D Day for liverpool football club

PHB

Why are people in favorite of a champions league with only the champions in it?
Do Arsenal not deserve to be in the CL as much as say Shelbourne do?

eirebhoy

el rabitos wrote:

:rolleyes: your an idiot

I don't think there is any doubt that Celtic fans sing it best. I'm not saying it to open up a debate. The only time Liverpool fans sang YNWA as good as Celtic fans was at the Chelsea match, and even then Celtic have had better. But Celtic park is bigger than Anfield. Anyway, attack the post, not the poster.

i dont think about celtic enough to have anything against them, i just reckon its dumb having ireland flags waved in support of celtic who are about as irish are canadians are american.

Fair play to you so.

milan fans version of ynwa is meant as an insult, i think someone posted the translated lyrics on the champions lge final thread. so they arent singing it in the way celtic fans are.

This is an insult?
http://www.fdl.it/sound/fdl-you'll_never.mp3

el rabitos

I don't think there is any doubt that Celtic fans sing it best. I'm not saying it to open up a debate. The only time Liverpool fans sang YNWA as good as Celtic fans was at the Chelsea match, and even then Celtic have had better. But Celtic park is bigger than Anfield. Anyway, attack the post, not the poster.

jaysus, u were actually serious about that comment? your really comparing the singing talents of football supporters on mass? cop on

eirebhoy

el rabitos wrote:

jaysus, u were actually serious about that comment? your really comparing the singing talents of football supporters on mass? cop on

Get a bloody grip of yourself and at least explain what the hell your on about.

Was I serious about the comment? No, it was tongue in cheek. Why did you call me an idiot if you didn't think I was being serious. You should bloody cop on.

Slash/ED

PHB wrote:

Whats the difference between
You supporting Shelbourne, which isn't where you're from.
Some Guy supporting Celtic, which isn't where they are from

I support Shelbourne as they're Irish and the nearest club to me.

eirebhoy wrote:

I'll be supporting Celtic against any Irish team. If you think I'm an eejit so be it.

Is that not the almost exact equivilent of what you're complaining about on foot.ie in the 'really annoys me' thread that just got upped today?

Chucky the tree

is the song liverpool fans sing not "the fields of anfield road"?


P.S i will be supporting who ever plays Shelbourne.

Brian017

How can someone support against an Irish team in Europe? It's illogical.

Chucky the tree

i dont want shels to get all that money, so they can buy new players(although hasnt done much good so far this season ).


I would much prefer to see Cork city doing that.

Thanx 4 The Fish

el rabitos, you are banned for a week for personal abuse as are your sponsors PiE and phreak.

Brian017

Chucky the tree wrote:

i dont want shels to get all that money, so they can buy new players(although hasnt done much good so far this season ).


I would much prefer to see Cork city doing that.

Yeah but it helps the Eircom League and Irish Football in general in the long run if Irish clubs do well in Europe.

Thanx 4 The Fish

BTW The reason that the Rossoneri sing YNWA was in sympathy with Liverpool after the Hillsborough disaster.

Slash/ED

Brian017 wrote:

Yeah but it helps the Eircom League and Irish Football in general in the long run if Irish clubs do well in Europe.

I think so, so I'd cheer for any Irish team in Europe - Even Bohs, just :eek:

But I can see where rival fans are coming from when they don't if they think it could leave that team miles ahead of the rest, but I think ultimately for the league to progress someone has to make the break through and than we need all of our teams to consistently preform, so one team going on a run can only be good imo.

StickyMcGinty

smemon wrote:

uefa have broken the rules to let ye in, count yourselves lucky.

not at all - its a silly rule to have anyway, and uefa obviously saw that by changing it!

the winners of the cup should always be in it the next year, and anyone who isnt blinded by bias will agree.

how can you say you've won the 2006 champions league if you havnt beaten the holders?

Slash/ED

VinnyL wrote:

how can you say you've won the 2006 champions league if you havnt beaten the holders?

I'm sure the champions league has been won many times by teams who haven't beaten or faced the holders, and it more than likely will be next time too.

Brian017

VinnyL wrote:

how can you say you've won the 2006 champions league if you havnt beaten the holders?

Liverpool didn't beat Porto, so did they not win the 2005 Champions League then?

Chucky the tree

Brian017 wrote:

Yeah but it helps the Eircom League and Irish Football in general in the long run if Irish clubs do well in Europe.

How does it help EPL and irish football in general? Shels will become the Rosenbourg of EPL. No one wants that, well except shels fans.

