# One day only in my lifetime I wish to lose



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Please lose today so we can be rid of the FSW.

Worse ever manager and should never have been appointed.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...k-threat-Benitez-on-the-brink-at-Chelsea.html


----------



## Joff (Feb 9, 2013)

As a Liverpool fan, all I can do is roll my eyes.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish said:



			Please lose today so we can be rid of the FSW.

Worse ever manager and should never have been appointed.
		
Click to expand...

I can never want us to lose, but I understand the sentiment.  The Useless One should never have been hired, Di Matteo should have been given a proper chance.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 9, 2013)

Joff said:



			As a Liverpool fan, all I can do is roll my eyes.
		
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## louise_a (Feb 9, 2013)

I wish we had a manager we could moan about


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 9, 2013)

As a LFC fan all I can do is roflmao!
What's even funnier is watching CFC desperately try and attract a manager worth having to the poison chalice that CFC has become. Win EVERYTHING or get the boot.

Get used to it as the fat waiter is probably going to be the only CFC manager to see out his contract!


----------



## Imurg (Feb 9, 2013)

Just assume for a moment that CHelski do lose and Rafa gets the boot.....

Who on Earth is going to want that job now?
Any Manager worth his salt will run a mile if Abramovich comes calling.
They're not going to appoint a Holloway or similar - it's got to be a big name.
These big Names don't need to do Abramovich's bidding for a year and get a pay-off, they already have enough money. Why risk your reputation on a club that will sack you even if you win something?

Chelsea are a joke I'm afraid - through their own making.


----------



## bluewolf (Feb 9, 2013)

Im hoping Chelsea lose as well, but possibly for different reasons.


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			As a LFC fan all I can do is roflmao!
What's even funnier is watching CFC desperately try and attract a manager worth having to the poison chalice that CFC has become. Win EVERYTHING or get the boot.

Get used to it as the fat waiter is probably going to be the only CFC manager to see out his contract!
		
Click to expand...

You just snuggle up to your history like a comfort blanket, as that's all it is. When did you last win the premiership, oh sorry, NEVER in its whole existence 

21st century, Liverpool 5 cups, Chelsea 13   // 20th & 21st century since the formation of the Premiership, Liverpool 8 cups (only another 3) Chelsea 18 cups 

History is exactly that, the PAST, and your club now only lives in it :rofl:


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Imurg said:



			Any Manager worth his salt will run a mile if Abramovich comes calling.
		
Click to expand...

The problem isn't Roman, its Buck & Gourlay who are just nodding dogs and won't stand up to him or have an opinion of their own. So-called life long fans of the club my backside!

We need some teeth on the board not puppets.


----------



## Val (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish said:



			You just snuggle up to your history like a comfort blanket, as that's all it is. When did you last win the premiership, oh sorry, NEVER in its whole existence 

21st century, Liverpool 5 cups, Chelsea 13   // 20th & 21st century since the formation of the Premiership, Liverpool 8 cups (only another 3) Chelsea 18 cups 

History is exactly that, the PAST, and your club now only lives in it :rofl:



Click to expand...

Anyone see the irony in that last sentence, if history is in the past then why quote it?


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Valentino said:



			Anyone see the irony in that last sentence, if history is in the past then why quote it?
		
Click to expand...

Because all they go on about is history, because other than that they have nothing to shout about


----------



## Val (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish said:



			Because all they go on about is history, because other than that they have nothing to shout about 

Click to expand...

Of course, but right no neither do Chelsea have anything to shout about


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Valentino said:



			Of course, but right no neither do Chelsea have anything to shout about
		
Click to expand...

Plenty of clubs below us would trade with us for our current league position, FA Cup place and EUFA place so I beg to differ.  Yes were on a wobble but when the manager doesn't have the dressing room and changes winning sides unnecessarily, there's bound to be discontent, in _any_ team, as their was at Liverpool when he was their also.

Our winning ways and consistency was all started well before RA with Matthew Harding & Bates and when Hoddle came he brought in the names of Ruud Gullit and then came Vialli, Zola and host of others. The foundations started 8 years prior to RA and the silver was entering the cabinet and our consistency in the league was visible well before him also  

I've sat on the benches with my head in my hand in the old days with 12k at a home game but taking half that away, they were great times although very frustrating at times as the clubs with the wealth then had the pick of all the best players and they were the ones that broke the wages bills and transfer markets first!

There's a couple of new kids in town now though and they don't like it


----------



## Whee (Feb 9, 2013)

Foundations laid for Jose to make a return to the Bridge. A pair that suit each other down to the ground, no class between them.

That said, during Terry's recent lay off due to injury, they were a much less detestable team. Much like Liverpool without Suarez I reckon.


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Whee said:



			Foundations laid for Jose to make a return to the Bridge. A pair that suit each other down to the ground, no class between them.
		
Click to expand...

Jose will never come back, he has nothing to prove, our fear is he'll be Fergie's replacement.

Jose had the best teacher in the business, Bobby Robson, and there is no denying his (Jose) accomplishments around the world. I can't see how you could say the man has no class when he gets the best out of the players around him and creates so much success for his employers.


----------



## Imurg (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish said:



			I can't see how you could say the man has no class when he gets the best out of the players around him and creates so much success for his employers.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDBS5k8lNbU


Really classy that..............


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Imurg said:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDBS5k8lNbU


Really classy that..............
		
Click to expand...

OK he's a character, big deal.  Wouldn't call it a poke, more a wet finger in the ear, made me laugh.


----------



## Fader (Feb 9, 2013)

The only job a manager would stay away more from than the Chelsea one right now is Forest!

I can hardly comment either were on our 3rd manager this term and have hired a puppet that's got no record worth shouting about, thank god for Jordan Rhodes though or we'd be right in the brown stuff. 

What self respecting manager would want the Chelsea job though, established managers will look and laugh because they can walk into big jobs that have security unlike Chelsea, but Chelsea won't want an upcoming manager they tried that in Di Matteo & AVB which both got the boot because of a lack of understanding at board level. Perhaps the Chelsea dressing room has touch say and doesn't get behind the manager more because they think why should they who knows. 

But one things for certain if you want a new manager and want him to be a puppet for the board is Rovers fans will drive Michael Appleton right to your door.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 9, 2013)

Under bates, Chelsea were two weeks away from going bust. It's a pity they didn't.


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Under bates, Chelsea were two weeks away from going bust. It's a pity they didn't.
		
Click to expand...

There was always a lot of rubbish written about Chelsea's finances, and that's what it was, rubbish.

The Â£97million debt around 2002 which so often gets mentioned was for the Village not the football club, and it takes no account of the value of the wider businesses property and other assets!

So to compare Chelsea's debts with other clubs is apples and oranges, but we all know and get used to listening to the rubbishing of Chelsea who find it fun but have no knowledge of the FACTS.

The truth is that Chelsea's position was no more or less precarious than any other major clubs but the assets being far greater than any debts and the pitch being owned under a deed of trust by the fans, the future of the football club is never in doubt.

Yes there were high profile players and high wages being paid and the wages bill needed to be slashed and players offloaded which is why Trevor Birch was brought in to strip out all the old wood and balance the books better, which he did.

The difference was we did that publically where as most other clubs keep it in-house.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish said:



			Because all they go on about is history, because other than that they have nothing to shout about 

Click to expand...

Fish, when you have a trophy haul as large as ours, you are bound to go on about it. As you have (but just for the last 13 years, as it suits your argument).

Our trophy haul is still bigger than Man U's, just. It is miles bigger than Chelsea,Spurs and Newcastle's. It is a good bit bigger than Evertons and Arsenals, so why should we stop going on about it - thats what footy fans do.


You also say you are on a current dip, as are Liverpool but just over a longer period. Liverpool will win the big trophies again at some point, due to our infrastructure, fan base, big name, probably increasing ground capacity etc. However, whether we can overhaul the financially doped Chelsea and Man City is another thing.

But our structure is on a sound footing. Is Chelsea's - no. That is why the fans wont campaign against Abramovich, as they are scared he will go, or call in the "loans" that are on the club which are owed to him personally. If he goes, Chelsea folds.

LFC fans are still proud about lots of things about our club. Our gates have been higher in our years of slump, than in the time when we were winning everything. Loyalty counts for a lot in our club.

How have Chelseas gates gone - you admit yourself, crap gates in the main, with a large influx over the last 15 years. Do you feel comfortable amongst the "johnny come lateleys" around Stamford bridge these days. Where they the lads or the sons of lads who were at Oldham away in the second division, no they wont be.

I know that Chelsea were one of the best supported clubs in the 1920's, I actually admired the passion of Chelsea fans in the 1980's, and yes you were winning pots before RA started, but the financial doping turned you into perennial league winners and CL qualifiers.

How good did beating Bayern in their own ground last year feel. Bloody great I bet.

Read Roma 1984, my best ever holiday as a 13 year old, with my dad.

European cup wins - you know how great it feels now, that is why we celebrate having 5 of them, because they are quite rare.

Chelsea and Man U fans have an overwhelming sense of hate for LFC, mainly through jealousy and respect, and due to that we keep reminding them of our achievements, because they hate it.


----------



## bozza (Feb 9, 2013)

Giving Ashely Cole a contract extension but not Frank Lampard just sums up the type of club Chelsea are.

Lampard is a role model, gives everything for the team no matter what and loves the club and still can do a job for a top European club, Cole is a spoilt little brat who would go to anyother club in a heartbeat if they offerd more money.

I also think you are going to be stuck with Rafa for longer than you like.


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 9, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			You also say you are on a current dip, as are Liverpool but just over a longer period.
		
Click to expand...

:lol:



Liverbirdie said:



			mainly through jealousy
		
Click to expand...

:lol:


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 9, 2013)

bozza said:



			I also think you are going to be stuck with Rafa for longer than you like.
		
Click to expand...

Gone in the summer as Roman planned all along. Faaccchhht.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 9, 2013)

Kellfire said:



			:lol:



:lol:
		
Click to expand...

A very well argued riposte.


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish, just incase you don't know this but football was invented before 1992 and the invention of the Premier League.

As for your manager, I'd have him back tomorrow.

It's about time your players and fans started to take  responsibility and actually get behind the team.

I don't expect fans singing his name but all the negativity around the ground must unsettle the players.


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 9, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			A very well argued riposte.
		
Click to expand...

No point arguing with Liverpool fans generally, especially someone who comes out with pearls like I quoted!


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			But our structure is on a sound footing. Is Chelsea's - no. That is why the fans wont campaign against Abramovich, as they are scared he will go, or call in the "loans" that are on the club which are owed to him personally. If he goes, Chelsea folds..
		
Click to expand...

Once again incorrect.

Firstly I don't think their directors loans but even if they were, he cannot "call them in".  You pay yourself dividends (as I did in my business) but only from net profits gained so, if the club is in negative equity, he can't take a dividend or call anything in!

The fans also own the pitch as a freehold trust.

Our commercial side and world visibility has been extremely fruitful which is why we went for Kenyon, the problem with him was, although he more than filled his brief during his term, he was still a red and had a hand in Jose's departure before leaving himself immediately after! 

Due to the business side being The Village and the location of the total site, plus substantial assets, if RA was to go, there would be a stream of investors wanting to pick up the gauntlet of such a club and business in a prime spot in London.

Were going nowhere..

No denying your overall haul, but our small borough of a club has doubled your current achievements over the last 2 decades 2 fold    so, I think your "dip" is a little longer than the norm.

