LeazesMag 0 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I don't agree the mackems are better off. Based on Hendersons potential, as he didn't show up in the derby game and its the only time I've seen him but nobody else turned up for them either, they are significantly worse off in my opinion, and if he becomes a good player and performs for Liverpool, the mackems are massively worse off and Liverpool are better off. I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example. I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view. maybe, but over a long period of time, the transfer policy of Liverpool has been proven vastly "better" than the mackems, and NUFC too for that matter [apart from the Halls and Shepherd era]. Of course, if you or anybody else think otherwise, put up the proof in results and league positions. I repeat. Tell anybody on a Liverpool message board that the mackems, or NUFC is the better transfer policy, and see how they laugh at you. Justifiably so. The fundamental difference being Liverpool can afford the level of spend their "policy" currently exhibits, but hey, don't let that wee irrelevant fact get in the way of your diatribe. you supported the spending of NUFC 5-6 years ago, but hey, don't let hindsight get in the way of your personality-hatred based u-turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6585 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I'd personally do a direct swap for Gibson with Henderson. Not sure how Henderson has deserved this attention. I've not seen much of hair gel Henderson, but Gibson is utter shit. Average player. Great shot. You'd get 8 goals a year from him. Henderson looked sharp in the U21s and has potential to be handy but thats all it is. Potential. Gibson has barley got more than 8 goals as it is. He barely plays though. If he played a full season (say 40 games) then i reckon he'd bang in around that mark. He isnt as bad as people are making out. Plus he is young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4385 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 maybe, but over a long period of time, the transfer policy of Liverpool has been proven vastly "better" than the mackems, and NUFC too for that matter [apart from the Halls and Shepherd era]. Of course, if you or anybody else think otherwise, put up the proof in results and league positions. I repeat. Tell anybody on a Liverpool message board that the mackems, or NUFC is the better transfer policy, and see how they laugh at you. Justifiably so. In terms of base level transfer policy, you could argue the Mackems have spent more than Liverpool over the last 3 or 4 years - obviously with no reward - which shows that raw money is useless without the management to go with it. Both Liverpool's and Sunderland's recent transfers have been funded from outside of turnover as opposed to us in the majority of the Hall years - not saying you're wrong in terms of ambition etc but again that shows the changing face of football. Our problem being Ashley won't mirror other owners. what you are saying, actually only adds further weight to the correct view [ie the one Liverpool have] that spending money on essentially more average players, in the mistaken belief that "financial prudency is the way forward" gets you nowhere. Which only further again amplifies why you should keep the best ones you already have and show them the ambitious football club so they want to keep playing for you. I agree with your speculate to accumulate view but the money has to come from somewhere - unfortunately Ashley won't do this which I think is his biggest failing. We simply don't (and never did) have the money to spend as much as they are spending simply based on turnover. Shearer was pretty much a one-off and even then I understand the fee was split into 2 annual payments which would have just been okay at a rough guess. To improve our squad as much as you and I both want would take a lot of money - more than what Liverpool need as they already have a decent squad which combined with the fact that they do have a willing owener now, does mean your view that we should be competing with them is unrealistic. To clarify - I agree with you we should be competing with them but just think we can't afford it at present with Ashley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 maybe, but over a long period of time, the transfer policy of Liverpool has been proven vastly "better" than the mackems, and NUFC too for that matter [apart from the Halls and Shepherd era]. Of course, if you or anybody else think otherwise, put up the proof in results and league positions. I repeat. Tell anybody on a Liverpool message board that the mackems, or NUFC is the better transfer policy, and see how they laugh at you. Justifiably so. In terms of base level transfer policy, you could argue the Mackems have spent more than Liverpool over the last 3 or 4 years - obviously with no reward - which shows that raw money is useless without the management to go with it. Both Liverpool's and Sunderland's recent transfers have been funded from outside of turnover as opposed to us in the majority of the Hall years - not saying you're wrong in terms of ambition etc but again that shows the changing face of football. Our problem being Ashley won't mirror other owners. what you are saying, actually only adds further weight to the correct view [ie the one Liverpool have] that spending money on essentially more average players, in the mistaken belief that "financial prudency is the way forward" gets you