egafd.com

Oh fuck off.

Liverpool spent ?14.5m net last summer. Thats ?42m out and ?27.5m in.

Man Utd spent approx ?50m net. Even Everton and Tottenham spent more money (net) than Liverpool. Off the top off my head I reckon Portsmouth did as well. Chelsea did for certain.

So don't give me this rubbish that Benitez spent shed loads because he didn't and if you read my post carefully then you'll see I don't just blame the 2 yanks for this whole sorry mess. I blame David Moores more for selling to the 2 pricks in the first place.

Myself and most other Liverpool fans who are over the age of 12 and who have at least half a brain could see this happening from the moment the yanks bought the club.

This paragraph I got from Fox Sports just sums it up.

In August, Hicks told the Major League Baseball website: ?People are worried that I might take money away from the [Texas] Rangers (Hicks?s baseball team) to go to Liverpool. But it is just the reverse. Liverpool is going to throw off lots of extra money which, if I choose to, I can use for the Rangers or the [Dallas] Stars (ice hockey team).?

Wrong again there.

I never wanted the Americans anywhere near Liverpool Football Club from the outset and nor did the vast majority of supporters because as I said in a previous post most with at least half a brain could foresee all this happening.

It was so obvious that as the Yanks had to band together to buy the club that they didn't have the money they claimed they had. Didn't have the money to buy the club, least of all build a new stadium. It all had to be borrowed.

This all comes down to David Moores. He took over the club in 1991 when the club were still Champions. The club had a better playing squad than the Mancs, had the same capacity as Man Utd, a bigger turnover and at least if not more supporters at that time.

In 16 years the Mancs increased their capacity by 30,000 on us, have nearly double our turnover and have 2 or maybe 3 times as many supporters as us, let alone the obvious stats of far more trophies in that time.

This was all because David Moores said that Liverpool were a "family club" and didn't want to go down that financial road.

Well done to David Moores. He sure fucked up Liverpool FC good and proper. However the thing that annoys most about Moores is that after all that mismanagement, over all those years you think he could at least sell the club to the right people but no, he fucking well got that wrong as well.

Liverpool FC is so fucked with these 2 money grabbing Yanks that I can't see anyway back and it pains me to say it but the club will probably never recover from it and will never be the same ever again.

[quote]Oh fuck off.[/quote]

Touchy.

[quote]Liverpool spent ?14.5m net last summer. Thats ?42m out and ?27.5m in.[/quote]

Yes, I knew it was around ?45m out, but who did they sell to get ?27.5m in? Bellamy and Cisse were sold but Zenden, Dudek and Fowler wen't on frees. It's by-the-by anyway as I was only talking about money spent on new players.

[quote]Man Utd spent approx ?50m net.[/quote]

Did they? Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves is about ?45-?48m and they sold Alan Smith for about ?6-8m. They haven't purchased Tevez yet (like the Mascherano deal).

[quote]don't give me this rubbish that Benitez spent shed loads because he didn't and if you read my post carefully then you'll see I don't just blame the 2 yanks for this whole sorry mess.[/quote]

What post? The one above that you posted 20 hours after mine? How can you tell me to 'read your posts carefully' when I posted nearly a day before you? I couldn't have read it at all before posting mine. Think about it.

So fucking what.They still spent alot of money and have'nt delivered.It makes me sick these scousers banging on how Chelsea 'bought' the title,blah,blah,fucking blah when Liverpool fans seem to think they have ALWAYS produced home grown talent !sleep!

The only thing that's 'homegrown' in your cesspit of a City are your burglar's,Car thief's and child killers.
Ice picks sell well in Liverpool i see !whistle!

Sorry mate, but you can't talk about child killers when you're from London. There's a 14 year old kid shot 2-3 times a week down there isn't there?

As for buying titles.... I think Chelsea stands out more than, say, Man Utd or Liverpool spending that much as Chelsea haven't got the turnover to keep the thing rolling without Abromovich. Weren't they ?73m in debt when he came along? It was something like that.

Indeed Sam.We were close to going bankrupt before Abramovich came along to rescue us,to which we should be,and are grateful for as we would of likely of been playing in League 1 today to which i still would support them.

But all this talk of buying titles is bollocks.In that case we can say that Man U bought the European Cup in 1999?

you have to spend to achieve,but that DOES NOT guarantee you success.

It really makes me laugh when opposition fans say "where were you when you were shit"?

Back on Liverpool.They will really get a rude awakening when they move into their new Stadium.Rising ticket prices,overpriced food etc.

Welcome to the REAL world scousers.Sam Slater wrote:

> Sorry mate, but you can't talk about child killers when you're
> from London. There's a 14 year old kid shot 2-3 times a week
> down there isn't there?
>
> As for buying titles.... I think Chelsea stands out more than,
> say, Man Utd or Liverpool spending that much as Chelsea haven't
> got the turnover to keep the thing rolling without Abromovich.
> Weren't they ?73m in debt when he came along? It was something
> like that.
>
>

Financing better players is a big advantage over clubs that cannot afford to. You've admitted that without money you'd be in league one right now. You're right though in that titles and cups are in no way guaranteed.

As for the Man Utd squad of 99: Two Nevilles, Giggs, Scholes, Beckham and Butt all got them there and were all home grown. I think the defender who played in the final was home grown as well, but his name escapes me. (Maybe a Man Utd fan will tell us?)

Anyway, bad example! You could have said the current champions as a better example of what you mean. !laugh!

I still can't see Liverpool moving from Anfield though. The new stadium will be on borrowed money if it goes ahead, that's for sure, so they'll be in the same boat as the Mancs. The Glaziers are content to just let Fergie get on with it though, unlike Gillet & Hicks.

It's something the fans have to put up with,meddling chairman.The Glaizers won't meddle but they'll increase ticket prices and season ticket prices even more,to meet their spending budget and other overheads.

We initally were upset with Abramovich for getting rid of Mourinho.But it's his club and it was him that got us out of the shit.So we have to tread very carefully.

I wish Roman would get rid of that bald cunt Kenyon !thumbsup!

You buy cars, clothes and houses. Chelsea's just a toy to Abramovich and he could get bored. It's not like he spent his youth cycling up Kings Road on his Chopper bike, with the blue scarf hanging off the back.

Chelsea might not be borrowed money like Man Utd's, but it can all be gone in a flash just the same.

All clubs are going the same route these days. The EPL is massive and everyone wants a piece, but it won't last forever. Nothing does.

Yup,and we'll go back to getting crowds of 12/13,000 !drink!

The irony is,there's plans in place of us moving away from Stamford Bridge to a 60,000 all seater just up the road in Earls Court to accomadate more of the prawn sarnie brigade.