Loading ...
RateMyBody Forums --> Sports --> Premiership Talk Pt. 2
Jump To
Replies: 393
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  
                   
L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/1/2008 11:25:40 AM
traditionally the top 3 has been locked out by those who spend the most which is liverpool, arsenal and man utd. chelsea has now joined that club and is sitting pretty at number 2. since chelsea has joined the club they have had sneers from the old guard top 3 who keep banging on about the money. a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

in the 5 seasons that they have been members of the elite spenders they have won 2 league cups, 1 FA cup and, most importantly and impressively, 2 league championships - in a row. if they win the CL, that's a pretty efficient allocation of resources given that the club was nothing better than a mid table bruiser.

now look at liverpool: a club with that kind of stature, history and pedigree has won one FA cup and a champions league. no league in nearly 20 years. this is the result of poor transfer policy, poor board room management, tossy managers and whoring out to owners who don't give a shit. the key here is the lack of league championships in 20 years. much longer and liverpool will no longer be deserving of top 4 status. 20 years is far, far too long to be able to put yourself in the same bracket as milan, man utd, arsenal, juventus, barcelona and real madrid.

no more excuses left. 4th place and a semi in the CL is utter shit. but liverpool fans will still sneer at chelsea and continue to win nothing.

L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/1/2008 11:30:26 AM
quote:

poor mans chelsea.. hmm.

chelsea:

First Division/Premier League: 3
1954–55, 2004–05, 2005–06

FA Cup: 4
1970, 1997, 2000, 2007

League Cup: 4
1965, 1998, 2005, 2007

UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: 2
1971, 1998

European Super Cup: 1
1998

Liverpool:

League:
Winners (18)
1900–01, 1905–06, 1921–22, 1922–23, 1946–47, 1963–64, 1965–66, 1972–73, 1975–76, 1976–77, 1978–79, 1979–80, 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1985–86, 1987–88, 1989–90
Runners-up (11):
1898–89, 1909–10, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1974–75, 1977–78, 1984–85, 1986–87, 1988–89, 1990–91, 2001–02

FA Cup
Winners (7):
1965, 1974, 1986, 1989, 1992, 2001, 2006
Runners-up (6):
1914, 1950, 1971, 1977, 1988, 1996

League Cup
Winners (7):
1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1995, 2001, 2003
Runners-up (3):
1978, 1987, 2005

European Cup and UEFA Champions League
Winners (5):
1977, 1978, 1981, 1984, 2005
Runners-up (2):
1985, 2007

UEFA Cup
Winners (3):
1973, 1976, 2001

UEFA Super Cup
Winners (3):
1977, 2001, 2005
Runners-up (2):
1978, 1984

UEFA Cup Winners' Cup
Runners-up (1):
1966


how many leagues has liverpool won in the 21st century? they need to be renamed Benfica.


SomeJaseGuy

Offline
40081 posts
Posted: 5/1/2008 1:55:54 PM
you're wrong about the money spent being worth it for chelsea.


Chelsea

2004
carvalho 19.85m
drogba 24m
kezman 5m
robben 9m
cech 9m
ferreira 13.2m

2005
essien 24.4m
wright-phillips 21m
del horno 8m

2006
Kalou 8m
Shevchenko 30m
Mikel- 16m


total on these players alone

187.45m

and you're crying about liverpool spending 20m on 1 player
seriously?


SomeJaseGuy

Offline
40081 posts
Posted: 5/1/2008 1:57:03 PM
quote:

how many leagues has liverpool won in the 21st century? they need to be renamed Benfica.


gets hard to win the league when we don't have the 200m chelsea do to spend on players.
how many have anyone but arsenal and man u won?

RambleOn

Offline
1200 posts
Posted: 5/1/2008 7:10:00 PM
Chelsea vs Man U is a great finish for this years CL seeing how both clubs are tied for 1st in the Premier.
Isn't this the first all english final also?
L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/1/2008 11:57:44 PM
quote:

gets hard to win the league when we don't have the 200m chelsea do to spend on players.
how many have anyone but arsenal and man u won?

yep, that's the pettiness i was referring to. for decades liverpool have had lots of cash to spend. in the 90s they had lot of cash and still couldn't win the league. now they have lot of cash and they can't win. there are, actually, no excuses.

all the resources, brand power and facilities and they still do jack shit. constantly making the wrong decisions. liverpool's ineptitude is nothing to do with money. finishing 11+ points off the top is pretty lame.

L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/1/2008 11:57:55 PM
well done rangers.

Inamorato

Offline
7539 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 12:08:28 AM
Liverpool wont win anything for a long time. Chelsea and Man Utd's money spending. Arsenal's Arsene Wenger. Thats 3 teams that Liverpool will have to overcome.

Way too much competition.


