Jump to content

Recommended Posts

They certainly didn't buy us to keep, I think they probably have been shocked and disappointed that they haven't nailed down a CL spot with the money invested, They have been behind the curve since they took on the club and out-spent at every turn by City and Chelsea, With Utd's resources and a resurgent Arsenal and to some extent Spurs they are further away from the top 4 elite than ever, I'm sure we're for sale at a price,   

 

We're objectively closer to the top 4 now, on and off the pitch, than we were in FSG's first 3 years here. I doubt they were stupid enough to think top 4 was going to be easy given how far away we were and the resources of the teams above us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're objectively closer to the top 4 now, on and off the pitch, than we were in FSG's first 3 years here.

This is not true.

 

On the pitch,world class players like Torres, Masch, Suarez, and Gerrard have left, the holes are still gaping.

 

Off the pitch, FSG eschewed the new stadium we could have been in by now for a half new, half old option which could yet be a quarter new option. The stadium redevelopment still leaves us well short of the top four, even when finished.

 

CL money has significantly lifted, our absence means we fall still further behind, year on year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're objectively closer to the top 4 now, on and off the pitch, than we were in FSG's first 3 years here. I doubt they were stupid enough to think top 4 was going to be easy given how far away we were and the resources of the teams above us.

I don't see us overtaking either of the Manchester teams, Chelsea and a resurgent Arsenal

without an throwing an enormous amount of money at it

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're objectively closer to the top 4 now, on and off the pitch, than we were in FSG's first 3 years here. I doubt they were stupid enough to think top 4 was going to be easy given how far away we were and the resources of the teams above us.

Have a look through our squad, the one stoke pummelled 6 past. Pour cold water over your head mate.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're objectively closer to the top 4 now, on and off the pitch, than we were in FSG's first 3 years here. I doubt they were stupid enough to think top 4 was going to be easy given how far away we were and the resources of the teams above us.

Have a look through our squad, the one stoke pummelled 6 past. Pour cold water over your head mate.

This is not true.On the pitch,world class players like Torres, Masch, Suarez, and Gerrard have left, the holes are still gaping.Off the pitch, FSG eschewed the new stadium we could have been in by now for a half new, half old option which could yet be a quarter new option. The stadium redevelopment still leaves us well short of the top four, even when finished.CL money has significantly lifted, our absence means we fall still further behind, year on year.

You dont get a cl place for having the newestest stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're objectively closer to the top 4 now, on and off the pitch, than we were in FSG's first 3 years here.

First game under FSG against Arsenal, August 2010 (1-1):

 

Reina, Johnson, Carragher, Agger, Skrtel, Gerrard, Jovanovic, Mascherano, Kuyt, Cole, N'Gog. Subs: Cavalieri, Aurelio, Torres, Rodriguez, Babel, Lucas, Kelly

 

Last game in 2012-2013 against QPR (1-0):

 

Reina, Johnson, Carragher, Skrtel, Enrique, Downing, Lucas, Henderson, Ibe, Coutinho, Sturridge. Subs: Jones, Assaidi, Coates, Borini, Suso, Wisdom, Coady (and of course, Suarez was suspended for biting at the time)

 

Last game in 2015, against Stoke (1-6):

 

Mignolet, Can, Skrtel, Sakho, Moreno, Henderson, Lucas, Allen, Coutinho, Gerrard, Lallana. Subs: Toure, Lovren, Lambert, Sterling, Ibe, Markovic, Ward

 

Your definition of "objectively" appears to be completely different to mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the stand is completed in 2016 Man City and West Ham will have more seats than us in a modern stadium. We'll have a shiny new stand. Even Tottenham will have a new stadium soon around 60k.

 

Ours is basically what Newcastle did 15 fucking years ago leaving us with a lopsided ground with the same capacity. When you're idea of finally 'sorting the stadium' is catching up to Newcastle United then you know for sure you're finished as a top football club.

 

Give it a decade and under new, proper owners and we might do it properly.

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the stand is completed in 2016 Man City and West Ham will have more seats than us in a modern stadium. We'll have a shiny new stand. Even Tottenham will have a new stadium soon around 60k.

 

Ours is basically what Newcastle did 15 fucking years ago leaving us with a lopsided ground with the same capacity. When you're idea of finally 'sorting the stadium' is catching up to Newcastle United then you know for sure you're finished as a top football club.

 

Give it a decade and under new, proper owners and we might do it properly.

Ouch.

 

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definition of "objectively" appears to be completely different to mine.