Slash/ED

Chucky the tree wrote:

How does it help EPL and irish football in general? Shels will become the Rosenbourg of EPL. No one wants that, well except shels fans.

I can barely imagine anything I'd like less. It would be completley boring.

It helps because it brings interest. Look at the TV deal the league got for this year. Before Rogers scored that goal there was, afaik, NO TV matches shown that season. The previous season, there was 3 I think league matches on TV. After he scored that goal, RTE started showing matches almost constantly. Corks European run had also helped bring the interest up. Now this season there's a deal to show 30 games + setanta cup + Europe. I've never seen the first third of an EL season get so much TV coverage, all we're lacking is a good highlights show.

Do you think that's coincidental timing? I don't. The European runs had a massive part to play

The money thats brought in is huge. The prize money for winning the league as a result is well over 100 grand, I forget exactly how much. It doesn't seem like much, but last year Shels got 18,000 or so for winning it. You also get a bit extra each time you're shown on TV.

Obviously it's arrogant to suggest that's all down to the European runs of Shels and Cork, but they played a massive part. It's no coincidence that Cork v Shels was the first league match shown last year iirc, right after Corks run and during Shels run.

For the league to improve every team needs to do well in Europe. It brings in money, interest, TV and media exposure and lets us attract a better standard of player, which in turn increases the standard of the league. The prize money alone shows how this filters down to all clubs. We're one hundred million miles away from a Rosenborg situation, a look at the league table will show you that, so atm all we need is every team to produce in Europe. I'm confident, if Shels can get it together, that ourselves, Cork and a currently on form Bohs can all do well in Europe themselves, anything Longford get is a bonus on top of that. That can only help the league. Europe is the only thing we have to measure the standard of the league and the only way we can know its improving is by looking at our results there.

eirebhoy

Slash/ED wrote:

Is that not the almost exact equivilent of what you're complaining about on foot.ie in the 'really annoys me' thread that just got upped today?

almost? No, far from it. That thread was about supporting your club (whether thats Irish Scottish or French) over your country. My support for Celtic has grown over the years, you can't just switch that off and hope they get knocked out of the Champions league. Of course I would support any Irish club in Europe as they are representing Ireland. But, I don't know how to really explain this but to me Celtic are partly representing Ireland too (I'm not saying they're Irish). I just think of Zidane watching a Celtic match (god forbid at this stage ) and seeing all the Ireland flags knowing (or thinking you may say) that a large proportion of Ireland are cheering this team on. I didn't really explain that well but it is a bit unexplainable.

Anything I support in sport is basically down to Irishness. I've paid €16 to order my first ever fight on Sky tonight because Tyson is fighting an Irishman. I said this before but I used to support Man U as a kid. I just grew out of it though. Trust me, I don't think Celtic are Irish and if the thoughts in my head are rubbish, let me think them and leave it be. I definitely got it from my father though. I was watching the World Championship snooker match between Higgins and Shaun Murphy with him. He said who are you up for and I told him Higgins. He told me he was up for Murphy because with a name like that he has to have Irish links. And he was deadly serious.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

Slash/ED

eirebhoy wrote:

almost? No, far from it. That thread was about supporting your club (whether thats Irish Scottish or French) over your country. My support for Celtic has grown over the years, you can't just switch that off and hope they get knocked out of the Champions league.

You're still supporting a British club over an Irish one, on their own soil too. There's nothing I'd hate more than seing the stadium full of people waving their tricolours around booing the Irish team like when Celtic played Pats.

It's very similar imo. Those people are supporting their club sides over Ireland as they are too attached to their club side to see beyond that, and feel less for the Irish side. It's almost exactly the same as supporting their club sides over an Irish club side for exactly the same reason.

Of course I would support any Irish club in Europe as they are representing Ireland. But, I don't know how to really explain this but to me Celtic are partly representing Ireland too (I'm not saying they're Irish). I just think of Zidane watching a Celtic match (god forbid at this stage ) and seeing all the Ireland flags knowing (or thinking you may say) that a large proportion of Ireland are cheering this team on. I didn't really explain that well but it is a bit unexplainable.

