Coup under way at Liverpool FC

K-9

The Muppet wrote: »

It's the usual head in the sand stuff TBH, it's funny really, Yanks Out, OOHH yanks in.

Maybe you should revisit the Glazier thread a few months back?

budgemook

The Muppet wrote: »

It's the usual head in the sand stuff TBH, it's funny really, Yanks Out, OOHH yanks in.

Who does Muppet support? He only posts on Liverpool threads as far as I can see. Four pages of Liverpool posts with one or two Man U posts thrown in.

Obsessed much?

opr

Xavi6 wrote: »

So instead of having someone come in who effectively buys your debt you would rather a situation where debt is bought out with that?

Intriguing.

Xavi this is not some snipe at city well maybe it is in a backhanded way but that's unavoidable. Very few Liverpool fans want to enter into the fantasy football business. We want an owner not on the sugar daddy level but one which is looking to invest in a business which they believe is eventually able to sustain itself and in turn invest proportionally in the squad based on revenue.

Opr

missingtime

budgemook wrote: »

Who does Muppet support? He only posts on Liverpool threads as far as I can see. Four pages of Liverpool posts with one or two Man U posts thrown in.

Obsessed much?

I believe he's setting up a Mr. Alan fan club :pac:

Xavi6

budgemook wrote: »

What? I'm saying not having a man city style sugar daddy is best case scenario i.e. I don't want one.

And I'm saying why wouldn't you want one?

Sugardaddy - Clears debt with his own money

American business - Clears debt with borrowed money, i.e. more debt

How is the sugar daddy not the better scenario?

The Muppet

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe you should revisit the Glazier thread a few months back?

I'd be Happy to, where's the Green and Gold campign now, dead in the water. Why is that? because they were talking ****e and people copped on.

Unlike your own scenario where your concerns were founded.

Xavi6

opr wrote: »

Xavi this is not some snipe at city well maybe it is in a backhanded way but that's unavoidable. Very few Liverpool fans want to enter into the fantasy football business. We want an owner not on the sugar daddy level but one which is looking to invest in a business which they believe is eventually able to sustain itself and in turn invest proportionally in the squad based on revenue.

Opr

Why so negative towards the 'fantasy football' side as you call it?

Abramovich has done alright, and Mansour seems to be doing ok (he's cleared almost all the debt).

Even if a sugar daddy walks City would still be in a better situation than before they were bought. Liverpool are in arguably a worse situation than before they were bought by the Yanks who were lauded at the time of the takeover.

I'm not saying City's model is fail safe, I just don't understand why it wouldn't be favourable given the choice.

K-9

The Muppet wrote: »

I'd be Happy to, where's the Green and Gold campign now, dead in the water. Why is that? because they were talking ****e and people copped on.

Unlike your own scenario where your concerns were founded.

That Ronaldo money must be burning a hole in Alex's pocket at this stage.

Anyway, not the thread for it, but it's just delaying tactics with Glazier.

The Muppet

opr wrote: »

Xavi this is not some snipe at city well maybe it is in a backhanded way but that's unavoidable. Very few Liverpool fans want to enter into the fantasy football business. We want an owner not on the sugar daddy level but one which is looking to invest in a business which they believe is eventually able to sustain itself and in turn invest proportionally in the squad based on revenue.

Opr

That's an admirable aspiration and actually one I'd share regarding my own club. However being realstic if other clubs are investing hundres of millions how are you going to compete with that using only earned income.

Hopefully the new rules will have the desired effect but somehow i thnk the sugar daddies will find a way around that through sponsorship or something.

redzerdrog

I think what people are trying to say is they dont want the club to overspend what the club itself can't actually afford and sustain, instead of spending absord amounts on players and wages with the danger of the money man at some point walking away leaving the club in danger of being unsustainable

opr

Xavi6 wrote: »

Why so negative towards the 'fantasy football' side as you call it?

Abramovich has done alright, and Mansour seems to be doing ok (he's cleared almost all the debt).

Even if a sugar daddy walks City would still be in a better situation than before they were bought. Liverpool are in arguably a worse situation than before they were bought by the Yanks who were lauded at the time of the takeover.

