From Houlding To Henry

As I've already pointed out in this thread selling stars is nothing new for this club.

Even during our successful period of nearly 30 years, we sold stars.

Dave Hickson left in the 60s, Keegan left in the 70s, Rush left in the 80s. Among others of course. 

Billy, Dave Hickson was near the end of his playing career, Kegan was replaced by a better player in Kenny Dalglish and Ian Rush came back after 1 season in Italy. If I remember right we brought Aldridge in to cover for Rush.

As I've already pointed out in this thread selling stars is nothing new for this club.

Even during our successful period of nearly 30 years, we sold stars.

Dave Hickson left in the 60s, Keegan left in the 70s, Rush left in the 80s. Among others of course.

Only difference being that we had managers capable of replacing like for like. But there again I suppose it's easy to fine tune an already top team with pedigree.

Rushie I don't reckon wanted to go in first place. IMO that was the clubs guilt trip.

I'm still waiting to hear how I can get a job as a plant on this website. Money for something I apparently do already!

Billy, Dave Hickson was near the end of his playing career, Kegan was replaced by a better player in Kenny Dalglish and Ian Rush came back after 1 season in Italy. If I remember right we brought Aldridge in to cover for Rush.

I know all that Bill, I'm just pointing out that selling our star players is nothing new. I could of carried on into the 90s and 2000s when players like Beardsley, McManaman, Fowler and Owen were being sold. It's not only under the current owners that we've done this, as some appear to be making out.

Obviously with the examples I gave, we did sign adequate (and in some cases better) replacements.

Only difference being that we had managers capable of replacing like for like. But there again I suppose it's easy to fine tune an already top team with pedigree.

Rushie I don't reckon wanted to go in first place. IMO that was the clubs guilt trip.

It was a much easier market to get the players you wanted in back then though.

Add to that we only really bought British players, AND we were the top club.
It all makes a big difference and the difference between not only the process of transfers, but also the competition for signings between then and now makes a comparison invalid in my view.
I don't think the 2 periods can be compared in terms of transfer activity.

Never realised LFCexiled was from Lincolnshire.

Huh?

Whoooosh on that one I'm afraid.

(by the way before some pr**k gets a paddy on, that last paragraph was taking the piss)

I know mate and the truth is we, probably, aren't that different in our views.

For you (I reckon) the holy grail is the title - same for me. Failing that: trophies - same for me.

You are happy to attribute our recent on field success to the owners and that is fair enough but...

Where we differ Billy (or so it seems) is: I believe that success and failure are two sides of the same coin. I believe that it's wrong to separate the two. At best it's an unbalanced view.

If you are happy to attribute success to the owners (irrespective of who they are) then there's no reason you shouldn't attribute failure to them. And vice-versa btw.

That's the point I was making in my initial post.

Do we really attribute the fact that the team finished second to FSG? Because, if we do... we must do the same for H&G.

If we attribute the three semi-finals to FSG - what about the failure to reach the semis every other time? The two can't be separated to suit.

All the 'good' is down to them but any failure is down to the players or successive managers? Nah.

Fact is -  [if you really need to attribute on field exploits to them] - we have 'failed' more under FSG than we have 'succeeded'. 

However I accept that you didn't start this thread to be just another FSG thread Billy so any more posts I have on FSG will be posted in the original thread - no point in duplication of well worn debates. Catch you later mate.

Huh?

Whoooosh on that one I'm afraid.

Shouldn't you be back in Boston, defending the "rounders brand".

Never realised LFCexiled was from Lincolnshire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston,_Lincolnshire

I know mate and the truth is we, probably, aren't that different in our views.

For you (I reckon) the holy grail is the title - same for me. Failing that: trophies - same for me.

You are happy to attribute our recent on field success to the owners and that is fair enough but...

Where we differ Billy (or so it seems) is: I believe that success and failure are two sides of the same coin. I believe that it's wrong to separate the two. At best it's an unbalanced view.

If you are happy to attribute success to the owners (irrespective of who they are) then there's no reason you shouldn't attribute failure to them. And vice-versa btw.

That's the point I was making in my initial post.

Do we really attribute the fact that the team finished second to FSG? Because, if we do... we must do the same for H&G.

If we attribute the three semi-finals to FSG - what about the failure to reach the semis every other time? The two can't be separated to suit.

All the 'good' is down to them but any failure is down to the players or successive managers? Nah.

Fact is -  [if you really need to attribute on field exploits to them] - we have 'failed' more under FSG than we have 'succeeded'. 

However I accept that you didn't start this thread to be just another FSG thread Billy so any more posts I have on FSG will be posted in the original thread - no point in duplication of well worn debates. Catch you later mate.