I do see what you mean, but imagine him watching an Irish club in the group stages of the champions league

Anything I support in sport is basically down to Irishness. I've paid €16 to order my first ever fight on Sky tonight because Tyson is fighting an Irishman. I said this before but I used to support Man U as a kid. I just grew out of it though. Trust me, I don't think Celtic are Irish and if the thoughts in my head are rubbish, let me think them and leave it be. I definitely got it from my father though. I was watching the World Championship snooker match between Higgins and Shaun Murphy with him. He said who are you up for and I told him Higgins. He told me he was up for Murphy because with a name like that he has to have Irish links. And he was deadly serious.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

Which is what makes your first paragraph puzzling to me, I'm not saying your wrong, you're entitled to feel whatever way you want, however it wont make it any less vomit inducing to me if Shels draw Celtic. It's probably the only Shels or Ireland match I can think of where I'd be able to go if I wanted and would simply choose to stay at home.

thejollyrodger

If shels were to play liverpool or celtic in the second or third round and everyone was cheering liverpool/Celtic on i would be totally discusted and shamed to death with this pathetic country. It would be the laughing stock of Europe to say the least.

Chucky the tree

Slash/ED wrote:

I
For the league to improve every team needs to do well in Europe. It brings in money, interest, TV and media exposure and lets us attract a better standard of player, which in turn increases the standard of the league. The prize money alone shows how this filters down to all clubs. We're one hundred million miles away from a Rosenborg situation, a look at the league table will show you that, so atm all we need is every team to produce in Europe. I'm confident, if Shels can get it together, that ourselves, Cork and a currently on form Bohs can all do well in Europe themselves, anything Longford get is a bonus on top of that. That can only help the league. Europe is the only thing we have to measure the standard of the league and the only way we can know its improving is by looking at our results there.

If shels qualify for the group stages, thats 8 mil or so they will earn aobut isnt it?. For Cork city to earn that in the uefa cup, they will need to make it to the semis or quarters. Thats a big step towards a rosenbourg situation. It would be great to see both teams do well in the UEfa cup, i certainly would support shels and any irish team then.

Jivin Turkey

smemon wrote:

true champions get into trophies theyve just won without needing help from uefa or the fa to do so.

The champions of the European Cup/Champions League have always got to defend their title even if they didnt finish in a qualifying position. They have always needed help from UEFA to do this.

The English FA did Liverpool no favours. They changed their rules from last year (and I dont remember them doing it pre-season) which caused this situation. They hoped that Liverpool wouldnt win the competition, which made it all the more sweet seeing them win it and seeing them with egg on their face.

smemon wrote:

im all on for a champions league with ONLY the winners of domestic leagues in it, but that wont happen anymore. atm, especially after this decision its gone the complete opposite and it seems you can collect 10 crisp packets and get in.

How can this decision have made it go the complete opposite? When it was ONLY the winners of domestic leagues the holders also got into the competition even if they came last in their domestic league. If it went back to it being only the winners of the league qualifying the holders would get back the automatic place.

smemon wrote:

the rules were there for a reason, should this situation have occured they should have been stuck by and not re-written because of pressure from certain people.

Who shouldnt have changed their rules? The English FA or UEFA? Thats the problem here, all the people that are saying that the rules shouldnt be changed are ignoring that the English FA changed their rules. Conveniently let me add.

smemon wrote:

anyway, liverpool are lucky to be in the qualifiers at all,

I wouldnt say lucky. It was the right decision to allow them to defned the title. I wouldnt say it was a lucky decision.

smemon wrote:

it's funny to hear fans demand they get into the group stages. scared of getting knocked out before it starts me thinks. uefa have broken the rules to let ye in, count yourselves lucky.

I still think they should be in the groups, as the title holders have always been. It is a lot more logical seeing now as they are affecting the seeding in all the qualifying rounds as they are the number one seed for the competition, and the teams that come through from a previous qualifying round are all unseeded in the next.

For me this wasnt a case of me moaning until Liverpool got in. Just because they got in Im not happy. That wasnt my goal here. I believe the title holders should qualify direct for the groups as first seeds. Its not just because Liverpool are the title holders, if it were Hereford or United Id feel the same.

I dont think Liverpool fans should be happy "just to be in", they deserve to be in the groups, like the title holders have always been. If they didnt feel like that it would appear to me that they just wanted Liverpool to be there because they didnt think they should.

Id wager fistfuls of cash that this will be the only time that the holders have to qualify for the groups because sense will be seen by the law-making suits.

Töpher

Jivin Turkey wrote:

And why will one team be "denied a chance of progression"? They still have to play the game. They would have faced a seeded team anyway. How come they are "denied a chance of progression" when facing one seeded team but not another?