70's and 80's were great times as a proper fan of the club, the highs & lows were like being on a white knuckle ride, as old school we shy away from the new breed, they know their place and its as far away from us as possible which is why they dominate the home games and we dominate the away games.  You can only still get a feeling of how it used to be when travelling away, homes games are sterile at times and being told to sit down by some new hat 'n scarf is a joke. 

There's more to the Lampard gate than we all know, agents have far too much dealings in these matters and are not always thinking about the players best interest but their own commission.  I don't expect Frank to go but if he did, as long as its abroad he goes with my full blessing.  I'll speak to you in person about players as I looked after a few in my last business.


----------



## bozza (Feb 9, 2013)

Kellfire said:



			Gone in the summer as Roman planned all along. Faaccchhht.
		
Click to expand...

To be replaced by who?

Any decent manager that isn't just after a huge pay packet would stay well clear in my eyes.


----------



## Karl102 (Feb 9, 2013)

Banter about trophies, history and owners is all part and parcel of being a true fan.  Over the last decade, money talks and our local teams are now toys for billionaires who buy them for very different reasons.  Utd v Liverpool or City or in recent years Chelski and Arsenal are what holds us close to our teams, as defeat is gut wrenchingly unbearable.  
Boasting about proud past times is great and let's face it, we all do it and will argue until we are blue in the face about what we've done and where we are gonna go! I remember being at OT and listening to the Fergie out chants that reigned around for months before a Mark Robbins goal against Forrest in the FA Cup saved his bacon.  I felt sorry for Di Matteo, I thought he should be given more of a chance.  Looking at Blackburn, City and Chelski their owners have too much of a say in footballing issues. I remember reading about Allerdyce when he was at Bolton.  He was told his job was safe for ten years, regardless of what happened.  He did a good job in building a good team with limited resources. The facts are that managers are not given long enough to build teams fom solid foundations.  It's so much harder now with wage demands, the demand for instant success and the difficulty in bringing quality young players through, especially when it's easy for the bigger clubs to shell out 20 million for 'joe average'.  It will never happen, but salary caps and limiting the number of foreign players in uk teams would level the playing field to some degree and the billionaires being unable to 'buy' trophies will take their money elsewhere.   Not gonna happen anytime soon though.....


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

I thought the turning point after a 6 year drought was Lee Martin in the replay of the FA Cup in 1990 against Palace? 

Then with the Europe ban lifted and the kids all coming through, Beckham, Scholes, Nevilles, Butt etc you then went on to win all and sundry.

He wouldn't have got 6 years in today's times.


----------



## Karl102 (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish said:



			I thought the turning point after a 6 year drought was Lee Martin in the replay of the FA Cup in 1990 against Palace? 

Then with the Europe ban lifted and the kids all coming through, Beckham, Scholes, Nevilles, Butt etc you then went on to win all and sundry.

He wouldn't have got 6 years in today's times.
		
Click to expand...

The Forrest game was the 3rd round of the FA Cup in that year! Then all those so called kids came through.... In the first week of the premier league in 1992 there was 11 foreign players in the entire league compared to near 75% last weekend! This is my bugbear !


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Didn't United struggle for years when winning the domestic league but having to change their team by sometimes 70% due to the "foreigner" rule in European games during those times?

Welsh, Irish, Danish, Russian, Scottish, French and more, United had a good few for those times I seem to remember!


----------



## Karl102 (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish said:



			Didn't United struggle for years when winning the domestic league but having to change their team by sometimes 70% due to the "foreigner" rule in European games during those times?

Welsh, Irish, Danish, Russian, Scottish, French and more, United had a good few for those times I seem to remember!
		
Click to expand...

No. I don't thnk we struggled because of the rule, I think we were not good enough to compete at that level with such a young side... Going to Germany, Spain and even the Turkush Hell Holes were a bridge to far....


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 9, 2013)

Kellfire said:



			No point arguing with Liverpool fans generally, especially someone who comes out with pearls like I quoted!
		
Click to expand...

Especially, if you haven't really given an argument.

Were you the captain of the school debating club?


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2013)

Karl102 said:



			No. I don't thnk we struggled because of the rule, I think we were not good enough to compete at that level with such a young side... Going to Germany, Spain and even the Turkush Hell Holes were a bridge to far....
		
Click to expand...

Hmm, I beg to differ.  I think even though you had a strong squad, to change a team that was winning domestic titles consistently by 50% or more to compete in Europe has to take its toll.

Just my view of it.


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish said:



			You just snuggle up to your history like a comfort blanket, as that's all it is. When did you last win the premiership, oh sorry, NEVER in its whole existence 

21st century, Liverpool 5 cups, Chelsea 13  // 20th & 21st century since the formation of the Premiership, Liverpool 8 cups (only another 3) Chelsea 18 cups 

History is exactly that, the PAST, and your club now only lives in it :rofl:



Click to expand...

please Highlight in my post where I mention history?

Oh hang on, wait a moment, that would be you.


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 9, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21374699

I'm sure certain owners will try and get around the rules to suit themselves but I'm sure the FA and UEFA will be able to prevent or punish such actions.

I wonder how long the Russian will hang around when he can't do what ever he wants to.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 9, 2013)

Fish said:



			Once again incorrect.

Firstly I don't think their directors loans but even if they were, he cannot "call them in".  You pay yourself dividends (as I did in my business) but only from net profits gained so, if the club is in negative equity, he can't take a dividend or call anything in!

The fans also own the pitch as a freehold trust.

Our commercial side and world visibility has been extremely fruitful which is why we went for Kenyon, the problem with him was, although he more than filled his brief during his term, he was still a red and had a hand in Jose's departure before leaving himself immediately after! 

Due to the business side being The Village and the location of the total site, plus substantial assets, if RA was to go, there would be a stream of investors wanting to pick up the gauntlet of such a club and business in a prime spot in London.

Were going nowhere..

No denying your overall haul, but our small borough of a club has doubled your current achievements over the last 2 decades 2 fold    so, I think your "dip" is a little longer than the norm.

70's and 80's were great times as a proper fan of the club, the highs & lows were like being on a white knuckle ride, as old school we shy away from the new breed, they know their place and its as far away from us as possible which is why they dominate the home games and we dominate the away games.  You can only still get a feeling of how it used to be when travelling away, homes games are sterile at times and being told to sit down by some new hat 'n scarf is a joke. 

There's more to the Lampard gate than we all know, agents have far too much dealings in these matters and are not always thinking about the players best interest but their own commission.  I don't expect Frank to go but if he did, as long as its abroad he goes with my full blessing.  I'll speak to you in person about players as I looked after a few in my last business.
		
Click to expand...

Is it incorrect? I've read that the "investment" from RA, is in the form of loans to the club. 

Do you think if RA left tomorrow, that Chelsea would carry on swimmingly - no pun intended. I think they would really struggle, unless another billionaire came in.

RA was on the verge of buying Spurs, but decided on Chelsea. Lets face it, if he'd have bought Spurs, they would have a few leagues, cups, possibly also a european cup. I'm sure this has been stressed to Chelsea fans for the last 10 years, so no need to go into it all again, but it is not an organic growth of a football club and linked success the way Liverpool (60/70/80/90/00's), Everton(1960/80's), Man U(1960's,90/00's), Arsenal (1980/90/00's), Notts forest (1970's), Derby county(1970's),Leeds (60/70's)Wolves (1950's) did.Whether good support, a great manager(s), great players it was organic.

Blackburn,Chelsea,City have been skewed by financial doping, there is no doubt.

Small borough of a club? As one of the traditional big 4 in London, surely you have a catchment area of 2 million plus?

We share a city with another big club, in a city of only 400,000. There are also 15-20 other clubs in a 70 mile radius, as well as 2 other very large clubs only 30-odd miles down the road.Small borough of a club, don't make me laugh.


----------



## pokerjoke (Feb 10, 2013)

To be honest,i believe Chelsea are close to being in a real good place.
Yes they need a manager,sooner rather than later they are going to get a decent one.
They are 4 or 5 players away from being a major force again in Europe.
Abramovich will always back his manager with money.
The trouble stems from him seeming to make decisions on wether certain players play.
Until they get a manager that stands up to him,they may struggle,but im certainly one
that would be worried,more worried than Man city,or Arsenal.


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 10, 2013)

pokerjoke said:



			To be honest,i believe Chelsea are close to being in a real good place.
Yes they need a manager,sooner rather than later they are going to get a decent one.
They are 4 or 5 players away from being a major force again in Europe.
*Abramovich will always back his manager with money*.
The trouble stems from him seeming to make decisions on wether certain players play.
Until they *get a manager that stands up to him*,they may struggle,but im certainly one
that would be worried,more worried than Man city,or Arsenal.
		
Click to expand...

If he stopped backing the manager with just money and gave him the support of time to build a squad then maybe you will be a force in Europe again. 

As soon as a manager shows ANY sign of standing up to him they are out the door. I doubt there is a top class manager that wants to go there other than to top up his retirement fund quickly. 

RA has made your club a laughing stock having gone from league winners and CL winners to a circus act.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 10, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			RA has made your club a laughing stock having gone from league winners and CL winners to a circus act.
		
Click to expand...

No, he has turned my club into league winners and CL winners WHILST at the same time being a circus act; there's a difference.  And I think that there are a number of fans of other clubs who would settle for the same circus act for the same ride that we've had since he arrived.

No, I don't agree with all his decisions, yes I wish he would exhibit a little more class in certain respects, as I wish certain players did (but let's be fair, our players don't have a monopoly on that one) and I wish he would sack some of the hangers-on, sorry, advisors that he has but if I'm honest I'd have to say that overall I'm not sorry he turned up.


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 11, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			No, he has turned my club into league winners and CL winners WHILST at the same time being a circus act; there's a difference. And I think that there are a number of fans of other clubs who would settle for the same circus act for the same ride that we've had since he arrived.

No, I don't agree with all his decisions, yes I wish he would exhibit a little more class in certain respects, as I wish certain players did (but let's be fair, our players don't have a monopoly on that one) and I wish he would sack some of the hangers-on, sorry, advisors that he has but if I'm honest I'd have to say that overall I'm not sorry he turned up.
		
Click to expand...

I must apologise profusely for my previous post as on reflection you are of course correct. 
We are talking about fans who wave plastic flags and to celebrate their all concouring teams return to Lundern turned out in their drove as 75,000 fans lined the street to throw CELERY at their heros!







While Aberdeen paraded their Scottish cup through the streets in front of 100,000 CHEERING fans and when LFC returned triumphant with their 5th european champions trophy had 650,000 fans climbing lamp posts, buildings and anything else they could find just to get a glimps of the trophy that now resides PERMANENTLY at Anfield!
I now realise that Chavski FC fans and RA are a perfect match and long may the rest of us look on in dismay.


----------



## Fish (Feb 11, 2013)

Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher plan to release a joint autobiography about their time together at Liverpool. 

Still no title though....


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 11, 2013)

Fish said:



			Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher plan to release a joint autobiography about their time together at Liverpool. 

Still no title though....
		
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but wouldn't we all want to win a European cup for your boyhood club? Better than being a mercenary.......


----------



## Fish (Feb 11, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			Maybe not, but wouldn't we all want to win a European cup for your boyhood club? Better than being a mercenary.......
		
Click to expand...

You must be feeling suicidal after tonight's performance and the Baggies doing the double over you


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 11, 2013)

Fish said:



			You must be feeling suicidal after tonight's performance and the Baggies doing the double over you 

Click to expand...

Nar, getting used to it. Now I know what it was like to be a Chelsea fan between 1955-2003. 

