The Football Thread.

TeleMaster

tony99 said:

TeleMaster said:

tony99 said:

9 years at Liverpool and the money he's spent? Even if he wins a league title this year he's ultimately a failure by the standards they used to have.

And he's the last manager you'd think of when it comes to dignity; he's the biggest whinger in football.

I said he gave their club their dignity back, which I meant by winning and playing well. I never commented on his behaviour or his dignity, this is about the club.

Considering that he had to rebuild the team for a couple of years they then went on to win a Champions League, the FA Cup, League Cup, World Club Cup, Super Cup and the Prem after how many years, just writing it out makes you realise how much he's won and how ridiculous it would be to call Klopp a flop.

In the last 9 years Liverpool are 5th in the Premier League spending table and have dropped to 6th in the last 5 years overall. In the 8 years he's been at Liverpool relatively speaking, they've spent very little in comparison to the other clubs and have won as much or more than all of the teams above them in spending (except City). 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2018&saison_id_bis=2023&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0 ;

They're still top in February, one of the best teams in England and are still competing with City who spend money like anything. That's giving a club their dignity back, without a doubt. 

He's no flop. Not even close. 

I've told you before, if you only look at transfer fees then you only get half the story. Take account of all the facts: wages, agent's fees. Given the amount of if finances Klopp's had at his disposal he should have won way more.

There's no shame in it though, he had a good crack at it. But ultimately history will show him as a distant second to Guardiola during this prem era.

His team played great football, he won big trophies. Yes, he is second to Pep, but even so it doesn't lessen his achievements. In many ways it enhances them because no one else has challenged the nation state backed, money laundering, sportswashing machine of City like he has. You're welcome to your opinion but I disagree, Klopp is no Flopp. 

You never know, all of that might get stripped from City and then Pep is second to Klopp!

tony99

TeleMaster said:

tony99 said:

TeleMaster said:

tony99 said:

9 years at Liverpool and the money he's spent? Even if he wins a league title this year he's ultimately a failure by the standards they used to have.

And he's the last manager you'd think of when it comes to dignity; he's the biggest whinger in football.

I said he gave their club their dignity back, which I meant by winning and playing well. I never commented on his behaviour or his dignity, this is about the club.

Considering that he had to rebuild the team for a couple of years they then went on to win a Champions League, the FA Cup, League Cup, World Club Cup, Super Cup and the Prem after how many years, just writing it out makes you realise how much he's won and how ridiculous it would be to call Klopp a flop.

In the last 9 years Liverpool are 5th in the Premier League spending table and have dropped to 6th in the last 5 years overall. In the 8 years he's been at Liverpool relatively speaking, they've spent very little in comparison to the other clubs and have won as much or more than all of the teams above them in spending (except City). 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2018&saison_id_bis=2023&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0 ;

They're still top in February, one of the best teams in England and are still competing with City who spend money like anything. That's giving a club their dignity back, without a doubt. 

He's no flop. Not even close. 

I've told you before, if you only look at transfer fees then you only get half the story. Take account of all the facts: wages, agent's fees. Given the amount of if finances Klopp's had at his disposal he should have won way more.

There's no shame in it though, he had a good crack at it. But ultimately history will show him as a distant second to Guardiola during this prem era.

His team played great football, he won big trophies. Yes, he is second to Pep, but even so it doesn't lessen his achievements. In many ways it enhances them because no one else has challenged the nation state backed, money laundering, sportswashing machine of City like he has. You're welcome to your opinion but I disagree, Klopp is no Flopp. 

You never know, all of that might get stripped from City and then Pep is second to Klopp!

To be honest I think there's an awful lot to be brought out into the open about what's been happening off the pitch with most of the top teams during these last few premier league seasons. Time will tell.

guitars4you

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Chelsea are on course to smash FFP limits when the next accounting period ends this coming June - Probably pushing 150 million in one season alone - Let alone all the shenanigans that took place under the Roman regime that is still under investigation - With barely a transfer window available to them at the end of this season and the Euros starting in June, it is unlikely they can save themselves the required deficit 

TTony

guitars4you said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Chelsea are on course to smash FFP limits when the next accounting period ends this coming June - Probably pushing 150 million in one season alone -

Chelsea look to be in a whole heap of trouble.

