18- 19

[Reacher]

 

And we're back into the stadium debate again. :sleep:

 

Arsenal can compete with the mancs with a 60k stadium, Chelsea can compete with less again.

 

The stadium capacity has nothing to do with it. Bad management throughout the club, is what made us lose what we have. When changes were needed, they were denied and/or delayed. It started with Souness, it continued through Moores, all the way to last year.

 

Expectation wise, treating 4th place as a "successful" season, instead of 1st didn't, and doesn't help. Repeatedly prioritising one trophy over another, and then ending up winning nothing, bred a culture where it was considered "ok" not to be successful, if there wasn't enough cash/prestige to justify it. We still haven't played at the new Wembley yet, where it seems nearly every tinpot professional club has.

 

What we need is a change of management, and a change of culture where First is First, second is failure. We've got the change of management, but it will take a while before the culture will change. The ambition is still perceived as "we must be Top 4". But we need to aim higher than that. This is Liverpool FC and we're a football club, not a bank. Our first priority is to win. When we win, we can count up the balance sheets later.

 

I understand your point and it is correct, we need "First is First, second is failure." But to say an increased capacity to compete with Utd's isn't important is ludicrous.

[G Richards]

there are three reasons why Man Utd have won 11/12 unanswered titles since our last one:

 

1. World Class manager (don't like him, but the likes of Fergie comes along once every few generations and if he is not the best manager of all time then he is certainly one of the best. His sheer will to win allied with longevity has got them where they are today).

 

2. Commercial acumen (they have exploited the monied era better than others, growing the stadium and generating various global revenue streams).

 

3. Great players (they have had more than their share of great players over the years. the nucleus of home grown players that came along at the same time set them up too. Obviously they haven't all been a hit but they have grown players and spent big and more often than not got it right).

 

 

The convergence of all three factors has meant that they have outstripped us for 20 years. We've had glimpses along the way, but never anything like all three things coming together at the same time.

 

It remains to be seen how they will fare when Fergie goes. It is naive to expect them to fall apart, but at the same time I can't see them getting another like him. And we have a good crop of youngsters coming through ourselves, and we seem to be getting our heads around the revenue thing.

 

I'm hopeful for the future.

[coop]

When the Premiership was formed Man United were at the forefront of it and whilst we were the most successful team in England they made sure they rammed it down people's throat they were the biggest.

 

What they did is made sure the brand was plastered everywhere around the world so when the FA were promoting the Premier League as being this greatest competition Man United made sure their logo was all over it.

 

We just stood there and did nothing, presuming past success would mean that the money would just come to us and we wouldn't have to work hard.

 

It's the way of the world today but to make money in football you have to sell your soul to the corporate devil and maximise your brand however possible.

 

Getting your logo out there will make the club a fortune and therefore allow you to sign the best players etc and continue to compete at the top.

 

It also helped that we pressed the self destruct button in appointing Souness allowing any hard work Dalglish had done previously was instantly wiped out.

 

There is no denying Ferguson is a top manager and a very lucky one in the fact that we went into free-fall and the mancs enjoyed having Beckham, Scholes, Giggs and both Nevilles coming through all at once.

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

And we're back into the stadium debate again. :sleep:

 

Arsenal can compete with the mancs with a 60k stadium, Chelsea can compete with less again.

 

The stadium capacity has nothing to do with it. Bad management throughout the club, is what made us lose what we have. When changes were needed, they were denied and/or delayed. It started with Souness, it continued through Moores, all the way to last year.

 

Expectation wise, treating 4th place as a "successful" season, instead of 1st didn't, and doesn't help. Repeatedly prioritising one trophy over another, and then ending up winning nothing, bred the ambition where it was considered "ok" not to be successful, if there wasn't enough cash/prestige to justify it. We still haven't played at the new Wembley yet, where it seems nearly every tinpot professional club has.

 

What we need is a change of management, and a change of culture where First is First, second is failure. We've got the change of management, but it will take a while before the culture will change. The ambition is still perceived as "we must be Top 4". But we need to aim higher than that. This is Liverpool FC and we're a football club, not a bank. Our first priority is to win. When we win, we can count up the balance sheets later.

 

Own up - you've kidknapped Mypost! There's a lot of sense you make there. Sadly, "The Liverpool Way" for Moores meant not doing anything, sticking with the old ways instead of modernising and adapting. Instead of evolving, we have been left with mini revolutions with each change of manager, and rebuilding projects ad nauseam. Smith and Robinson were ruthless directors and totally commited to being the best. Sadly Parry and Moores basked in the glory achieved by better men, and we fell far behind.

