not seen as stars, but they fit well within the team system. Think of players like Nicol for instance.

[kop]

We had the money to replace when we sold good players, and we have almost always been able buy buy from the to shelf. We would never have been this successful without that ability. That doesn't matter though because it's money well earned and based on success. It's like Man U buying players; they have earned their money and are able to buy expensive in spite of their owners, not because of them. What Chelsea and City are doing is a completly different story. I have nothing against their fans, and I even feel sorry for them for going through what they do, but they haven't earned the players they buy as clubs so any success they must achieve on basis of it must taste completly different than hard earned succes.

 

We never bought our way to success, we just re-invested to maintained our success when we first eraned it.

[goatboy59]

And we got the money for Barnes Beardsley and Aldridge by turning a Chester runt into a 3m superstar.

 

We began to really flex our muscles by buying him back, and weren't successful for much longer.

 

Round the time United got back into it these were the various face-offs at the time;

 

Schmeichel or James

Bruce or Ruddock

Irwin or Dicks

Ince or Stewart

Kanchelskis or Walters

Cantona or Saunders (or Clough)

 

Then found Giggs, Beckham and Scholes.

 

Later Wenger made a 20m profit on Overmars and Anelka, and brought in Pires and Henry.

 

United built a huge stadium and while they were on top fully exploited their huge worldwide support which we should have done in the 80's, although football wasn't as fashionable as it was in the 90's.

 

City and Chelsea are fakes in comparison to the 'big 3'.

[Jokerman]

We spent just over £9m net between the appointment of Shankly and the resignation of King Kenny. Our first £1m+ signing was John Barnes (EDIT: It was actually Peter Beardsley, Barnes cost £900,000), from Watford in 1987, nearly a decade after the first £1m+ transfer in Britain. During that time period, we never broke the British record transfer fee* whilst Man. Utd. broke it twice, and have broken it a further three times since 1991. Also in that period, we did sell players for a record fee twice (Rush & Keegan.)

 

The only big money signings we made really where the three you mentioned; Dalglish, Beardsley & Barnes, plus the re-signing of Ian Rush. We bought Rush back for £1m or so less than we sold him, and in the case of Dalglish, he was a direct replacement for Keegan, and we made a profit between the two deals.

 

At the time we bought Dalglish, for £440,000, the world record transfer fee was £1.75m, and at the time we bought Beardsley & Barnes, it was £6m. So I think it's fair to say that we definitely didn't 'buy' titles.

 

*Progression of British football transfer fee record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited July 18, 2009 by Jokerman

[Flying Pig]

We had the money to replace when we sold good players, and we have almost always been able buy buy from the to shelf. We would never have been this successful without that ability. That doesn't matter though because it's money well earned and based on success. It's like Man U buying players; they have earned their money and are able to buy expensive in spite of their owners, not because of them. What Chelsea and City are doing is a completly different story. I have nothing against their fans, and I even feel sorry for them for going through what they do, but they haven't earned the players they buy as clubs so any success they must achieve on basis of it must taste completly different than hard earned succes.

 

We never bought our way to success, we just re-invested to maintained our success when we first eraned it.

 

 

Correct, it was money earned through success.

[Red Nick]

We did break the Transfer record on numerous occaisions but probably will never do it again, Dalglish, Lawrenson, Beardsley, Saunders and Collymore sping to mind.

 

The difference was we didnt spend what we didnt earn.

[goatboy59]

Not Lawrenson, there were already 1m plus transfers by then.

 

Collymore was a strange one, certainly it wasn't paid for with European money and we'd just had to rebuild the Kop after Souness' transfers nearly all turned to shite.

 

Another secret donation from Moores?

[kelster]

Crap. The Mancs and Notts Forest always outspent us back then. We relied on a mixture of ace local product from the bootroom, some shrewd business from Scotland and the odd big signing.

 

From my memory the only time we've ever had the spending record was when we signed Dean Saunders for £2.9m in 1990 and Stan Collymore for £8.5m in 1995. Neither brought the title to Anfield.

 

I think Kenny Dalglish was a record transfer between British clubs when we got him, although that was off the back of the half-million we got for Keegan.

 

We've never been afraid to spend the money we had.

[Joe Le Taxi]

I was speaking to a mate who is a Notts. Forest fan. He said that teams like Liverpool buy success. I said so did Man Utd, his response: "Man Utd are not a team to spend big. Look at Liverpool lately. They spent 26 million on Torres, 15 million on Babel, 16 million on Cisse and 10 million on Agger. Man Utd however don't spend big and when they do they have always been a success. They spent 17 million on Johnson as well and look who Man Utd have bought this season, Obertan for 4 million and a world class winger in Valencia."

