Other football

[Adebisi]

Arsenal play Chelsea, West Ham and Newcastle (both away) next. West Ham are shite but if Arsenal lose against Chelsea and West Ham get physical against them and things don't go their way you can see them falling apart. 

[Mathewbet1]

Get in Fulham 1-1 v blue shite

[Mustangt125]

Are Everton Chelsea and City poised to all jump us today then?

[Anubis]

I wake up, chck tbe scores, and Fulham equalise. No need to thank me.

[Stickman]

Blueshite back in front

[Anubis]

Er, I'll go back to sleep. 

[Batigol]

Chelsea have been gash,  Palace really should be level

[FanchesterCity]

Totally agree. If you pumped enough money into HULL they'd eventually challenge.

A totally no mark team (no offence) turned into champions elect with over half a BILLION pumped into them.

 

I'm gonna take you to task on this:

 

City before the money where in the top 10 most successful English teams and in the to 5 best supported - despite their comical 80's and onwards mismanagement.

Successful by Liverpool's standards? no

Successful in the wider world of football? fairly, yes.

 

Now, onto money:

Have City bought their success? yes

Has money influenced success for other clubs? yes, of course it has, it always has.

 

Let's not forget, Liverpool were one of the clubs who wanted to cream off the money (along with Man U, Everton, Spurs, Arsenal etc) prior to the formation of the Premier League. Why? because money always did talks, and clubs have always wanted it. In years gone by, clubs (if they were lucky) would get investment from rich local businessmen, but now the game's gone global, clubs are attracting investment from richer global businessmen and groups.

 

An investment group saved your arse, just as the sheik saved ours - because both clubs had (in different ways) suffered from bad management. City's over 30 years, Liverpool's far shorter. But make no mistake, both clubs were begging for buyers to get them out of the mess.

 

Do I like the way money influences the game? no, not for the greater good of the game. On a personal level, of course it's good to finally watch top class football, but it's not good for the game. However, it's just not quite right to think this issue is purely a result of billionaires from far off lands... the issue was always there.

 

For all of Man United's commercial success, it should not be forgotten that they had investment from Louis Edwards all those years ago (who eventually was under investigation at the time of his death), it was from his investment that they managed to expand their stadium beyond that of all their competitors. 50 years on, they're still reaping the benefits.

 

You are right to say almost anybody with money can buy their success, but that also goes to show that the 'team ethic / spirit' actually isn't as wonderful as many imagine. Blackburn showed that, and Newcastle almost managed it too.

 

90% of football fans would give their right arm to have a fraction of Liverpool's success over the years. The vast majority will never ever experience it. Some of us have had a little luck (after years of crap) and we get a sniff of what it's like to win something. I'd rather more fans had a taste of it at least once in a lifetime. It's a shame it has to be gained via money, but the PL was formed to bring in that money.. so it's getting what it asked for (it just failed to predict which clubs would get it).

[Batigol]

Mellor on soccer Saturday.  First time I've seen him on there.

[Guest San Don]

I'm gonna take you to task on this:

 

City before the money where in the top 10 most successful English teams and in the to 5 best supported - despite their comical 80's and onwards mismanagement.

Successful by Liverpool's standards? no

Successful in the wider world of football? fairly, yes.

 

Now, onto money:

Have City bought their success? yes

Has money influenced success for other clubs? yes, of course it has, it always has.

 

Let's not forget, Liverpool were one of the clubs who wanted to cream off the money (along with Man U, Everton, Spurs, Arsenal etc) prior to the formation of the Premier League. Why? because money always did talks, and clubs have always wanted it. In years gone by, clubs (if they were lucky) would get investment from rich local businessmen, but now the game's gone global, clubs are attracting investment from richer global businessmen and groups.

 

An investment group saved your arse, just as the sheik saved ours - because both clubs had (in different ways) suffered from bad management. City's over 30 years, Liverpool's far shorter. But make no mistake, both clubs were begging for buyers to get them out of the mess.

 

Do I like the way money influences the game? no, not for the greater good of the game. On a personal level, of course it's good to finally watch top class football, but it's not good for the game. However, it's just not quite right to think this issue is purely a result of billionaires from far off lands... the issue was always there.

 

For all of Man United's commercial success, it should not be forgotten that they had investment from Louis Edwards all those years ago (who eventually was under investigation at the time of his death), it was from his investment that they managed to expand their stadium beyond that of all their competitors. 50 years on, they're still reaping the benefits.

 

You are right to say almost anybody with money can buy their success, but that also goes to show that the 'team ethic / spirit' actually isn't as wonderful as many imagine. Blackburn showed that, and Newcastle almost managed it too.

 

90% of football fans would give their right arm to have a fraction of Liverpool's success over the years. The vast majority will never ever experience it. Some of us have had a little luck (after years of crap) and we get a sniff of what it's like to win something. I'd rather more fans had a taste of it at least once in a lifetime. It's a shame it has to be gained via money, but the PL was formed to bring in that money.. so it's getting what it asked for (it just failed to predict which clubs would get it).