General knowledge that they need to sell - and at a profit - to raise significant funds before Jun30.  But the need to sell means that sales are likely to be at fire-sale prices, if at all (ie will other PL clubs wait for the points sanction, potential relegation, and then buy up any decent players at even cheaper prices).

Plus the ever-more likely risk of being manager-less (again) before the end of the season (Frank, Frank, are you busy at the moment Frank?), no prospect of any income from European football next season, and it could well be interesting times ahead for Chelsea. 

thecolourbox

TeleMaster said:

tony99 said:

TeleMaster said:

tony99 said:

9 years at Liverpool and the money he's spent? Even if he wins a league title this year he's ultimately a failure by the standards they used to have.

And he's the last manager you'd think of when it comes to dignity; he's the biggest whinger in football.

I said he gave their club their dignity back, which I meant by winning and playing well. I never commented on his behaviour or his dignity, this is about the club.

Considering that he had to rebuild the team for a couple of years they then went on to win a Champions League, the FA Cup, League Cup, World Club Cup, Super Cup and the Prem after how many years, just writing it out makes you realise how much he's won and how ridiculous it would be to call Klopp a flop.

In the last 9 years Liverpool are 5th in the Premier League spending table and have dropped to 6th in the last 5 years overall. In the 8 years he's been at Liverpool relatively speaking, they've spent very little in comparison to the other clubs and have won as much or more than all of the teams above them in spending (except City). 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2018&saison_id_bis=2023&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0 ;

They're still top in February, one of the best teams in England and are still competing with City who spend money like anything. That's giving a club their dignity back, without a doubt. 

He's no flop. Not even close. 

I've told you before, if you only look at transfer fees then you only get half the story. Take account of all the facts: wages, agent's fees. Given the amount of if finances Klopp's had at his disposal he should have won way more.

There's no shame in it though, he had a good crack at it. But ultimately history will show him as a distant second to Guardiola during this prem era.

His team played great football, he won big trophies. Yes, he is second to Pep, but even so it doesn't lessen his achievements. In many ways it enhances them because no one else has challenged the nation state backed, money laundering, sportswashing machine of City like he has. You're welcome to your opinion but I disagree, Klopp is no Flopp. 

You never know, all of that might get stripped from City and then Pep is second to Klopp!

I agree with this. Also I'm sure I saw that several of their points tallies under Klopp would have won them the league in the Fergie era. I know its not directly comparable, but were it not for a club who basically bought two teams capable of winning the league and bought a manager who had already done it all already he'd have much more under his belt.

I like Klopp, I think he's been good for the league. Also I prefer his style of play than Pep's snore fest of sideways passing and cynical fouls

guitars4you

TTony said:

guitars4you said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Chelsea are on course to smash FFP limits when the next accounting period ends this coming June - Probably pushing 150 million in one season alone -

Chelsea look to be in a whole heap of trouble.

General knowledge that they need to sell - and at a profit - to raise significant funds before Jun30.  But the need to sell means that sales are likely to be at fire-sale prices, if at all (ie will other PL clubs wait for the points sanction, potential relegation, and then buy up any decent players at even cheaper prices).

Plus the ever-more likely risk of being manager-less (again) before the end of the season (Frank, Frank, are you busy at the moment Frank?), no prospect of any income from European football next season, and it could well be interesting times ahead for Chelsea. 

The figures are not stacking up at all, before you even get to amortisation - Then add in what they owe Brighton for taking Potter +then the relevant sacking of  Potter, which I believe was not in the last set of accounts  - Missing that CL money that might have been around 100 mill 

tony99

thecolourbox said:

I agree with this. Also I'm sure I saw that several of their points tallies under Klopp would have won them the league in the Fergie era. I know its not directly comparable, but were it not for a club who basically bought two teams capable of winning the league and bought a manager who had already done it all already he'd have much more under his belt.

It's not comparable at all, be it directly or indirectly. 

Do you just remove the man city team in that scenario? Is it a 19 team league? Do you replace man city with another team or what? What happens to all the points that man city won? Do they get shared out equally amongst everyone ?

