Hugo Sanchez Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 This thread mere aswell be called the Albert can't say a bad word about Liverpool because you're wrong thread.
Guest MattP Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 The money is mad, but that is probably going rate in the Prem, any English player is massively over valued, Lallana and Shaw particularly so. Considering Liverpool would have earned about 100million last season in prize money and TV money and stand to earn a lot more now they have qualified for the CL, then they can afford it (assuming the rest of their finances are in order). If Lallana and Lambert were identified by Rodgers as the right players with the right mentality to supplement their squad then the money is largely irrelevant. Likewise if Pearson identified the right player to strengthen the squad I would have no problem with us forking out £10m for that player, because that is within our budget. You've only your own point in the first few words. The money is mad and they can't be called sensible acquisitions for those prices. And yeah Jose will probably ruin Costa. That's what he does to strikers.
AKCJ Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 You've only your own point in the first few words. The money is mad and they can't be called sensible acquisitions for those prices. And yeah Jose will probably ruin Costa. That's what he does to strikers. Costa seems more a flash in the pan than a genuinely quality striker to me.
Captain... Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 You've only your own point in the first few words. The money is mad and they can't be called sensible acquisitions for those prices. And yeah Jose will probably ruin Costa. That's what he does to strikers. Money in the prem is mad full stop. The TV deal money has doubled so all clubs are significantly richer and we are going to see more ridiculous valuations of players. Rodgers identified his targets and had the money to buy them. Judging players on their price tag has become irrelevant, you are not paying for the players ability you are paying for his contract and the longer he has left the more he costs regardless of his playing ability. I would be more interested to know what Liverpool are paying them than how much they paid Southampton.
ScouseFox Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 So after what seems like years of tom ince being wanted by every top club in the world he has signed for...... hull city. for free.
ScouseFox Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 Yeah because he wanted to stay in the prem apparently, weirdo
AKCJ Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 Yeah because he wanted to stay in the prem apparently, weirdo I bet Hull are paying him a fortune.
Hugo Sanchez Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 Don't know was crap at Palace, remember when Liverpool wanted him ? Now this hot shot as sign for a bottom half premiership team. Probably get a England cap though.
Banks Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 So after all that.. He opts for Hull instead of Inter Milan I bet Hull will be the next team to do a Portsmouth when they're relegated. Allam will jump ship. They aren't favourites for relegation but no one saw Norwich going down at the start of last season. Plus they have the Europa League schedule... They will be my tip for relegation even though they've signed Ince, Livermore and have the likes of Huddlestone, Long and Jelavic.
lgfualol Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 I think they will be fine. Ince is yet to prove himself in the top league.
Corky Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 If the technical best team in the league avoid being beaten 6-3, 5-1, 6-0 and 3-0 at their nearest clubs in the technical table they might get closer to winning the actual league.
Guest Col city fan Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 If anyone needs proof of the fact the Premier league has lost any credibility regarding transfer fees they only have to look at Southamptons sales this season. This is bordering on madness, we have become what Serie A was 15 years ago. This. Ridiculous stuff going on
Hugo Sanchez Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 If the technical best team in the league avoid being beaten 6-3, 5-1, 6-0 and 3-0 at their nearest clubs in the technical table they might get closer to winning the actual league. But if your top basically all season, technically proves you're the best team in the league based on days at the top.
One Legged Beaver Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 But if your top basically all season, technically proves you're the best team in the league based on days at the top. Or that you have a pretty easy fixture list until near the end of the season?
ScouseFox Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 But if your top basically all season, technically proves you're the best team in the league based on days at the top. quite amazingly up there with the stupidest thing I've ever read on here and I've read most of kingfox and leicesterpool's posts.
Mark_w Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 Because it's world class manager Arsene Wenger or the former Watford Manager Brendan Rodgers and plus Arsenal are a bigger club In the last twenty years and their stadium holds a shite load more and they have better world class players Why would you wanna go and play in a shite stadium with Jordan Henderson and Jon Flanagan ?! He's not daft, now they have got rid of their only world class player. I'm Afraid I've got some BAD NEWS FOR YA ... They will struggle next season. Arsenal have much better players. Liverpool finished five points above Arsenal last year. Arsene Wenger is vastly superior to former Watford manager Brendan Rodgers... Okay.
Grandad. Posted 7 July 2014 Author Posted 7 July 2014 Arsenal have much better players. Liverpool finished higher than Arsenal last year. Arsene Wenger is vastly superior to former Watford manager Brendan Rodgers... Okay.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 Or that you have a pretty easy fixture list until near the end of the season? Even though his point is ridiculous, you must understand how stupid this is in context
One Legged Beaver Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 Even though his point is ridiculous, you must understand how stupid this is in context Granted both teams play everyone once in the first half of the season but Liverpool had a much harder fixture list in the league. Against fellow top 6 opposition Arsenal had four games at home and one away in the first half of the season, whereas Liverpool had all five of their games away. In my opinion it isn't really a stupid point.
Hugo Sanchez Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 128 days at the top more then any side, Chelsea were next on 64. Proves Arsenal were unlucky with injuries in the latter half of the season. Arsenal would of won it untill half their squad got injured.
Grandad. Posted 7 July 2014 Author Posted 7 July 2014 128 days at the top more then any side, Chelsea were next on 64. Proves Arsenal were unlucky with injuries in the latter half of the season. Arsenal would of won it untill half their squad got injured. Yet both finished 4th and 3rd. Marathon not a sprint.
ScouseFox Posted 7 July 2014 Posted 7 July 2014 128 days at the top more then any side, Chelsea were next on 64. Proves Arsenal were unlucky with injuries in the latter half of the season. Arsenal would of won it untill half their squad got injured. should've had a better squad then shouldn't they. your quite ridiculous theory also ignores the fact man city had about 3 games in hand on everyone else for about half the season. which they obviously won and overtook everyone else. it's not rocket science. the best team is the one who's top at the end. obviously.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.