 

Top 10 most successful English teams must include some pretty gash clubs if one title in 30 years, one or two fa cups a league cup and one inconsequential non existent UEFA competition puts you in it!

 

Success in wider world football? Have a word with yourself.

 

Liverpool wanted to 'cream off' the money before the PL? I think you'll find LFC said we along with others generate the lions share of tv money so we should be able to keep what we earn not what we get handed by some johnny come lately mega rich guy who has more money than he knows what to do with.

 

Why didnt he look to altruism and address some of the inequalities in his part of the world rather than chuck it at a pretty non descript football club?

 

An investment group 'saved our arse'? Well yes if you accept another investment group loaded their debt onto the club so they could buy it! Perhaps you dont see the paradox there? LFC wouldnt have needed its 'arse' saving if those two cowboys hadnt bought the club. The club wasnt headed for bankruptcy despite having a large overdraft.

 

Much as I hate manchester united, it is frankly laughable you try and claim edwardes 'investment' in united was in any way corrupt or, on an equal scale as mansours, all things being equal.

 

The fact is city, chelshit and a few other clubs are partaking in financial doping to gain an advantage above virtually everyone else.

[MLB]

Palace unlucky not to get a point. We should go to Chelsea looking to win.

[TheHowieLama]

There are far more attractive clubs for a quadzillionaire throughout the world than Citeh - the draw to investment in English clubs has very little to do with their respective history and more to do with the overseas broadcasting rights  (read America) which the league negotiated a few years back.

[moof]

Who the fuck decided Stoke vs Hull would be a good game to show on tv

[Anubis]

Who the fuck decided Stoke vs Hull would be a good game to show on tv

 

They've got to schedule some of their games under the contract, so why not kill two birds with one stone, put both on at once, on a night when you know most people will be heading out to their Xmas parties. 

[Strontium]

I always thought we had a half decent record on Boxing Day.....(apart from the shambles of last season obviously)

Last Boxing Day win was 2009. 2010 was the infamous 1-0 home defeat by Wolves.

[Jay86]

 

Do I like the way money influences the game? no, not for the greater good of the game. On a personal level, of course it's good to finally watch top class football, but it's not good for the game. However, it's just not quite right to think this issue is purely a result of billionaires from far off lands... the issue was always there.

 

For all of Man United's commercial success, it should not be forgotten that they had investment from Louis Edwards all those years ago (who eventually was under investigation at the time of his death), it was from his investment that they managed to expand their stadium beyond that of all their competitors. 50 years on, they're still reaping the benefits.

 

You are right to say almost anybody with money can buy their success, but that also goes to show that the 'team ethic / spirit' actually isn't as wonderful as many imagine. Blackburn showed that, and Newcastle almost managed it too.

 

90% of football fans would give their right arm to have a fraction of Liverpool's success over the years. The vast majority will never ever experience it. Some of us have had a little luck (after years of crap) and we get a sniff of what it's like to win something. I'd rather more fans had a taste of it at least once in a lifetime. It's a shame it has to be gained via money, but the PL was formed to bring in that money.. so it's getting what it asked for (it just failed to predict which clubs would get it).

You say it's good to finally watch top class football but to actually earn that top class not be handed it would surely be the ultimate satisfaction. Dortmund proved it can be done the right way, find a very good young manager, develop players and be patient with them, that's why they are so liked and revered around Europe, Man City like Chelsea before them will from now on not have the respect winning the league and becoming a so called big club should have.

 

It could be construed as jealously but I genuinely believe the majority of football fans would rather the actual development of a club than being bought. It's like with us, our fans have been through the shit the last few years so if Brendan managed to eventually win the league after re developing our club then the bond between manager, players and the fans would be far greater than say Mancini and the City fans.

[magicrat]

You say it's good to finally watch top class football but to actually earn that top class not be handed it would surely be the ultimate satisfaction. Dortmund proved it can be done the right way, find a very good young manager, develop players and be patient with them, that's why they are so liked and revered around Europe, Man City like Chelsea before them will from now on not have the respect winning the league and becoming a so called big club should have.

 

It could be construed as jealously but I genuinely believe the majority of football fans would rather the actual development of a club than being bought. It's like with us, our fans have been through the shit the last few years so if Brendan managed to eventually win the league after re developing our club then the bond between manager, players and the fans would be far greater than say Mancini and the City fans.

 

All true as far as it goes but Rodgers is hardly likely to win the league without a large injection of cash.I dont mind admitting I am jealous of the kind of investment City and the despicable shite-hawks at the Bridge have enjoyed. Being as objective as possible Liverpool is a no brainer for the sort of investment they have seen. . Our history and global support  are a massive asset and we are not exactly a a complete pile of shite when ot comes to athe current squad . Step up the next zillionaire .

[kalasoma]

You say it's good to finally watch top class football but to actually earn that top class not be handed it would surely be the ultimate satisfaction. Dortmund proved it can be done the right way, find a very good young manager, develop players and be patient with them, that's why they are so liked and revered around Europe, Man City like Chelsea before them will from now on not have the respect winning the league and becoming a so called big club should have.

