Monkeywool

You honestly think if Liverpool moved out of the Anfield area you wouldn't get a bunch of fallout? I think a lot of the support would be up in arms if we did.

From all the reports I read, the Main stand will be ready in 2016 with the ARE being ready as early as 2018. 5 years after 2013 (which, based on estimates of cost and the feet dragging of the council may or may not actually have been met if we decided to go ahead with it.) 60,000 isn't too bad at all, it's just the right sort of size for us right now. 10 years down the line if we continue to win, then we may require an extra 15-20k. Which, if we plan for them now we can continue to buy houses and the land around the Kop and Centenary stands with a view to adding that extra capacity. In terms of a new stadium, the fans would be further away from the pitch, the location (if put somewhere other than Anfield) would turn a lot of fans away from the club, supporters do not like it when a club moves away from its home. Going from Anfield to the docklands would just alienate a whole swathe of fans and potentially cost us in revenue and image. It was always going to be the most happy solution for most people involved. We get to stay at Anfield, where we've been for over a century and have the extra capacity and mod cons to support the team financially. Anfield should also have an increase in grading now, so maybe we'll be in contention for European finals - which would provide income also.

So, rather than pay for a redevelopment of where we've been for the past 122 years and bring that stadium up to par with what the rest of the contenders have, you'd rather us up and move to the docklands area, paying probably 3/4 times more than we will for this and have one of those soulless megadomes that are now created where you have to sit about 3 miles away from the pitch? 60k is about right just now for us. In a few years time, we can look again at the Kop and Centenary stands, buy the houses around there and repeat to make a 75-80k stadium if needed. We're just doing now what the mancs did years ago. They proved you don't need a spanking new stadium when you could expand your current one to be better.

Getting them anyway as part of this one.

Like fuck these are real! It's sunny and the trees are green and not full of "kopites fuck off" carvings on them.

Sky signed a contract through to 2019 I believe. They are paying WWE a lot more for it too, on the downside for us, all PPVs will now be PPV and we won't get the random ones on SS3. I'll be getting the network when it's released at the end of the year anyway. So doesn't bother me much.

Dirtsheets rarely know what the hell they are talking about. When they do they tend to just muddy the waters and make things sound worse than they are.

I can't see Punk at Chicago. I'd imagine he's done until at least Summerslam. Our London Raw tickets turned up in the post yesterday, nice.

The thing I love about this is Suarez's attitude to the whole thing. That man is just a winner. 2-2 - going to get a point, a bunch of guys would stand for that. Not Luis, goes right to the ball, picks it up and says fuck sake lads, get back. We haven't won yet. It's great to have strong personalities and, most importantly, a number of match winners and leaders on the pitch. We've been relying on Gerrard for far too long to pick us up and steer the team in the right direction.

Not scored for 5 minutes, ffs, sort it out!

Why did we need another attacker again?

Every club signs duff players sometimes. Why do we always focus on this kind of argument? We are lucky in some respects as the teams around us battling for that 4th spot didn't really improve their squad either. Spurs signed no one of note, Everton didn't, the Mancs signed a player that isn't really going to help them not concede goals. Hell, even Arsenal (who I still think we have a chance of catching for 3rd, despite today) didn't sign anyone who wasn't injured.

I feel that spurs pulled out of the running because they saw how annoying the transfer would be and figured they left it too late. Our guys tried to push it through and ultimately failed. It's just how it goes sometimes.

Losing out on the occasional signing isn't an indication of bad business either. Not always. Salah's agent actually said it took too long to agree terms with Basel, not that we tried to change it and Chelsea came in and just paid the whole lot straight away no questions asked. If we did that, give clubs whatever they wanted, no questions asked, the same people here lamenting our hesitancy would be doing the same and saying we are being pushovers.

You are not reading that, not everything is black and white. It isn't always a case of 100% this way or that way, most of the time it is a whole bunch of grey. Attributing it all down to Liverpool/Ayre/FSG and completely discounting the selling club is completely wrong, as is attributing it all to the selling club and not us. Transfers are tricky at times, some clubs just do not want to sell, some clubs want to sell to the highest bidder/whoever gives them the better terms, some players *shock* don't want to live in Liverpool and prefer London as a destination. It's just how it goes. For every Mkhitaryan/Konoplyanka/Dempsey there is a Coutinho/Suarez/Sakho. You can't argue that we have not signed some good players in the past few years. By your logic they were either signed as a complete fluke or the other club must have been thinking they were dealing with other people.