Perhaps this is just me being pedantic, but until recently, the best seeded (and therefore best) team in QR1 was Anorthosis Famagusta of Cyprus, with a whopping co-efficient of 4.694. Now, enter Liverpool with a co-efficient of 115.864. Now, although the unseeded teams were always going to have a tough game against Anorthosis Famagusta, it would be nowhere near the level of game as one against Liverpool. Kairat Almaty, of Kazahkstan, may have had a chance to even scrape a draw in one game against Anorthosis Famagusta, and get same valuable co-efficient points, and maybe scrape winning the tie. Realistically there is no chance of Kairat Almaty overturning a Liverpool side - effectively denying them a chance of progression, and reducing possible income and prize money.

No unseeded team is likely to get a "payday" against Liverpool. How many 'pool fans will travel to Kazakhstan for a QR1 match? How many Kazakhstanie's will return for the Liverpool leg? How much percentage would the smaller team get from the gates at Anfield? How many 'pool fans will actually go to a QR1 game? When Shels played Deportivo there was only about 17,000 in the stadium.

Perhaps this is just my imagination, but putting Liverpool into QR1 realistacally can hinder the smaller teams. Co-eficcient jumps from 4.694 to 115.864 speaks for itself IMHO. (You could actually nearly fit Celtic in TWICE with that large a co-efficient gap!).

PHB

The payday doesnt come from gate reciepts, it comes from TV revenue

Töpher

PHB wrote:

The payday doesnt come from gate reciepts, it comes from TV revenue

How often have you seen QR1 on TV?

Guy:Incognito

Einst&#252 wrote: »

When Shels played Deportivo there was only about 17,000 in the stadium.
.

There was 24000 and that was because this crappy country doesnt have a half decent all seater stadium. The terraces in Landsdowne coulnt be used. It was a sell out.

smemon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Id wager fistfuls of cash that this will be the only time that the holders have to qualify for the groups because sense will be seen by the law-making suits.

it won't happen, as this is modern football. look at the world cup, champions dont get automatic qualification anymore and rightly & it is a blessing in disguise as the holders get to play competitively and keep their standards up rather than go into a tournament on the back of 10/15 friendlies.

winners shouldnt be favoured and given an easy passage just because they won. it defeats the whole 'sporting' element which after all fifa and uefa are so keen to promote (anti-racism, discrimination etc..) technically, it's discrimination against the small clubs in the 1st round that will suffer as a result of liverpool being too powerful and big.

i'll leave you with a definition of discrimination: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Thanx 4 The Fish

smemon wrote:

it won't happen, as this is modern football. look at the world cup, champions dont get automatic qualification anymore and rightly & it is a blessing in disguise as the holders get to play competitively and keep their standards up rather than go into a tournament on the back of 10/15 friendlies.

It is not a blessing in disguise, it was brought in specifically to give the holders competitive games after Frances poor showing in the WC in 02.

smemon wrote:

winners shouldnt be favoured and given an easy passage just because they won. it defeats the whole 'sporting' element which after all fifa and uefa are so keen to promote (anti-racism, discrimination etc..) technically, it's discrimination against the small clubs in the 1st round that will suffer as a result of liverpool being too powerful and big.

If you think it is unfair that the holders get brought in to the QR1 automatically then that is fine stick the pool straight into the group stages and the lower seeded tams need not worry.

smemon wrote:

i'll leave you with a definition of discrimination: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Do you apply that definition when thinking of Liverpool ? Surely you are discriminiating against them because I KNOW that if it was Man U that won CL and came fifth you would be screaming for them to be in the groups.

jesus_thats_gre

I have tried to stay out of this argument as it is pretty pointless, but Smemon naturally had to produce some sort of tripe that would drive me to post

smemon wrote:

it won't happen, as this is modern football. look at the world cup, champions dont get automatic qualification anymore and rightly & it is a blessing in disguise as the holders get to play competitively and keep their standards up rather than go into a tournament on the back of 10/15 friendlies.

This was changed at the request of the then World Cup winners. A gap of 2 years without a competitive match is very different to 3 months.. Considering that every team in club football has that 2 or 3 month break, your argument is rendered obsolete. Evey team in world football do no have a 2 year competitive break forced upon them for winning something.

Secondly, the winner of a World Cup can go through alot of changes in the 4 years before the next tournament. They could very possibly go into the tournament as with a very low chance of winning it. This scenario is far far less likely in the 2 or 3 month break in club football.

smemon wrote:

winners shouldnt be favoured and given an easy passage just because they won. it defeats the whole 'sporting' element which after all fifa and uefa are so keen to promote (anti-racism, discrimination etc..) technically, it's discrimination against the small clubs in the 1st round that will suffer as a result of liverpool being too powerful and big.

i'll leave you with a definition of discrimination: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Quoting the defintion of descrimination out of a 6th class Business Studies book doesn't mean you understand it.

