One day only in my lifetime I wish to lose

[Blue in Munich]

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.

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

7. The Sparta Prague home game is £30. From memory, the group stages of the Champions League were £35, which had we qualified for the knockout stages gone to £59, League Cup was £25, FA Cup £30 and a Premier League game £50- £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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

3/10th's would even be lesbians!

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

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]

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

 

[Liverbirdie]

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

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

 

[Liverbirdie]

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

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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

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]

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

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

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

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 £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]

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

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?

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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 £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!

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.£350m but he sold £280m so the nett spend was £70m.

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

Under Dalglish he spent £90m but sold £65m, spending £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]

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.£350m but he sold £280m so the nett spend was £70m.

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

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

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]

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.£350m but he sold £280m so the nett spend was £70m.

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.