Fair's do mate and truth be told I probably made a similar argument from the other side of things when Hicks and Gillett were in charge. Every time we won it was how great Rafa was for winning while under such difficult circumstances but whenever we lost it was all down to the yanks. I always said I couldn't blame Hicks and Gillett for the on-field performances the same way I couldn't blame Gerrard or Carragher for us not having a new stadium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston,_Lincolnshire

Cheers mate, I was missing a bit of vital information given the fact I've got cunty bollocks on ignore. All I need now is for the quote system to include ignored posts and I can live in blissful ignorance of trolldom.

Fair's do mate and truth be told I probably made a similar argument from the other side of things when Hicks and Gillett were in charge. Every time we won it was how great Rafa was for winning while under such difficult circumstances but whenever we lost it was all down to the yanks. I always said I couldn't blame Hicks and Gillett for the on-field performances the same way I couldn't blame Gerrard or Carragher for us not having a new stadium.

I don't mean to butt-in on your and BBB's POV but, I'd have to disagree with you on not being able to attribute blame on H & G for our on-field performances.

How can any team perform when there was so much discord and changes within the boardroom, broken promises to disillusioned players (Torres & Masch) and playing for a club whose very existence was under severe threat (specifically the 'local' lads)?  Not to mention playing in front of a home crowd who weren't 100% supporting the team because we were making our feelings known and 'heard' with regards to Waldorf & Statler.

There were way too many factors involved for it not to affect at least some certain players - no matter how professional they're supposed to be.

I don't mean to butt-in on your and BBB's POV but, I'd have to disagree with you on not being able to attribute blame on H & G for our on-field performances.

How can any team perform when there was so much discord and changes within the boardroom, broken promises to disillusioned players (Torres & Masch) and playing for a club whose very existence was under severe threat (specifically the 'local' lads)?  Not to mention playing in front of a home crowd who weren't 100% supporting the team because we were making our feelings known and 'heard' with regards to Waldorf & Statler.

There were way too many factors involved for it not to affect at least some certain players - no matter how professional they're supposed to be.

Because once you cross that white line the only thing you're focussed on is playing football. Hicks and Gillett were just a convenient excuse for all involved for our failures at the time.

Because once you cross that white line the only thing you're focussed on is playing football. Hicks and Gillett were just a convenient excuse for all involved for our failures at the time.

And do you think it makes any difference to our success if the owners have shelled out for Djimi Traore rather than Ashley Cole to cross the white line?

Because once you cross that white line the only thing you're focussed on is playing football. Hicks and Gillett were just a convenient excuse for all involved for our failures at the time.

I disagree on this Billy.

That season I think Rafa and a number of our more experienced players took their eye of the ball a little due to the ownership issue.

I'm not saying it was the only reason for the sh*te season but I think it played its part.

I disagree on this Billy.

That season I think Rafa and a number of our more experienced players took their eye of the ball a little due to the ownership issue.

I'm not saying it was the only reason for the sh*te season but I think it played its part.

Maybe only in preparation. But in my own experience of playing on school teams and now as an adult in some rec leagues, no matter what goes on in my life -- and there has been a ton of things on my mind of late -- I'm in a complete zone once kickoff begins. It's only after the game when your adrenaline settles down that your mind starts getting heavy on you.

Because once you cross that white line the only thing you're focussed on is playing football. Hicks and Gillett were just a convenient excuse for all involved for our failures at the time.

In his book, Reina states:

"The way I saw it, Stevie and Carra are the two principle members of our squad, the ones who the people love and if they had said something maybe it would have put Hicks and Gillett under real pressure.
"In their view, it was more important to try to keep things as normal as possible".

Steven Gerrard has revealed that it is was not his choice to stay silent:

“The only reason I didn’t speak out was because Rafa Benítez didn’t want me to. I asked him if I should say something. He told me to leave it to him.
“When a situation like that happens I don’t think it’s the players’ responsibility to step in. If me and Jamie had a go at them, I don’t think the owners’ were going to say ‘OK, we’ll sell the club £100 million cheaper.”

There is no way you can honestly expect Gerrard or Carra to cross that white line and not be affected. Even if they were 100% committed to the match it's still going to weigh on your mind. We were all very much vociferous during those times holding aloft a great array of banners and messages.

And do you think it makes any difference to our success if the owners have shelled out for Djimi Traore rather than Ashley Cole to cross the white line?

Well Hicks and Gillett didn't shell out for Djimi Traore. They instead opted for Paul Konchesky. But in answer to your question, no I don't think it makes a great deal of difference. Many people on here will tell you that I've never bought into the idea that money buys success. If you spend it badly, it doesn't matter how much is spent - Robbie Keane or Alberto Aquilani.

