The Big Question: United vs Liverpool - Read Mod Note in OP

Shanotheslayer

whatawaster wrote: »

Would never be happy to finish outside the top 4, but if we just missed out on 4th I wouldn't throw my toys out of the pram.

We will have, I'd imagine, the youngest squad in the league. We cannot compete with City, Chelsea or United financially. This is how we are choosing to compete.
If it works this season then happy days, because it will probably mean some of those young players are a little special. If it doesn't work this season, then I'll be looking for signs of hope and progress. That's just where we are.

Can't compete with them financially? €100mill is a good start..

Fescue

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Can't compete with them financially? €100mill is a good start..

£75 million of which came from the loss of Suarez. It's not really that hard to understand.

bucketybuck

Fescue wrote: »

£75 million of which came from the loss of Suarez. It's not really that hard to understand.

Thats no answer at all, not to the point that was made.

Regardless of the source of the income, €100 million is financially powerful and most definitely a good start at competing financially. Its not really that hard to understand.

Soups123

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats no answer at all, not to the point that was made.

Regardless of the source of the income, €100 million is financially powerful and most definitely a good start at competing financially. Its not really that hard to understand.

€100m is nothing in football. There is no way Liverpool can compete financially with City or Chelsea and the likes

Fescue

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats no answer at all, not to the point that was made.

Regardless of the source of the income, €100 million is financially powerful and most definitely a good start at competing financially. Its not really that hard to understand.

Much like Spurs after the Bale money, it's given Liverpool an opportunity to compete financially this window. I don't see Liverpool having the financial power to compete with the Oil rich clubs or Utd, Barca or Real in the long term.

Transfer fee's also only tell part of the picture and Liverpool can't compete with the above in wages.

It's really not that hard to understand.

whatawaster

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Can't compete with them financially? €100mill is a good start..

This is basic stuff, it's the difference between turnover and profit.

If I buy and sell a €1 item a million times
I will have spent €1 million, but I would not have €1 million in spending power.

greendom

whatawaster wrote: »

Ridiculously simplistic way of looking at it. You're dealing with Liverpool fans here: seasoned professionals at net spend arguments, you will not win.

Even just taking this summer on its own - we have lost a world class player in Suarez completely outside the managers control, yet you just say "he spent £100 million, that's that."

As it stands, we have essentially spent nothing. We lost a £75m assets and have spent less than that on replacements.

Net spend? If there's one league that Arsenal would have been top of for the last 10 years or so it's the net spend one.

Fescue

There are a lot of questions being asked of Liverpool in this thread, have Manchester Utd got an easy ride?

To me the bigger job is Van Gaals.

whatawaster

greendom wrote: »

Net spend? If there's one league that Arsenal would have been top of for the last 10 years or so it's the net spend one.

That's another matter entirely, but you're right they undoubtedly are

Marty McFly

Fescue wrote: »

There are a lot of questions being asked of Liverpool in this thread, have Manchester Utd got an easy ride?

To me the bigger job is Van Gaals.

It is and it isn't United are In far worse shape but are a bigger draw for players and they have more financial power.

Liverpool so far for me have bought squad players, United have been threatening to go big but haven't really shown it yet.

I'll sit mostly on the fence with this one till the window closesm

Fescue

Fescue wrote: »

There are a lot of questions being asked of Liverpool in this thread, have Manchester Utd got an easy ride?

To me the bigger job is Van Gaals.

Will he be under pressure if he fails to get top 4?

Fescue

Marty McFly wrote: »

It is and it isn't United are In far worse shape but are a bigger draw for players and they have more financial power.

Liverpool so far for me have bought squad players, United have been threatening to go big but haven't really shown it yet.

I'll sit mostly on the fence with this one till the window closesm

Liverpool have bought "squad players" because they absolutely need to. They cannot afford to rely on the same small squad of players this season coming.

United's squad is very imbalanced in my opinion. Especially defensively and in central midfield. They show very little sign of tackling this issue as it stands.

bucketybuck

Fescue wrote: »

Much like Spurs after the Bale money, it's given Liverpool an opportunity to compete financially this window.

You could almost say, its a good start...

You know, like the OP did.

Fescue

rarnes1 wrote: »

Will he be under pressure if he fails to get top 4?

It will depend on how the team performs. It's very possible he will have an indifferent start before pushing on as the season progresses. In that instance no. If the team plays like it did under Moyes then unquestionably.

Iused2likebusts

rarnes1 wrote: »

Will he be under pressure if he fails to get top 4?

Huge pressure and could well be sacked the constant line from the club is that they are the biggest club in the world so 2 years of failing to qualify for the CL would be a disaster in their eyes.