SomeJaseGuy

Offline
40081 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 1:18:32 AM
quote:

quote:

gets hard to win the league when we don't have the 200m chelsea do to spend on players.
how many have anyone but arsenal and man u won?

yep, that's the pettiness i was referring to. for decades liverpool have had lots of cash to spend. in the 90s they had lot of cash and still couldn't win the league. now they have lot of cash and they can't win. there are, actually, no excuses.

all the resources, brand power and facilities and they still do jack shit. constantly making the wrong decisions. liverpool's ineptitude is nothing to do with money. finishing 11+ points off the top is pretty lame.



thats the kind of blatent disregarding i expected from you.
you compared a 20m striker to hundreds of millions spent by chelsea along with their insane wages to players who are not worth it. well done. well done.

i'm not saying we shouldnt have won at least 1 in the last 20 years. but i am saying that there is no way we spend as much as chelsea.


SomeJaseGuy

Offline
40081 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 1:32:06 AM
it seems sven might get the sack
i think it's bullshit
and if those crazy asians think they should be top 4 they're stupid

Inamorato

Offline
7539 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 1:35:09 AM
Hes already got the sack.

Mourinho has been touted.

L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:10:08 AM
quote:

thats the kind of blatent disregarding i expected from you.
you compared a 20m striker to hundreds of millions spent by chelsea along with their insane wages to players who are not worth it. well done. well done.

i'm not saying we shouldnt have won at least 1 in the last 20 years. but i am saying that there is no way we spend as much as chelsea.



man utd and arsenal can win the league without spending as much either.

hey american, if you new anything about the premier league before you started watching it, you'd know that the only reason liverpool ever won anything is because they were big hitters in the transfer market. the reason that they can only scrape into europe now is because they are inefficient and inept.

L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:10:56 AM
talking of players who aren't worth the money, they seem to be in the CL final and joint top of the premiership. lol.
L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:12:55 AM
as for the sacking of sven, some chairman have more vision. abramovic sacked ranieri after giving him 100 million to spend. his vision was justified with 5 trophies. he will also sack grant even if he wins the champions league and premiership because he knows full well that he did nothing to help the cause.

sven might finish 12th next season and then you'll all look silly.

L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:20:16 AM
somejaseguy fails to see that the only way a team can break into the top 4 and stay there is to spend money.

chelsea's acheivements since 2003, from being a mid table team to one that can compete at the top in europe is so much more impressive than anything that liverpool have done. i suppose it takes a neutral to see that.


SomeJaseGuy

Offline
40081 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:40:06 AM
quote:

talking of players who aren't worth the money, they seem to be in the CL final and joint top of the premiership. lol.


2004
carvalho 19.85m worth it? no
drogba 24m worth it? i guess
kezman 5m worth it? no
robben 9m worth it? maybe, yeah
cech 9m worth it? yeah
ferreira 13.2m worth it? no

2005
essien 24.4m worth it? yeah
wright-phillips 21m worth it? no
del horno 8m worth it? no

2006
Kalou 8m worth it? mmmm... right now no, maybe later.
Shevchenko 30m worth it? lolol
Mikel- 16m worth it? not yet, but probably soon


SomeJaseGuy

Offline
40081 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:40:39 AM
quote:

somejaseguy fails to see that the only way a team can break into the top 4 and stay there is to spend money.

chelsea's acheivements since 2003, from being a mid table team to one that can compete at the top in europe is so much more impressive than anything that liverpool have done. i suppose it takes a neutral to see that.



sorry i dont see the "impressiveness" of spending 200m to buy the league title.

SomeJaseGuy

Offline
40081 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:43:04 AM
quote:

quote:

thats the kind of blatent disregarding i expected from you.
you compared a 20m striker to hundreds of millions spent by chelsea along with their insane wages to players who are not worth it. well done. well done.

i'm not saying we shouldnt have won at least 1 in the last 20 years. but i am saying that there is no way we spend as much as chelsea.



man utd and arsenal can win the league without spending as much either.

hey american, if you new anything about the premier league before you started watching it, you'd know that the only reason liverpool ever won anything is because they were big hitters in the transfer market. the reason that they can only scrape into europe now is because they are inefficient and inept.



i started paying attention in 1996 or 97. but i thought we were talking about what's going on now? the only reason i brought up liverpools record was because the arsenal fan was talking about liverpool being the poor mans chelsea.... when chelsea has nothing if its not for a russian billionaire that invested in a random club. it's a joke.
L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:45:34 AM
oh so harldy any of the players were worth it yet they still win 5 trophies.

ok fine. they are just a better club in every other department. whoops.

L0ver
L0ver

Offline
2884 posts
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:48:10 AM
simple yes or no answer shall suffice: are chelsea's achievements since 2003 more impressive than liverpool's in the same period?