I'm not saying City's model is fail safe, I just don't understand why it wouldn't be favourable given the choice.

Can you not understand that an organically grown football club has a much better sense of achievement for the club and its fans if it eventually plays dividends. When a sugar daddy comes in and basically plays fantasy football I wouldn't take near the same amount of pride in success. I know football has changed and this may come across as unrealistic and sanctimonious horse crap to some people but I genuinely would feel a little sick inside if Liverpool overnight started firing money in all directions.

Opr

Xavi6

opr wrote: »

Can you not understand that an organically grown football club has a much better sense of achievement for the club and its fans if it eventually plays dividends. When a sugar daddy comes in and basically plays fantasy football I wouldn't take near the same amount of pride in success. I know football has changed and this may come across as unrealistic and sanctimonious horse crap to some people but I genuinely would feel a little sick inside if Liverpool overnight started firing money in all directions.

Opr

Fair enough, I guess I just don't have the same morals as you when it comes to that sort of thing.

Success is success no matter how you get there, especially when you've had none for so long.

Dont be at yourself

The Muppet wrote: »

That's an admirable aspiration and actually one I'd share regarding my own club. However being realstic if other clubs are investing hundres of millions how are you going to compete with that using only earned income.

Hopefully the new rules will have the desired effect but somehow i thnk the sugar daddies will find a way around that through sponsorship or something.

Clubs can still compete with sugar-daddy clubs while being well-run. Madrid's galacticos won nothing, while being the most expensive team ever assembled.

Liverpool have one of the biggest fanbases in the world, huge in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. If it weren't for the crippling interest payments and small stadium, we'd be on a great financial footing to compete with the top tier of clubs. This bid, at least on paper, aims to eliminate these two problems.

budgemook

Xavi6 wrote: »

And I'm saying why wouldn't you want one?

Sugardaddy - Clears debt with his own money

American business - Clears debt with borrowed money, i.e. more debt

How is the sugar daddy not the better scenario?

Because I'm a Liverpool fan and a soccer fan, I don't want the team I follow to have some owner buy success for them. I want them to earn what they get. Good youth system, sensible spending and buying the right players. Like Arsenal on steroids.

Also, I'm wondering how City are going to cope next year. Don't they have to have losses no greater than 40 million over the last three years to be allowed in to Europe? They lost 110 million last year.

Xavi6

budgemook wrote: »

Because I'm a Liverpool fan and a soccer fan, I don't want the team I follow to have some owner buy success for them. I want them to earn what they get. Good youth system, sensible spending and buying the right players. Like Arsenal on steroids.

City have one of the best youth systems and have done for a long time.

We're simply mixing that with big name signings. But if it's not for you then fair enough. Personally if I was a Pool fan with no league titles in 20 years and with my club trailing a long way off the pace I'd take a sugar daddy if offered it.

Also, I'm wondering how City are going to cope next year. Don't they have to have losses no greater than 40 million over the last three years to be allowed in to Europe? They lost 110 million last year.

Have a read of this as it covers everything -

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-manchester-city-could-break-even.html

Sir Gallagher

Nice to see messages of genuine goodwill from opposition fans on the other hand unsurprising to see veiled bitterness from the usual suspects.

Sir Gallagher

Xavi6 wrote: »

City have one of the best youth systems and have done for a long time.

We're simply mixing that with big name signings. But if it's not for you then fair enough. Personally if I was a Pool fan with no league titles in 20 years and with my club trailing a long way off the pace I'd take a sugar daddy if offered it.



Have a read of this as it covers everything -

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-manchester-city-could-break-even.html

Really? Not having a dig but wouldn't the sales of Sturridge and Ireland kind of contradict that?

Dont be at yourself

The likes of Adebayour and Silva sitting on the bench must be great encouragement to the kids looking to break through to City's first team.

joe123

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Really? Not having a dig but wouldn't the sales of Sturridge and Ireland kind of contradict that?

Cant see Onouha there next season either.

DOC09UNAM

Xavi6 wrote: »

City have one of the best youth systems and have done for a long time.