Will I Amnt

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Huge pressure and could well be sacked the constant line from the club is that they are the biggest club in the world so 2 years of failing to qualify for the CL would be a disaster in their eyes.

It would depend a lot on performances and the manner in which they lose out. There's a big difference in being pipped on the final day and being out of the running by the end of March.

Iused2likebusts

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It would depend a lot on performances and the manner in which they lose out. There's a big difference in being pipped on the final day and being out of the running by the end of March.

I hear what your saying but there is a lot of fighting talk coming from woodward.
I think its a guarantee there is going to be a huge improvement on last season but if they were to miss out on the top 4 again questions will be asked.

Will I Amnt

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

I hear what your saying but there is a lot of fighting talk coming from woodward.
I think its a guarantee there is going to be a huge improvement on last season but if they were to miss out on the top 4 again questions will be asked.

Of course questions would be asked but I don't think it would be an automatic sacking if there was a fairly big improvement but ultimately fell short.

Iused2likebusts

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Of course questions would be asked but I don't think it would be an automatic sacking if there was a fairly big improvement but ultimately fell short.

neither do I just think it would be a possibility. The pressure would be building on somebody maybe woodward.

Will I Amnt

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

neither do I just think it would be a possibility. The pressure would be building on somebody maybe woodward.

After his big spiel about having the funds for all these "world class" players, the fans will have the knives out for him if he doesn't deliver.

Godge

whatawaster wrote: »

Would never be happy to finish outside the top 4, but if we just missed out on 4th I wouldn't throw my toys out of the pram.

We will have, I'd imagine, the youngest squad in the league. We cannot compete with City, Chelsea or United financially. This is how we are choosing to compete.
If it works this season then happy days, because it will probably mean some of those young players are a little special. If it doesn't work this season, then I'll be looking for signs of hope and progress. That's just where we are.

That would allow Chelsea, City and Arsenal to pick off which of the new signings have adapted best to the Premiership.

Iused2likebusts

Godge wrote: »

That would allow Chelsea, City and Arsenal to pick off which of the new signings have adapted best to the Premiership.

I see you guys are still smoking that funny stuff down at the emirates;)

CSF

Marty McFly wrote: »

It is and it isn't United are In far worse shape but are a bigger draw for players and they have more financial power.

Liverpool so far for me have bought squad players, United have been threatening to go big but haven't really shown it yet.

I'll sit mostly on the fence with this one till the window closesm

To be fair, the reason the United signings aren't considered squad players is because anything is an improvement on the vast majority of players in the squad last year.

I don't see Shaw and Herrera as being of a different calibre of player to the Liverpool signings at all.

Donnielighto

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

You are talking about a manager who could take his spending to near a quarter of a billion pounds by the end of this summer, I'm not saying he would be sacked instantly if he got 5th next year but it would be the beginning of the end anyway IMO

How much have the likes of Atletico spent in the last 3 or 4 years?

Are we talking net spend?

Marty McFly

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

I see you guys are still smoking that funny stuff down at the emirates;)

Yea the same stuff that drew Sanchez to Arsenal over Liverpool

Donnielighto

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats no answer at all, not to the point that was made.

Regardless of the source of the income, €100 million is financially powerful and most definitely a good start at competing financially. Its not really that hard to understand.

It allows you to compete financially for 1 window or however long that cash lasts, it isnt an income stream.

Edit: Ignore, point already made.

Donnielighto

Fescue wrote: »

Much like Spurs after the Bale money, it's given Liverpool an opportunity to compete financially this window. I don't see Liverpool having the financial power to compete with the Oil rich clubs or Utd, Barca or Real in the long term.

Transfer fee's also only tell part of the picture and Liverpool can't compete with the above in wages.

I agree with this.

Fescue wrote: »

It's really not that hard to understand.

This is being not nice.

Marty McFly

CSF wrote: »

To be fair, the reason the United signings aren't considered squad players is because anything is an improvement on the vast majority of players in the squad last year.

I don't see Shaw and Herrera as being of a different calibre of player to the Liverpool signings at all.

Yea true could be said, only difference I would see is that in Herrera and Shaw especially United spent big on potential.

I can't really see Lambert or Lallana improving a whole lot on the level there at.

But then again could be said United need them to hit the ground running Liverpool can probably have more patience in allowing new signings bed in.

Godge

The Pontiac wrote: »

In fairness, no one cares about the FA Cup anymore. It died in 2000 when Fergie decided to pull out for a season.

The follow seasons mangers of the big clubs used the competition to test new talent. Hence, it's not a reflection of the best team/s.