I disagree on this Billy.

That season I think Rafa and a number of our more experienced players took their eye of the ball a little due to the ownership issue.

I'm not saying it was the only reason for the sh*te season but I think it played its part.

Well I'll be honest mate, they shouldn't.

To put it in some sort of context from a personal view. For the best part of 18 months, I've worked for the co-op. Glamours I know. In that time I've seen certain parts of our business hit rock bottom, I've seen one of our top brass getting done for drugs and many shops in the co-op name have closed. I had to worry about whether or not I'd have a job to return to for a good month, if not longer.

However, once I clocked in to start a shift those worries fu**ed off. I was being paid to work, not to stand around worrying about what the future holds. So work I did. In the same manner, once the players crossed the white line then they too should of fu**ed off any worries about the ownership and focused solely on playing, and winning, football matches.

Obviously each and every person is different but for me, playing football takes my mind off everything else in life. Got me first detention in school, worrying about how I'm gonna tell me folks - go out for a game of footy and that worry disappears for that time period. It doesn't go completely but while playing, it's only football I care about.

There is no way you can honestly expect Gerrard or Carra to cross that white line and not be affected. Even if they were 100% committed to the match it's still going to weigh on your mind. We were all very much vociferous during those times holding aloft a great array of banners and messages.

Once they cross that white line the only thing they should be focusing on is football. You know like they did in 08-09 when we still had Hicks and Gillett as owners and the problems were already mounting. It was during that season that the whole "who actually bought Robbie Keane" saga happened.

Our failings afterwards were excused by the off the field antics and because every Liverpool fan worth their salt hates Hicks and Gillett so much, it makes it a very easy cop out. We're sh*t on the field, it's blame the off the field antics.

Maybe in terms of preparation it had an affect. Maybe their minds were elsewhere during training sessions or during their time at home. But on the pitch, the only thing that their minds should be on is the match at hand.

Once they cross that white line the only thing they should be focusing on is football. You know like they did in 08-09 when we still had Hicks and Gillett as owners and the problems were already mounting. It was during that season that the whole "who actually bought Robbie Keane" saga happened.

Our failings afterwards were excused by the off the field antics and because every Liverpool fan worth their salt hates Hicks and Gillett so much, it makes it a very easy cop out. We're sh*t on the field, it's blame the off the field antics.

Maybe in terms of preparation it had an affect. Maybe their minds were elsewhere during training sessions or during their time at home. But on the pitch, the only thing that their minds should be on is the match at hand.

Looks like were going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You're obviously someone who clearly thinks that all players lack fortitude and compassion. That somehow, they should be mindless robots who are perfectionary in all occasions simply because it's there job and what they get paid for.

Just wondering if you use this example in all walks of life!

Before I sign off on this particular thread, I'd just like to remind you of how off-field matters can affect the players. And you don't even have to take my word for it:-

“I’m not sure what the fans were singing at the start of the game but when it stopped the noise they made meant no-one could hear what was going on on the pitch.
I have such respect for this ground and these supporters. What a place this is to play football.”

Thierry Henry.

Well Hicks and Gillett didn't shell out for Djimi Traore. They instead opted for Paul Konchesky. But in answer to your question, no I don't think it makes a great deal of difference. Many people on here will tell you that I've never bought into the idea that money buys success. If you spend it badly, it doesn't matter how much is spent - Robbie Keane or Alberto Aquilani.

We were never in for Cole either but thankyou for addressing the substantive point.

I'm surprised that you think money doesn't buy success. It's not a guarantee, as you point out you have to buy the right players, but by pretty much every measurable metric it's the most important factor.

If Abramovich had bought Everton, as he originally planned, I think it's hard to argue that they would have won far more than us in the subsequent years. Perhaps it's due to his vast knowledge of football but more likely it would be the petrodollars invested in the club.

If Abramovich had bought Everton, as he originally planned,

I thought it was Spurs he originally came over for?

I thought it was Spurs he originally came over for?

As i understood it Spurs and Everton were the other two clubs he was considering until Jesper Gronkjaer scored that vital goal against us in the FA cup.

As i understood it Spurs and Everton were the other two clubs he was considering until Jesper Gronkjaer scored that vital goal against us in the FA cup.

I'd never heard Everton before mate, I'd always thought it was a London club he came to buy and Spurs were the intended option until he flew over Stamford Bridge.

Do you mean the Gronkjaer goal in the final game of '03 league season when they beat us 2-1 to snatch the final CL place that season? The myth goes that qualifying for that saved them going bankrupt. He set up Desailly for their first in that game too if I remember rightly.