We're simply mixing that with big name signings. But if it's not for you then fair enough. Personally if I was a Pool fan with no league titles in 20 years and with my club trailing a long way off the pace I'd take a sugar daddy if offered it.



Have a read of this as it covers everything -

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-manchester-city-could-break-even.html

Look no further than boyata, fairly decent prospect coming out of citys youth system, mixed with two teams of mercenaries like silva, toure, milner, etc.

They may have the mercenaries, but also a decent youth system, and having money will only improve that youth system aswell.

Xavi6

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Nice to see messages of genuine goodwill from opposition fans on the other hand unsurprising to see veiled bitterness from the usual suspects.

I didn't realise every bit of discussion had to result in paranoia for some people.

For the record, I'm delighted Liverpool are getting rid of what has been a cancer on the club. I hope they perform poorly on the field as they are a club I want City to ovetake but off the pitch I wouldn't wish a Leeds scenario on anyone.

Hope that makes you feel a little more secure when reading my posts.

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Really? Not having a dig but wouldn't the sales of Sturridge and Ireland kind of contradict that?

And the presence of Richards and Boyata as key members of the first team squad contradict that (Cunningham, Mee, Ibrahim and new England under 21 call up Trippier to a lesser extent as well).

Btw, Sturridge wasn't sold. We offered a new contract which he rejected to join Chelsea for more money so he's not really a good example.

budgemook

Xavi6 wrote: »

I didn't realise every bit of discussion had to result in paranoia for some people.

For the record, I'm delighted Liverpool are getting rid of what has been a cancer on the club. I hope they perform poorly on the field as they are a club I want City to ovetake but off the pitch I wouldn't wish a Leeds scenario on anyone.

Hope that makes you feel a little more secure when reading my posts.



And the presence of Richards and Boyata as key members of the first team squad contradict that (Cunningham, Mee, Ibrahim and new England under 21 call up Trippier to a lesser extent as well).

Btw, Sturridge wasn't sold. We offered a new contract which he rejected to join Chelsea for more money so he's not really a good example.

Boyata is not a good example IMO. It would be like Liverpool saying Pacheco is a great example of their good youth system. He has to prove himself first.

Also, the sniping remarks referred too were probably about Muppet. I was shocked to see today that the last 4 pages of his recent posts are on Liverpool threads - this one, the main one, THE MATCH threads! I found 2 posts in those 4 pages of otherwise Liverpool posts. I find it mad that this guy just spends all day on Liverpool threads even though he supports Man United and also he never really posts on their threads.

So it's not paranoia. He really is a muppet.

Le King

The Muppet wrote: »

I'd be Happy to, where's the Green and Gold campign now, dead in the water. Why is that? because they were talking ****e and people copped on.

Unlike your own scenario where your concerns were founded.

Also at the time a lot of Liverpool fans on here were like "Ah our club is in debt, but United are up shít creek with their debt, so we're ok". The whole United have no money to spend thing etc.

It's funny that people can have a sneaky pop at The Muppet when they were talking rubbish 4-6 months ago.

The height of hypocrisy from some of the Liverpool faithful on here amuses me. It's nothing short of a bad joke at this stage..

K-9

Le King wrote: »

Also at the time a lot of Liverpool fans on here were like "Ah our club is in debt, but United are up shít creek with their debt, so we're ok". The whole United have no money to spend thing etc.

It's funny that people can have a sneaky pop at The Muppet when they were talking rubbish 4-6 months ago.

The height of hypocrisy from some of the Liverpool faithful on here amuses me. It's nothing short of a bad joke at this stage..

So, both sets of clubs have c**p fans?

Never knew that until today!

stevoslice

Martin Broughton Interview

Sorry if already posted, interesting to watch how this unfolds

Xavi6

Xavi6 wrote: »

So instead of having someone come in who effectively buys your debt you would rather a situation where debt is bought out with that?

Intriguing.

City are in horendous debt the same as Chelsea,its just in the form of an IOU to the Sheik than banks,watch what happens when he sells the club whenever that is.

redzerdrog

Le King wrote: »

Also at the time a lot of Liverpool fans on here were like "Ah our club is in debt, but United are up shít creek with their debt, so we're ok". The whole United have no money to spend thing etc.

