Mr Alan wrote: » I don't believe next year is going our year, I don't believe any Liverpool fans do, that's something people like yourself who are genuinely obsessed with us have invented in an effort to justify just how pathetic your views on the club & it's fans are.
EdenHazard wrote: » The man has without doubt gone senile...he's not even that old....just outta touch.
Mr Alan wrote: » Are you, an Aston Villa fan, giving Liverpool FC stick about being 'irrelevant'? Really? You understand that if Villa were to emulate the season Liverpool are having (a horror season for us), itd be considered an excellent season for yous?
Dalglish was last successful at Blackburn when he had an unfair advantage over most other clubs because of Jack Walker's money and the 3 foreigner rule. But for Man Utd losing Cantiona in the run in, he'd never have won the PL title with Blackburn. He was exceptionally lucky. At Liverpool, he inherited a fantastic a set up and more money to strengthen than anyone else, including Man Utd. He simply bought the bestb available British-Irish players available (Barnes, Beardsley, Aldridge, Houghton) and dominated the old First Division. I don't doubt Hillsbrough hurt him badly. But in his Liverpool management he enjoyed a fantastic advantage. When he stepped down, LFC were in a pooere position but his mate, Souness administered the fatal blows. At Newcastle, Dalglish was an unmitigated disaster and bought very badly - Perez, Guivarc'h, Serrant, Hamilton, Charvet, Dabizas, Kelly, Keidel, Georgiados, Ketsbaia, Tomasson and he gave generous contracts to past-it mates like Barnes and Rush whilst at the same time dispensing with the services of Les Ferdinand, Lee Clark, Steve Watson and David Ginola. He took a Kevein Keegan side which needed some pragmatism added to it to really effectively challenge for honours and turned it into one that looked like relegation material in his first full season. Bizarrely, he gave his son, Paul, a professional contract. Paul Dalglish is one of the worst footballers I've ever seen at NUFC. And I've seen some terrible players. To be fair Dalglish signed Given, Hamann, Speed (terrible under him though) and Solano. At Celtic in this weird Director of Football role, he appointed the hapless John Barnes and presided over one of the most depressing periods in Celtic's modern history. I now believe Dalglish should be given more time and more money and those lovable Kopites they really are by staying loyal to "King Kenny" and singing YNWA like they mean it. They were down the stairs and downthe road with 15 mins left at SJP on Sunday. Less than a month after they'd won a cup.
Xavi6 wrote: » Saw this in The Guardian comments section, he really did an awful job at Newcastle :eek: -
counterlock wrote: » The latest I heard is that NESV have requested a report from Daglish et al on why the slump has happened and what they are doing to get out of it. Its a very business like approach but its strange that this would make it into the press...
Paully D wrote: » I thought he did a fantastic job at Newcastle and would love to see him back there.
Helix wrote: » and no, emulating liverpool's season wouldn't be an excellent season for us at all, but im not sure what that's got to do with kenny and liverpool's continual decline
Mr Alan wrote: » Winning the Carling Cup, being in at least the semi final of the FA Cup, finishing between 6-10 in the league & getting back into the Europa League wouldn't be an excellent season for Villa? And you mock Liverpool fans about being delusional and expecting too much from their club? :pac: You couldn't make it up! :pac:
Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: » Except that cost you 100 million. And Villa never have anything close to that
Morricone wrote: » No Kenny has spent about 30 million. Remember the lad we got ye to pay £50 million for. Well he payed for a lot of the transfers. Net investment comes to about £30 million.
counterlock wrote: » Not again. He spent 80 million, his 'net spend' is 30 million. His return on that 80 million spent has been extremely low
Morricone wrote: » Granted but the net investment is still only £30 million, not the 100 million that people blather on about. Comapnies are judged on their net profit as opposed to their gross profit. Why shouldn't the inverse apply??
maximoose wrote: » This net spend reasoning/excuse is getting seriously tedious.
counterlock wrote: » You can't look at it like that. It is judged on the results on the field. If you were determined to make money then all you have to do is sell your best assets, get relegated and try to bounce back up. BlackburnIf you judge teams on net profit Arsenal win the league 9 times out of 10. The 'net spend' is being used to justify your point and is only used to defend Kenny
Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: » Exactly! Chelsea gave Kenny 50 million and he spent it on Carroll on the basis of what? Through scouting? No, more likely one good season and flavour of the month. Should have kept\begged Torres to stay and paired him with Suarez and that is a common thought among pool fans
mixednuts wrote: » Cant argue with that but i would say there is lots of Chelsea fans that would have liked that to be the outcome aswell .. you included hey ?
Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: » Oh yes! We both fecked each other alright!
K-9 wrote: » Obviously the club is being totally restructured, lots of deadwood out and even Cole and Aquilani are still on the books, but for that money we should be putting in a decent challenge for 4th. The fear would be that we may have spent £70 Million on more deadwood!
mixednuts wrote: » Only folk to benefit from that transaction was every other team around both Liverpool and Chelsea .
Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: » Benya (who was ok when not crocked which he frequently is, but then shipped out to arsenal despite being very good in pre -season
Morricone wrote: » Granted but the net investment is still only £30 million, not the 100 million that people blather on about.