We wuz robbed, it was very similar to the Villa game, tonnes of chances wasted and the visitors took their 3-4.

Whichever clubs have let that Steve Clarke go, needs shooting - we now have something in common!


----------



## Val (Feb 11, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			Nar, getting used to it. Now I know what it was like to be a Chelsea fan between 1955-2003. 

We wuz robbed, it was very similar to the Villa game, tonnes of chances wasted and the visitors took their 3-4.

Whichever clubs have let that Steve Clarke go, needs shooting - we now have something in common!
		
Click to expand...

Steve Clarke is arguably one of the best coaches around. I'm unsure if he fancies a big club but surely Chelsea could do alright with him at the helm.

I'm of the belief Rodgers is a decent manager but Liverpool need another striker if they ain't going to bring back and keep Carroll, otherwise they'll have plenty more games like what was witnessed tonight.


----------



## G1BB0 (Feb 11, 2013)

still short of a few players, was actually getting bored watching tonight, felt like a friendly at times and just going through the motions. Need to be more clinical. Oh well, theres always next season


----------



## stevie_r (Feb 11, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			I must apologise profusely for my previous post as on reflection you are of course correct. 
We are talking about fans who wave plastic flags and to celebrate their all concouring teams return to Lundern turned out in their drove as 75,000 fans lined the street to throw CELERY at their heros!







*While Aberdeen paraded their Scottish cup through the streets* in front of 100,000 CHEERING fans and when LFC returned triumphant with their 5th european champions trophy had 650,000 fans climbing lamp posts, buildings and anything else they could find just to get a glimps of the trophy that now resides PERMANENTLY at Anfield!
I now realise that Chavski FC fans and RA are a perfect match and long may the rest of us look on in dismay.
		
Click to expand...

Incredible memory you have there


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Incredible memory you have there
		
Click to expand...

Not really as it was in the papers last summer and I know plenty of Chavski fans that didn't like having that fact rubbed in their faces. 

I really hope the FA stand by their fair trading rules and we all get to watch Citah and Chavski suffer. I've also put a tenner on Chavski to be the first team in the prem to have a points deduction through failure to comply with the rules or get caught trying to cheat the rule.


----------



## Fish (Feb 12, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			Not really as it was in the papers last summer and I know plenty of Chavski fans that didn't like having that fact rubbed in their faces. 

I really hope the FA stand by their fair trading rules and we all get to watch Citah and Chavski suffer. I've also put a tenner on Chavski to be the first team in the prem to have a points deduction through failure to comply with the rules or get caught trying to cheat the rule.
		
Click to expand...

Over the last 15 years Liverpool have spent more buying players than Man Utd other than the longest period of 5 years during that period when Man U spent 132m against L'Pool's 86m and Chelsea's 87m.

The middle 5 years saw them equal their rivals with 182m each but over the latest 5 years L'Pool spent 262m against 185m from Manchester, what are they doing differently?

10 years ago Man Uniteds wage bill broke all records and increased by over 40% to over 1.3m a week seeing the first players in British football break all wage records with 80-100k per week salaries, it currently stands at around 160m equal to over 3m per week.  So what were they doing differently and how will they cope with 4m rise per year only?  

Liverpools wage bill raised again by 13m under Dalglish taking their wage bill to a staggering 2.5m per week, 130m a year! They (Liverpool) have always spent only around 15% less than Man Uniteds spend and wages over the last 10 years but their successes in percentage terms is a far greater divide! Seems money doesn't buy success! And, with a cap of 4m increase, how will you build up your current squad if they cannot compete now with no cap?

So, what have L'Pool & Man United done much differently over the last 10 years, nothing from what I can see, just spent slightly less than Chelsea can now although Chelsea reduced their wage bill by 18m last year and reduced their playing and coaching staff from 89 in 2011 to 69 currently and it will be reduced further.  Liverpool's is increasing!

However, a key point is that Chelsea's & Man City's "income" is over 300m which the owners play no part in, that is down to commercial growth and other income factors, Man Uniteds is over 330m and Arsenals is 256m but Liverpool's "income" is lacking well below those figures with only 184m and yet your spending as much as others!

Now if you want a real shocker, the quiet boys in the corner who make out they have a capped wage bill is in some terms correct but its how its spent and over how many as its the final figure that counts, so just have a look at Arsenals full wage bill.

FIRST TEAM 	WAGE (pwk) 	WAGE (p/yr)
Lukas Podolski 	Â£107,000 	      Â£5,564,000
Tomas Rosicky 	Â£80,000 	      Â£4,160,000
Per Mertesacker 	Â£80,000 	      Â£4,160,000
Andrey Arshavin 	Â£78,000 	      Â£4,056,000
Santi Carzorla 	Â£70,000 	      Â£3,640,000
Mikel Arteta 	Â£70,000 	      Â£3,640,000
Thomas Vermaelen Â£70,000 	      Â£3,640,000
Theo Walcott 	Â£60,000 	      Â£3,120,000
Olivier Giroud 	Â£60,000 	      Â£3,120,000
Gervinho 	        Â£60,000           Â£3,120,000
Bacary Sagna 	Â£60,000 	      Â£3,120,000
Marouane Chamakh Â£60,000        Â£3,120,000
Andre Santos 	Â£60,000 	     Â£3,120,000
Jack Wilshere 	Â£60,000 	     Â£3,120,000
Abou Diaby 	Â£60,000 	            Â£3,120,000
Denilson 	Â£60,000 	              Â£3,120,000
Laurent Koscielny  Â£60,000        Â£3,120,000
Johan Djourou 	Â£50,000 	     Â£2,600,000
Kieran Gibbs 	Â£50,000 	     Â£2,600,000
Nicklas Bendtner 	Â£50,000          Â£2,600,000
Sebastien Squillaci Â£50,000 	    Â£2,600,000
Aaron Ramsey 	Â£50,000 	    Â£2,600,000
Wojciech Szczesny Â£50,000 	   Â£2,600,000
Lukasz Fabianski 	Â£50,000 	    Â£2,600,000
Ju Young Park 	Â£50,000 	   Â£2,600,000
Vito Mannone 	Â£30,000 	   Â£1,560,000
Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain Â£30,000 	Â£1,560,000
Carl Jenkinson 	Â£30,000 	   Â£1,560,000
Emmanuel Frimpong Â£30,000 	   Â£1,560,000
Francis Coquelin 	Â£30,000 	   Â£1,560,000
Ryo Miyaichi 	Â£18,000 	  Â£936,000
Ignasi Miquel 	Â£10,000 	  Â£520,000
Joel Campbell 	Â£10,000 	  Â£520,000
*Â£90,636,000*
RESERVES 	  	 
Alex Iwobi 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Alfred Mugabo 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Anthony Jeffrey 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Arinse Uade 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Austin Lipman 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Benik Afobe 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Brandon Ormonde-Ottewill 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Chuba Akpom 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Chuks Aneke 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Conor Henderson 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Craig Eastmond 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Damian Martinez 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Daniel Boateng 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Deyan Iliev 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Elton Monteiro 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Glen Kamara 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Hector Bellerin 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Nicholas Yennaris 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Isaac Hayden 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Jack Jebb 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
James Shea 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Jernade Meade 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Jon Toral 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Jordan Wynter 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Josh Rees 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Josh Vickers 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Kristoffer Olsson 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Kyle Ebecilio 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Leander Siemann 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Martin Angha 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Nigel Neita 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Philip Roberts 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Reice Charles-Cook 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Samir Bihmoutine 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Samuel Galindo 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Sanchez Watt 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Sead Hajrovic 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Serge Gnabry 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Tarum Dawkins 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Thoma Eisfeld 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Tom Dallison 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Wellington 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Zachari Fagan 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Zak Ansah    	Â£750 	Â£39,000
* Â£1,716,000*
FIRST TEAM STAFF 	  	 
Manager 	  	 
ArsÃ¨ne Wenger 	Â£135,000 	Â£7,020,000
Assistant to Manager 	  	 
Boro Primorac 	Â£7,500 	Â£390,000
Steve Bould 	Â£5,000 	Â£260,000
Coach 	  	 
Gerry Peyton 	Â£1,300 	Â£67,600
Neil Banfield 	Â£1,300 	Â£67,600
Tony Colbert 	Â£1,300 	Â£67,600
Tony Roberts 	Â£1,300 	Â£67,600
Paul Johnson 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Marcus Svensson 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
James Collins 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Ben Knapper 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
David Wales 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Physio/Medical 	  	 
Colin Lewin   	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Gary O'Driscoll 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Simon Harland 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Kieran Hunt 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Darren Page 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Danny Flitter 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Kit 	  	 
Vic Akers 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Paul Akers 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Scouting 	  	 
Steve Rowley (Chief) 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Gilles Grimandi 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Tony Banfield 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Danny Karbassiyoon 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Sandro Orlandelli 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Pablo Budner 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Everton Gushiken 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Bobby Bennett 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Francis Cagigao 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Jurgen Kost 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Peter Clarke 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
* Â£8,938,800*
RESERVES STAFF 	  	 
Liam Brady 	      Â£3,200 	Â£166,400
David Court 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Roy Massey 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Terry Burton 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Steve Gatting 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Lee Smelt 	      Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Carl Laraman 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Steve Leonard 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Craig Gant 	        Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Dennis Rockall 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Lewis Manning 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Richard Goddard 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Alastair Thrush 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Kwame Ampadu 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
* Â£842,400*
BOARD 	  	 
Ivan Gazidis 	Â£39,423 	Â£2,049,996
Ken Friar OBE 	Â£10,980 	Â£570,960
Peter Hill-Wood 	Â£1,500 	Â£67,000
Stanley Kroenke 	Â£481   	Â£25,000
Sir Chips Keswick 	Â£480 	        Â£24,960
*Â£2,737,916*
OTHER COSTS 	  	 
Pension/social security 	Â£387,500 	Â£20,150,000
Player bonus pool 	Â£192,307 	Â£10,000,000
Peripheral staff 	Â£160,000 	Â£8,320,000

Total 	Â£2,756,771 *	Â£143,341,116*

That's over 2.75m p/week and for what in return!

Money will get you so far in competing for the Premier League but paying over-inflated salaries to beat off the competition is not necessarily a true reflection of a squadâ€™s overall ability or the ultimate route to success. The missing link is a management teamâ€™s ability to convert that financial outlay into trophies. Jose was successful but some others since have faltered. 

Basically, Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal have much fewer resources than Man City, but still have more than enough to field a world class first team + bench that is capable of outstripping the rest of the Premier League and winning consistently enough to mount a title challenge. Liverpool can't!

This notion can be further assessed by looking at the spend of a team such as Tottenham who competed with Arsenal for a place in the top four despite spending Â£30m less in wages, while Newcastle finished just 5 points behind Arsenal despite spending Â£110m less in wages! Newcastle has halved its wage bill from Â£74m to Â£34m over the past two seasons yet still managed a top four challenge!

If Newcastle can compete with Arsenal after a Â£110m wage deficit why canâ€™t Arsenal compete with Man City, Chelsea or Man Utd for the title when the wage gap in relative terms is far smaller?

This evidence re-establishes the fact that Wengerâ€™s inability to challenge for the title has little to do with being unable to compete financially, but everything to do with inefficient wage spend allied to poor player purchases and rank bad management, something I think Liverpool has also suffered with over the last decade also because they've clearly spent the money and continue to do so but the returns are minimal.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 12, 2013)

Fish said:



			Over the last 15 years Liverpool have spent more buying players than Man Utd other than the longest period of 5 years during that period when Man U spent 132m against L'Pool's 86m and Chelsea's 87m.

