Our rise with Ferguson in the early 90's came about at pretty much the perfect time. This is when the money being injected into the game was starting to be taken to the next level as well. We was basically a sleeping giant, I don't think there was anything Liverpool could do to prevent themselves being dethroned at that point.
RAWK Goes into Meltdown 2014/2015 - The "We go again" Edition
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
For Liverpool the difference is more than qualifying for the Champions League each year. The difference is around £55m each season nowadays, which even with price increases and inflation etc you'll be looking at around £600-700m in the last 25 years.
Sometimes it's better to take the short term pain of a mortgage and the interest that goes with, along with the short term cash flow problems for the long term benefits. As you say Arsenal are a shining example of that; but again even that has taken Wenger's genius to essentially spend no money on transfers for a decade, whilst keeping them in the Champions League.
If Liverpool had gotten a Fergie or a Wenger they'd probably be where Arsenal are right now; mind you they'd have probably sacked either of them 3-4 seasons in for not meeting expectations.
*Obligatory 'not RAWK, but...'*
A Letter to the Club ~
Teaser:
More (much more):
http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/topic/107798-a-very-long-letter-to-the-club/
A Letter to the Club ~
Teaser:
More (much more):
http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/topic/107798-a-very-long-letter-to-the-club/
You can blame souness but sticking with roy evans for years was a bit of a disaster.
The attitude of the club at the time was weird. The whole spice boys thing.
They just went about a decade and a half with shit managers when the whole money side of the game was really taking off.
The stadium is relevant too but they didn't lack money for a long time during that period.
The attitude of the club at the time was weird. The whole spice boys thing.
They just went about a decade and a half with shit managers when the whole money side of the game was really taking off.
The stadium is relevant too but they didn't lack money for a long time during that period.
Going with managers like Houllier and Benitez when the club had a history of playing attractive attacking football just went against the ethos of the club too.
One thing I always found interesting is if you read the interviews from the summer of 2004, Mourinho appeared to be holding out for the Liverpool job before Liverpool decided on Benitez. He was quoted as saying "Liverpool are a team that interests everyone and Chelsea does not interest me so much because it is a new project with lots of money invested in it. I think it is a project which, if the club fail to win everything, then [Roman] Abramovich could retire and take the money out of the club. It's an uncertain project. It is interesting for a coach to have the money to hire quality players but you never know if a project like this will bring success"
You'd wonder how different Liverpool's and indeed Chelsea's fortunes may have been if Liverpool had gotten Mourinho that summer
One thing I always found interesting is if you read the interviews from the summer of 2004, Mourinho appeared to be holding out for the Liverpool job before Liverpool decided on Benitez. He was quoted as saying "Liverpool are a team that interests everyone and Chelsea does not interest me so much because it is a new project with lots of money invested in it. I think it is a project which, if the club fail to win everything, then [Roman] Abramovich could retire and take the money out of the club. It's an uncertain project. It is interesting for a coach to have the money to hire quality players but you never know if a project like this will bring success"
You'd wonder how different Liverpool's and indeed Chelsea's fortunes may have been if Liverpool had gotten Mourinho that summer
You missed multiplying it by 5 times mate!! 5 fecking times!!
When the hell did that happen? Liverpool always has a reputation of pragmatic football even when they won everything in the 70's and 80's. The teams who have been particularly known for attacking football for sustained periods over the last few decades are Manchester United, West Ham and Tottenham. Arsenal have had that reputation in the last few years (before that they were boring boring Arsenal) but never Liverpool.
There must be other places on the interweb for attempting to understand the deep rooted persistence of their misery?
I'm the United fan being referenced in that thread.
Before we get too upset, they bought plenty of the other team's best players with the winning/being in Europe ££££ they accumulated.
Ok, if you're the only one doing it, innit?
Ok, if you're the only one doing it, innit?
I was too young to be aware of it all, but I'm pretty sure the big money came with the start of the Premier League. That would mean that Liverpool's success didn't really earn them that much money, because they fell behind just before it started to become lucrative. Then, because we happened to be successful at the right time, we got the cash that allowed us to build on our foundations. Obviously a lot of other stuff fell into place for us - the class of 92 for instance - and we were always a huge club and just needed the right circumstances to push us back into an era of success.
I was looking at their signings and they did have plenty of money but it got wasted on bad players. Like they bought Dean Saunders for a record english record £2.9m (Shearer went for £3.2m the season after).