 

If you think picking out individual games from a 38 match league campaign is a means by which to judge a team objectively then yes it is.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First game under FSG against Arsenal, August 2010 (1-1):

 

Reina, Johnson, Carragher, Agger, Skrtel, Gerrard, Jovanovic, Mascherano, Kuyt, Cole, N'Gog. Subs: Cavalieri, Aurelio, Torres, Rodriguez, Babel, Lucas, Kelly

 

Last game in 2012-2013 against QPR (1-0):

 

Reina, Johnson, Carragher, Skrtel, Enrique, Downing, Lucas, Henderson, Ibe, Coutinho, Sturridge. Subs: Jones, Assaidi, Coates, Borini, Suso, Wisdom, Coady (and of course, Suarez was suspended for biting at the time)

 

Last game in 2015, against Stoke (1-6):

 

Mignolet, Can, Skrtel, Sakho, Moreno, Henderson, Lucas, Allen, Coutinho, Gerrard, Lallana. Subs: Toure, Lovren, Lambert, Sterling, Ibe, Markovic, Ward

 

Your definition of "objectively" appears to be completely different to mine.

 

A minor point, but FSG took over in October, and Masch had already gone by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the stand is completed in 2016 Man City and West Ham will have more seats than us in a modern stadium. We'll have a shiny new stand. Even Tottenham will have a new stadium soon around 60k.

 

Ours is basically what Newcastle did 15 fucking years ago leaving us with a lopsided ground with the same capacity. When you're idea of finally 'sorting the stadium' is catching up to Newcastle United then you know for sure you're finished as a top football club.

 

Give it a decade and under new, proper owners and we might do it properly.

 

Both city and west ham have effectively been 'given' brand new shiny stadiums. city will fill theirs (although they still heavily discount as advertised on the radio) because they are now a successful title winning club. It remains to be seen whether west ham manage to get 50000 regular fans in the Olympic Stadium.

 

I'd actually say what's held the club back are the people moaning that the Kop must stay as the largest single stand and not wanting to move outside of the Anfield area. Some people have short memories if they dont remember Anfield4eva and the commotion there was when the club was considering a site at speke, aintree and other places around Liverpool.

 

David Moores held the club back from moving to a new stadium years ago but even then, there was a considerable majority in the matchgoing fanbase who said they didnt want a 'souless' bowl.

 

I was heavily in favour of a move to a new build when it was first proposed. Its never going to happen now and in some ways, Im happy with that.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both city and west ham have effectively been 'given' brand new shiny stadiums. city will fill theirs (although they still heavily discount as advertised on the radio) because they are now a successful title winning club. It remains to be seen whether west ham manage to get 50000 regular fans in the Olympic Stadium.

 

I'd actually say what's held the club back are the people moaning that the Kop must stay as the largest single stand and not wanting to move outside of the Anfield area. Some people have short memories if they dont remember Anfield4eva and the commotion there was when the club was considering a site at speke and other places around Liverpool.

 

David Moores held the club back from moving to a new stadium years ago but even then, there was a considerable majority in the matchgoing fanbase who said they didnt want a 'souless' bowl.

 

I was heavily in favour of a move to a new build when it was considered. Its never going to happen now and in some ways, Im happy with that.

We either need a new stadium or at least three sides of Anfield rebuilt. This one stand will just tower over the rest of the ground and show it up further. At least if the Anny Road gets done as well (good luck with that under these losers) then it's half built, but it's still not really good enough. If it did get done then it's a long process to sort either of the other stands out.

 

I'd rather have moved grounds as well. Not sure Speke was the right location though. A city centre ground would be ideal at the heart of the city or the circa 65k at Stanley Park.

 

West Ham will more or less fill the Olympic Stadium as long as they're showing ambition. The amount of tourists in London plus all the ex-cockneys in Essex and the other Home Counties who can get to Stratford a lot easier than Upton Park, which will see them pick up the floating supporter as it'll be the best ground in the country for public transport links. If we don't start getting a grip we could be caught up or overtaken by Spurs and West Ham more likely than making the ground on the top 4. We're trading off history now and a global fanbase that won't stick around forever if we won't show ambition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'losers' weren't going to get this stand up either....until they did.....now they won't get the next stand up.....until they do.....and then they won't do the next thing......

 

West Ham will struggle to fill the olympic stadium long term even with paying a large share of the ticket price. Luckily for them the stadium has been so heavily subsidized they can afford the hit. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We either need a new stadium or at least three sides of Anfield rebuilt. This one stand will just tower over the rest of the ground and show it up further. At least if the Anny Road gets done as well (good luck with that under these losers) then it's half built, but it's still not really good enough. If it did get done then it's a long process to sort either of the other stands out.

 

I'd rather have moved grounds as well. Not sure Speke was the right location though. A city centre ground would be ideal at the heart of the city.