The middle 5 years saw them equal their rivals with 182m each but over the latest 5 years L'Pool spent 262m against 185m from Manchester, what are they doing differently?

10 years ago Man Uniteds wage bill broke all records and increased by over 40% to over 1.3m a week seeing the first players in British football break all wage records with 80-100k per week salaries, it currently stands at around 160m equal to over 3m per week.  So what were they doing differently and how will they cope with 4m rise per year only?  

Liverpools wage bill raised again by 13m under Dalglish taking their wage bill to a staggering 2.5m per week, 130m a year! They (Liverpool) have always spent only around 15% less than Man Uniteds spend and wages over the last 10 years but their successes in percentage terms is a far greater divide! Seems money doesn't buy success! And, with a cap of 4m increase, how will you build up your current squad if they cannot compete now with no cap?

So, what have L'Pool & Man United done much differently over the last 10 years, nothing from what I can see, just spent slightly less than Chelsea can now although Chelsea reduced their wage bill by 18m last year and reduced their playing and coaching staff from 89 in 2011 to 69 currently and it will be reduced further.  Liverpool's is increasing!

However, a key point is that Chelsea's & Man City's "income" is over 300m which the owners play no part in, that is down to commercial growth and other income factors, Man Uniteds is over 330m and Arsenals is 256m but Liverpool's "income" is lacking well below those figures with only 184m and yet your spending as much as others!

Now if you want a real shocker, the quiet boys in the corner who make out they have a capped wage bill is in some terms correct but its how its spent and over how many as its the final figure that counts, so just have a look at Arsenals full wage bill.

FIRST TEAM 	WAGE (pwk) 	WAGE (p/yr)
Lukas Podolski 	Â£107,000 	      Â£5,564,000
Tomas Rosicky 	Â£80,000 	      Â£4,160,000
Per Mertesacker 	Â£80,000 	      Â£4,160,000
Andrey Arshavin 	Â£78,000 	      Â£4,056,000
Santi Carzorla 	Â£70,000 	      Â£3,640,000
Mikel Arteta 	Â£70,000 	      Â£3,640,000
Thomas Vermaelen Â£70,000 	      Â£3,640,000
Theo Walcott 	Â£60,000 	      Â£3,120,000
Olivier Giroud 	Â£60,000 	      Â£3,120,000
Gervinho 	        Â£60,000           Â£3,120,000
Bacary Sagna 	Â£60,000 	      Â£3,120,000
Marouane Chamakh Â£60,000        Â£3,120,000
Andre Santos 	Â£60,000 	     Â£3,120,000
Jack Wilshere 	Â£60,000 	     Â£3,120,000
Abou Diaby 	Â£60,000 	            Â£3,120,000
Denilson 	Â£60,000 	              Â£3,120,000
Laurent Koscielny  Â£60,000        Â£3,120,000
Johan Djourou 	Â£50,000 	     Â£2,600,000
Kieran Gibbs 	Â£50,000 	     Â£2,600,000
Nicklas Bendtner 	Â£50,000          Â£2,600,000
Sebastien Squillaci Â£50,000 	    Â£2,600,000
Aaron Ramsey 	Â£50,000 	    Â£2,600,000
Wojciech Szczesny Â£50,000 	   Â£2,600,000
Lukasz Fabianski 	Â£50,000 	    Â£2,600,000
Ju Young Park 	Â£50,000 	   Â£2,600,000
Vito Mannone 	Â£30,000 	   Â£1,560,000
Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain Â£30,000 	Â£1,560,000
Carl Jenkinson 	Â£30,000 	   Â£1,560,000
Emmanuel Frimpong Â£30,000 	   Â£1,560,000
Francis Coquelin 	Â£30,000 	   Â£1,560,000
Ryo Miyaichi 	Â£18,000 	  Â£936,000
Ignasi Miquel 	Â£10,000 	  Â£520,000
Joel Campbell 	Â£10,000 	  Â£520,000
*Â£90,636,000*
RESERVES 	  	 
Alex Iwobi 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Alfred Mugabo 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Anthony Jeffrey 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Arinse Uade 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Austin Lipman 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Benik Afobe 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Brandon Ormonde-Ottewill 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Chuba Akpom 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Chuks Aneke 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Conor Henderson 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Craig Eastmond 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Damian Martinez 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Daniel Boateng 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Deyan Iliev 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Elton Monteiro 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Glen Kamara 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Hector Bellerin 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Nicholas Yennaris 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Isaac Hayden 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Jack Jebb 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
James Shea 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Jernade Meade 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Jon Toral 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Jordan Wynter 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Josh Rees 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Josh Vickers 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Kristoffer Olsson 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Kyle Ebecilio 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Leander Siemann 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Martin Angha 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Nigel Neita 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Philip Roberts 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Reice Charles-Cook 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Samir Bihmoutine 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Samuel Galindo 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Sanchez Watt 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Sead Hajrovic 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Serge Gnabry 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Tarum Dawkins 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Thoma Eisfeld 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Tom Dallison 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Wellington 	        Â£750 	Â£39,000
Zachari Fagan 	Â£750 	Â£39,000
Zak Ansah    	Â£750 	Â£39,000
* Â£1,716,000*
FIRST TEAM STAFF 	  	 
Manager 	  	 
ArsÃ¨ne Wenger 	Â£135,000 	Â£7,020,000
Assistant to Manager 	  	 
Boro Primorac 	Â£7,500 	Â£390,000
Steve Bould 	Â£5,000 	Â£260,000
Coach 	  	 
Gerry Peyton 	Â£1,300 	Â£67,600
Neil Banfield 	Â£1,300 	Â£67,600
Tony Colbert 	Â£1,300 	Â£67,600
Tony Roberts 	Â£1,300 	Â£67,600
Paul Johnson 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Marcus Svensson 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
James Collins 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Ben Knapper 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
David Wales 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Physio/Medical 	  	 
Colin Lewin   	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Gary O'Driscoll 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Simon Harland 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Kieran Hunt 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Darren Page 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Danny Flitter 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Kit 	  	 
Vic Akers 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Paul Akers 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Scouting 	  	 
Steve Rowley (Chief) 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Gilles Grimandi 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Tony Banfield 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Danny Karbassiyoon 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Sandro Orlandelli 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Pablo Budner 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Everton Gushiken 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Bobby Bennett 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Francis Cagigao 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Jurgen Kost 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
Peter Clarke 	Â£600 	Â£31,200
* Â£8,938,800*
RESERVES STAFF 	  	 
Liam Brady 	      Â£3,200 	Â£166,400
David Court 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Roy Massey 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Terry Burton 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Steve Gatting 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Lee Smelt 	      Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Carl Laraman 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Steve Leonard 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Craig Gant 	        Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Dennis Rockall 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Lewis Manning 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Richard Goddard 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Alastair Thrush 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
Kwame Ampadu 	Â£1,000 	Â£52,000
* Â£842,400*
BOARD 	  	 
Ivan Gazidis 	Â£39,423 	Â£2,049,996
Ken Friar OBE 	Â£10,980 	Â£570,960
Peter Hill-Wood 	Â£1,500 	Â£67,000
Stanley Kroenke 	Â£481   	Â£25,000
Sir Chips Keswick 	Â£480 	        Â£24,960
*Â£2,737,916*
OTHER COSTS 	  	 
Pension/social security 	Â£387,500 	Â£20,150,000
Player bonus pool 	Â£192,307 	Â£10,000,000
Peripheral staff 	Â£160,000 	Â£8,320,000

Total 	Â£2,756,771 *	Â£143,341,116*

That's over 2.75m p/week and for what in return!

Money will get you so far in competing for the Premier League but paying over-inflated salaries to beat off the competition is not necessarily a true reflection of a squadâ€™s overall ability or the ultimate route to success. The missing link is a management teamâ€™s ability to convert that financial outlay into trophies. Jose was successful but some others since have faltered. 

Basically, Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal have much fewer resources than Man City, but still have more than enough to field a world class first team + bench that is capable of outstripping the rest of the Premier League and winning consistently enough to mount a title challenge. Liverpool can't!

This notion can be further assessed by looking at the spend of a team such as Tottenham who competed with Arsenal for a place in the top four despite spending Â£30m less in wages, while Newcastle finished just 5 points behind Arsenal despite spending Â£110m less in wages! Newcastle has halved its wage bill from Â£74m to Â£34m over the past two seasons yet still managed a top four challenge!

If Newcastle can compete with Arsenal after a Â£110m wage deficit why canâ€™t Arsenal compete with Man City, Chelsea or Man Utd for the title when the wage gap in relative terms is far smaller?

This evidence re-establishes the fact that Wengerâ€™s inability to challenge for the title has little to do with being unable to compete financially, but everything to do with inefficient wage spend allied to poor player purchases and rank bad management, something I think Liverpool has also suffered with over the last decade also because they've clearly spent the money and continue to do so but the returns are minimal.
		
Click to expand...

I can't wait to get going on this one, see you later.


----------



## Fish (Feb 12, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			I can't wait to get going on this one, see you later.
		
Click to expand...

:rofl:

:smirk:


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 12, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			Maybe not, but wouldn't we all want to win a European cup for your boyhood club? Better than being a mercenary.......
		
Click to expand...

So when did Everton win it then?  And wasn't Gerrard off to join the mercenaries at the Bridge until something changed his mind.......


----------



## Dodger (Feb 12, 2013)

Talking about money what about this?? Is it any surprise that the great Ryan McGowan headed there recently??

*

Dario Conca â€“ The unknown footballer who earns more than Lionel Messi & Cristiano Ronaldo! CRAZY!*

Dario who? Thatâ€™s right Dario Conca is on a higher weekly wage than Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, undoubtedly the two best players in the world. This outstanding statistic was reported by the Spanish paper Marca. 

So how has someone that barely anyone has ever heard of landed himself such a huge contract? 

The fact that most people have never heard of Dario Conca instantly lets you know that he is not playing in one of the worldâ€™s most famous leagues. Indeed the 29 year old Argentinean plies his trade in China, for Guangzhou Evergrande. Like Messi, he is an attacking midfielder and of a similar height, measuring at around 5ft 5.5 inches. However, the similarities stop there. Unlike his compatriot, Conca hasnâ€™t even been capped for his country, only representing them at youth level. 

It would be unfair though to claim that Conca is a man devoid of any talent. Before his move to Guangzhou the attacking midfielder was playing for Fluminense in Brazil, where he was voted player of the year. It was this sort of form which saw the Chinese side part with $10 million to secure his services, in addition to offering him a contract worth â‚¬10.6 million. This is higher than the â‚¬10.5 million Lionel Messi receives and the â‚¬10 million that Cristiano Ronaldo earns (as reported by Marca). 

Undoubtedly this is an enormous amount of money for Guangzhou to part with, especially for someone who is by no means a marquee name. However, the purchase has been justified, and so far the diminutive Argentine has netted 18 goals in 33 appearances, helping the club win the Chinese FA Super Cup in February this year.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 12, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			I must apologise profusely for my previous post as on reflection you are of course correct. 
We are talking about fans who wave plastic flags and to celebrate their all concouring teams return to Lundern turned out in their drove as *75,000* fans lined the street to throw CELERY at their heros!

While Aberdeen paraded their Scottish cup through the streets in front of 100,000 CHEERING fans and when LFC returned triumphant with their 5th european champions trophy had 650,000 fans climbing lamp posts, buildings and anything else they could find just to get a glimps of the trophy that now resides PERMANENTLY at Anfield!
I now realise that Chavski FC fans and RA are a perfect match and long may the rest of us look on in dismay.