 

I think we now have the right people in place with a long term view for a successful future, and the right manager to achieve that.

[Libero]

Its down to Moores, and Souness.

 

12 league titles without reply from us beggars belief.

[Byrnie]

When the Premiership was formed Man United were at the forefront of it and whilst we were the most successful team in England they made sure they rammed it down people's throat they were the biggest.

 

What they did is made sure the brand was plastered everywhere around the world so when the FA were promoting the Premier League as being this greatest competition Man United made sure their logo was all over it.

 

We just stood there and did nothing, presuming past success would mean that the money would just come to us and we wouldn't have to work hard.

 

It's the way of the world today but to make money in football you have to sell your soul to the corporate devil and maximise your brand however possible.

 

Getting your logo out there will make the club a fortune and therefore allow you to sign the best players etc and continue to compete at the top.

 

It also helped that we pressed the self destruct button in appointing Souness allowing any hard work Dalglish had done previously was instantly wiped out.

 

There is no denying Ferguson is a top manager and a very lucky one in the fact that we went into free-fall and the mancs enjoyed having Beckham, Scholes, Giggs and both Nevilles coming through all at once.

 

Great post, Coop.

 

I must admit, when the mancs started selling their soul in the 90's I laughed at it. I never wanted us to be like that, but the people at the club shouldn't have had that attitude. How we stood there and watched the whole commercial side of football pass us by is an utter disgrace.

[Section_31]

When the Premiership was formed Man United were at the forefront of it and whilst we were the most successful team in England they made sure they rammed it down people's throat they were the biggest.

 

What they did is made sure the brand was plastered everywhere around the world so when the FA were promoting the Premier League as being this greatest competition Man United made sure their logo was all over it.

 

We just stood there and did nothing, presuming past success would mean that the money would just come to us and we wouldn't have to work hard.

 

It's the way of the world today but to make money in football you have to sell your soul to the corporate devil and maximise your brand however possible.

 

Getting your logo out there will make the club a fortune and therefore allow you to sign the best players etc and continue to compete at the top.

 

It also helped that we pressed the self destruct button in appointing Souness allowing any hard work Dalglish had done previously was instantly wiped out.

 

There is no denying Ferguson is a top manager and a very lucky one in the fact that we went into free-fall and the mancs enjoyed having Beckham, Scholes, Giggs and both Nevilles coming through all at once.

 

Spot on that Coop, but I think brand manc predates the Premiership, in fact it's the main reason they've always been so despised. Even when we were undoubtedly at the top of the European game and they were floundering in the old second division, they were still managing to convince the world they were a global powerhouse of a club with the most fans in the world.

 

The mancs have always been a smoke and mirrors club, they are and always have been 75% bullshit, from their exploitation of brand Best to Beckham, to the removal of the words 'football club' from their crest, to the way they earned worldwide fame for the Munich disaster - attracting a generation of fans who probably didn't even like football, but who followed through sympathy.

 

They're the U2 to our Bunnymen.

[StevieH]

Manchester United now 8/1 from 9/1 for the Treble with William Hills who make them 1/7 for the title, with Arsenal 6/1; Chelsea 14/1; Man C 66/1.

[Guest ShoePiss]

And we're back into the stadium debate again. :sleep:

 

They've been at a financial advantage for years due to capacity and the extra revenue it brings.

 

Arsenal can compete with the mancs with a 60k stadium, Chelsea can compete with less again.

 

Liverpool is not London, we would not sell out selling tickets at their prices, Chelsea also have an owner who is willing to spew money in order to 'compete' with the mancs.

 

 

 

The stadium capacity has nothing to do with it. Bad management throughout the club, is what made us lose what we have. When changes were needed, they were denied and/or delayed. It started with Souness, it continued through Moores, all the way to last year.

 

The stadium capacity has something to do with it, the financial disadvantage we've been at, it's not the only reason though.

 

Expectation wise, treating 4th place as a "successful" season, instead of 1st didn't, and doesn't help. Repeatedly prioritising one trophy over another, and then ending up winning nothing, bred the ambition where it was considered "ok" not to be successful, if there wasn't enough cash/prestige to justify it. We still haven't played at the new Wembley yet, where it seems nearly every tinpot professional club has.

 

The owners may well treat 4th place as successful (not many supporters do, it's a minimum) as the Champions League brings in a lot of money, especially compared to a League Cup or FA Cup win. Every team prioritises trophies in order of importantance. They're not equally important.