It's funny that people can have a sneaky pop at The Muppet when they were talking rubbish 4-6 months ago.

The height of hypocrisy from some of the Liverpool faithful on here amuses me. It's nothing short of a bad joke at this stage..

What are you talking about

budgemook

Xavi6 wrote: »

City have one of the best youth systems and have done for a long time.

We're simply mixing that with big name signings. But if it's not for you then fair enough. Personally if I was a Pool fan with no league titles in 20 years and with my club trailing a long way off the pace I'd take a sugar daddy if offered it.



Have a read of this as it covers everything -

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-manchester-city-could-break-even.html

Just read it. It's hardly fool proof.

Xavi6

budgemook wrote: »

Just read it. It's hardly fool proof.

I agree, it isn't and it isn't meant to be but there's no way to prove anything at the moment. We may very well not meet the standards but the article shows a way that it would be possible.

It could go either way.

ctrl-alt-delete

Xavi6 wrote: »

Fair enough, I guess I just don't have the same morals as you when it comes to that sort of thing.

Success is success no matter how you get there, especially when you've had none for so long.

I hate all this crap talk of buying the league and not earning it and all that. Blackburn suffered from it for me, and when City achieve success they will suffer from all the begrudging because that is what it is.

Morals or not, If Mansour had have come to England and splashed out on Liverpool it would be different, Liverpool fans would find some way of accepting it, like they are a club that deserve it, they won so much before so it is only right they get a sugar daddy to get them back there.

I refuse to believe there is not a Liverpool fan out there who would not choose a sugar daddy over any other option, organic, free range, gluten free football club - whatever you want to call it.

I'm with you on the success is success.

Le King

Did anybody see the warped desperate charity appeal posted on the Red Sox forum?

Dear. Mr Hicks

Quite sad to be honest. Even the Sox fans are calling the Liverpool fans posting on their site delusional.

I hope the sale goes through for the sake of football, but when people sound so desperate and weak it's a shame.

karma_

I see a lot of City hate on boards these days, and a lot of that is from Liverpool fans. Still I can understand that, While Liverpool are going through a period of decline, City are becoming stronger and have overtaken Liverpool as a genuine top 4 side. City fans have seen this before, It was not long ago many of us had to be content in the old Division 2.

In saying that however, I have no doubt Liverpool will at some point bounce back, they are too good a club not to and I don't believe you will ever be in a position where relegation is even a possibility.

I would love City to win the league and a few trophies now that we can realistically do so but for competition's sake it would be fantastic if there were 6 or 8 or 10 teams in the Premier league who could win the title on any given year, so I do hope you get shot of those clowns and back into competitive state again soon.

Mr. Guappa

karma_ wrote: »

I see a lot of City hate on boards these days, and a lot of that is from Liverpool fans. Still I can understand that, While Liverpool are going through a period of decline, City are becoming stronger and have overtaken Liverpool as a genuine top 4 side. City fans have seen this before, It was not long ago many of us had to be content in the old Division 2.

In saying that however, I have no doubt Liverpool will at some point bounce back, they are too good a club not to and I don't believe you will ever be in a position where relegation is even a possibility.

I would love City to win the league and a few trophies now that we can realistically do so but for competition's sake it would be fantastic if there were 6 or 8 or 10 teams in the Premier league who could win the title on any given year, so I do hope you get shot of those clowns and back into competitive state again soon.

Actually it is Spurs that have overtaken Liverpool as a genuine Top 4 side.

On topic: This seems like a good deal for Liverpool, obviously anyone is going to be better than Hicks & Gillett but this seems like a genuinely good offer.

I am always sceptical of American owners (with good reason) but for the sake of LFC I hope that these guys deliver all they are promising.

Dont be at yourself

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I refuse to believe there is not a Liverpool fan out there who would not choose a sugar daddy over any other option, organic, free range, gluten free football club - whatever you want to call it.