Not really as it was in the papers last summer and I know plenty of Chavski fans that didn't like having that *fact* rubbed in their faces.​

Click to expand...

Ah, so everything printed in the papers is now fact, is it?  There were a few more than that there I can assure you, as one who was, and I suspect that there would have been a few more there had it not been the day after the final so a number of fans would still have been in Munich.

650,000 for Liverpool's last one was there?  Shame a few of them couldn't have got down to Anfield and filled that last night... ​


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 12, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			So when did Everton win it then?  And wasn't Gerrard off to join the mercenaries at the Bridge until something changed his mind.......
		
Click to expand...

I was only referring to Gerrard. He didn't go when it all came down to it.

As 4 other scousers said, money can't buy you love.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 12, 2013)

Fish said:



			:rofl:

:smirk:
		
Click to expand...

Firstly, there are some interesting points in here, but overall disagree with the main theme. Specifically:-

Your points first, then my numbered ones.

Over the last 15 years Liverpool have spent more buying players than Man Utd other than the longest period of 5 years during that period when Man U spent 132m against L'Pool's 86m and Chelsea's 87m.

The middle 5 years saw them equal their rivals with 182m each but over the latest 5 years L'Pool spent 262m against 185m from Manchester, what are they doing differently?


1. Man U were in a very unusual (good) position of having 1/2 a team that came through the ranks for no money and most gave 10-15 years service. Giggs, Scholes, Butt, G Neville, P neville and D Beckham. Because these players were the mainstay of the team, they could then afford to pay top whack for the other players such as Van Nistelrooy, Rooney, Ferdinand, and yes, Veron.  
This kept man U's spending down and just let them buy the best. It's not a criticism, BTW.

10 years ago Man Uniteds wage bill broke all records and increased by over 40% to over 1.3m a week seeing the first players in British football break all wage records with 80-100k per week salaries, it currently stands at around 160m equal to over 3m per week. So what were they doing differently and how will they cope with 4m rise per year only? 


2. You mention Man U's wages not being the biggest. When you are the recent top dog, you will often get players going to a club, as trophies are more highly likely, which is why some players have picked Man U over Chelsea or City. Not all players are mercenaries, and some will pick trophies over money, the others will pick City or Chelsea. 

So, what have L'Pool & Man United done much differently over the last 10 years, nothing from what I can see, just spent slightly less than Chelsea 

3. Surely Liverpool haven't spent "slightly less" than Chelsea over the last 10 years.Are you including everyone at Chelsea, including all the expensive players you have out on loan?

So, what have L'Pool & Man United done much differently over the last 10 years, nothing from what I can see, just spent slightly less than Chelsea can now although Chelsea reduced their wage bill by 18m last year and reduced their playing and coaching staff from 89 in 2011 to 69 currently and it will be reduced further. Liverpool's is increasing!

4. Liverpool's squad is bound to increase as they "let go" and sold about 20 reserves, squad and peripheral players in the last 18 months to balance the books, so we need to strengthen - we only had 2 strikers for 4 months.

However, a key point is that Chelsea's & Man City's "income" is over 300m which the owners play no part in, that is down to commercial growth and other income factors, Man Uniteds is over 330m and Arsenals is 256m but Liverpool's "income" is lacking well below those figures with only 184m and yet your spending as much as others!

5. Is this genuine income - not backdoor sponsorship deals for the stadium etc, as in City's case. 

6. Liverpool's sponsorship/kit deals have vastly increased over the last 3-4 years, since Ayre has come in, all without Champions league exposure and trophies. Imagine if we did get to the top again?

7. Chelsea can command/rip-off fans more by charging London prices, but is it sustainable? Lets see how the Europa league gates do, and what the prices are for them. Remember the boycott of the other year by Chelsea's fans (well done BTW). If Roman's roubles disappear, I don't think they are sustainable.

Money will get you so far in competing for the Premier League but paying over-inflated salaries to beat off the competition is not necessarily a true reflection of a squadâ€™s overall ability or the ultimate route to success. The missing link is a management teamâ€™s ability to convert that financial outlay into trophies. Jose was successful but some others since have faltered. 

8. More or less the biggest 8 spenders are the top 8 (before last night!!!) in the premier league, even including Everton in that.

This notion can be further assessed by looking at the spend of a team such as Tottenham who competed with Arsenal for a place in the top four despite spending Â£30m less in wages.

I'm guessing that over the last 10 years Arsenal have invested a lot more in Youth than Spurs, whereas Spurs concentrate on the first team squad only, so more people to pay.

While Newcastle finished just 5 points behind Arsenal despite spending Â£110m less in wages! Newcastle has halved its wage bill from Â£74m to Â£34m over the past two seasons yet still managed a top four challenge!

9. Lots of Newcastle's players came up with them from the Championship over that period, so some will only have had championship contracts, but with added bonusses, compared to Arsenal's Premiership/Champs league contracts.

10. Newcastle also got rid of a lot of high earners such as Barton, Alan Smith, Nolan and made their squad "lean" after going into the Championship. Also Cabaye, Ba,Ben Arfa, Cisse etc were gambles that massively paid off, but weren't top money signings.

BTW Ferguson's great asset was his ability to keep changing teams, and assimiliating the new signings. - that hurt to type that.

I can't wait to have a pint with you at West lancs, pity were not in the same 4 ball.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 13, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			2. Not all players are mercenaries, and some will pick trophies over money, the others will pick City or Chelsea. 


7. Chelsea can command/rip-off fans more by charging London prices, but is it sustainable? Lets see how the Europa league gates do, and what the prices are for them. Remember the boycott of the other year by Chelsea's fans (well done BTW). If Roman's roubles disappear, I don't think they are sustainable.
		
Click to expand...

2. That rules Liverpool out of signing players on both counts!! 

7. The Sparta Prague home game is Â£30.  From memory, the group stages of the Champions League were Â£35, which had we qualified for the knockout stages gone to Â£59, League Cup was Â£25, FA Cup Â£30 and a Premier League game Â£50- Â£59, depending on the quality of the opposition.  That's for the Matthew Harding Upper (behind the goal).  IIRC the boycott was down to the removal of the discount for buying all 3 group stage tickets in one hit when the last one could be a dead duck.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 13, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			I was only referring to Gerrard. He didn't go when it all came down to it.

As 4 other scousers said, money can't buy you love.
		
Click to expand...

Rumour down here suggested it was something more sinister than love that persuaded him to stay; any truth in that?  I won't drag up the old chestnut of the photograph of a young Stevie in an Everton shirt with the trophies.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 13, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			Rumour down here suggested it was something more sinister than love that persuaded him to stay; any truth in that?  I won't drag up the old chestnut of the photograph of a young Stevie in an Everton shirt with the trophies.  

Click to expand...

There are conflicting rumours TBH. Normally if gangsters are involved it is to say leave town, not to stay, so would be unusual.

There are tonnes of rumours always going around - I call them "Evertonian" rumours. If you went on even half the rumours you hear, 9/10th's of LFC players would be gay/cokeheads and 3/10th's would even be lesbians!

Ive never seen Gerrard in an Everton top - sure it's not photoshopped?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 13, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			3/10th's would even be lesbians!

Ive never seen Gerrard in an Everton top - sure it's not photoshopped?
		
Click to expand...

Well, Sturridge is certainly a prize tart, but lesbian's a bit strong! 

As for the photo, here's a couple of links, make up your own mind.  Stevie apparently has said it's genuine but who knows?  I suppose you're going to tell me that the shirt is genuine but the trophies must have been photoshopped in...... :rofl:

http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/2008/04/04/steven-gerrard-is-an-everton-fan/

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/forum/ff-football-forum/20245-gerrard-confirms-he-had-everton-kit.html


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 13, 2013)

Gerrard and Carragher were both Everton fans as kids. Not that it matters.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 13, 2013)

Kellfire said:



			Gerrard and Carragher were both Everton fans as kids. Not that it matters.
		
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from, Carragher was, Gerrard was not. Common knowledge.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 13, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			Well, Sturridge is certainly a prize tart, but lesbian's a bit strong! 

As for the photo, here's a couple of links, make up your own mind.  Stevie apparently has said it's genuine but who knows?  I suppose you're going to tell me that the shirt is genuine but the trophies must have been photoshopped in...... :rofl:

http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/2008/04/04/steven-gerrard-is-an-everton-fan/

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/forum/ff-football-forum/20245-gerrard-confirms-he-had-everton-kit.html

Click to expand...

It might be true, although you can't hold it against a 6 year old, if your uncle dresses you up, to wind his brother up.

BTW I see you only picked me up on 2 out of 10 points earlier, I presume you agree with the rest then?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 13, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			It might be true, although you can't hold it against a 6 year old, if your uncle dresses you up, to wind his brother up.

BTW I see you only picked me up on 2 out of 10 points earlier, I presume you agree with the rest then? 

Click to expand...

Didn't say I held it against him, just wondered what the truth of it was.

Wasn't picking you up as such, point 2 was too good an opportunity to waste, , point 7 was just to clarify the prices as you asked what they were.  You made a lot of fair points in that post, as did Fish in his.  Only point I've seen you make that I might take issue with is was about the financial skewing caused by Chelsea, Man City & Blackburn and where their money came from.  It has long been felt outside of Liverpool that the relative demise of the two Merseyside teams coincided with the rise of the National Lottery, or to be more precise the demise of the Football Pools that the National Lottery caused.  With the boards of both clubs having the directors of the pools companies on them, the feeling was that the pools effectively funded Merseyside football to the detriment of other clubs, and consequently the allegations that the clubs you named have bought trophies comes across as the pot caling the kettle black.  Am I right or wrong?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 13, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			Didn't say I held it against him, just wondered what the truth of it was.

Wasn't picking you up as such, point 2 was too good an opportunity to waste, , point 7 was just to clarify the prices as you asked what they were.  You made a lot of fair points in that post, as did Fish in his.  Only point I've seen you make that I might take issue with is was about the financial skewing caused by Chelsea, Man City & Blackburn and where their money came from.  It has long been felt outside of Liverpool that the relative demise of the two Merseyside teams coincided with the rise of the National Lottery, or to be more precise the demise of the Football Pools that the National Lottery caused.  With the boards of both clubs having the directors of the pools companies on them, the feeling was that the pools effectively funded Merseyside football to the detriment of other clubs, and consequently the allegations that the clubs you named have bought trophies comes across as the pot caling the kettle black.  Am I right or wrong?
		
Click to expand...

Slightly right, but I've never seen that argument given before TBH.

Everton were known as the "mersey millionaires" in the 1960's. Whether they spent more than most though I wouldn't know.

Liverpool did break the transfer record a few times in the 1980's, but generally only after receiving the ian Rush money. It was the likes of man city, Wolves who signed the first million pound players. I don't think that even the most biased Man U fan would say that LFC spent their way to all them trophies in the  1960-1980's. Again LFC did what Man u have done, assimilating local players, but more so players from lower leagues and other countries. Apart from Kenny Dalglish (Great in Scotland, but no guarantees he would definitely do it in England) and Peter Beardsley (only 2-3 good seasons behind him at Newcastle), Liverpool  never bought other English teams very best players, spent even more than 30% more than their rivals at the time. We also never bought any top notch foreigners. The Moores family where mainly at Everton anyway, and David Moores only become chairman of LFC in the 1990's, and didn't exactly break the bank. jack Walker would probably have spent more than him

City and Chelsea have  sometimes spent 3-4 times more than rivals in even one season.