 

What we need is a change of management, and a change of culture where First is First, second is failure. We've got the change of management, but it will take a while before the culture will change. The ambition is still perceived as "we must be Top 4". But we need to aim higher than that. This is Liverpool FC and we're a football club, not a bank. Our first priority is to win. When we win, we can count up the balance sheets later.

 

What we need is for you to fuck off.

[jamespp]

We can never have 2 good league seasons in a row, 2009- Fall Apart, 2006- Fall Apart, 2002- Fall Apart, 1997- Fall Apart, when it looks like we were sorted it all goes to shit the year after

[Gym Beglin]

I'll be very interested to see what the Mancs do after they win 19.

Their whole ethos in the past decade has been to supercede our haul of 18, it's been Ferguson's personal nirvana.

 

Without that target, without that impetus, I question their ability and/or determination to push on and win lots more.

[Section_31]

I'll be very interested to see what the Mancs do after they win 19.

Their whole ethos in the past decade has been to supercede our haul of 18, it's been Ferguson's personal nirvana.

 

Without that target, without that impetus, I question their ability and/or determination to push on and win lots more.

 

[jamespp]

Manchester United now 8/1 from 9/1 for the Treble with William Hills who make them 1/7 for the title, with Arsenal 6/1; Chelsea 14/1; Man C 66/1.

 

ill probably put a weeks wages on them winning treble, as i said in another thread i think if they beat City they will win it, the european cup final is in London ,they will get loads of tickets, be like a home game

so if they win it ill be compensated

[ngogswilly]

Be interesting to see what happens when Slurgie goes. I just can't call how it will pan out. All I can say with any degree of certainty is they'll lose about 6 points a year in dubious Referring decisions. That will be nice at least.

[silverlining]

Baconface is one of the greatest managers the game has ever seen. His influence is one of the major factors in their 20 years period of dominance.

 

Yes, we can talk about marketing and the stadium, but when that horrible old cunt finally retires/ dies/ hopefully both, no amount of well-laid marketing plans and 90,000 seat stadiums will make them anything like the force they have been under Ferguson.

[mypost]

William Hills who make them 1/7 for the title, with Arsenal 6/1;

 

What will they be, if we get a result at Arsenal next week?

 

That club are roughly 1 billion in debt, and have been for about 5-6 years, so commercial acumen hasn't been so much a factor as their win-at-all-costs attitude. You wouldn't see them treating 4th place as a successful season, like we do.

 

It's a poor manc side at the moment and likely to further decline, but the rest of the league have been fairly shit too. West Ham should have won last week, Blackpool should have beaten them earlier in the year, other sides have been in winning positions against them. We've made mince meat of them, Chelsea won too, they are vulnerable away, but they get their results due to bullying and battering the opposition when they have to, not because they have a bigger stadium than everyone else.

Edited April 9, 2011 by mypost

[silverlining]

I'll be very interested to see what the Mancs do after they win 19.

Their whole ethos in the past decade has been to supercede our haul of 18, it's been Ferguson's personal nirvana.

 

Without that target, without that impetus, I question their ability and/or determination to push on and win lots more.

 

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Mypost, no one has said the stadium wins them the league, what they have said is that it's a contributing factor to their success.

 

You being the complete fuckwit you are say it's irrelevant and then twist the opinion to "it's the stadium that wins them the league" when no one here or anywhere else in the world would say such a thing.

 

Also, their commercial success has allowed them to service that 800m or whatever the actual amount is, without that commercial success they'd be dead and buried.

 

I think your m.o is to wind people up but you just make me laugh. You're making a fool of yourself and I'm sure the good Irish reds on here are embarrassed by the crap you come out with.

[silverlining]

Mypost, no one has said the stadium wins them the league, what they have said is that it's a contributing factor to their success.

 

You being the complete fuckwit you are say it's irrelevant and then twist the opinion to "it's the stadium that wins them the league" when no one here or anywhere else in the world would say such a thing.

 

I think your m.o is to wind people up but you just make me laugh. You're making a fool of yourself and I'm sure the good Irish reds on here are embarrassed by the crap you come out with.

 

He reminds me a bit of some cunt called "DJ Syd" who used to post on Koptalk (and was a moderator). Everyone really hated him, too.

 

Mind you a few people on here remind me of that cunt.

[Guest ShoePiss]

He reminds me a bit of some cunt called "DJ Syd" who used to post on Koptalk (and was a moderator). Everyone really hated him, too.

 

Mind you a few people on here remind me of that cunt.

