Go fuck yourselves FSG

[TD_LFC]

34 minutes ago, Marko121 said:

2nd is nowhere mate, not for a club like ours.

I'll take meaningless platitudes for £500...

[Marko121]

9 minutes ago, CapeRed said:

Would you sack a manager if a club finishes second? You have to be there or thereabouts to get there.

That's a bigger question.  If you finish 2nd and you see progress, then no.  If you have taken the club as far as you can and the club is expected to win trophies, then yes.  Its all about levels.  If Norwich finish 2nd, their boss gets a statue and head hunted for a big job

 

Its not always the managers " fault " that you finish 2nd either.  In our situation, I feel that we have the best manager we have had for a generation and someone we will struggle to replace when he does go.  I also feel that a manager of this calibre should be backed financially in order to compete - and I don't think he has.

 

We had our foot on the mancs throats when we won the league, they have strengthened, as have City, Chelsea - but we haven't done enough.  We should not have been in a position where we were looking in the bargain bin for centre halves on the last day of a transfer window when it was clear for months that something needed doing.  I don't think that was on Klopp.

[Marko121]

1 minute ago, TD_LFC said:

I'll take meaningless platitudes for £500...

2nd is meaningless - Doesn't go on a wall of honour does it?

[TD_LFC]

So there's absolutely no need to worry if we finish anywhere between 2nd and 17th, all much of a muchness.

 

Ace.

[Barrington Womble]

9 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I missed this little comic gem last week.

The stadium developments were botched and the least said about the playing side - the failed managerial appointments, the woeful league finishes, the paucity of trophies - the better. 

Moores was shit. But despite this, hiring benitez and houllier were not bad appointments despite how it worked out in the end (and of course the dual manager fuck up was another shit show). 

[Brownie]

As a fan, all you can realistically hope for is that your team is in contention. If you keep doing that, you’ll get over the line at times. That’s where we’re at under Kloppo.

 

It would probably be a different story with a different manager.

[Jose Jones]

40 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Moores was shit. But despite this, hiring benitez and houllier were not bad appointments despite how it worked out in the end (and of course the dual manager fuck up was another shit show). 

Houllier and the joint manager thing were really all down to Peter Robinson weren’t they?

Not disputing Moores would have had sign off, but everyone thought Robinson was the bees knees at that time too.

[Marko121]

1 hour ago, TD_LFC said:

So there's absolutely no need to worry if we finish anywhere between 2nd and 17th, all much of a muchness.

 

Ace.

That’s not what I was implying. Don’t be silly now 

[dockers_strike]

1 hour ago, Marko121 said:

We should not have been in a position where we were looking in the bargain bin for centre halves on the last day of a transfer window when it was clear for months that something needed doing.  I don't think that was on Klopp.

But what if it was 'on Klopp,' what then, sack him or just repeat the mantra?

 

Seems some people want the club to operate like city and chelsea but hide behind saying they dont.

[J-V]

Shithouse cunts

[Barrington Womble]

51 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Houllier and the joint manager thing were really all down to Peter Robinson weren’t they?

Not disputing Moores would have had sign off, but everyone thought Robinson was the bees knees at that time too.

My understanding was PR went out to hire houllier once he realised he was available and then Moores couldn't bring himself to sack Evans, so they came up with the dual manager plan. 

[Barrington Womble]

22 minutes ago, Shithouse Cunts said:

Least he lent the club money to do transfers. I lay more blame at Parrys door and to an extent PKF for the sale. 

The bottom line was Moores was not prepared to take on debt to fund a stadium. If there had been more vision, we'd have never needed to go for the outside investment path. We only ended up with H&G because we couldn't find anyone to fund a stadium for a minority stake. It's ironic that we've come through 2 changes of ownership to only have to fund the stadium anyway. The only plus is there has been a change in planning laws that allowed us to stay. 

[Barrington Womble]

1 minute ago, Shithouse Cunts said:

He bought the steel though, he knew he could take us no further there's nothing wrong in that. 

He could have took us further, he just wasn't prepared to put the club I'm debt, which is what we've done anyway 20 years later. 

[Barrington Womble]

1 minute ago, Shithouse Cunts said:

We already where in debt and skint hence he had to loan the club money to get Kuyt. 

We carried very little debt, it was all in his head because he treated us like a corner shop. It's about structuring the debt over a long period - loads of clubs have managed it and not many with the fanbase we have. 

[TD_LFC]

I'd rather our debt be against stadium expansion, training grounds and infrastructure than transfers personally.

[aws]

21 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

We carried very little debt, it was all in his head because he treated us like a corner shop. It's about structuring the debt over a long period - loads of clubs have managed it and not many with the fanbase we have. 