BTW, I'm not sure if that was Fish's own work or he just copied and pasted his............  No riposte yet.


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 13, 2013)

Kellfire said:



			Gerrard and Carragher were both Everton fans as kids. Not that it matters.
		
Click to expand...

Not true about Gerrard being a blue, Carra defo was and there's a Evertonian taxi driver rumour that carra has a EFC Tattoo aswell.


----------



## Fish (Feb 14, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			BTW, I'm not sure if that was Fish's own work or he just copied and pasted his............  No riposte yet.
		
Click to expand...

Cheeky bugger, I worked hard on that, and this....



Liverbirdie said:



			Chelsea have  sometimes spent 3-4 times more than rivals in even one season.
		
Click to expand...

Nope, incorrect!  As I stated in my post, when looking at 5 year blocks over 15 years the variable is quite small in percentage terms.  Yes there is the odd season of a wealth of purchases but that is offset by a minimal spend the following year/s. That's what all businesses do at times which is what football has now become, big business, as it invests not only in the present but for the future also.

Over 15 years and in blocks of 5, Chelsea spent only 1m more than Liverpool over that furthest period but for 4 years of that block L'Pool spent many millions more, +14m, +5m, +10m and then +4m! In that same block though Man united spent nearly twice what both teams did (+50m)! 

The middle block of 5 years did see some major spending at times by Chelsea but they then spent virtually nothing the following year/s at times but again L'pool spent double (+30m & +16m) what Chelsea did twice within that block of 5.  

In the most recent block of 5 years Chelsea have spent overall only 20% more than L'pool and again 2 years within that block L'pool spent 37 & 39% (+13m & +15m) more than Chelsea!

The average percentage spend between Chelsea & L'pool over the last 15 years is only 32% and in the last 5 years was only 20%.  Transfer that amount to honours won within that period and the commercial growth they achieved and extra income they bring in due to those successes and visibility.......its money well spent.  

Was Liverpool's well spent?  I'd say no, because your gate money has decreased even though you played the same amount of games at home when you swapped the Champions league for Europa and that meant less attendances at reduced ticket prices and loss of commercial revenue which has a direct relationship and of course that also then means a huge loss of broadcasting revenue!

Then to not qualify for a European competition at all cost your club an estimated 48-55m!

However, Chelsea's Broadcasting revenue increased by 18% to Â£101.4m due to successful Champions League campaigns delivering increased UEFA distributions and increased Premier League payments. 

If you don't improve on the pitch and don't qualify for the Champions League you will continue to slide down the World Money League which has seen Chelsea rise to 6th and Liverpool fall to 9th. 

Chelsea's match day revenue is 67.5m against L'pools 40.9m, broadcasting revenue for Chelsea is 101.4m against L'pools 65.3m but, Chelsea's commercial revenue is only 56.7m against 77.4m of L'pools but Chelsea has increased its commercial position by no less than 12% each year so its going in the right direction, L'pools however is falling.

The only thing that will underpin your revenue currently and give you much needed cash-flow is the new shirt deal and various sponsorships because what you have spent on players, which is on a par with Manchester United over the last 15 years (variable 30M), has not been returned on the pitch or in the trophy cabinet hence your income is dropping, if that continues, its a downward spiral and you'll need your history to stay attractive to investors!


----------



## Papas1982 (Feb 14, 2013)

Fish said:



			Plenty of clubs below us would trade with us for our current league position, FA Cup place and EUFA place so I beg to differ.  Yes were on a wobble but when the manager doesn't have the dressing room and changes winning sides unnecessarily, there's bound to be discontent, in _any_ team, as their was at Liverpool when he was their also.

Our winning ways and consistency was all started well before RA with Matthew Harding & Bates and when Hoddle came he brought in the names of Ruud Gullit and then came Vialli, Zola and host of others. The foundations started 8 years prior to RA and the silver was entering the cabinet and our consistency in the league was visible well before him also  

I've sat on the benches with my head in my hand in the old days with 12k at a home game but taking half that away, they were great times although very frustrating at times as the clubs with the wealth then had the pick of all the best players and they were the ones that broke the wages bills and transfer markets first!

There's a couple of new kids in town now though and they don't like it 

Click to expand...

i presume you've not read Lampards autobiography then, coz that mini empire you'd built befor RA arrived was about to crumble. You were against the wall Leeds/Pompey style and would of gone into liquidation without him. Remember playing Charkton at the Beach?


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 14, 2013)

Fish said:



			Cheeky bugger, I worked hard on that, and this....



Nope, incorrect!  As I stated in my post, when looking at 5 year blocks over 15 years the variable is quite small in percentage terms.  Yes there is the odd season of a wealth of purchases but that is offset by a minimal spend the following year/s. That's what all businesses do at times which is what football has now become, big business, as it invests not only in the present but for the future also.

Over 15 years and in blocks of 5, Chelsea spent only 1m more than Liverpool over that furthest period but for 4 years of that block L'Pool spent many millions more, +14m, +5m, +10m and then +4m! In that same block though Man united spent nearly twice what both teams did (+50m)! 

The middle block of 5 years did see some major spending at times by Chelsea but they then spent virtually nothing the following year/s at times but again L'pool spent double (+30m & +16m) what Chelsea did twice within that block of 5.  

In the most recent block of 5 years Chelsea have spent overall only 20% more than L'pool and again 2 years within that block L'pool spent 37 & 39% (+13m & +15m) more than Chelsea!

The average percentage spend between Chelsea & L'pool over the last 15 years is only 32% and in the last 5 years was only 20%.  Transfer that amount to honours won within that period and the commercial growth they achieved and extra income they bring in due to those successes and visibility.......its money well spent.  

Was Liverpool's well spent?  I'd say no, because your gate money has decreased even though you played the same amount of games at home when you swapped the Champions league for Europa and that meant less attendances at reduced ticket prices and loss of commercial revenue which has a direct relationship and of course that also then means a huge loss of broadcasting revenue!

Then to not qualify for a European competition at all cost your club an estimated 48-55m!

However, Chelsea's Broadcasting revenue increased by 18% to Â£101.4m due to successful Champions League campaigns delivering increased UEFA distributions and increased Premier League payments. 

If you don't improve on the pitch and don't qualify for the Champions League you will continue to slide down the World Money League which has seen Chelsea rise to 6th and Liverpool fall to 9th. 

Chelsea's match day revenue is 67.5m against L'pools 40.9m, broadcasting revenue for Chelsea is 101.4m against L'pools 65.3m but, Chelsea's commercial revenue is only 56.7m against 77.4m of L'pools but Chelsea has increased its commercial position by no less than 12% each year so its going in the right direction, L'pools however is falling.

The only thing that will underpin your revenue currently and give you much needed cash-flow is the new shirt deal and various sponsorships because what you have spent on players, which is on a par with Manchester United over the last 15 years (variable 30M), has not been returned on the pitch or in the trophy cabinet hence your income is dropping, if that continues, its a downward spiral and you'll need your history to stay attractive to investors!
		
Click to expand...

Fish, I'm not doubting your figures as I've not had time to research but the 1 obvious difference between Liverpool  and Chelsea/utd is Liverpool have  had to sell a lot of players to enable them spend and compete.

Under Rafa, he allegedly spent c.Â£350m but he sold Â£280m so the nett spend was Â£70m. 

He was expected to win the league every season spending Â£20m nett whilst Mourinho was spending Â£20m plus on at least 8 players without HAVING to sell.

Under Dalglish  he spent Â£90m but sold Â£65m, spending Â£25m nett.

If Torres hadn't of been sold, he wouldn't of been able to spend that  type of money.

Dont say nett spend doesn't matter because in our case it clearly has done and does.

I accept   that some managers have made bad signings but comparing Liverpool's gross spend against yours over the last 15 yrs doesn't actually show the real truth.


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 14, 2013)

Stuart_C said:



			Fish, I'm not doubting your figures as I've not had time to research but the 1 obvious difference between Liverpool and Chelsea/utd is Liverpool have had to sell a lot of players to enable them spend and compete.

Under Rafa, he allegedly spent c.Â£350m but he sold Â£280m so the nett spend was Â£70m. 

He was expected to win the league every season spending Â£20m nett whilst Mourinho was spending Â£20m plus on at least 8 players without HAVING to sell.

Under Dalglish he spent Â£90m but sold Â£65m, spending Â£25m nett.

If Torres hadn't of been sold, he wouldn't of been able to spend that type of money.

Dont say nett spend doesn't matter because in our case it clearly has done and does.

I accept that some managers have made bad signings but comparing Liverpool's gross spend against yours over the last 15 yrs doesn't actually show the real truth.
		
Click to expand...

For everyone net spend is going to be important as well as wages. The FA and EUFA aren't trying to stop teams from spending but they are stopping them from spending what they, as a club, don't have without dipping into the bottomless pockets of the sugardaddy owners.


----------



## Fish (Feb 14, 2013)

Stuart_C said:



			Fish, I'm not doubting your figures as I've not had time to research but the 1 obvious difference between Liverpool  and Chelsea/utd is Liverpool have  had to sell a lot of players to enable them spend and compete.

Under Rafa, he allegedly spent c.Â£350m but he sold Â£280m so the nett spend was Â£70m. 

He was expected to win the league every season spending Â£20m nett whilst Mourinho was spending Â£20m plus on at least 8 players without HAVING to sell.

Under Dalglish  he spent Â£90m but sold Â£65m, spending Â£25m nett.

If Torres hadn't of been sold, he wouldn't of been able to spend that  type of money.

Dont say nett spend doesn't matter because in our case it clearly has done and does.

I accept   that some managers have made bad signings but comparing Liverpool's gross spend against yours over the last 15 yrs doesn't actually show the real truth.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst you may have sold before you bought, you still bought players you wanted/needed and your wage bill still increased overall! More so under Dalglish by 13m!

Chelsea's wage bill is being trimmed all the time and has decreased greatly over recent years and will continue to do so. Lots of players were also sold and put out on loan during the Jose era.  If a loan player has only 50% of his wages paid by the loan club, then the original club still has the remaining 50% on their books, only if they are 100% being subsidised by the loan club do they show a zero balance on the wage bill, most of our loan players are being paid fully by the clubs they are on loan at.

The facts of the matter are, irrelevant of ownership, sugar daddy or not, is that whilst you are successful on the pitch your income will increase across the 3 major factors being Match Day Receipts, Broadcasting & Commercial. Whether you've sold to buy or not, you (L'pool) have bought players and spent (gross) a small percentage lessthan Chelsea & Man United but without anywhere near their tally of honours in that same period.

In 2 of those factors (match day & broadcasting) Liverpool are losing a lot of revenue (150m+) and without success on the pitch it will fall further.  Without investment their net worth will fall more and investors then become harder to find and shirt sponsorships are not as lucrative. Your commercial side is underpinning the club currently but a new stadium will not have any baring on that, results on the pitch and competing in Europe does, sponsors want visibility. 

The money you have spent (gross on players) over the last 15 years compared to Manchester United & Chelsea has not brought you those results on the pitch and as such you have suffered a huge loss of income and as such you have less to spend and invest.

So like any business (as I did with mine), you invest personal money to create success in your marketplace and when that success arrives and your income increases and you shape your business accordingly (address costs) and start to make net profits, you take the money back out as tax free dividends or share capital.