90-91 - 2.2 vs 0.8
91-92 - 3.6 vs 2.6
92-93 - 3.8 vs 4
94-95 - 6.7 vs (-3.7)
95-96 - 12.3 vs 1.3
96-97 - 7.5 vs (-0.3)
97-98 - 4.5 vs 15.5
98-99 - 17.5 vs 11.7
99-00 - 14.5 vs 13.7
Total Liverpool Net spending during the 90s = £75.6m
Total United Net Spending during the 90s = £46.3m
Edit - Got the numbers from a Liverpool website so you'd imagine it wouldn't be biased in our favour. http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2012/08/lfc-vs-man-utd-21-year-grossnet.html
Class of 92 was Giggs, Scholes, Butt and Neville brothers
Liverpool had McManaman and Fowler who were both meant to be really good from what I've read so they had about 30m extra to spend on finding the equilvalent of Butt and Gary+Phil Neville.
It kind of sounds like a myth that we got lucky from the class of 92/sky money and it sounds more like Liverpool fecked it all up themselves and the only difference was Fergie who came in at the right time to just dominate the league.
Last edited:
It always makes me laugh that they try to portray themselves as some kind of David and Goliath, whereas in actuality they're a Goliath who inexplicably amputated his own legs.
Hah, that's interesting - the numbers definitely don't fit the narrative then.
Didn't their downfall start with Dalglish being shocking in the transfer market (imagine that...) - I'm sure I've read something about Dalglish as manager bringing in older players with limited shelf-life, which left Souness with an ageing squad and a lot of replacing needing to be done? Or is that inaccurate?
Need them to win this game tonight, purely for FPL reasons.
They win, they get a double game week soon.
They win, they get a double game week soon.
It's ban-hammer tastically inaccurate, is that.
It's entirely Roy Hodge-Podge what is single-handedly responsible for their zero League triumphs in the Premier League era.
And Howard Webb, obv.
I want them to lose, it will accelerate the meltdown. They'll have nothing to play for, they don't even believe they can get top 4 at this stage.
'Last few years.'
Wenger has been here for 20 years. Not exactly the 'last few,' is it?
He wasn't a cnut when he gave them victory at Southampton, was he?
No and yes. Dalglish signed some of the best players we ever had -- John Barnes and Peter Beardsley, for example. One of his two last signings was a 17yo Jamie Redknapp. The other was David Speedie.
His flaw wasn't that he signed older players, because he didn't. It was that he didn't replace the players he had as they began to age. Especially the ones he played with. So when Souness came in, he felt that everyone was too cozy and comfortable and that the squad needed refreshing urgently. Which he did very badly. Signing established stars from elsewhere who had already reached the top of their game - shades of Lovren, Lallana, and Lambert, actually - like Dean Saunders and Mark Wright from Derby. Rob Jones was a rare good Souness buy. Nigel Clough should have been. But then there were the likes of Paul Stewart, Mark Walters, Neil Ruddock, Julian Dicks? Seriously, what the eff were they thinking?
Oh, and the first player Souness sold? David Speedie.
It's frightning that out Net Spend during the 90's was about 75% of Di Maria's fee.
Why do I see serious discussion on this thread? I came n for a laugh.
Have they declared the FA Cup to be the most important trophy in English football yet, far more meaningful than the league?
I just wait to see the euphoria if they do manage to win the FA Cup with Gerrard scoring the winner from a penalty.
feck that, I want him to melt into obscurity with them having lost in the semi final and finishing 6th (or even better 7th).
True, although the way he has been going, I reckon Slippy/Stampy G might provide us more entertainment if he actually reaches the final.
Lets hope Arsenal wont bottle the final.
Little hope Liverpool will loose to Villa tbh.
Little hope Liverpool will loose to Villa tbh.
I hope their quality stays there for the next 10 years.
YNFA's youtube channel got shutdown!
...so it seems I'm not the only one who keep watching them over and over again
...so it seems I'm not the only one who keep watching them over and over again
At least his facebook page is still active, as is the videos there!
Ah, thanks. Some of the ones over there were new to me actually
Brentan said:
Got a fair idea this bloke is serious, cos even by their standards, he's an absolute tool and a half
Bonkers
So they want to be a big world wide club minus the world wide support?
1. Please do not be of Forrin appearance.
Has it been that long? Good grief. How time flies. I remember him arriving from the J League and Fergie having a snipe at his inexperience.
It is when you're my age .... for the bigger part of my life they have been as dull as feckin dishwater.
Having said that, the teams that lost to us 6-1 6-2 and 8-2 respectively were highly entertaining!
I see, that's a fair bit different in that case. Sounds like there might have been a few parallels with us after Sir Alex retired in terms of the squad he left, with the successor completely failing to re-freshen and build on what was there (though Moyes failed by not doing anything worth talking about in his transfer windows, whilst it sounds like Souness failed by actually doing something in the transfer market).