Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

zing

d22ontour wrote: »

What's with all the timetravel questions ? 5 years. 3 years , ffs who can answer that tbh.I can say they won't win it in the next 6 months imo but that's as far as i will stretch.Football is unpredictable from game to game hence the love of the game , nevermind 3/5 year timeframes , eh ?

Absolutely. e.g. if you'd have asked a Spurs fan say last March where they predicted there team would be 6 months down the road very few of them would have predicted that they'd be hovering around the drop zone.

As for the lack of rumours to date I wouldn't read anything into it. A few of our recent signings have been kept very very quiet for as long as possible e.g. Arbeloa, Fowler & Garcia. Ezequiel Garay's name has again been doing the rounds in the last 24 hours or so but who knows whether or not there's anything to that.

zing

Let's all feed the rumour machine...

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2235695,00.html

jesus_thats_gre

cson wrote: »

Ok question time for you Pool fans;

Can you see the club winning the Premiership within the next three years?

When Arsenal were being leg by Spurs this time last season, did you honestly thing that fast forward a year, ye would be favourites to win the league? Honestly now.


If you answer yes, you are capable of understanding a fans optimism.. If you answer no, you will understand how it's is nearly ****ing impossible to predict what will happen in a years time, nevermind 3 years.

Jazzy

with the funding on the same level as utd and chelski for players we can do it. we arent too far from a complete squad..... okay well, we arent but have faith
2 world class wingers and a head the ball striker and we can do it imo

Unearthly

Probably need a decent centre back and left back to

Tusky

Unearthly wrote: »

Probably need a decent centre back and left back to

RB: Finnan/Arbeloa
LB: Riise/Aurelio/Arbeloa
CB: Carragher/Hyypia
CB: Agger/x

We need a cb but not so much a lb. I would rather we sold Riise and bought a versitile defender that can be LB & CB well. Someone like Heinze.

d22ontour

Jazzy wrote: »

with the funding on the same level as utd and chelski for players we can do it.

United made their funds , Chavski don't count imo because of the roubles.Liverpool are to me the 2nd biggest club in the world fanbase wise and have been for a long time.With a comparable fanbase to United why have the Pool not made that amount of potential m,oney into money and i don't just speak of the last 3 years either.The fanbase,potential to make money has/is always there , so what is the problem with the club not to want to push forward financially ? Before the yanks took over the potential was always there finacially imo.

Tusky

d22ontour wrote: »

United made their funds , Chavski don't count imo because of the roubles.Liverpool are to me the 2nd biggest club in the world fanbase wise and have been for a long time.With a comparable fanbase to United why have the Pool not made that amount of potential m,oney into money and i don't just speak of the last 3 years either.The fanbase,potential to make money has/is always there , so what is the problem with the club not to want to push forward financially ? Before the yanks took over the potential was always there finacially imo.

That is something I never understood. Liverpool have one of the biggest fanbases in the world but the club is nowhere near the richest in the world. Theres no reason why it cant or shouldn't be. Its technically the perfect club for investment.

Even little things, for example, the sponsorship deals for shirts. I think the Carlsberg deal that Liverpool have brings them the 6th or 7th highest income in the league. I always wondered, why so low ? Im pretty sure Spures are making more from their deal. Doesn't make sense.

dc69

d22ontour wrote: »

United made their funds , Chavski don't count imo because of the roubles.Liverpool are to me the 2nd biggest club in the world fanbase wise and have been for a long time.With a comparable fanbase to United why have the Pool not made that amount of potential m,oney into money and i don't just speak of the last 3 years either.The fanbase,potential to make money has/is always there , so what is the problem with the club not to want to push forward financially ? Before the yanks took over the potential was always there finacially imo.

uniteds stadium takes in alot more money than liverpool and that is why they are so keen for a new stadium with a bogger capacity,they arent building one just for the fans,to them it means cash eg for players and themselves,so the sooner this thing is built the better for liverpool's players and title chances

Peyton Manning

Jazzy wrote: »

with the funding on the same level as utd and chelski for players we can do it

Ah that old chestnut again.

http://biawc.110mb.com/

Time for another excuse me thinks :rolleyes:

Mr Alan

ARCHIMEDES: or maybe just time for you to re-read the ****e that has been explained to you a thousand times?! please nobody get into this argument with him or anyone else, all the points are made in this very thread, all he has to do is read back

........................

on another note, the running of LFC as a business entity has been a joke for as long as i can rememeber, no other club would fail to capitalise on a champions league win the way we did, its embarrasing. later that same summer, the chairman, had to fund the purchase of Kuyt out of his own pocket...says it all really.

the americans are meant to be doing things differently now which should see more money available over the next few years. along with the new stadium of course.

cson

dc69 wrote: »

uniteds stadium takes in alot more money than liverpool and that is why they are so keen for a new stadium with a bogger capacity,they arent building one just for the fans,to them it means cash eg for players and themselves,so the sooner this thing is built the better for liverpool's players and title chances

That's mostly it.