L'pool need to invest on the pitch (players) to win matches and compete for the title and Europe, can they do that currently, No, can they afford to do that currently No, have they spent enough to achieve that over the last 15 years, I think so Yes.  If they find an investor or new owner that is willing to do that, will that make them any different to Chelsea currently...No 

An owner will and should always invest in his product/business to achieve success, otherwise what's the point?


----------



## Papas1982 (Feb 14, 2013)

The problem with figures is they can be manipulated to fit your own desires. Also as someone who has a business (how many times do you need to mention that). Surely you have to accept that the only figures that count are net, and not gross. On that note take a look at the link below and explain your theory on transfer spend. Gotta sy though, as much as I think your argument is terribly flawed, your initial point Rafa out, and being bored of liverpools "we have history" are both spot on. 

[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://www.footballfancast.com/football-blogs/what-do-these-financial-figures-tell-us-about-the-premier-league[/FONT]


----------



## Fish (Feb 14, 2013)

Papas1982 said:



			The problem with figures is they can be manipulated to fit your own desires. Also as someone who has a business (how many times do you need to mention that). Surely you have to accept that the only figures that count are net, and not gross. On that note take a look at the link below and explain your theory on transfer spend. Gotta sy though, as much as I think your argument is terribly flawed, your initial point Rafa out, and being bored of liverpools "we have history" are both spot on. 

[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://www.footballfancast.com/football-blogs/what-do-these-financial-figures-tell-us-about-the-premier-league[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Firstly all the figures are from their submitted accounts and are factual comparisons.  I've mentioned "my business" twice in 15 posts within this thread, sorry if that offends you but it was mentioned in context only.

Oh and your link doesn't work but I found the article anyway 

The net spend figures, like many comments state underneath do not tell the whole story and there are glaring omission's with some clubs who were in the transfer market big style during that time. Without wage bills, agents and transfer fee's being submitted the list is meaningless.

The main point I was clarifying was that L'pool spent not much less gross on players they wanted which simply didn't perform on the pitch.  That simply leads to less income.  OK they offset some of their spend by selling to buy, but they still bought! That has nothing to do with those players not performing or not being good enough and not challenging for honours.

They've spent plenty of money and under performed for a club of their size and h......  no I'm not saying it


----------



## Papas1982 (Feb 14, 2013)

Fish said:



			Firstly all the figures are from their submitted accounts and are factual comparisons.  I've mentioned "my business" twice in 15 posts within this thread, sorry if that offends you but it was mentioned in context only.

Oh and your link doesn't work but I found the article anyway 

The net spend figures, like many comments state underneath do not tell the whole story and there are glaring omission's with some clubs who were in the transfer market big style during that time. Without wage bills, agents and transfer fee's being submitted the list is meaningless.

The main point I was clarifying was that L'pool spent not much less gross on players they wanted which simply didn't perform on the pitch.  That simply leads to less income.  OK they offset some of their spend by selling to buy, but they still bought! That has nothing to do with those players not performing or not being good enough and not challenging for honours.

They've spent plenty of money and under performed for a club of their size and h......  no I'm not saying it 

Click to expand...

I know that just net spend doesn't  tell the whole story. That was my point, that any bunch of stats can mask the truth. That said I'm sure if you went through all net spend and wage bills since prem began there'd still be a trend of Chelsea being substantially higher than Liverpool. Arsenal would defo look worse of though, never understood the regard he's held in personally, inherited the defence  that won the titles but that's  another story. I think the problem that's arisen during this debate and it always does between Chelsea (new money) and Liverpool (h^%~<+y), since that goal/pen you've ha quite a rivalry, is that both sets of fans, as all fans are, are blind to faults of their own. Liverpool harp on about THAT word, and Chelsea fans are adamant that they'd be where they are with or without RA which is clearly not the case as you were definitely in a sticky situation financially and would of had serious restructuring to do if you we're to survive in a healthy and competitive state. 

As for your business, many apologies most of been the repetitiveness of all the quotes being used in each response lol

Re Rafa, obviously he was the wrong choice, but did you really rate RDM? Don't want to get into a debate on the merits of you winning the big trophy, you've had plenty of close calls, Terry slipping to warrant a bit (or lots) of luck. But in the league he wasn't exactly setting the world on fire.


----------



## Fish (Feb 14, 2013)

Papas1982 said:



			Re Rafa, obviously he was the wrong choice, but did you really rate RDM? Don't want to get into a debate on the merits of you winning the big trophy, you've had plenty of close calls, Terry slipping to warrant a bit (or lots) of luck. But in the league he wasn't exactly setting the world on fire.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a case of rating RDM, more a case of giving him more time and seeing if he could stop the rot.  After losing to WBA, that was a 4th, possibly 5th loss/draw and RA backed up by Buck and Gourlay panicked and he was gone.

I do think he may have been a little inexperienced as when we were losing in some games he didn't change formations or game plans mid-game, as Jose would have.  Could he have grown more with more time, we'll never know.  Grant was the same and personally he should have been given a start as well, although losing to Spurs was hard to take. Although the amount of managers is well published, its fair to say that 3 of them were appointed, like Rafa as gap fillers only.

We were flying at the start of season and most pundits couldn't see much past us for taking honours everywhere but then a series of losses left the door open and the doubters on RDM got louder.  When Rafa took over we were still only 4 points adrift due to an excellent start but within 12 weeks of his appointment we were 14 points adrift and dropping points further and further and giving 2 nil leads away.

It is a statistical fact that Rafa is the worse manager to date over any length of time we have ever had and even if he won all the rest of the games in the season, he couldn't better that now!

He is not wanted.


----------



## Papas1982 (Feb 14, 2013)

Im in no way suggesting Rafa should stay, just not sure you'll get anything other than another stop gap I he leaves now. My personal opinion is that AVB should of been given more support. Looks to me like he was bit of a scapegoat. Somebody at top level should of come out and said "these players are going". Because without a doubt player power was his downfall, you won Champions league on our effort last year (not a bad thing), but if AVB was shown that support anything could of happened. Did a quick google and AVB actually took 0.20 points pr game more. That's 8 points over the season, an that's with a disruptive squad.


----------



## Fish (Feb 14, 2013)

I struggled to warm to AVB, I think he was weak.

Our biggest problem is Buck & Gourlay being nodding dogs to RA, we need some teethe on the board IMO.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 14, 2013)

Fish said:



			Cheeky bugger, I worked hard on that, and this....



Nope, incorrect!  As I stated in my post, when looking at 5 year blocks over 15 years the variable is quite small in percentage terms.  Yes there is the odd season of a wealth of purchases but that is offset by a minimal spend the following year/s. That's what all businesses do at times which is what football has now become, big business, as it invests not only in the present but for the future also.

Over 15 years and in blocks of 5, Chelsea spent only 1m more than Liverpool over that furthest period but for 4 years of that block L'Pool spent many millions more, +14m, +5m, +10m and then +4m! In that same block though Man united spent nearly twice what both teams did (+50m)! 

The middle block of 5 years did see some major spending at times by Chelsea but they then spent virtually nothing the following year/s at times but again L'pool spent double (+30m & +16m) what Chelsea did twice within that block of 5.  

In the most recent block of 5 years Chelsea have spent overall only 20% more than L'pool and again 2 years within that block L'pool spent 37 & 39% (+13m & +15m) more than Chelsea!

The average percentage spend between Chelsea & L'pool over the last 15 years is only 32% and in the last 5 years was only 20%.  Transfer that amount to honours won within that period and the commercial growth they achieved and extra income they bring in due to those successes and visibility.......its money well spent.  

Was Liverpool's well spent?  I'd say no, because your gate money has decreased even though you played the same amount of games at home when you swapped the Champions league for Europa and that meant less attendances at reduced ticket prices and loss of commercial revenue which has a direct relationship and of course that also then means a huge loss of broadcasting revenue!

Then to not qualify for a European competition at all cost your club an estimated 48-55m!

However, Chelsea's Broadcasting revenue increased by 18% to Â£101.4m due to successful Champions League campaigns delivering increased UEFA distributions and increased Premier League payments. 

If you don't improve on the pitch and don't qualify for the Champions League you will continue to slide down the World Money League which has seen Chelsea rise to 6th and Liverpool fall to 9th. 

Chelsea's match day revenue is 67.5m against L'pools 40.9m, broadcasting revenue for Chelsea is 101.4m against L'pools 65.3m but, Chelsea's commercial revenue is only 56.7m against 77.4m of L'pools but Chelsea has increased its commercial position by no less than 12% each year so its going in the right direction, L'pools however is falling.

The only thing that will underpin your revenue currently and give you much needed cash-flow is the new shirt deal and various sponsorships because what you have spent on players, which is on a par with Manchester United over the last 15 years (variable 30M), has not been returned on the pitch or in the trophy cabinet hence your income is dropping, if that continues, its a downward spiral and you'll need your history to stay attractive to investors!
		
Click to expand...

OK, I'll give you, you didn't copy and paste it - maybe just the Arsenal list.

Firstly, what is the figures for 10 years, not 15 (pre-abramovich).

Secondly, although not absolute science the nett figures, give more of the story.

If Chelsea sign 25 x Â£ 20 mill players they will have a very good squad.

If Liverpool sign 10 x Â£ 30 mill players they wont, maybe on a certain day, but not overall. Especially, if you have to sell 5 x Â£20 mill players to finance most of it.Football more so than ever is a squad game, and a squad of 25 players. Especially, if Rafa is your manager. 

Also, are you just looking at investment as just being in the team?

If Liverpool have also spent money on the ground, the training ground, the academy, out of club funds, this takes away from the playing squad. If RA has paid for all these out of his back pocket, it does not affect squad building.

I agree with the other points overall, as yes, if your not in champ league,sponsors will not back you as much. No doubt Chelsea are on the up, Liverpool on the down (as such). However, even with no champs league for about 4 years, our income has increased due to sponsorship deals being more in number, as well as in price. Ayre has done a very good job on this side.

As Chelsea has increased their worldwide exposure, theirs will increase, due to glory hunters, more exposure etc.

Was Liverpool's well spent - hell no. But if you can only make 2 10-20 mill signings a year, chances are less likely. If Chelsea sign 6 10-20 mill players, chances have increased - 1 or 2 duds wont affect the 4 succesful ones. 

Nett spend is the key, but we have signed some shocking players over the years, of that there is no doubt.

You have also had THE most talented managers over the last 10 years (before they come to Chelsea) also, you just ruined some of them.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			As Chelsea has increased their worldwide exposure, theirs will increase, due to *glory hunters*, more exposure etc.
		
Click to expand...

And all of your support was born within the sight of the Liver building?  Come on, you've got as many, if not more, than most.  Cornwall seems to be a particular hot bed.

As regards the previous money point, it wasn't intended to suggest that your success was all money orientated, you certainly had some good managers, but being able to pay the best wages doesn't hurt.  I fully accept the point that to some extent everybody buys the title, but that to a degree applies to everybody.  Possibly more to us at the moment because it was the only way to bridge the gap quickly, but as the other measures kick in and hopefully we bring more youth through less so.  There seems to be a particular bitterness in this respect from Liverpool fans.  Were you expecting the new American owners to rival Abramovich in the funding department?

Can't argue that we haven't made the best use of the managerial talent that we have had, wouldn't agree that we've ruined them though.


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 14, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			And all of your support was born within the sight of the Liver building? Come on, you've got as many, if not more, than most. *Cornwall seems to be a particular hot bed*.