How on earth would liverpool end up on the same points tally in a complete different season, with different teams, all having different results?

I know you say you saw it somewhere but I'm guessing whoever came up with it didn't bother to show any workings out.

thecolourbox

It was a simple comparison, I don't know about your Facebook feed but it's not normally something where folks post their workings out lol just pointing out he reached 90+ points 3 times, but only won it once whereas previously to his and Pep's arrivals, reaching 90 points would pretty much guarantee you the title. It's not as complicated as redistributing points, just a simplistic observation that he and Pep were up there together most of the time, and that had Pep and State backed Man City not been there, all other things being equal they'd have won more. Nothing as complex there as redistributing points or whatever. But don't worry I'll let you know if I need to see any of your workings for your anti Liverpool rants of yore

TeleMaster

thecolourbox said:

I agree with this.

I like Klopp, I think he's been good for the league. Also I prefer his style of play than Pep's snore fest of sideways passing and cynical fouls

Also, he's up on the head to head with Pep.

Getting a team like Mainz promoted and to mid table, and then winning the title back to back, and a double with Dortmund is more impressive than managing ready to go teams with infinite money like Bayern or City to titles if you ask me.

If I could choose any current manager to manage West Ham, I'd go with Klopp over anyone else. Team building, player development, style of play are all more appealing to me.

tony99

thecolourbox said:

It was a simple comparison, I don't know about your Facebook feed but it's not normally something where folks post their workings out lol just pointing out he reached 90+ points 3 times, but only won it once whereas previously to his and Pep's arrivals, reaching 90 points would pretty much guarantee you the title. It's not as complicated as redistributing points, just a simplistic observation that he and Pep were up there together most of the time, and that had Pep and State backed Man City not been there, all other things being equal they'd have won more. Nothing as complex there as redistributing points or whatever. But don't worry I'll let you know if I need to see any of your workings for your anti Liverpool rants of yore

It's not a simplistic observation at all, it's a bizarro scenario to try and excuse why he hasn't won more. Try being objective.

S56035

tony99 said:

thecolourbox said:

It was a simple comparison, I don't know about your Facebook feed but it's not normally something where folks post their workings out lol just pointing out he reached 90+ points 3 times, but only won it once whereas previously to his and Pep's arrivals, reaching 90 points would pretty much guarantee you the title. It's not as complicated as redistributing points, just a simplistic observation that he and Pep were up there together most of the time, and that had Pep and State backed Man City not been there, all other things being equal they'd have won more. Nothing as complex there as redistributing points or whatever. But don't worry I'll let you know if I need to see any of your workings for your anti Liverpool rants of yore

It's not a simplistic observation at all, it's a bizarro scenario to try and excuse why he hasn't won more. Try being objective.

Oh the irony. You're the least objective person I've seen when it comes to Liverpool Football Club.

tony99

S56035 said:

tony99 said:

thecolourbox said:

It was a simple comparison, I don't know about your Facebook feed but it's not normally something where folks post their workings out lol just pointing out he reached 90+ points 3 times, but only won it once whereas previously to his and Pep's arrivals, reaching 90 points would pretty much guarantee you the title. It's not as complicated as redistributing points, just a simplistic observation that he and Pep were up there together most of the time, and that had Pep and State backed Man City not been there, all other things being equal they'd have won more. Nothing as complex there as redistributing points or whatever. But don't worry I'll let you know if I need to see any of your workings for your anti Liverpool rants of yore

It's not a simplistic observation at all, it's a bizarro scenario to try and excuse why he hasn't won more. Try being objective.

Oh the irony. You're the least objective person I've seen when it comes to Liverpool Football Club.

I''m completely objective, I ust don't follow the media narratives.

bloodandtears

thecolourbox said:

It was a simple comparison, I don't know about your Facebook feed but it's not normally something where folks post their workings out lol just pointing out he reached 90+ points 3 times, but only won it once whereas previously to his and Pep's arrivals, reaching 90 points would pretty much guarantee you the title.

Here's some workings out...

Spurs: Played 23, Points 44

38 games in a season..

15 games remaining.. maximum of 45 point available..

44 + 45 = 89...  Spurs aren't going to win the league... I'm gutted now...