United have something like 1,700 Executive Boxes, Liverpool have in or around 32. Arsenal moved to the Emirates (Which is actually looking too small at the minute unbelieveably) because of this.

jesus_thats_gre

In terms of being run as a business, United were ahead of the game by about 10 years.

Mr Alan

same with our youth system... rafa reckoned when he arrived we were about 10 years beyond the other top clubs in europe

cson

I may be biased but I think Wenger revolutionised youth team strategies in the last 4 years. You notice the prices paid for youngsters nowadays is astonishing.

Btw, I'm of the opinion Fergie was blessed with that youth team, Utd haven't brought through anyone thats held down a starting place since.

PHB

Wenger adopted to the modern rules. United were still stuck in the old ones until recently, which is why they have again started to produce some quality like Pique and Rossi.
Wenger saw the problems with the English system early, and went abroad.
Rafa is adjusting to how the English system works, but I suspect he is following Wengers model, and seems to be based on all the stories we hear about X person from Czech Republic and Y person from Latvia signed etc.

jesus_thats_gre

He stated openly that he is is trying to do what Wenger has done but with less money.

Jazzy

Archimedes wrote: »

Ah that old chestnut again.

http://biawc.110mb.com/

Time for another excuse me thinks :rolleyes:

yes but we didnt get £70m in the summer now did we?
im talking more BIG transfers like utd have been doing for years. no manager or chairman has ever done that for pool.

how many £20m plus players have utd bought? dunno, lots
how many liverpool? 1

thats the big difference imo. just a ton of average to good players

Jesus Wept

BBC Gossip

Liverpool rejected cash-strapped Luton's request to forgo their share of the gate receipts for Sunday's FA Cup third round tie. Luton, who are in administration, could go out of business on Monday. (Various)


What a terrible Club we are. :rolleyes:

zing

The-Rigger wrote: »

BBC Gossip

Liverpool rejected cash-strapped Luton's request to forgo their share of the gate receipts for Sunday's FA Cup third round tie. Luton, who are in administration, could go out of business on Monday. (Various)


What a terrible Club we are. :rolleyes:

Are they 400m in debt too ? :rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

The-Rigger wrote: »

BBC Gossip

Liverpool rejected cash-strapped Luton's request to forgo their share of the gate receipts for Sunday's FA Cup third round tie. Luton, who are in administration, could go out of business on Monday. (Various)


What a terrible Club we are. :rolleyes:

Are Liverpool a registered charity all of a sudden?

zing

Stekelly wrote: »

Are Liverpool a registered charity all of a sudden?

We've done it at the likes of Wrexham in the past - kinda surprised tbh that we're not doing it for this game.

whatawaster

I don't know the ins and outs of the luton situation, but i'm guessing it's of their own and not liverpool's doing. Therefore it's not our responsibility to bail them out.

zing

Indeed it's not our responsibility. However some of the so called big clubs have been known to give their share of gate receipts to smaller clubs in such games. Particularly to those clubs in severe financial difficulties as Luton appear to be.

DeadSkin

Yes it's not Liverpool's responsibility and clearly Luton are in serious trouble, but I think it is bad form on Liverpool's behalf, Luton's capacity is just over 10,000.
Don't know what Liverpool could get out of it, but it would mean a whole lot more to Luton.

PHB

Yeh I think the issue is that how much can it really be worth to Liverpool, 5k at 30 pound is like 150000. That's barely a drop in the ocean for them. I think most fans would like to see things like this happen.
That said, I wouldn't expect the Glazers to do any different. Money talks.

DeadSkin

PHB wrote: »

5k at 30 pound is like 150000.

Hmm, a few weeks wages to keep the likes of Harry Kewell :rolleyes:

Jesus Wept

DeadSkin wrote: »

Yes it's not Liverpool's responsibility and clearly Luton are in serious trouble, but I think it is bad form on Liverpool's behalf, Luton's capacity is just over 10,000.
Don't know what Liverpool could get out of it, but it would mean a whole lot more to Luton.