As regards the previous money point, it wasn't intended to suggest that your success was all money orientated, you certainly had some good managers, but being able to pay the best wages doesn't hurt. I fully accept the point that to some extent everybody buys the title, but that to a degree applies to everybody. Possibly more to us at the moment because it was the only way to bridge the gap quickly, but as the other measures kick in and hopefully we bring more youth through less so. There seems to be a particular bitterness in this respect from Liverpool fans. Were you expecting the new American owners to rival Abramovich in the funding department?

Can't argue that we haven't made the best use of the managerial talent that we have had, wouldn't agree that we've ruined them though.
		
Click to expand...


Can't people move anymore and still support the same team? 

I wasn't born in Liverpool but that besides the point. I started supporting LFC when my dad tried to make me support ManU and I wanted to get up his nose so picked their biggest rivals. I was a lovely child!


The new bunch of American owners never promised massive spending they have always said they want the club to support itself and be sustainable. This is being worked towards from every angle and in time will be good for the club. We have had far too many people with their hands in the cookie jar in the past and it's going to take time to rectify this.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			Can't people move anymore and still support the same team? 

I wasn't born in Liverpool but that besides the point. I started supporting LFC when my dad tried to make me support ManU and I wanted to get up his nose so picked their biggest rivals. I was a lovely child!


The new bunch of American owners never promised massive spending they have always said they want the club to support itself and be sustainable. This is being worked towards from every angle and in time will be good for the club. We have had far too many people with their hands in the cookie jar in the past and it's going to take time to rectify this.
		
Click to expand...

Of course they can move and support the same club, but from the number of shirts I've seen when I've been down there it wasn't a move it was an exodus.  Or a hell of a lot of glory hunters; take your pick.  I tend to think glory hunter when people attach themselves to a successful team to which they have no other affiliation, but maybe that's just my suspicious nature.  There may be many other reasons why people choose a certain club, as you have demonstrated. 

I don't believe I said that the new owners had promised to spend a fortune, just that I felt there was a sense of disappointment among some fans that they hadn't.  It must be particularly galling to those fans that having accused certain rivals of being rent boys & selling their backsides to a foreigner, their own club does the same and for much less effect.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2013)

Fish said:



			I struggled to warm to AVB, I think he was weak.

Our biggest problem is Buck & Gourlay being nodding dogs to RA, we need some teethe on the board IMO.
		
Click to expand...

You missed incompetent, inept and untrustworthy out of your description of Laurel & Hardy.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2013)

Liverbirdie, re the ticket prices, commentator on the Toon game reckons it was Â£15 adults, Â£5 kids for tonight's game.  maybe we are being ripped off in London.  The ones that went to Prague certainly were for the performance they got.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 14, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			And all of your support was born within the sight of the Liver building?  Come on, you've got as many, if not more, than most.  Cornwall seems to be a particular hot bed.

As regards the previous money point, it wasn't intended to suggest that your success was all money orientated, you certainly had some good managers, but being able to pay the best wages doesn't hurt.  I fully accept the point that to some extent everybody buys the title, but that to a degree applies to everybody.  Possibly more to us at the moment because it was the only way to bridge the gap quickly, but as the other measures kick in and hopefully we bring more youth through less so.  There seems to be a particular bitterness in this respect from Liverpool fans.  Were you expecting the new American owners to rival Abramovich in the funding department?

Can't argue that we haven't made the best use of the managerial talent that we have had, wouldn't agree that we've ruined them though.
		
Click to expand...

Ha - fell into my trap - how can they be glory hunters, if we don't have glory anymore?

Only joking. Yes, LFC have a lot of supporters without any familial/local link. The difference I would say is that despite LFC not having it's best 20 years, at least 95% of them have stayed loyal. Our attendances are bigger now than in the glory years.

City and Chelsea will get increasing supporters over the next 10 years, if they carry on spending what they have (and of course winning trophies). 

I honestly don't think LFC's worst critics would say we "bought" all them trophies in the 60's-80's. Also when the 2nd set of yanks come in we were happy, as we didn't want a sugar daddy coming in and blowing everyone out of the water, finance wise. We wanted someone to help build or increase the stadium capacity so we could try to do it through our own means, albeit with some help. 

No matter how City and Chelsea fans dress it up, such uber spending, taints the success, and apart from the new supporters that "attach" themselves to the club, most neutrals hate fairly instant success, all being down to money. It is a British trait.

Don't get me wrong, they also don't want the same clique of LFC, MUFC,Arsenal winning everything either, and most clubs like Chelsea and City needed an uber-spend to catapult them into that stratosphere, but just don't expect any neutrals to love you for it.

I feel that the "soul" of our club is still intact. The yanks have been letting kids in all year for the Europa games for a fiver. They seem to buy into a lot of the ethos of our club, although they aren't perfect either.

I had a lot of respect for Chelsea and their fans throughout the eighties. I don't know how old you are (Fish looks ancient) and if you were following Chelsea in the 80's - do you feel your club has even a smidgeon of that soul anymore? Only you can answer that.

Fish, you said:-In 2 of those factors (match day & broadcasting) Liverpool are losing a lot of revenue (150m+) and without success on the pitch it will fall further. 

If our turnover is only 184M (your figures), how can we have lost 150Mill, or are you talking over 4-5 seasons. Our sponsorship deals have vastly increased in the last 2-3 years,also.


----------



## Fish (Feb 14, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			Fish, you said:-In 2 of those factors (match day & broadcasting) Liverpool are losing a lot of revenue (150m+) and without success on the pitch it will fall further. 

If our turnover is only 184M (your figures), how can we have lost 150Mill, or are you talking over 4-5 seasons. Our sponsorship deals have vastly increased in the last 2-3 years,also.
		
Click to expand...

You are losing "out" on 150m+ by not competing in Europe (CL) and top premiership positions, the handouts are huge along with broadcasting and with being in those positions you can then maintain attendances and ticket prices, which you can't for Europa. Top 3 positions in the league and getting to quarters at least in Cl's would yield no less than an additional 100m income your not getting now.

As you said in an earlier post, imagine if you were, well to do that you need to spend quite a bit on the "right" players and the rest comes along naturally.  Clubs that just balanced the books like Norwich and Villa for years won what in those times? Great business model for the directors and shareholders but the fans were frustrated, can't see you wanting to be in that mould?  

Your not cash rich so to change what's going on on the pitch, someone has got to put their hand in their pocket!


----------



## Dodger (Feb 14, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			Liverbirdie, re the ticket prices, commentator on the Toon game reckons it was Â£15 adults, Â£5 kids for tonight's game.  maybe we are being ripped off in London.  The ones that went to Prague certainly were for the performance they got.
		
Click to expand...


....and still the crowd is an embarrassing figure.

Forever a wee club.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			I had a lot of respect for Chelsea and their fans throughout the eighties. I don't know how old you are (Fish looks ancient) and if you were following Chelsea in the 80's - do you feel your club has even a smidgeon of that soul anymore? Only you can answer that.
		
Click to expand...

I'm 50, started going regularly in the late 70's, in the days when the highlight of the season was to turn you over in the 3rd round of the FA Cup  only to fall foul of Oldham/Barnsley/Huddersfield or similar in the 4th round  I feel that the soul that was present then is still present in those guys of that era who still go today.  However the two things that have changed considerably is that the soul you mention is no longer reciprocated in the management of the club; we would sometimes be passed in the low rent hire Transit minibus by Ken Bates Roller, a few toots on the horn and you'd always get an acknowledgement, can't ever see Roman doing that.  The other thing that has changed is that a lot of the JCL's that are there have known nothing but success, which is not good.  

When I first started going you went to be with your mates, to watch the match, hopefully be entertained and win if you were lucky.  It was about the experience and silverware was a bonus.  We hadn't picked our club, our club had picked us (I come from a Battersea family) and you played the hand you'd been dealt.  On the 17th of May 1997, we didn't think it got any better, the dream finally became reality.  Somewhere between now and then, hope and dreams became expectation and demands, and the experience and the pleasure I derive from it diminished as a result.  The soul is still there, but it is fighting a losing battle, and I'm not sure we're not the only ones who are suffering as the world in general changes.


----------



## Fish (Feb 15, 2013)

+1

I'm "slightly" older  and echo those sentiments above and feel the same.

I'm proper old school from Greenwich but mainly brought up in West Hampstead.  First game allowed to go on my own was 1972 but went regularly before with my Dad.  Benches with my dad but Shed in the 80's, missed quite a few games at times due to serving around the world but always made up for it when I got back with interest.

That first game on my own was a birthday present and against Dirty Leeds at home and we won 4-nil   My first proper away game a few years later (I had been to Orient, Millwall, Foolham, Charlton) was Plymouth in a transit with "the lads", we won 3-2  

Still got a season ticket (MHL) which my mates use in a pool and money goes into my account for big away games here and in Europe away although I attend prem & cup away games mid-week at times.  Not a fan of home games any more and well known across all local pubs across the country at grounds, in Liverpool the girls know me in the Arkle, Cabbage Hall, Punch & Judy and a few others. Always stop over when playing L'pool at the Ibis who got to know me also opposite Albert Docks.  

Love when we draw a lower division club in cups as it brings back the memories, Preston, Wolves, Cardiff, Burnley, Coventry lol.

My addiction to golf has got in the way now though to be a regular but my passion for them will always be there.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 15, 2013)

+10 (years)

I started going on my own to the away games, with school mates around 1983.

Barnsley (FA cup), Sheffield Wed, Coventry and Stoke away when your only 13 is moody,shady and exhilirating. I also went to the milk cup final replay at Man city's ground when only 13 (blagged me dad, I was going with mates and one of their dads).

Fish quote:- Not a fan of home games any more and well known across all local pubs across the country at grounds, in Liverpool the girls know me in the Arkle, Cabbage Hall, Punch & Judy and a few others. Always stop over when playing L'pool at the Ibis who got to know me also opposite Albert Docks. 


- Don't you go any of the decent pubs. 

Same here, generally been 10 away games a season for the last 10 years or so(did the 42 plus all the cup in 1989), as gave up on London and anywhere over 3 hours travel, years ago so I could afford the European games instead. Don't get me wrong if we drew Orient, Brentford,Plymouth in the FA cup I'd be there like a shot, as I haven't been to their grounds. Currently about 22 short of the 92.

I've only been to Oldham away this season, again the golf is more attractive than the football (especially as an LFC fan) these days. I'd rather play Hillside than go to Middlesborough away (for the 18th time) again as an example. I've still got my season ticket, but even miss 1-2 home games a season now, for holidays,whereas hadn't missed a home game previously from 1983 until about 2004.

BlueinMunich - shame your not coming up with Fish, for the banter.

OK we all have our rivalries, opinions, but enjoyed the conversation on here a lot. 

Did I mention I don't have my own business.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			BlueinMunich - shame your not coming up with Fish, for the banter.

OK we all have our rivalries, opinions, but enjoyed the conversation on here a lot.
		
Click to expand...

Another time maybe, few family bits to sort out at the moment, hence the late response.

Likewise enjoyed the conversation, have a good time at West Lancs, don't be too hard on him Fish....

Not sent from my Blackberry whilst not running my own business


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 17, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			Another time maybe, few family bits to sort out at the moment, hence the late response.

Likewise enjoyed the conversation, have a good time at West Lancs, don't be too hard on him Fish....

Not sent from my Blackberry whilst not running my own business

Click to expand...

Love it, no probs.

Anyway, time for you horlicks,old timer.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 18, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			Love it, no probs.

Anyway, time for you horlicks,old timer. 

Click to expand...

I'll stick to the Laphroaig thanks, works much better!! :smirk:


----------