Look, there is one trophy to win above all - the Premier League. It has been too long since Arsenal won it. After that, it is a must to qualify for the Champions League, 2nd or 4th don't matter, they are equally nowhere to winning the League but equal for CL qualifying.

Once top four is secure, the cups do matter. The F.A. Cup a lot more important than the Reserve Team Cup but fans do care. Why do you think so many Liverpool and Utd. fans talked about 9 years without a trophy for Arsenal? Now that the monkey is off Arsenal's back, the F.A. Cup doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, for the media, it is impossible to focus on the last League win because there are teams out there - Spurs, Liverpool - who have a much longer timespan since they won the League.

CSF

Marty McFly wrote: »

Yea true could be said, only difference I would see is that in Herrera and Shaw especially United spent big on potential.

I can't really see Lambert or Lallana improving a whole lot on the level there at.

But then again could be said United need them to hit the ground running Liverpool can probably have more patience in allowing new signings bed in.

Markovic and Origi have been signed for potential.

Liverpool already have Sterling and Henderson with endless potential, I'd find it hard to say any United had that already, Januzaj probably the player with the most there.

Donnielighto

CSF wrote: »

Markovic and Origi have been signed for potential.

Liverpool already have Sterling and Henderson with endless potential, I'd find it hard to say any United had that already, Januzaj probably the player with the most there.

Zaha had/has, just not in the noggin :mad::mad::mad::o:mad:

CSF

Donnielighto wrote: »

Zaha had/has, just not in the noggin :mad::mad::mad::o:mad:

I don't think Zaha has ever shown anything like what Sterling has in a similar role.

United were in dire need of some prospects for the future because I'm not sure Zaha or Januzaj are superstars of the future, even in the Premiership, never mind Europe.

Donnielighto

CSF wrote: »

I don't think Zaha has ever shown anything like what Sterling has in a similar role.

United were in dire need of some prospects for the future because I'm not sure Zaha or Januzaj are superstars of the future, even in the Premiership, never mind Europe.

Januzaj has. Zaha showed ability and confidence but seems to be a bit of a shít.

Henderson is 24 and I dont think he showed much for pool in12/13, came good last season but.

gosplan

I would question the desire of the hierarchy and the ability of Woodward to sign top level players.

I just think that the Glazers haven't nailed their flags to the mast on whether they want maximum profit or maximum success.

Fergie built such a massive money making machine that the two don't necessarily have to correlate.

If there weren't another big big purchase or two this summer, I'd get worried.

CSF

Donnielighto wrote: »

Januzaj has. Zaha showed ability and confidence but seems to be a bit of a shít.

Henderson is 24 and I dont think he showed much for pool in12/13, came good last season but.

I don't think Januzaj has ever shown what Sterling has.

And yeah Henderson isn't an 18 year old prospect, but he looks like he is set to be at the top of the English game when he turns 27/28 IMO.

Zico

CSF wrote: »

United were in dire need of some prospects for the future because I'm not sure Zaha or Januzaj are superstars of the future, even in the Premiership, never mind Europe.

Tell that to Paul Pogba.

It's all well and good having a stream of talent coming through but if your team is already quite successful it's a huge gamble to play youngsters. For all the talk about the class of '92 era even Fergie never risked bringing that many young players through together again.

Liverpool have had the advantage of lowered expectations and meagre resources so allow them gamble on players who wouldn't get a sniff at the big clubs.

Chelsea have dominated the FA Youth Cup for years but they're still buying talent and not brining it through.

CSF

Zico wrote: »

Tell that to Paul Pogba.

It's all well and good having a stream of talent coming through but if your team is already quite successful it's a huge gamble to play youngsters. For all the talk about the class of '92 era even Fergie never risked bringing that many young players through together again.

Liverpool have had the advantage of lowered expectations and meagre resources so allow them gamble on players who wouldn't get a sniff at the big clubs.

Chelsea have dominated the FA Youth Cup for years but they're still buying talent and not brining it through.

But look at United's squad from last season and that will tell you that proper prospects were exactly what they needed. Arsenal a great example of it being done right, even if they haven't managed the number one prize in a little while, I believe if the advent of the football billionaire sugardaddy hadnt come about with Abramovich, it would still have been United and Arsenal within the titles until Liverpool's revival.

If you don't need a sugardaddy you need to be able to create your own players IMO.

ebbsy

United need more than a new manager, they need a lot of players as well.

League likely to finish 9in the same order as last year.

niallo27

ebbsy wrote: »

United need more than a new manager, they need a lot of players as well.

League likely to finish 9in the same order as last year.

That squad won the league two years ago minus a few defenders. Big price players have come in since. No excuse for van gal not to challenge.