Times Online

The match will be televised live, earning each club £150,000, and Kenilworth Road will be full to its 10,000 capacity. Of the gate money, 45 per cent goes to each club and 10 per cent to a Football Association pool, so Luton and Liverpool stand to receive about £100,000 each from ticket sales. The winning club earns £40,000 in prize-money.

---

Sure it's only £250,000! (TV Money + Share of gate receipts, but not including prize money for winning, or should they lose, did they want that too?)

Why exactly should Liverpool gift Luton £250k? Because we happened to draw them in this round of the FA Cup? It makes no sense.

It's a business, we have owners and a bottom line.
I'd love to see the look on Hicks and Gilettes face if they were told they were expected to pony up half a million dollars ($493,510 and 34 cents to be precise) to Luton purely because we drew them in the FA Cup!

In closing: get up the yard!

Guy:Incognito

DeadSkin wrote: »

Hmm, a few weeks wages to keep the likes of Harry Kewell :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you like but players have to get paid. That 150000 is going to have to come from somewhere. Where do you draw the line? say we got 10 clubs in financial trouble over the curse of 2 decent cup runs (FA and Carling) thats 1.5m.

When the stadium is done and we are earning an extra few million a match then it's time to be charitable (if at all, personally I wouldnt be in favour of things like this). Money seems to be tight at the min and every bit helps, iot could be the difference between the signing of abetter player at some stage down the line.

DeadSkin

The-Rigger wrote: »

Times Online

The match will be televised live, earning each club £150,000, and Kenilworth Road will be full to its 10,000 capacity. Of the gate money, 45 per cent goes to each club and 10 per cent to a Football Association pool, so Luton and Liverpool stand to receive about £100,000 each from ticket sales. The winning club earns £40,000 in prize-money.

---

Sure it's only £250,000! (TV Money + Share of gate receipts, but not including prize money for winning, or should they lose, did they want that too?)

Why exactly should Liverpool gift Luton £250k? Because we happened to draw them in this round of the FA Cup? It makes no sense.

It's a business, we have owners and a bottom line.
I'd love to see the look on Hicks and Gilettes face if they were told they were expected to pony up half a million dollars ($493,510 and 34 cents to be precise) to Luton purely because we drew them in the FA Cup!

In closing: get up the yard!

No need to overeact, Luton asked for Liverpool to waiver the gate receipts, not gate receipts + TV money.
Just saying it would be a nice gesture is all.

Stekelly wrote: »

Roll your eyes all you like but players have to get paid. That 150000 is going to have to come from somewhere. Where do you draw the line? say we got 10 clubs in financial trouble over the curse of 2 decent cup runs (FA and Carling) thats 1.5m.

When the stadium is done and we are earning an extra few million a match then it's time to be charitable (if at all, personally I wouldnt be in favour of things like this). Money seems to be tight at the min and every bit helps, iot could be the difference between the signing of abetter player at some stage down the line.

Exactly, players need to get paid, this is the position Luton is in, they can barely pay their players.

You say you wouldn't be in favour of things like this, why?[just curious]

Jesus Wept

DeadSkin wrote: »

No need to overeact, Luton asked for Liverpool to waiver the gate receipts, not gate receipts + TV money.
Just saying it would be a nice gesture is all.

On what basis did I overreact?
Because I stated some figures or quoted a source?

I don't know what Luton asked for.

Asking someone to be Godparent to your child is a nice gesture.
£100,000/$200,000 is a big pile of cash.

Guy:Incognito

DeadSkin wrote: »

Exactly, players need to get paid, this is the position Luton is in, they can barely pay their players.

You say you wouldn't be in favour of things like this, why?[just curious]

So Liverpool should not only pay their own players, but Luton's aswell.? If luton cant lok after their own finances why is it the problem of whichever unfortunate club they draw in the cup to bail them out. If they beat us will they give us their half of the ate receipts in compensation?

I'm not in favour of "gifting" money to other clubs.

If you do overtime in work, on your way home do you give the money you earned to a homeless person?

mike65

Lutons problems won't be fixed with Liverpools cut, anyway the way things are going they'll get a draw and made a shed load from the replay.

Mike.

DeadSkin

The-Rigger wrote: »

On what basis did I overreact?
Because I stated some figures or quoted a source?

I don't know what Luton asked for.

Asking someone to be Godparent to your child is a nice gesture.
£100,000/$200,000 is a big pile of money.

Overact;

The-Rigger wrote: »

or should they lose, did they want that too?

From your source, they asked Liverpool to donate their share of the gate money.
Yes I agree £100,000 is a pile of money, but imo I think Luton would get more out of it, than what Liverpool could.