They are being graded on an achievement, i.e. they won the tournament 1 month ago. This SUCCESS of WINNING the tournament has been deemed a sufficient SUCCESS by UEFA to warrant inclusion in the next years tournament..



Just let it go ffs...

thejollyrodger

Stekelly wrote:

There was 24000 and that was because this crappy country doesnt have a half decent all seater stadium. The terraces in Landsdowne coulnt be used. It was a sell out.

Not only that, there were 600,000 people watching the Shels game(s)

We could have won that game in the Riazor as well !!

Töpher

Stekelly wrote:

There was 24000 and that was because this crappy country doesnt have a half decent all seater stadium. The terraces in Landsdowne coulnt be used. It was a sell out.

I meant IN Deportivo (17000) Meaning the fans of the big clubs won't turn out in their hordes for a QR1 game (I mean, 17000 at a QR3 game doesn't bode well!).

Slash/ED

Not to mention Juve getting 7,000 in their third round qualifyer.

Jivin Turkey

smemon wrote:

it won't happen, as this is modern football. look at the world cup, champions dont get automatic qualification anymore and rightly & it is a blessing in disguise as the holders get to play competitively and keep their standards up rather than go into a tournament on the back of 10/15 friendlies.

I cant believe still people are still making comparisons with international football. The flaws of this comparison have since been pointed out AGAIN, thanks for saving me the energy lads.

smemon wrote:

winners shouldnt be favoured and given an easy passage just because they won. it defeats the whole 'sporting' element which after all fifa and uefa are so keen to promote (anti-racism, discrimination etc..) technically, it's discrimination against the small clubs in the 1st round that will suffer as a result of liverpool being too powerful and big.

i'll leave you with a definition of discrimination: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Haha. Thanks for the laughs. Ive heard it all now, Liverpool are too strong for QR1, but dont deserve to be in the groups?

Why should winners of the stronger leagues be favoured so? Is that not discrimination?

Jivin Turkey

Einst&#252 wrote: »

I meant IN Deportivo (17000) Meaning the fans of the big clubs won't turn out in their hordes for a QR1 game (I mean, 17000 at a QR3 game doesn't bode well!).

Slash/ED wrote:

Not to mention Juve getting 7,000 in their third round qualifyer.

Well continental fans are far less loyal, particularly when it comes to attending matches. Can you imagine Anfield only having 7000 in it? There will be 35,000 at least. Im definately going to head over anyway.

But as has been pointed out, its the TV revenues where the clubs that draws Liverpool will benefit.

Slash/ED

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Well continental fans are far less loyal, particularly when it comes to attending matches. Can you imagine Anfield only having 7000 in it? There will be 35,000 at least. Im definately going to head over anyway.

But as has been pointed out, its the TV revenues where the clubs that draws Liverpool will benefit.

Anfield had poor crowds up until the knock out phase.

smemon

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

They are being graded on an achievement, i.e. they won the tournament 1 month ago. This SUCCESS of WINNING the tournament has been deemed a sufficient SUCCESS by UEFA to warrant inclusion in the next years tournament..

BUT their failures are being ignored. ie finishing 5th and failing to qualify. because they won 1 trophy doesnt mean their other involvements should be forgotten and de-valued.

putting liverpool automatically in the group stages would cause even more chaos as it would take away someone else's position which they have worked hard for over a season and played more games to get it.

winning is rewarded and i accept that (CL trophy being the prize) , but losing also has to be rewarded (not qualifying from the PL).

you cant win 2 rewards from one success, which is what liverpool are doing: theyre being doubly rewarded for the one success which is unfair and unsporting imo on uefa's part as it has knock on effects.

KdjaCL

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Well continental fans are far less loyal, particularly when it comes to attending matches. Can you imagine Anfield only having 7000 in it? There will be 35,000 at least. Im definately going to head over anyway.

LOL the ironing is delicous there.


made me smile anyway.

kdjac

Töpher

KdjaC wrote:

LOL the ironing is delicous there.


made me smile anyway.

kdjac

Lolz

Jivin Turkey

Slash/ED wrote:

Anfield had poor crowds up until the knock out phase.

There were 33k at the Monaco game. I agree, not great.

But I wouldnt call attendances of 40k, 42k and 43k "poor".