CSF

ebbsy wrote: »

United need more than a new manager, they need a lot of players as well.

League likely to finish 9in the same order as last year.

Liverpool are not likely to finish 2nd, not at all.

Largely between Chelsea and City for me.

gosplan

niallo27 wrote: »

That squad won the league two years ago minus a few defenders. Big price players have come in since. No excuse for van gal not to challenge.

Dunno, the 'minus a few defenders' bit might cause a problem.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

But look at United's squad from last season and that will tell you that proper prospects were exactly what they needed. Arsenal a great example of it being done right, even if they haven't managed the number one prize in a little while, I believe if the advent of the football billionaire sugardaddy hadnt come about with Abramovich, it would still have been United and Arsenal within the titles until Liverpool's revival.

If you don't need a sugardaddy you need to be able to create your own players IMO.

I'm sorry, but Liverpools Revival? Do you mean in terms of competing for League? For all you know that could be a once off. If it had have been Newcastle that finished 2nd last year, would it be the 'Revival' of Newcastle for competing? If Liverpool challenge again then that's great for them. But I personally don't think they will.

Leftist

It's between united, arsenal and liverpool for 3rd and 4th.

As it stands united would be doing well to get 3 with this squad.

liverpool will do well to get third given they've sold their best player and brought in a load of players not up to champion standard.

throwing away the league last year will stick in the teeth for years because that was their best chance.

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I'm sorry, but Liverpools Revival? Do you mean in terms of competing for League? For all you know that could be a once off. If it had have been Newcastle that finished 2nd last year, would it be the 'Revival' of Newcastle for competing? If Liverpool challenge again then that's great for them. But I personally don't think they will.

Moving from 7th to 2nd is a revival, regardless of how long it lasts. I dunno if I would call Newcastle coming 2nd a revival because IMO they haven't had a period of greatness in the first place.

A large portion of Irish United fans (undoubtedly you are one) really are unwilling to give Liverpool the slightest bit of credit, unless they're using it as a balancing act with a more damning criticism.

CSF

Leftist wrote: »

It's between united, arsenal and liverpool for 3rd and 4th.

As it stands united would be doing well to get 3 with this squad.

liverpool will do well to get third given they've sold their best player and brought in a load of players not up to champion standard.

throwing away the league last year will stick in the teeth for years because that was their best chance.

You're probably right, but do bear in mind that we would have had a similar conversation last year, nobody took them seriously either.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

Moving from 7th to 2nd is a revival, regardless of how long it lasts. I dunno if I would call Newcastle coming 2nd a revival because IMO they haven't had a period of greatness in the first place.

A large portion of Irish United fans (undoubtedly you are one) really are unwilling to give Liverpool the slightest bit of credit, unless they're using it as a balancing act with a more damning criticism.

A period of greatness. Which was A long time ago, not sure how it's relevant. So if United win the league next year is that a revival also? And No, I'm not a United fan. Liverpool fans on here just like to think when people disagree with them the person must follow United. I stated that Liverpool had a good season last year. But I wouldn't call 1 year a revival.

Zico

CSF wrote: »

A large portion of Irish United fans (undoubtedly you are one) really are unwilling to give Liverpool the slightest bit of credit, unless they're using it as a balancing act with a more damning criticism.

Are any other fans suggesting you're looking at anything more than a season of fortunate timing for LFC last year?

Past experience doesn't bode well. 2009 was the last so called "revival" and they dropped out of CL places altogether there after with a much better squad, I thought, and without having to sell their best player.

United fans are choosing their words carefully, after what happened last season, but don't expect much credit for what most people see as an abberation.

It's hard enough to acknowledge what City have achieved in the last 5 years, without clapping every one-off near miss by a once successful side.

Sunderland have 6 titles, more than City and Chelsea, does that mean their achievement of avoiding relegation deserves special credit?:P

LuckyLloyd

Godge wrote: »

That would allow Chelsea, City and Arsenal to pick off which of the new signings have adapted best to the Premiership.

Yeah sure, because those clubs have successfully picked off Liverpool's best players over the past few years. I would have thought Arsenal fans would prefer not to draw attention to having their ears boxed over Suarez last summer but there you go.

Rayne Wooney

Liverpool's best players weren't good enough for United, Chelsea, Arsenal of City in past years. Barring Suarez for Arsenal who tried to sign him and Torres for Chelsea

Pyjamarama

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Liverpool's best players weren't good enough for United, Chelsea, Arsenal of City in past years. Barring Suarez for Arsenal who tried to sign him and Torres for Chelsea

You're right, alonso, mascherano and Gerard weren't remotely up to that level.