 

Hmm, I think I remember that twat posting on the kraptalk blog

[silverlining]

Hmm, I think I remember that twat posting on the kraptalk blog

 

He had that similar smug, superfan, but slightly contrary style, but he was also able to ban people who called him on it. So he banned me a few times.

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

When you think about it, it's absolutely pathetic what we've achieved in the league for the past two decades. One sustained league title challenge is a fucking joke. Moores/Parry are fully responsible for us standing still while others built their stadiums. They actually topped that by selling us to those horrible two cunts, which put us back even further. Add to that Parry's ineptness and missing out on certain signings over the years.

 

Manager after manager buying shit player after shit player. The money we've spent on strikers alone could clear the debt of most third world countries.

 

I know Souness gets all the blame, but the decline started during Kenny's first reign. The other problem which has already been mentioned is this settling for 4th place bollocks. Shanks would be turning in his grave at the thought.

 

And the worst thing is that most years the cunts have won, it's felt like they've won it by default. Only because every other team has been absolutely fucking shit.

 

I'm not gonna think about it any more as my blood is fucking boiling.

[TalkSilly]

I think he’s had the luck of the devil.

 

Firstly he went to Old Trafford after they’d had 5 failed attempts at replacing Sir Matt Busby in 17 years and those running the club had finally realised that only giving a manager 3-4 seasons to win the league wasn’t working. As a result he got a lot longer, 7 years, to win it.

 

Secondly he was fortunate that 2 of the best british players ever were emerging in his club’s catchment area in the early years of his tenure. In 25 years he’s never found and developed any other comparable young talents so I’d put Giggs and Scholes down to happenstance rather than any special qualities he has. How many more titles would we have won in the last 15 years if they’d been playing for us?

 

Thirdly, although they’ve always had more money than us, in the days when you only needed 13-14 players to win everything in sight they could never turn their financial dominance into trophies. He was fortunate to take over at Utd when football was evolving into a squad based game where being able to maintain a bigger, better quality pool of players than your rivals gave you a significant advantage over them.

 

Don’t get me wrong, he’s an exceptional manager. I’ll never be able to work out how he has perpetuated the extreme win-at-all-costs mentality at Old Trafford for so long. Does he deliberately recruit loathsome, arrogant, petulant, bullies or do his players absorb the evil he exudes and just become his clones on the pitch after a few months?

 

I can’t imagine what it’s like to work for a personality like his, he must have an extraordinary psychological hold over that place and everyone in it. It's like a hostage situation. It will be fascinating to see what happens when he leaves. Thanks to their fan base and the money they generate I’m sure they’ll always be there or thereabouts, but the Mancs I know are all dreading the post-Ferguson era.

[King Emlyn]

I think he’s had the luck of the devil.

 

Firstly he went to Old Trafford after they’d had 5 failed attempts at replacing Sir Matt Busby in 17 years and those running the club had finally realised that only giving a manager 3-4 seasons to win the league wasn’t working. As a result he got a lot longer, 7 years, to win it.

 

Secondly he was fortunate that 2 of the best british players ever were emerging in his club’s catchment area in the early years of his tenure. In 25 years he’s never found and developed any other comparable young talents so I’d put Giggs and Scholes down to happenstance rather than any special qualities he has. How many more titles would we have won in the last 15 years if they’d been playing for us?

 

Thirdly, although they’ve always had more money than us, in the days when you only needed 13-14 players to win everything in sight they could never turn their financial dominance into trophies. He was fortunate to take over at Utd when football was evolving into a squad based game where being able to maintain a bigger, better quality pool of players than your rivals gave you a significant advantage over them.

 

Don’t get me wrong, he’s an exceptional manager. I’ll never be able to work out how he has perpetuated the extreme win-at-all-costs mentality at Old Trafford for so long. Does he deliberately recruit loathsome, arrogant, petulant, bullies or do his players absorb the evil he exudes and just become his clones on the pitch after a few months?

 

I can’t imagine what it’s like to work for a personality like his, he must have an extraordinary psychological hold over that place and everyone in it. It's like a hostage situation. It will be fascinating to see what happens when he leaves. Thanks to their fan base and the money they generate I’m sure they’ll always be there or thereabouts, but the Mancs I know are all dreading the post-Ferguson era.

You can't have the" luck of the devil" for over 20 years. He's built several sides each one consistently hoovering up title after title, playing some wonderful football and always, always, always looking to attack teams home or away. Yes he may be a loathsome individual but he's a magnificent football manager and that alone is the reason they have dominated for so long. It isn't luck.

[jacco maccaco]

They're the U2 to our Bunnymen.

 

Great analogy, Just about sums it up for me.