i never once said it would have nothing to do with the debt, that amount of debt would hinder anybody, point is it happened, it was out of fans hands, then we suffer the consequences when it all goes to shiz. i for one would not bang on about it.

Strange.



Your view is very different to fans who used to have season tickets at OT.

No!! that was Shanks! He built this wonderful club up, of course

That's all well and good if De Jong is up against another strong midfielder. If they're going into a 50/50 ball then it's okay to say the other player needs to compete to win the ball.



But what about the rest of the time when the other player is dribbling with the ball, beating another player, off-balance or looking to play a pass upfield? Has the rest of football got to stop playing simply to allow De Jong to throw himself about?

right well ill put it this way should De Jong stop winning challenges just so people get chance to go round him?? get a grip its football thereis always going to b contact and inevatably there will be injurys. Every player goes onto the pitch knowing theres chance of injury but you still give it 100% commitment. I played rugby and football since i was 6 (im 20 now) giving it my all flying in and getting smashed dirtily and legally but onlyever had 1 bad injury Ben Arfa was unlucky thats all

I'm with you mate, some people just won't have it.

De Jong is clearly a f-cking hitman.

Not going to gloat about LFC as it could be us in a couple of years, especially when Ferguson/Giggs/Scholes call it a day.



Hope they don't get too giddy about the new owners however as we heard all this stadium/signings talk when the current owners took over.

They'll probably just keep their anti American banners in a safe in place incase they need them again with a year or so.

Suppose thats the only positive of a new set of Americans taking over.

He didn't win the challenge against Stuart Holden. He made no contact with the ball and he broke his leg.



Against Ben Arfa he made minimal contact with the ball. If he hadn't taken Ben Arfa out then it would have been a useless challenge.



But I guess it's difficult getting clean contact with the ball when you're concentrating on making sure you make contact with the opponent as well.

Bang on that. At York City we have made it to Wembley two years in a row, a huge deal for our club. Despite this we are still losing money hand over fist and will most probably need a cup run again this year to get anywhere near break even. We have even had to sell our star striker for £250k and now look absolutely toothless up front. We sit in the bottom half of the lowest professional division in the country. We no longer own our ground after our old chairman pulled a fast one on us and took away our greatest asset. We have supposedly being getting a new ground for at least the last 5 years and it now looks like we are going to be moving out of town to a ground that will frankly kill us. We are like most clubs in that we face a fight to survive from season to season.



Liverpool fans welcome to supporting a normal football club, only a very few teams get to actually enjoy supporting their team. You aren't in that category any more unfortunately.

The main benefit for Liverpool is that they will only have one owner. Joint ventures rarely work and the H&G "partnership" seems to have been as bad as they get. They should see an end to the bickeering and internal feuds.



I'm not sure how much better off they'll be financially. The new owners are not loading the club with acquisition debt but they'll still need to take out £20-25m or so a year in dividends to finance the purchase. On top of that they'll want to make a return on their investment, either from dividends, or a capital gain when they sell the club.



It wouldnt surprise me to see the club back on the market in 2 to 3 years, but they should enjoy a degree of stability before then.

This new lot aren't promising a lot though. They're saying the club will be debt free and are looking at either developing Anfield or building a new stadium, they've said there will be a transfer budget but haven't said how much and I can't see it being that much.

Probably because they're not in charge yet. However, I don't think we've ever wanted City/Chelsea-esque investment, but when we're selling players and not getting the money back to invest, then we're only ever going to go backwards. Also, if the owners want us to compete, then some form of net investment has to be made if they want us to progress, simply to make up for the past few seasons.

Is 'Arry really that dumb? Why on earth do managers have columns in national newspapers over here? Absolutely embarrassing stuff.

I guess we should just all go support Man Utd instead like you then eh?

I'll give the answer I always give to that. I used to 'support' Man Utd when I was younger. But going to watch 1 or 2 games a season and buying a shirt for a mega rich club wasn't doing it for me. I've always followed York I just tricked myself into thinking I was a Man Utd fan as well. I wasn't. YCFC all the way for me now.

Liverpool were owned by billionaires in their glory days? in all honesty i did not know that, isn't it surprising that that ain't mentioned. in seriousness though, how much of a difference did that make back then? on a scale of Chelsea nowadays?

Am sure Lord God Jose Mourinho will fill you in on the The Moores family and how they were involved with Liverpool and Everton.

Aw but i was hoping for a full honest explanation...

Don't think they make enough profit for them to do that if they wanted to, do they? And I can't see they have masses of retained earnings to do so or there probably wouldn't be the problems there are now.

Liverpool were owned by the Moores family. They owned the Littlewoods pools and retail chain.



Everton were owned by Sir John Moores. He took over chairmanship of Everton in 1961. Everton won the league in 62/63 and 69/70. They hadn't won the league since 1939.



Liverpool fans will say that their success was built by Shankly. But look at Shankly's utterly awesome career before he went to Liverpool.



Money has always been important in football. Arsenal have always been dripping with money - you don't build a stadium with marble halled entrances unless you've got wealth behind you. It's okay for Arsenal to preach that their way should be the only way, but it's a lot easier to do things the Arsenal way if you've got a board who've got a few hundred million each.



Would Newcastle be the size they are now without the investments of Sir John Hall? IMO no way. Would Wigan Athletic ever get to the PL without Dave Whelan? Not a chance.

Look into most clubs history you will see that money has played a part although not on the scales of your Chelsea's and Man City's the latter being lots of money without success so far.

Glentoran 1-0 Portadown BURROWS GOAL



on youtube