egafd.com

I don't think you'd fill a 60,000 seater, Mike. Unless one of the other big boys were in town. Mind you, I didn't think Arsenal would fill there new ground after the novelty wore off, but they seem to. Still a bit of a library though.

You could buy Fulham and join the two clubs. Then you'd be the only team in Chelsea !laugh!

I won't even respond to the first part of your post as buying the league is obviously a raw nerve for you.

The second part though I will.

"Your cesspit of a city"?

How do you know where I live?

I don't live anywhere near Liverpool and never have and I don't have any intention to either.

I work nights Sam hence whey I took 20 hours to post and I'm off to work now so I'll reply tomorrow when I have more time.

Now there's a surprise,a Liverpool fan that does'nt live in Liverpool!!!!

I agree Sam,we would'nt fill a 60,000 all seater unless for big Prem,Champions League games.I could'nt even see ticket prices being lowered.Besides,i don't want to leave Stamford Bridge.It just would'nt be the same !happy!eduardo wrote:

> I won't even respond to the first part of your post as buying
> the league is obviously a raw nerve for you.
>
> The second part though I will.
>
> "Your cesspit of a city"?
>
> How do you know where I live?
>
> I don't live anywhere near Liverpool and never have and I don't
> have any intention to either.

I'm too tired to argue the toss about every last ?1m so I'll move on to your remark about Liverpool fans laughing about Man Utd's American owners.

That was true in some respect.

What we found funny was all this "Man Utd Not For sale" stuff. They were a business, a plc, and listed on the stock exchange. Of course they could be bought and sold, as can any football club but the "not for sale" stuff by some supporters was silly and laughable.

My original point was that Liverpool FC was in turmoil and had been completely destablised by the Americans (something Fergie has also agreed with today) and that the club had become a complete and total laughing stock and that Liverpool's form on the park was all their fault and I stand by that totally.

However I didn't think it could get worse but it does. By all accounts the Yanks are going to announce a ?350m refinancing deal over the next couple of days which has annual interest payments of ?30m. You don't need to be Einstein to work out where that ?30m is going to come from.

So a club that already can't compete at the top level of the transfer market is going to be ?30m a season worse off. I'm sure anybody can do the maths there.

But it gets worse as the ?350m loan only includes ?60m to start the new stadium and at some stage the Yanks will have to borrow ?200m more.

So by the time the new stadium opens Liverpool will be lucky to have a mid table side and with no team of note then we'll also be lucky to have 40,000 people in a 72,000 seater stadium. Add that to a crippling debt then it's not hard to see why Liverpool fans are extremely worried about the clubs future.

I've said it before and I'll say it again that Liverpool Football Club died the day David Moores sold his majority stake to the Yanks.

I hope I'm wrong.

"Now there's a surprise,a Liverpool fan that does'nt live in Liverpool!!!!"

You're full of silly little quotes, cliches and stereotypes.

Personally I'm more open minded and think for myself because my brain allows me to do so.

fucking cockney twats again slatting our city, hmmmmmmm Capital of Culture come to fucking mind, like we dont hear you lot shooting or knifing each other in the news at all, and fuck were ur ground is a fucking shit hole of a place to be, been there twice and didnt like it either time i went there.

divvy scouser.I'm not a cockney.I'm from West London you thick cunt.There is a difference.

I take it you won't be visiting Stamford Bridge on the 10th Feb? scouser28 wrote:

> fucking cockney twats again slatting our city, hmmmmmmm Capital
> of Culture come to fucking mind, like we dont hear you lot
> shooting or knifing each other in the news at all, and fuck
> were ur ground is a fucking shit hole of a place to be, been
> there twice and didnt like it either time i went there.

[quote]I'm too tired to argue the toss about every last ?1m[/quote]

Don't worry about it. I looked on the bbc website and worked it all out. All the ins/outs for both teams that were undisclosed I assumed a 5m fee for both sides with the exceptions of Torres, Hargreaves, Nani and Anderson.

While Man Utd didn't issue a statement, declaring the cost of Nani & Anderson, they did say that it cost them exactly 30m for both. Bayern sources say they got 16m for Hargreaves while Man U sources say 14m, so I met them half-way at 15m.

As for Torres, some say 28m, some say 21.5m so I put it at 25m which is near enough half way.

Liverpool have 5 players in that were undisclosed, which is 25m. They then paid for Torres, at 25m, and Babel at 11.5m, giving a total of 61.5m.

Liverpool sold 2 players for undisclosed fees (10m), they sold Pongolle for 2.7m, Bellamy for 7.5m and Cisse for 6m. All the rest were frees and one loan (Carson). So the recouped 23.5m.

Liverpool's NET was 38m.

Man Utd have one undisclosed fee in the 5m bracket which was Kuszczak after his loan spell was up.With 30m for both Nani and Anderson, 15m for Hargreaves, and 2m upfront for Tevez (option to buy after 2 years) then Man Utd have spent 52m.

Man Utd sold 2 players that were undisclosed in Richardson and Rossi (10m combined) and Alan Smith at 6m. They recouped 16m.

Man Utd's NET was 36m.

Notes: The five players that were undisclosed for Liverpool probably cost less than 5m each, which is what I agreed doing for most non-first-teamers that were undisclosed, but also, Rossi would have been sold for a lot more than 5m in Man Utd's favour (8m is the more widely held view) and Kuszczak was not 5m either in most expert opinions.

Basically, they've spent the same amount.

Now, during the previous 2 seasons, Rafa has spent more than Fergie. Man Utd's only bought Smith, Carrick, Evra and Vidic in the past 3 years, but I'm sure Rafa's brought more in (Kuyt, Pennent, Aurelio, Bellamy, Agger, Crouch, Sissoko, Reina, Zenden, Carson, Morientes, Garcia, and Alonso).

Since Rafa took charge, I think he's spent more than Fergie (not sure if Rafa was at Liverpool when Man Utd purchased Rooney, which may sway it).

Basically, over 3 seasons, there ain't that much in the two teams' spending. Now, if Rafa's spent as much as Fergie (he definitely brought more players in, regardless of cost) then he should have a team worth fighting for the title. Not 14 points behind in January.

Regarding the Americans.......I can't argue with you. All teams (Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City) are in dodgy positions if the worst was to happen. I wasn't saying the Americans weren't blameless, but to say nothing is Rafa's fault is blindness. He's had plenty of time, and plenty of money and without that fluky goal against Chelsea, they wouldn't have won the Champions League. What would Rafa have to show if it weren't for that night in Istanbul? One solitary FA Cup against West Ham?

You should have a team that's challenging -- end of the story, and out of all them buys, there's only Torres that would get in the Man Utd team. That must say something about Rafa's decisions.

To be fair, everyone in London call people off the Wirral 'Scousers' so it works both ways.