Liverpool

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Well, he's made two European Cup Finals, winning one of them, and took them to within 2 points of winning the Prem last season (losing just 2 games all season, whilst doing the double over Man U and Chelsea). That ain't bad.

I'd say that a huge amount of that was down to the determination and incredible skill of Gerrard - yes, one man can make that much of a difference (as was proved last night for example and when they won the Chamions League final).

 

[Mellotron]

Benitez took them as close as they've been for nearly 20 years last season, but still fell just slightly short. I doubt anyone else could have done much better.

That said, a lot of his signings have been utter khazi, he's not perfect by any means quite clearly. But I think its harsh to label Benitez as a SHIT manager, when he clearly is far from it.

1. With the money he's been backed with, I'm sure plenty could do better. Mourinho for example. Only Chelsea and Man City have spent more on players than Liverpool over the last 5 years.

2. Never said he was S**T. Just didn't agree that he was "class".

3. He DOES make insane decision after insane decision.

 

[alan partridge]

Well, he's made two European Cup Finals, winning one of them, and took them to within 2 points of winning the Prem last season (losing just 2 games all season, whilst doing the double over Man U and Chelsea). That ain't bad.

Unfortunately for Benitez and his more recent predecessors, he's overseeing Liverpool in an era where Chelsea and Man U (and still Arsenal to an extent) set almost unprecedented standards at the top. The trouble is, Liverpools history and tradition DEMANDS they keep up with them, and whilst they are a "rich" club by most standards, they are still not in the same financial stratosphere as Man U or Chelsea.

Liverpool fell away in the early 90's just as Man U and Arsenal hit an ascendancy when the game got rich, and now with Chelsea in the mix (and City perhaps coming up on the rails now), Liverpool have never managed to catch up. Benitez took them as close as they've been for nearly 20 years last season, but still fell just slightly short. I doubt anyone else could have done much better.

That said, a lot of his signings have been utter khazi, he's not perfect by any means quite clearly. But I think its harsh to label Benitez as a SHIT manager, when he clearly is far from it.

That's a pretty good assessment if you ask me. Also, although their backroom squabbling isn't as detrimental as fuckwitted owners such as ours were to the team, he has achieved a lot of all that when things aren't exactly hunky dory at Liverpool. If anyone is going to bring them the league title I still think it will be him but it's not looking good right now.

 

[NS Herald]

As bizarre as it might seem, for Liverpool to fail badly this season could be good for football in general.

So let's assume they fail to make the group stage of the Champions League and don't qualify for Europe next season. The loss of revenue in their current financial predicament could have dire consequences and you could see more rats deserting the Good Ship Liverpool quicker than you can blink.

End result a team unable to attract decent players. no success etc. etc. etc. and perhaps you could end up with a Leeds.

Now I know this is unlikely and new owners could materialise with some serious dosh - BUT at the end of the day - only one team can win the CL and only 4 can make any serious money from it.

With all these new owners piling zillions into their clubs - there are going to be a lot of unhappy multi billionairies who may decide they have better things to do with their easy earned money?

Best possible result would be for a sense of reality and normality to return to the game we love and for wages and all associated costs to get back to a sensible level and return the game to the ordinary man in the street and not allow it to become the play thing of the rich and famous.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Mellotron, what are you on? Man City reportedly big £70million for Torres over the summer, a player bought for £20million plus Garcia. That represents just about the biggest "profit" in transfer history.

Secondly, Liverpool are competing against clubs with considerably richer owners / considerably bigger stadia. If he'd won the Prem in any of his 5 seasons he'd have over-achieved significantly.

He would have got Barry if Rick Parry hadn't f***ed around, and as for being a bad man manager he's got the best out of Torres, Gerrard, Reina, Kuyt, Johnson, Carragher.

Every manager makes bad signings - look at Ferguson: Taibi, Veron, Kleberson, Djemba-Djemba, Liam Miller, David Bellion, Diego Forlan and all in a period of winning trophies.

 

[Mellotron]

I would bet my house on this:

Liverpool will NEVER win the Prem with Rafa in charge.

 

[Mellotron]

Mellotron, what are you on? Man City reportedly big £70million for Torres over the summer, a player bought for £20million plus Garcia. That represents just about the biggest "profit" in transfer history.

Secondly, Liverpool are competing against clubs with considerably richer owners / considerably bigger stadia. If he'd won the Prem in any of his 5 seasons he'd have over-achieved significantly.

He would have got Barry if Rick Parry hadn't f***ed around, and as for being a bad man manager he's got the best out of Torres, Gerrard, Reina, Kuyt, Johnson, Carragher.

Every manager makes bad signings - look at Ferguson: Taibi, Veron, Kleberson, Djemba-Djemba, Liam Miller, David Bellion, Diego Forlan and all in a period of winning trophies.

OK first para: Don't understand your point. A bid? Wahey. Means nothing at all.

second: They have spent more in the last 5 years than anyone bar Man City and Chelsea. So money has NOT been an issue.

third: He shouldn't have gone for Barry in the first place. HE screwed Alonso around, that's the issue. How do we know what "the best" of each of those players is until you see them at numerous clubs?

fourth: You've shot yourself in the foot with that one. Like you said, Ferguson did this WHILE winning trophies.