 

I only just stopped laughing.

[King Emlyn]

Not Lawrenson, there were already 1m plus transfers by then.

 

Collymore was a strange one, certainly it wasn't paid for with European money and we'd just had to rebuild the Kop after Souness' transfers nearly all turned to shite.

 

Another secret donation from Moores?

I think Lawrenson was a record transfer for a defender but i could be wrong, i'm sure he was 900,000 and not a million but again i may well be wrong.

[havarantagain]

Correct, it was money earned through success.

Simply put, but you missed this bit off: Not success earned by money.

Which sums up were football has gone with all the tv revenues and billionaire donors.

It allows mediocre managers look world class, though it wont work for Hughes.

Thankfully, our history was earned not bought.

[dirty_sanchez]

I was speaking to a mate who is a Notts. Forest fan. He said that teams like Liverpool buy success. I said so did Man Utd, his response: "Man Utd are not a team to spend big. Look at Liverpool lately. They spent 26 million on Torres, 15 million on Babel, 16 million on Cisse and 10 million on Agger. Man Utd however don't spend big and when they do they have always been a success. They spent 17 million on Johnson as well and look who Man Utd have bought this season, Obertan for 4 million and a world class winger in Valencia."

 

I only just stopped laughing.

 

That's so utterly made of fail, it's hard to know where to begin. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there isn't a single thing about it which is correct.

[Barnesey]

It is generally accepted, however, that we paid the highest wages in the late 70s and 80s and attracted the best because of it (and a decent chance of a medal here and there)

[silverlining]

 

From my memory the only time we've ever had the spending record was when we signed Dean Saunders for £2.9m in 1990 and Stan Collymore for £8.5m in 1995. Neither brought the title to Anfield.

 

 

Kenny Dalglish was a record transfer at £440,000

 

Peter Beardsley was a record transfer fee at £1.9m

 

Ian Rush was a record transfer for a teenager (as was Wayne Harrison) and also when he returned from Juve.

 

We broke several British Record tranfer fees for certain positions (Kirkland, Babb, Scales)

[Bob]

I have had this argument once before but it related to our much older past.

 

The very first side we put together after everton left anfield was basically players bought in, mostly from scotland if i remember correctly. They went on to found an initial success well before Shanks ever arrived here.

 

I cant remember all the ins and outs, and the figures spent were obviously paltry compared to what we think of now, but it was a fairly well constructed argument, even if i cant remember whether i eventually agreed or not.

[ratcatcher]

I was speaking to a mate who is a Notts. Forest fan. He said that teams like Liverpool buy success. I said so did Man Utd, his response: "Man Utd are not a team to spend big. Look at Liverpool lately. They spent 26 million on Torres, 15 million on Babel, 16 million on Cisse and 10 million on Agger. Man Utd however don't spend big and when they do they have always been a success. They spent 17 million on Johnson as well and look who Man Utd have bought this season, Obertan for 4 million and a world class winger in Valencia."

 

I only just stopped laughing.

 

Well if he said that he's obviously a closet filth fan! All the figures quoted there are inflated. OK Torres cost £25m but we sold Atletico Garcia for £5m as part of that deal.

 

Filth dont spend big? Hmm Birtles, Macari, Buchan, Pearce (fat get!), Robson, Wilkins, HorseFace, Veron, Roone Loon etc. I could go on.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Torres was £18m. The Yank cunts overinflated the fee to make them look better.

 

That aside, this thread is an excellent read. As someone who didn't exist in the 70s and only appeared half way through the 80s and wouldn't remember it at all, it's a fascinating history lesson.

[sammya]

We spent just over £9m net between the appointment of Shankly and the resignation of King Kenny. Our first £1m+ signing was John Barnes (EDIT: It was actually Peter Beardsley, Barnes cost £900,000), from Watford in 1987, nearly a decade after the first £1m+ transfer in Britain. During that time period, we never broke the British record transfer fee* whilst Man. Utd. broke it twice, and have broken it a further three times since 1991. Also in that period, we did sell players for a record fee twice (Rush & Keegan.)

 

The only big money signings we made really where the three you mentioned; Dalglish, Beardsley & Barnes, plus the re-signing of Ian Rush. We bought Rush back for £1m or so less than we sold him, and in the case of Dalglish, he was a direct replacement for Keegan, and we made a profit between the two deals.

 

At the time we bought Dalglish, for £440,000, the world record transfer fee was £1.75m, and at the time we bought Beardsley & Barnes, it was £6m. So I think it's fair to say that we definitely didn't 'buy' titles.

 

*Progression of British football transfer fee record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Remember Lentini going for 13mil. Everyone thought the world was gonna end. He was gash for Milan eh