Stekelly wrote: »

So Liverpool should not only pay their own players, but Luton's aswell.? If luton cant lok after their own finances why is it the problem of whichever unfortunate club they draw in the cup to bail them out. If they beat us will they give us their half of the ate receipts in compensation?

I'm not in favour of "gifting" money to other clubs.

If you do overtime in work, on your way home do you give the money you earned to a homeless person?

If Liverpool waiver the gate money, we'll be throwing them a lifeline. Looks it's £100,000, as I said above Luton will get more out of it than Liverpool will.

mike65 wrote: »

Lutons problems won't be fixed with Liverpools cut, anyway the way things are going they'll get a draw and made a shed load from the replay.

Mike.

+1

Pepe LeFrits

I see no reason why Liverpool should throw Luton a bone. If they were feeling charitable, they could give their share of the gate to GOAL or another worthy charity, instead of a badly managed football club.

jesus_thats_gre

Why does a different random tool come on this thread on a daily basis and argue some bull**** point that really has no relevence. Nevermind having a Soccer Thunderdone, have one purely for the Liverpool thread.

Tusky

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Why does a different random tool come on this thread on a daily basis and argue some bull**** point that really has no relevence. Nevermind having a Soccer Thunderdone, have one purely for the Liverpool thread.

Frustrating isnt it ? The arguments that they are having have been done about 10 times before as well. Do they think they are posting something original ? It boggles the mind.

Unearthly

I only just remembered the match 2 years ago between Luton and Liverpool with the build up. That was a classic

Tusky

Unearthly wrote: »

I only just remembered the match 2 years ago between Luton and Liverpool with the build up. That was a classic

4-2 wasnt it ? or 5-3 ? Alonso scored from his own half.

Mr Alan

yea, twas a super game that.

gotta start Alonso

Tusky: he also scored a screamer from about 40 yards out too.

Mr Alan

link to first Alonso goal: http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=I6aj7AhxIxg

Unearthly

Gerrard started moaning at Alonso for shooting from that far out, then starts clapping him when it goes in

with the goal from halfway line btw

Tusky

Didnt Pongolle score two as well or do I have my games mixed up ? Alonso should shoot more, he usually gets them on target and I always feel he has the potential to score more than he does.

Mr Alan

who wouldnt start moaning. not many players can do wat Alonso did there.

and was it with his bad foot? or was that the newcastle one?

Tusky

Mr Alan wrote: »

who wouldnt start moaning. not many players can do wat Alonso did there.

and was it with his bad foot? or was that the newcastle one?

His left foot was the Luton one I believe.

[edit] Just checked it, Luton goal was left foot, Newcastle was right foot.

micks

DeadSkin wrote: »

No need to overeact, Luton asked for Liverpool to waiver the gate receipts, not gate receipts + TV money.
Just saying it would be a nice gesture is all.

Maybe Liverpool would have helped Luton raise a few quid extra if the tie was switched to Anfield? or Luton never bothered go down that more realistic route to earn a few quid to help save them.

Jesus Wept

The-Rigger wrote:

On what basis did I overreact?
Because I stated some figures or quoted a source?

I don't know what Luton asked for.

Asking someone to be Godparent to your child is a nice gesture.
£100,000/$200,000 is a big pile of money.

DeadSkin wrote: »

Overact;

Oh right, well argued. :rolleyes:;):p:o:eek::cool:

DeadSkin wrote: »

Yes I agree £100,000 is a pile of money, but imo I think Luton would get more out of it, than what Liverpool could.

DeadSkin wrote: »

If Liverpool waiver the gate money, we'll be throwing them a lifeline. Looks it's £100,000, as I said above Luton will get more out of it than Liverpool will.

Brilliant! By that logic, why don't we just spend the £100k on gift vouchers to buy goats for African families in Luton's name.
I'm sure the Africans need goats more than Luton Town need to have their administration delayed by a couple of weeks.

Stky10

The-Rigger wrote: »

I'm sure the Africans need goats more than Luton Town need to have their administration delayed by a couple of weeks.

Talk is of them possibly being wound up by the courts on Monday.

It doesn't bother me much either way, but its just indicative to me of the way the club is being run at the moment. We're a PR disaster-zone.

dc69

personally i think we should have given them the gate money,but maybe it could be due to the fact that parry has to ask hicks and gillete to do it(just a suggestion!) and we already know they are hard to get hold of and i doubt foster has a clue,to yanks it would just be someone taking their money,when they need it:)

Stky10

Ah well.. things could be worse... we could have just lost to Oldham.....:D