Brendan Rodgers sacked.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Consistency that eventually dried up because it's just not sustainable (or more worryingly, he got bored) in that kind of environment.

Well managers have a short cycle these days, 3 or 4 years is doing well. Simone could have a bad season and some would start questioning him, that's a mark of how crazy the industry is.

Liverpool and English clubs are much luckier with TV money and no sign of cash drying up so they exist at a different financial level.

Peist2007 wrote: »

In short, Klopp is more of a risk. Ancellotti would be a great appointment.

Ancelotti would be taking a step down to take on Liverpool.
Liverpool are not contenders and all the clubs he has gone to have been.

TheDoc wrote: »

This big club stuff is really silly. Liverpool are CLEARLY a big club.

There is a difference between big club, and successful club. Newcastle are a big club. Sunderland are a big club. They just arn't successful clubs. It's not that hard to differentiate. Saying Liverpool are not a big club is stoking fires in that tribal fandom ****e.

I disagree.
There is no way in hell one should lump in Newcastle and Sunderland with Liverpool in any conversation.
They never had the success of Liverpool and were never European super powers. And yes I know that is success, but it all means something in terms of brand which adds to how big a club is.
They never had the global reach of Liverpool.
Newcastle and Sunderland appear to be totally rudderless, are skirting with relegation every year and are owned by owners who aren't ever going to invest.
Villa now fits in with them as well.
I know some may say Liverpool are a bit like that, but look at the money they invested over last few years and they have been in top 4.

I would equate Liverpool more to be like Ajax in a way.
Although Ajax can still win Dutch league, they are getting nowhere in Europe.
They are now shadows of their former selfs and can't compete with the big money guys in Europe.

And I do agree with Carragher Liverpool are now like Totenham and as you said they have been that way for a while now.

TheDoc wrote: »

Klopp will be a sensible appointment. He has a genuine track record of success but also coaching players to be better, and making teams greater then the sum of their parts.

Agree.

BTW I am not Liverpool fan and have detested united with a passion since before ferguson arrived, but I am an Ancelotti and Klopp fan.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Nope, my clearly stated position is that I believe United, Arsenal, City and Chelsea are all operating on a similar level to what Bayern are in Germany.

Forget Europe for a minute, it's irrelevant to this discussion really.

Then you've got Spus and Pool below them - relying on one of those sides having a bad year so they can claim the 4th spot. But they can't claim it on an on-going basis, because those clubs have the wherewithal to bounce straight back - look at the difference between United dropping out of the top 4 and Liverpool dropping from 2nd.

United straight back in, Pool floundering.

Tbf looking at Arsenal and United they are not at the level of Bayern as honestly I don't think they use all the muscle they have.
Arsenal could easily have been challenging for the league had they fixed the blatantly obvious shortcomings and United I felt stood still for too long in the transfer market especially after getting back in the CL.
Domestically I don't see either of them winning the league this year despite "challenging", neither of them are that imposing or well managed tbh as has been proved at times already this season.
Chelsea have had an appalling start but I still see them in the top 4 in May.
If Liverpool had invested anyway wisely it would be easier for them (300m is a LOT of money spent)

zippy84 wrote: »

I read it was between 5 - 7 million. Where'd you hear 23??

Its about 10 as per BBC, that includes the back room staff.

Twatter is probably his source.

Knex. wrote: »

The bundesliga is not far weaker than the PL though, regardless of what Sky might drum out.

Erm, as a frequent Bundesliga watcher, I'd have thought it wasn't open to debat.e The Bundesliga is FAR weaker then the Premier league. Relative to itself maybe not, but it's a one horse race where the gap simply cannot close, unlike the Premier League where the gap has been shortening due to the inability of the top 4 clubs moving to the next level, and that has shortened this summer and will shortern again in the years ahead.

Outside of Bayern, who signed I believe two players over €10m, only two signings were made in the Bundesliga as a whole, for a fee over €10m.

The Bundesliga's competitiveness comes from teams apart from Bayern, and due to financial constraints, can never really make leaps and bounds above the rest. But that is no different to the situation in England where outside of the top 4 it's a pretty competitive bunch, and even now we see the top 4 rarely getting easy rides in the league.

I think there is a difference between Sky's line of "the best league in the world" and it being the most competitive and difficult. The latter is very true imo.