Believe what you want, but it's been stressed by many people on Liverpool superthreads over the years that a sugar daddy is not the preferred option. After fan ownership, being run as a solvent, self-sufficient club is the next best solution. The posts are there on record, nobody's revising history or changing their tunes now.

I'm with you on the success is success.

It's always nice to win trophies. Istanbul was one of the greatest nights of my life. But it wouldn't have been anywhere near as special if a Shiek had come in 12 months before and bought a dream team for us. Of course, as a Liverpool fan I still would have been over the moon, but it wouldn't be the same.

City fans will rightfully be delighted if they beat United to the league this year (I'll be happy for them too!). But if they're honest with themselves, they'll realise that it would mean a lot more if they could achieve it without a squad built in the manner it was.

The Recliner

Xavi6 wrote: »

Fair enough, I guess I just don't have the same morals as you when it comes to that sort of thing.

Success is success no matter how you get there, especially when you've had none for so long.

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I hate all this crap talk of buying the league and not earning it and all that. Blackburn suffered from it for me, and when City achieve success they will suffer from all the begrudging because that is what it is.

Morals or not, If Mansour had have come to England and splashed out on Liverpool it would be different, Liverpool fans would find some way of accepting it, like they are a club that deserve it, they won so much before so it is only right they get a sugar daddy to get them back there.

I refuse to believe there is not a Liverpool fan out there who would not choose a sugar daddy over any other option, organic, free range, gluten free football club - whatever you want to call it.

I'm with you on the success is success.

Honestly I have no problem with City being successful by spending money they didn't earn and I welcome them adding extra competition to the league and if they win it I will wish tem well

But I would much prefer to see Liverpool win something by earning it themselves, maybe before Hicks and Gillette came along I would have welcomed a sugar dafddy and in fact I probably wished for one but the experience we have had has turned me off the concept

So whilst success is success I would prefer it to come from a viable business and hopefully a sutainable one

We shall see what happens though, as it stands I will be happy to just be challanging again

Sir Gallagher

Le King wrote: »

Did anybody see the warped desperate charity appeal posted on the Red Sox forum?

Dear. Mr Hicks

Quite sad to be honest. Even the Sox fans are calling the Liverpool fans posting on their site delusional.

I hope the sale goes through for the sake of football, but when people sound so desperate and weak it's a shame.

You're a United fan on the Red Sox forum monitoring the actions of Liverpool fans on it... and you're the one throwing around terms like desperate delusional and weak. Forgive me for having a chuckle at your expense.

Le King

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

You're a United fan on the Red Sox forum monitoring the actions of Liverpool fans on it... and you're the one throwing around terms like desperate delusional and weak. Forgive me for having a chuckle at your expense.

I'm American, a Yankee's fan, a regular poster on Baseball forums, it was pointed out in a thread. Desperate? No. Delusional? No. Weak? No. As a Baseball fan, I feel I have am entitled to look at Baseball related topics on the internet. Especially the cringeworthy rubbish being spouted as a desperate plea for the charity that is made out to be Liverpool FC at the moment by a certain section of your support on the Red Sox forums.


You need to get off that high horse your always on and while your at it get your facts straight.

flahavaj

Le King wrote: »

I'm American, a Yankee's fan, a regular poster on Baseball forums, it was pointed out in a thread. Desperate? No. Delusional? No. Weak? No. As a Baseball fan, I feel I have am entitled to look at Baseball related topics on the internet. Especially the cringeworthy rubbish being spouted as a desperate plea for the charity that is made out to be Liverpool FC at the moment by a certain section of your support on the Red Sox forums.


You need to get off that high horse your always on and while your at it get your facts straight.

LOL Sir Gallagher got owned.

I believe in baseball parlance this is what they call a home run.:pac:

missingtime

flahavaj wrote: »

LOL Sir Gallagher got owned.

I believe in baseball parlance this is what they call a home run.:pac:

Ohhh fancy :pac:

Lukker-

flahavaj wrote: »

LOL Sir Gallagher got owned.

We must have different definitions of owned :rolleyes:

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Lukker- wrote: »

We must have different definitions of owned :rolleyes:

I think it was quite the Ownage. Even the Epic Pwnage, perhaps.
SG attempted to call Osu out on something and Osu explained that he was quite wrong.