Gerrard won Liverpool the Champions League final single-f***ing-handedly. Watch it again.

Liverpool are no stronger than 5 years ago, but masses of millions of pounds lighter.

 

[Easy 10]

I'd say that a huge amount of that was down to the determination and incredible skill of Gerrard - yes, one man can make that much of a difference (as was proved last night for example and when they won the Chamions League final).

Gerrard was and still is the jewel in the Liverpool crown, and of course he played a big part in their Champions League win (and the following Final two years on). Bit harsh to say it was mainly down to Gerrard though. Benitez still had to put a team around him and a defence behind him. Houllier had Gerrard too and never got a sniff of the C L Final.

1. With the money he's been backed with, I'm sure plenty could do better. Mourinho for example. Only Chelsea and Man City have spent more on players than Liverpool over the last 5 years.

2. Never said he was S**T. Just didn't agree that he was "class".

3. He DOES make insane decision after insane decision.

You're beating up on a guy who has not managed to finish above Chelsea or Man U in the last five years with a club who'd not won the thing in 20, when those two clubs have had to raise their game to UNPRECEDENTED standards to stay ahead of one another. Look at the task Fergie had at Old Trafford when he took over in 1986, and how long it took him to transform them. And that was WITHOUT having two or three other clubs who are operating on a completely different financial plain.

Still think you're harsh.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I think that should read:

Liverpool will NEVER win the Prem with Hick and Gillette in charge.

So WHO exactly would have done better than Benitez?

 

[Mellotron]

Mourinho.

 

[Mellotron]

You're beating up on a guy who has not managed to finish above Chelsea or Man U in the last five years with a club who'd not won the thing in 20, when those two clubs have had to raise their game to UNPRECEDENTED standards to stay ahead of one another. Look at the task Fergie had at Old Trafford when he took over in 1986, and how long it took him to transform them. And that was WITHOUT having two or three other clubs who are operating on a completely different financial plain.

Still think you're harsh.

Ignore Man U and Chelsea for a sec. Concentrate on Liverpool.

They have spent a HUGE amount in the last 5 years. Are they any better off than 5 years ago? No. For me it's that simple.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Are they any better off than 5 years ago? No. For me it's that simple.

Better ? You can look at Liverpool.

Better off ? You have to look at the competition.

 

[Easy 10]

Mourinho.

But Mourinho would not have an open chequebook at Anfield like he had when he arrived at Chelsea. Liverpools record signing is Torres at £21m (AND they had to borrow from the banks for that - he's not even been paid for yet). They don't have rich benefactors to lavish unlimited funds on building a squad of 22 internationals.

 

[Safe.]

Man U have spent more than Lpool, you might want to look up Spurs as well. I'm not sure but I think they have spent alot the last few seasons. I think Rafa will be sacked in 2 weeks, just don't know who they could bring in.

 

[Mellotron]

But Mourinho would not have an open chequebook at Anfield like he had when he arrived at Chelsea. Liverpools record signing is Torres at £21m (AND they had to borrow from the banks for that - he's not even been paid for yet). They don't have rich benefactors to lavish unlimited funds on building a squad of 22 internationals.

Err..

Mascherano - 24m
Aquilani - 20m
Torres - 21m
Keane - 18m
Johnson - 18m

Come on. They have spent SHITLOADS.

 

[Easy 10]

Ignore Man U and Chelsea for a sec. Concentrate on Liverpool.

They have spent a HUGE amount in the last 5 years. Are they any better off than 5 years ago? No. For me it's that simple.

How can you possibly "ignore" Man U and Chelsea ??
Those clubs have invested MULTI MILLIONS in building their squads up over the last few years. Yes Liverpool have also spent in the last 5 years as well, but they STILL arn't on the same financial level as those two clubs, not even close !

 

[Pavilionaire]

To put things in perspective, Benitez has spent £83million more than he's brought in over 5 years, but he's delivered trophies and been competitve throughout.

Man City have spent more than that - NET - IN THE LAST 9 MONTHS ALONE.

 

[Mellotron]

How can you possibly "ignore" Man U and Chelsea ??
Those clubs have invested MULTI MILLIONS in building their squads up over the last few years. Yes Liverpool have also spent in the last 5 years as well, but they STILL arn't on the same financial level as those two clubs, not even close !

So you're not disagreeing with me in the fact that despite BIG investment, Liverpool are worse off than 5 years ago? Compared to say Villa, who despite pretty minimal investment (in comparison) are far better off than 5 years ago?

 

[Safe.]

Err..

Mascherano - 24m
Aquilani - 20m
Torres - 21m
Keane - 18m
Johnson - 18m

Come on. They have spent SHITLOADS.

And they have sold quite a bit as well though. Rafa hasn't even spent the 30 mil he was trusted this season.

 

[Mellotron]

To put things in perspective, Benitez has spent £83million more than he's brought in over 5 years, but he's delivered trophies and been competitve throughout.

Man City have spent more than that - NET - IN THE LAST 9 MONTHS ALONE.

Two trophies. One of which Gerrard won almost single-handedly. In 5 years, for 83m, that's not good enough.

Yes, but Man City is INSANITY.