KdjaC wrote:

LOL the ironing is delicous there.


made me smile anyway.

kdjac

I dont follow.

Slash/ED

Jivin Turkey wrote:

There were 33k at the Monaco game. I agree, not great.

But I wouldnt call attendances of 40k, 42k and 43k "poor"

Relative to the league crowds where Anfield sells out every week pretty much, they were very poor.

Jivin Turkey

Slash/ED wrote:

Relative to the league crowds where Anfield sells out every week pretty much, they were very poor.

Very poor now?

Season tickets dont apply to European games, and midweek matches are attended worse than weekend ones every where.

Capacity for CL games is also reduced, Im not sure why but the front few rows of every ground always seem to be completely empty. You always notice it at OT and Anfield anyway. Certain sections are also allocated to away fans, they are rarely full. There is also larger segregation required.

So considering all these constraints, and Anfields regular capacity of 45k, its laughable to label attendances as "very poor", bar the Monaco game obviously. I would be surpised if there wasnt a reason for that too.

Slash/ED

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Very poor now?

Season tickets dont apply to European games, and midweek matches are attended worse than weekend ones every where.

Capacity for CL games is also reduced, Im not sure why but the front few rows of every ground always seem to be completely empty. You always notice it at OT and Anfield anyway. Certain sections are also allocated to away fans, they are rarely full. There is also larger segregation required.

So considering all these constraints, and Anfields regular capacity of 45k, its laughable to label attendances as "very poor", bar the Monaco game obviously. I would be surpised if there wasnt a reason for that too.

Well considering you're talking about the uber loyal Liverpool fans, rather than those woeful continental types, season tickets not applying and mid week matches should make no difference.

Capacity may be reduced but it still couldn't sell out when league games with a bigger capacity could.

Jivin Turkey

Slash/ED wrote:

Well considering you're talking about the uber loyal Liverpool fans, rather than those woeful continental types, season tickets not applying and mid week matches should make no difference.

Its good to see you are getting pedantic. I obviously dont need to further back up my point.

Slash/ED wrote:

Capacity may be reduced but it still couldn't sell out when league games with a bigger capacity could.

Im not denying this, however just because they didnt sell out I wouldnt label them "very poor".

KdjaCL

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I dont follow.

Emm your a "continental" fan that goes abroad to"attend matches".

Irony?


kdjac

Jivin Turkey

KdjaC wrote:

Emm your a "continental" fan that goes abroad to"attend matches".

Irony?


kdjac

con·ti·nen·tal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knt-nntl)
adj.

often Continental Of or relating to the mainland of Europe;

I fail to see the irony. I was also generally speaking.

Slash/ED

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Its good to see you are getting pedantic. I obviously dont need to further back up my point.


Im not denying this, however just because they didnt sell out I wouldnt label them "very poor".

Realtive to league crowds they are, the point was crowds in the early stages of the champions league are poor, and Liverpools are included in that list even if they aren't as bad as Juves.

thejollyrodger

I thought he meant mainland Europe !! what was he really on about ?

Jivin Turkey

Slash/ED wrote:

Realtive to league crowds they are, the point was crowds in the early stages of the champions league are poor, and Liverpools are included in that list even if they aren't as bad as Juves.

But there are constraints in place for CL games that are not there for league games. Add to that, it is probable that a full allocation of away fans might not take tickets due to logistical reasons.

The attendances for the early stages were good demonstrated by:

The attendances for the knocks out stages, which were 40k, 41k, and 42k respectively.

The Monaco game aside, the attendances for the knock outs were worse than the group stages and qualification round.

Now something tells me that Liverpool could have sold out the Chelsea game ten times over. Yet there were only 42k there. The group stage attendances were all in and around that amount. Probably in and around full capacity for a CL game in Anfield.

Im not even sure what you are trying to prove? You said that they wouldnt pull a crowd for a qualifier, yet they pulled 43k for the Graz game. A game which was pretty much in the bag following a 2-0 win away.

Jivin Turkey

thejollyrodger wrote:

I thought he meant mainland Europe !! what was he really on about ?

I was. I failed to see the joke.

Guy:Incognito

Slash/ED wrote:

Well considering you're talking about the uber loyal Liverpool fans, rather than those woeful continental types, season tickets not applying and mid week matches should make no difference.

Capacity may be reduced but it still couldn't sell out when league games with a bigger capacity could.

Seeing as Liverpool is an almost 100% working class area I'd say midweek matches make a big difference.