Agree with this. I think he was frightened of the big numbers. £10m loan for Dirk was the limit of risk for him. 

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Moore’s was a spoilt playboy who the family knew had no business sense. Great Liverpool man heart in the right place and all. 

[TD_LFC]

People would have dragged Moores out of the stadium kicking and screaming back when DIC were sniffing around connection to the club or not.

 

Whatever happened to them.

[Barrington Womble]

8 minutes ago, Shithouse Cunts said:

 

He was inept when it came to business just look at Littlewoods. He employed people to sort that and they were shit. 

 

We could not compete, Utd were signing Carrick for £20mil, Chelsea just splashed cash for fun, our owner had to lend us money to get Kuyt.

 

He did employ people, but he wanted to keep his hand on the till. Parry was the CEO, but he performed that role with the limitations placed on him by Moores, which was don't do the debt thing. I'm not defending parry by the way, I'm just illustrating the fear Moores ran the club with - the CEO today isn't much different though, the owners make all the big calls. I was a shareholder back then and the AGMs you could smell the fear in the room. 

 

We weren't competing with Man United and that was due to his corner shop mentality. However, Chelsea weren't the issue when we first started looking for investment, abramovic wasn't on the scene - we started looking for investors around 2002. It was 2004 by the time parry tried to sell us to thaksin shinawatra. Moores went into proper panic mode with abramovic and allowed himself to believe the only solution was finding our own abramovic, when actually with some adequate leadership and running the club as the international business it is rather than Albie's food and wine we would probably have been just fine. 

[Barrington Womble]

4 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

People would have dragged Moores out of the stadium kicking and screaming back when DIC were sniffing around connection to the club or not.

 

Whatever happened to them.

They ran out of oil!

[m0e]

Are people seriously suggesting we'd have been the same or better off with Moores in charge?

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

4 minutes ago, m0e said:

Are people seriously suggesting we'd have been the same or better off with Moores in charge?

 

 

Of course we'd have been better had he sat back and let people run the club. But he was thick as shit and wouldn't provide any direction, yet insisted on being in charge, we were fucked both if he stayed in charge or if he picked the buyer as we found out. What my point is, is as we're proving now, we didn't need outside investment to redevelop the ground, because we're actually doing it long term finance now (and could have than), not the investment they went out to find. 

[TD_LFC]

2 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Of course we'd have been better had he sat back and let people run the club. But he was thick as shit and wouldn't provide any direction, yet insisted on being in charge. What my point is, is as we're proving now, we didn't need outside investment to redevelop the ground, because we're actually doing it long term finance now (and could have than), not the investment they went out to find. 

Why would he have been less risk averse if other people were running the club with his money?

 

We failed to capitalise on the start of the Premier League and watched the likes of Utd run away on and off the pitch, we failed with any sort of stadium upgrade/new stadium while other clubs improved. We sold to the worst possible people under his stewardship.

 

Under FSG we have been far far better in every aspect of the business.

 

(And before people pile on, no that doesn't make FSG perfect, and doesn't mean we might not have been better off under a different group).

[Barrington Womble]

13 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Why would he have been less risk averse if other people were running the club with his money?

 

We failed to capitalise on the start of the Premier League and watched the likes of Utd run away on and off the pitch, we failed with any sort of stadium upgrade/new stadium while other clubs improved. We sold to the worst possible people under his stewardship.

 

Under FSG we have been far far better in every aspect of the business.

 

(And before people pile on, no that doesn't make FSG perfect, and doesn't mean we might not have been better off under a different group).

As big a tit as parry could be, he became more conservative with each passing year under Moores. This is the fella who put us all on the path we're on now by driving the early years of the premier League. He had been far from corner shop mentality. But his job at Liverpool was to run us as we'd always been run, while simultaneously trying to keep us competing on the pitch - those things were mutually exclusive and I don't believe parry would have run the club had Moores not been the owner he was. We didn't have to live through h&g. We didn't have to be run by people on the other side of the world who have absolutely zero interest in us outside of how much money we can make them. We could have cracked on with what we needed to do and that included sorting the ground. As I said earlier, the only plus side to come from it all is the planning laws have allowed us to stay at Anfield. I find it amazing that for a club that is supposed to pride itself on its socialist principles and the city it is based we would think the best outcome is to be owned by a bunch of hedgefund and private equity investors from America with no footballing interest. 

 

[TD_LFC]

The millionaire owners of a retail and betting company don't exactly scream socialism either though.

 

Everyone's always searching for this unicorn owner that doesn't exist