 

It could be construed as jealously but I genuinely believe the majority of football fans would rather the actual development of a club than being bought. It's like with us, our fans have been through the shit the last few years so if Brendan managed to eventually win the league after re developing our club then the bond between manager, players and the fans would be far greater than say Mancini and the City fans.

 

I don't quite understand your last point about fans preferring development of their clubs rather than being bought. If our club wasn't bought three years ago, what would there have been to develop? 

 

Nothing against City for attracting a wealthy owner and spending billions on the development of the team. But, like Chelsea, their success was sudden and pretty much had their trophies bought for them. The premier league isn't a level playing field, but neither was the first division before it. It's just that the gulf in buying power of certain clubs within the premier league is much greater and more apparent now than before, I think.

[Jay86]

All true as far as it goes but Rodgers is hardly likely to win the league without a large injection of cash.I dont mind admitting I am jealous of the kind of investment City and the despicable shite-hawks at the Bridge have enjoyed. Being as objective as possible Liverpool is a no brainer for the sort of investment they have seen. . Our history and global support are a massive asset and we are not exactly a a complete pile of shite when ot comes to athe current squad . Step up the next zillionaire .

He probably wouldn't win the league like you say, that's the sad state of football.

 

It's hard to see why a billionaire hasn't bought us, I'm not advocating it by the way I'm still just surprised. Man Utd will be the next Premiership team to be takeover by a billionaire as it's obvious that's all the Glazers was/are interested in. When they are that'll be 3 who will buy the best players and we'll be further down the elite players pecking order.

 

Some might argue that they can buy who they want now but I just don't see the Glazers splashing say £80m on one player.

 

 

[moof]

Would it be ok if a mega billionaire bought us out and we won everything? I feel like us, the Mancs and possibly Arsenal have put in the time and effort to become massively successful and so it would be a lot easier to take than Man City and Chelsea being plucked from relative obscurity to become a top team.

[Jay86]

I don't quite understand your last point about fans preferring development of their clubs rather than being bought. If our club wasn't bought three years ago, what would there have been to develop?

 

Nothing against City for attracting a wealthy owner and spending billions on the development of the team. But, like Chelsea, their success was sudden and pretty much had their trophies bought for them. The premier league isn't a level playing field, but neither was the first division before it. It's just that the gulf in buying power of certain clubs within the premier league is much greater and more apparent now than before, I think.

I didn't mean the club being bought, as it's obvious we needed buying. I meant buying success.

 

What's the difference between the Chelsea situation and Man City's? I'd even argue that Chelsea were a club that challenged for Champions League places constantly and winning the odd cup, also attracting some good players. City were in a worse position prior to be taken over. Therefore making it more sudden.

[magicrat]

Been sub conciously wanting Hull to score until i saw spud -head jumping about on the sidelines. What a shite fixture.

The only thing of small interest is trying to decide whether I want to see Assaidi back at Anfield. I think there maybe a half decent player in there

Barcelona on shortly then off to the pub to forget about the crap results this afternoon

[cloggypop]

[Manny]

It all boils down to ego, and the desire to be loved. You're a bored Russian billionaire, and you buy Liverpool. Or the red mancs. It costs a load, and if you spend half a billion, you'd just be continuing success. If you buy Chelsea, who've won nothing of note in 50-odd years, you can spend less up front and the half billion you spend will give them unprecedented levels of success. That success is entirely down to you, and the club's success is synonymous with you, and the fans will love you for it. You just wouldn't get that with a more established club.

 

For Abramovich, it's about ego, I think. That and boredom. For the Abu Dhabi mobs at Citeh and PSG, it's about demonstrating that everything they touch turns to success, to try and win status.

 

I fucking hate it though. Looking at Chelsea's bench, or City's midfield and thinking about what they've done to earn such players. Nothing. Just spent someone else's cash. I know we've spent badly, but so have Chelsea. Difference is, each mistake we make is more costly.

 

 

 

[Jay86]

It all boils down to ego, and the desire to be loved. You're a bored Russian billionaire, and you buy Liverpool. Or the red mancs. It costs a load, and if you spend half a billion, you'd just be continuing success. If you buy Chelsea, who've won nothing of note in 50-odd years, you can spend less up front and the half billion you spend will give them unprecedented levels of success. That success is entirely down to you, and the club's success is synonymous with you, and the fans will love you for it. You just wouldn't get that with a more established club.

 

For Abramovich, it's about ego, I think. That and boredom. For the Abu Dhabi mobs at Citeh and PSG, it's about demonstrating that everything they touch turns to success, to try and win status.

 

I fucking hate it though. Looking at Chelsea's bench, or City's midfield and thinking about what they've done to earn such players. Nothing. Just spent someone else's cash. I know we've spent badly, but so have Chelsea. Difference is, each mistake we make is more costly.

Exactly my feeling on the matter mate. If Chelsea bought Carroll and Downing for the money we did nobody would bat an eyelid, we on the otherhand are set back at least 2 years. Well Chelsea did do it, Wright-Phillips and Parker plus a lot more come to mind.

 

Thinking about it City haven't got that many wrong for big money, overspent on some though inevitably but not many you'd consider massive flops.