 

West Ham will more or less fill the Olympic Stadium as long as they're showing ambition. The amount of tourists in London plus all the ex-cockneys in Essex and the other Home Counties who can get to Stratford a lot easier than Upton Park, which will see them pick up the floating supporter. If we don't start getting a grip we could be overtaken by Spurs and West Ham. We're trading off history now and a global fanbase that won't stick around forever.

 

And where's the money coming from to build this super duper new stadium? xerxes is already advocating letting fans in for free because of the tv revenue money (while thinking the club is still going to remain 'competitive'). Fans are rightly complaining about the price of tickets so there's a limit on where the money's coming from.

 

In contrast city and west ham have effectively been give new stadiums http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/19/olympic-stadium-cost-rises-west-ham

 

See, you're still at it, speke wasnt the right location! And getting into and out of the city centre on matchdays would be an utter joke except it wouldnt be funny!

 

I dont share your optimisim about tourists filling the OS even if its only 54,000. We'll have to wait and see.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the stand is completed in 2016 Man City and West Ham will have more seats than us in a modern stadium. We'll have a shiny new stand. Even Tottenham will have a new stadium soon around 60k.

 

Ours is basically what Newcastle did 15 fucking years ago leaving us with a lopsided ground with the same capacity. When you're idea of finally 'sorting the stadium' is catching up to Newcastle United then you know for sure you're finished as a top football club.

 

Give it a decade and under new, proper owners and we might do it properly.

 

Harsh but fair.

Coming back to the point of the thread whether it's on or off the pitch "the FSG model "is just a massive euphamism for doing everything on the cheap, Winning things ain't cheap so we're a bit fucked until these lads cash in their chips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think financially speaking FSG have a reasonable plan for what happens off the pitch. In the absence of an oligarch, their blueprint of gradual expansion and better sponsorship deals is pretty sound.

 

It's just a pity that it's meaningless without anyone who knows what to do with the money in order to bring success on the pitch. We've made more money under them, and wasted more as well, which leaves us pretty much where we were. We used to spend £10m on shite, now it's £20m, we used to have a cheap bench of players we didn't want to turn to, now we've got an expensive bench the manager won't turn to.

 

I still get the feeling that we're run by people who think they're smarter than football. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A minor point, but FSG took over in October, and Masch had already gone by then.

 

Fair enough. I just took the first game of the season, the last game of their third season, and our very last game to illustrate that it is not objectively obvious we are closer to the top 4 on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We either need a new stadium or at least three sides of Anfield rebuilt. This one stand will just tower over the rest of the ground and show it up further. At least if the Anny Road gets done as well (good luck with that under these losers) then it's half built, but it's still not really good enough. If it did get done then it's a long process to sort either of the other stands out.I'd rather have moved grounds as well. Not sure Speke was the right location though. A city centre ground would be ideal at the heart of the city or the circa 65k at Stanley Park.West Ham will more or less fill the Olympic Stadium as long as they're showing ambition. The amount of tourists in London plus all the ex-cockneys in Essex and the other Home Counties who can get to Stratford a lot easier than Upton Park, which will see them pick up the floating supporter as it'll be the best ground in the country for public transport links. If we don't start getting a grip we could be caught up or overtaken by Spurs and West Ham more likely than making the ground on the top 4. We're trading off history now and a global fanbase that won't stick around forever if we won't show ambition.

We dont need a new stadium, in fact, it would hinder us in the medium term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both city and west ham have effectively been 'given' brand new shiny stadiums. city will fill theirs (although they still heavily discount as advertised on the radio) because they are now a successful title winning club. It remains to be seen whether west ham manage to get 50000 regular fans in the Olympic Stadium.

 

I'd actually say what's held the club back are the people moaning that the Kop must stay as the largest single stand and not wanting to move outside of the Anfield area. Some people have short memories if they dont remember Anfield4eva and the commotion there was when the club was considering a site at speke, aintree and other places around Liverpool.

 

David Moores held the club back from moving to a new stadium years ago but even then, there was a considerable majority in the matchgoing fanbase who said they didnt want a 'souless' bowl.

 

I was heavily in favour of a move to a new build when it was first proposed. Its never going to happen now and in some ways, Im happy with that.

I still can't see in these days of the so called fair play how sides like west ham and city can almost be given a brand New stadium,whist others have to pay millions to improve there's.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I just took the first game of the season, the last game of their third season, and our very last game to illustrate that it is not objectively obvious we are closer to the top 4 on the pitch.

 

So we're in a worse position now under Rodgers/FSG than we were under Hodgson/Hicks & Gillette?

 

I think that's scraping the barrel a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×