nowhere. Which only further again amplifies why you should keep the best ones you already have and show them the ambitious football club so they want to keep playing for you. I agree with your speculate to accumulate view but the money has to come from somewhere - unfortunately Ashley won't do this which I think is his biggest failing. We simply don't (and never did) have the money to spend as much as they are spending simply based on turnover. Shearer was pretty much a one-off and even then I understand the fee was split into 2 annual payments which would have just been okay at a rough guess. To improve our squad as much as you and I both want would take a lot of money - more than what Liverpool need as they already have a decent squad which combined with the fact that they do have a willing owener now, does mean your view that we should be competing with them is unrealistic. To clarify - I agree with you we should be competing with them but just think we can't afford it at present with Ashley. If only we had a player we could sell for 35m to fund building a squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4385 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 If only we had a player we could sell for 35m to fund building a squad. I said before that that shouldn't be used as a cover-up for lack of any other summer spending - without arguing about the whys and wherefores of the actual sale again, the money should have been seen as a "bonus" to be added to an existing budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9404 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 you supported the spending of NUFC 5-6 years ago, but hey, don't let hindsight get in the way of your personality-hatred based u-turn. 2005 well before the issue of finances was even a topic, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your fairy tales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6585 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I dont know why you fuckers keep arguing about the same shit. Must be tedious to write, never mind reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd 0 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) What the fuck another central midfielder on the way to Liverpool. Did we really need Henderson? Alberto Aquilani will become a Liverpool player again after Juventus opted against signing the midfielder permanent, according to reports. Aquilani had spent the season on loan at the Turin giants, scoring twice in 33 league appearances. But it is understood that Aquilani is not part of Juventus’ plans for next season and they will not be taking up the option to make the move permanent, with the £13million asking price. It is also suggested that Liverpool were prepared to drop to £8million, but this has also been turned down by Juventus. So Aquilani returns to Anfield, where he endured an injury-ridden first season in 2009/10 following his £18million switch from Roma. AC Milan are still thought to be interested in the 26-year-old and with Liverpool having signed midfielder Jordan Henderson this week, the question is asked, is there any room for Aquilani at Liverpool? Full story: http://www.thisisanfield.com/2011/06/aquil...s-to-liverpool/ Edited June 9, 2011 by Dafydd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6585 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Why are you posting this on our forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd 0 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Why are you posting this on our forum? What a silly comment. This thread is about Henderson and I'm saying we didn't need him because Aquilani is back. So I ask you, why you posting shit on "your forum"? Edited June 9, 2011 by Dafydd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6585 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Why are you posting this on our forum? What a silly comment. This thread is about Henderson and I'm saying we didn't need him because Aquilani is back. So I ask you why you posting shiting on "your forum"? Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 So I ask you, why you posting shiting on "your forum"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd 0 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Fuck me Ngog staying. No doubt big Ash will be throwing in a bid now Smith is on his way. Jordan Henderson will complete a £16m cash switch from Sunderland to Liverpool today. But David Ngog will not be moving the other way as part of the deal. Black Cats boss Steve Bruce wanted the French striker, rated by the Reds at £8m, to take the deal past his £20m valuation of the young midfielder. But the deal will now be cash only, with Ngog staying at Anfield for the time being. Henderson was at Melwood yesterday where he agreed personal terms and underwent a medical. But paperwork at the FA and Premier League prevented the deal from being completed last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 What the fuck another central midfielder on the way to Liverpool. Did we really need Henderson? Alberto Aquilani will become a Liverpool player again after Juventus opted against signing the midfielder permanent, according to reports. Aquilani had spent the season on loan at the Turin giants, scoring twice in 33 league appearances. But it is understood that Aquilani is not part of Juventus’ plans for next season and they will not be taking up the option to make the move permanent, with the £13million asking price. It is also suggested that Liverpool were prepared to drop to £8million, but this has also been turned down by Juventus. So Aquilani returns to Anfield, where he endured an injury-ridden first season in 2009/10 following his £18million switch from Roma. AC Milan are still thought to be interested in the 26-year-old and with Liverpool having signed midfielder Jordan Henderson this week, the question is asked, is there any room for Aquilani at Liverpool? Full story: http://www.thisisanfield.com/2011/06/aquil...s-to-liverpool/ You need to get used to it. Damien Comolli has a track record of buying players in positions his clubs don't need. I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up buying no left back or wingers. The mans an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneColdStephenIreland 74 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Wasn't Gibson the one that shut his Twitter account down because Man U fans were ripping the piss out of him for being shyte? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 you supported the spending of NUFC 5-6 years ago, but hey, don't let hindsight get in the way of your personality-hatred based u-turn. 2005 well before the issue of finances was even a topic, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your fairy tales. finances have always been important, that is why the club couldn't even raise 1.25m quid in a stock exchange flotation when it had one foot in the 3rd division, until the Halls and Shepherd came along and transformed it into one of the biggest clubs in europe. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your irrational hatred, accompanying u-turns, and hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 If only we had a player we could sell for 35m to fund building a squad. I said before that that shouldn't be used as a cover-up for lack of any other summer spending - without arguing about the whys and wherefores of the actual sale again, the money should have been seen as a "bonus" to be added to an existing budget. and when it isn't ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby 0 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Wasn't Gibson the one that shut his Twitter account down because Man U fans were ripping the piss out of him for being shyte? aye, lasted 97 minutes http://www.insideworldsoccer.com/2011/04/d...er-just-97.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/ap...s-twitter-abuse http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...t-of-abuse.html http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/footbal...se-2274961.html http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/blog/dirty-...?urn=sow-wp1153 Edited June 9, 2011 by Nobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4385 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 If only we had a player we could sell for 35m to fund building a squad. I said before that that shouldn't be used as a cover-up for lack of any other summer spending - without arguing about the whys and wherefores of the actual sale again, the money should have been seen as a "bonus" to be added to an existing budget. and when it isn't ? The we're screwed which I've never pretended we weren't. You seem to think Ashley isn't spending the club's money which isn't the case - he isn't spending his money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9404 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 you supported the spending of NUFC 5-6 years ago, but hey, don't let hindsight get in the way of your personality-hatred based u-turn. 2005 well before the issue of finances was even a topic, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your fairy tales. finances have always been important, that is why the club couldn't even raise 1.25m quid in a stock exchange flotation when it had one foot in the 3rd division, until the Halls and Shepherd came along and transformed it into one of the biggest clubs in europe. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your irrational hatred, accompanying u-turns, and hindsight. Designed to fail flotation at £300+ a share, bang on christmas, but don't let the facts get in the way of your insanity. I don't hate anyone btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9404 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 If only we had a player we could sell for 35m to fund building a squad. I said before that that shouldn't be used as a cover-up for lack of any other summer spending - without arguing about the whys and wherefores of the actual sale again, the money should have been seen as a "bonus" to be added to an existing budget. and when it isn't ? The we're screwed which I've never pretended we weren't. You seem to think Ashley isn't spending the club's money which isn't the case - he isn't spending his money. Really ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4385 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 If only we had a player we could sell for 35m to fund building a squad. I said before that that shouldn't be used as a cover-up for lack of any other summer spending - without arguing about the whys and wherefores of the actual sale again, the money should have been seen as a "bonus" to be added to an existing budget. and when it isn't ? The we're screwed which I've never pretended we weren't. You seem to think Ashley isn't spending the club's money which isn't the case - he isn't spending his money. Really ??? I meant in terms of a speculative transfer budget beyond the Carroll money we'd like to see not in terms of day to day running costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) you supported the spending of NUFC 5-6 years ago, but hey, don't let hindsight get in the way of your personality-hatred based u-turn. 2005 well before the issue of finances was even a topic, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your fairy tales. finances have always been important, that is why the club couldn't even raise 1.25m quid in a stock exchange flotation when it had one foot in the 3rd division, until the Halls and Shepherd came along and transformed it into one of the biggest clubs in europe. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your irrational hatred, accompanying u-turns, and hindsight. Designed to fail flotation at £300+ a share, bang on christmas, but don't let the facts get in the way of your insanity. I don't hate anyone btw don't let the following facts get in the way of your incorrect comment above. I applied for some of those shares, my cheque for £100, which was the standard amount demanded to guarantee acquiring some if the flotataion succeeded, was returned with a letter, when it failed, asking if I would "donate it to the club to help buy players". This share issue was open to all the public, and all the businesses, across the entire Northeast and beyond. It failed, because nobody was interested in the club, with a cow shed of a stadium, crowds of below 20,000 and heading towards the 3rd division. The minimum required to float the club was 2.5m, and it failed because the amount raised only reached half of that. These are the facts. You are now showing your ignorance, like most of those who don't realise what the Halls and Shepherd did for the club. Edit I seriously wonder why I keep trying to educate you, rather than you listening to those fools on skunkers. Edited June 9, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9404 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 you supported the spending of NUFC 5-6 years ago, but hey, don't let hindsight get in the way of your personality-hatred based u-turn. 2005 well before the issue of finances was even a topic, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your fairy tales. finances have always been important, that is why the club couldn't even raise 1.25m quid in a stock exchange flotation when it had one foot in the 3rd division, until the Halls and Shepherd came along and transformed it into one of the biggest clubs in europe. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your irrational hatred, accompanying u-turns, and hindsight. Designed to fail flotation at £300+ a share, bang on christmas, but don't let the facts get in the way of your insanity. I don't hate anyone btw don't let the following facts get in the way of your incorrect comment above. I applied for some of those shares, my cheque for £100, which was the standard amount demanded to guarantee acquiring some if the flotataion succeeded, was returned with a letter, when it failed, asking if I would "donate it to the club to help buy players". This share issue was open to all the public, and all the businesses, across the entire Northeast and beyond. It failed, because nobody was interested in the club, with a cow shed of a stadium, crowds of below 20,000 and heading towards the 3rd division. The minimum required to float the club was 2.5m, and it failed because the amount raised only reached half of that. These are the facts. You are now showing your ignorance, like most of those who don't realise what the Halls and Shepherd did for the club. And if the flotation succeeded how much were the shares ??? and at what time of year was it. It was absolutely designed to fail. I supported them until circa 2005 (as you so happily point out) then I woke up to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 finances have always been important, that is why the club couldn't even raise 1.25m quid in a stock exchange flotation when it had one foot in the 3rd division, until the Halls and Shepherd came along and transformed it into one of the biggest clubs in europe. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your irrational hatred, accompanying u-turns, and hindsight. Designed to fail flotation at £300+ a share, bang on christmas, but don't let the facts get in the way of your insanity. I don't hate anyone btw don't let the following facts get in the way of your incorrect comment above. I applied for some of those shares, my cheque for £100, which was the standard amount demanded to guarantee acquiring some if the flotataion succeeded, was returned with a letter, when it failed, asking if I would "donate it to the club to help buy players". This share issue was open to all the public, and all the businesses, across the entire Northeast and beyond. It failed, because nobody was interested in the club, with a cow shed of a stadium, crowds of below 20,000 and heading towards the 3rd division. The minimum required to float the club was 2.5m, and it failed because the amount raised only reached half of that. These are the facts. You are now showing your ignorance, like most of those who don't realise what the Halls and Shepherd did for the club. And if the flotation succeeded how much were the shares ??? and at what time of year was it. It was absolutely designed to fail. I supported them until circa 2005 (as you so happily point out) then I woke up to reality. you said this Designed to fail flotation at £300+ a share, incorrect chum, like most things you are either making up, or moving the goalposts to accomodate into your "opinion" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now