Le King

Lukker- wrote: »

We must have different definitions of owned :rolleyes:

Oh, it's you again. Nice roll eyes too. Really emphasises your post.

Leiva

Who left the gate open ?

Sir Gallagher

Le King wrote: »

I'm American, a Yankee's fan, a regular poster on Baseball forums, it was pointed out in a thread. Desperate? No. Delusional? No. Weak? No. As a Baseball fan, I feel I have am entitled to look at Baseball related topics on the internet. Especially the cringeworthy rubbish being spouted as a desperate plea for the charity that is made out to be Liverpool FC at the moment by a certain section of your support on the Red Sox forums.


You need to get off that high horse your always on and while your at it get your facts straight.

Ok i've my hands up, your a baseball fan, who just so happened to find himself on the opposition fans forum, i see a pattern emerging here. I for one just can't get my head around the voyeuristic nature of some opposition fans on forums.

The video you posted was put together by people who care for the club, people who have been sent to the brink and want to see an end to current ownership regime, yet you call them warped and desperate? It's not me who's on the high horse here.

niallo27

flahavaj wrote: »

LOL Sir Gallagher got owned.

I believe in baseball parlance this is what they call a home run.:pac:

How did he get owned, Sir gallagher made him look quite the fool if you ask me, you lot are obsessed with anything liverpool

Jazzy

Le King wrote: »

Did anybody see the warped desperate charity appeal posted on the Red Sox forum?

Dear. Mr Hicks

Quite sad to be honest.

um, you talk about the red sox forum, then post a link to a video that has nothing to do with it (oh maybe they posted it there or some sh1t) and then say "quite sad".

what is quite sad? the video? or the posting on the red sox forum?
please learn to post properly and with a bit more respect and clairvoyance (eat that flah)

A question thrown open to all teams fans I have is do you think its possible to win the premier league without sugar daddy or piling the debts on to buy players.

Obviously Liverpool are a massive club who can generate substantial off field revenues.
I think if this is what they are planning to do,they will need to build stadium substantially bigger than 60k,I think spurs are building a similar sized one?

How big a stadium could Liverpool fill?

niallo27

Tony Fluffy Desk wrote: »

A question thrown open to all teams fans I have is do you think its possible to win the premier league without sugar daddy or piling the debts on to buy players.

Obviously Liverpool are a massive club who can generate substantial off field revenues.
I think if this is what they are planning to do,they will need to build stadium substantially bigger than 60k,I think spurs are building a similar sized one?

How big a stadium could Liverpool fill?

With the way the economy is going, 55k is more than enough, yes you could easily fill it for the big games but we might struggle for the lesser games, attendances have being dropping, 5 years ago it was a struggle to get extra tickets, now you can nearly buy them on the morning of the game

Chardee MacDennis

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Ok i've my hands up, your a baseball fan, who just so happened to find himself on the opposition fans forum, i see a pattern emerging here. I for one just can't get my head around the voyeuristic nature of some opposition fans on forums.

The video you posted was put together by people who care for the club, people who have been sent to the brink and want to see an end to current ownership regime, yet you call them warped and desperate? It's not me who's on the high horse here.

it's either they wish they supported that club or else they are sad little people who have nothing better to do imo.

well there is a third option, which in most cases is the apt one around here and involves ugly guys under bridges, but wouldnt want to call anyone out on something like that...

Dont be at yourself

Tony Fluffy Desk wrote: »

A question thrown open to all teams fans I have is do you think its possible to win the premier league without sugar daddy or piling the debts on to buy players.

Obviously Liverpool are a massive club who can generate substantial off field revenues.
I think if this is what they are planning to do,they will need to build stadium substantially bigger than 60k,I think spurs are building a similar sized one?

How big a stadium could Liverpool fill?

Sheer capacity is not where the money is. Corporate hospitality is the key to any financially successful stadium. The emirates isn't massive, but makes huge money because of its hospitality.

60k with the possibility to expand seems like the best option for us at the moment.