Season's over ...  wake me up when its August...

lol

thecolourbox

I don't really care as I don't have a horse in the race being a fan of a tin pot club in the doldrums with very little prospect of winning anything

tony99

thecolourbox said:

I don't really care as I don't have a horse in the race being a fan of a tin pot club in the doldrums with very little prospect of winning anything

Count yourself lucky, I used to follow Everton

TeleMaster

tony99 said:

thecolourbox said:

I don't really care as I don't have a horse in the race being a fan of a tin pot club in the doldrums with very little prospect of winning anything

Count yourself lucky, I used to follow Everton

Aha. That explains it.  

thecolourbox

tony99 said:

thecolourbox said:

I don't really care as I don't have a horse in the race being a fan of a tin pot club in the doldrums with very little prospect of winning anything

Count yourself lucky, I used to follow Everton

Aha it's a shame how things have gone there. Maybe comparable to having a run of Alan Irvine, Tony Pulis, and Alan Pardew, only to find amazingly it could indeed get worse when then ending up with Valerian Ishmael then Steve Bruce, and even more amazingly still, to find that Big Sam was actually one of the better managers we'd had. It doesn't pay to be a fan, i try to enjoy it more for the spectacle of watching football in general but that's made very difficult with the quality level in the championship

Philly_Q

thecolourbox said:

tony99 said:

thecolourbox said:

I don't really care as I don't have a horse in the race being a fan of a tin pot club in the doldrums with very little prospect of winning anything

Count yourself lucky, I used to follow Everton

Aha it's a shame how things have gone there. Maybe comparable to having a run of Alan Irvine, Tony Pulis, and Alan Pardew, only to find amazingly it could indeed get worse when then ending up with Valerian Ishmael then Steve Bruce, and even more amazingly still, to find that Big Sam was actually one of the better managers we'd had. It doesn't pay to be a fan, i try to enjoy it more for the spectacle of watching football in general but that's made very difficult with the quality level in the championship

Cheer up, at least you're in the playoff places.  Swansea seem to be sinking back towards the relegation zone after the board's second brilliant managerial appointment of the season.  And that's after refusing to offer Russell Martin (currently leading Southampton to automatic promotion...) the contract extension he repeatedly said he wanted.

thecolourbox

Philly_Q said:

thecolourbox said:

tony99 said:

thecolourbox said:

I don't really care as I don't have a horse in the race being a fan of a tin pot club in the doldrums with very little prospect of winning anything

Count yourself lucky, I used to follow Everton

Aha it's a shame how things have gone there. Maybe comparable to having a run of Alan Irvine, Tony Pulis, and Alan Pardew, only to find amazingly it could indeed get worse when then ending up with Valerian Ishmael then Steve Bruce, and even more amazingly still, to find that Big Sam was actually one of the better managers we'd had. It doesn't pay to be a fan, i try to enjoy it more for the spectacle of watching football in general but that's made very difficult with the quality level in the championship

Cheer up, at least you're in the playoff places.  Swansea seem to be sinking back towards the relegation zone after the board's second brilliant managerial appointment of the season.  And that's after refusing to offer Russell Martin (currently leading Southampton to automatic promotion...) the contract extension he repeatedly said he wanted.

It's a bewildering league at times, and clubs repeatedly seem to act against their own best interests. Sounds like Swansea have, Birmingham city sacking Eustace in favour of Rooney, the perplexingly frequent return of Neil "Colin" Warnock. I think we're in playoffs on home form alone, we never win away. It's just as likely to falter as it is to continue, hopefully you guys turn it around as it's a good club. I'd say Corberan is probably the best appointment in any capacity at West Brom since we were mid table in the premier, were it not for him we'd be in league 1 already I think

guitars4you

tony99 said:

thecolourbox said:

I don't really care as I don't have a horse in the race being a fan of a tin pot club in the doldrums with very little prospect of winning anything

Count yourself lucky, I used to follow Everton

why 'I used to follow Everton' - Why not 'I follow Everton'   - I'm Leeds and I'm proud of it thru thick n thin and boy have we had some ups n downs - I stayed with them when we went to the 3rd tier and my daughters first match was on a shit wet night v Walsall and we lost - So no 'used to' at my end