just to lighten the mood of things in here
|
|
Yes but we did nearly win that title Bali - we were the best team in the land and arguably on the continent too - certainly rated by UEFA as number 1.
What went before it was not great ownership - certainly not IMO. The cowboys Hicks and Gillette were only at the club just over 3 years and for a few months of that we were owned by RBS and Wachovia banks.
It would be good to look at a few more examples too - As I suggested what about us for the glory years - and post Kenny early 90’s..? Or Arsenal once Wenger arrived and why did it then go sour? Was the club brilliantly run OR did Wenger inherit one of the best defences in the land from George Graham, make some great additions at a time when the English game was behind Europe?
What about United pre Fergie - then post Fergie - was it Fergie or was the club just brilliantly well run?
I think what people often mean when they suggest a club is well run is actually a successful club or at least a club that’s doing well. That can be judged many ways - but I am yet to hear an argument that any behind the scenes magic leads to a genuine football dynasty. You recruit a Shankly and the club becomes epic - then Paisley rises up and you have a dynasty. The Manager gets it right - the fans climb onboard and then with a bit of luck the snowball grows.
Last edited by Steveo; 23rd November 2019 at 12:55 AM.
just to lighten the mood of things in here
Cleaning up the Scots since the 13th century
I'm replying to your post and what jose 'sees'. Your reply doesnt seem to be in response to that post.
I'd disagree with Steveo on spurs being a better run club than us, but I think they and us have been the better 2 run clubs of the top6 in recent years. Spurs been seen as well run predates poch and levy has a lot of street credit for spurs. Klopp however seems to be the driving force behind our clubs rejuvenation.
I've posted some rather complimentary threads or posts about our owners and the good work they do.
I do share Steveos view that without Klopps arrival perhaps it wouldn't have been possible.
It's hard to know how poch would do here, thankfully we wont be finding out. But then again this brings us to the debating table about how influential a manager is at a club.
Poch landed at spurs 27th May 2014.
Klopp 8th October 2015.
Poch had a year and a bit, 2 preseasons and 2 summer windows head start on Klopp.
Yet now he leaves spurs in 14th on 14 points, 20 points off first ie Klopp.
Now it would seem poch has been far less succesful in bending the club to his will with regards contracts and transfers within the club.
All speculative but I'd imagine Klopp has used his charm and ability to get everyone on board with him.
It's a key skill of being a manager. You're in charge of the team and essentially are the teams voice when dealing with all other sections of the club. Klopp charms and reasons with the owners, Edward's etc even the fans.
Pochs last away win in the pl was in January, they havent won a pl match in 2months and over their last 25 games are getting about a point a game average which is relegation form.
Now its said he lost the dressing room last season to a point and in the last 2 months has not bothered to oversee and participate in training and watches it from his office. All hearsay. His head was turned by manu/real and imo he left spurs in a distasteful manner having burnt his bridges and what he'd built.
So we have to consider poch did a Jose to get out of town, while that might mitigate their collapse it doesnt mitigate that personality and choice made.
So far that would be a big difference between the two as leaders.
Poch would imo inherit the worlds best
Goalkeeper
Fullbacks
Centreback
DM
Lwf and rwf
That's 7 of the worlds best in our 11, so he'd want to do better. I'm not so sure he would though.
They say with fergie it's the chief executive who left at the same time that really killed united.
Maybe their chief executive could see it coming after fergie's reign and the pending arrival of Moyes. Ala Mascherano.
There are lots of sections working away within a club, I think the brc was correct when he used to argue that you start with the manager as the key factor.
At lfc in particular I think it's hard to argue that Klopp hasnt been the key man.
We dont see how the club runs, but it would seem rather coincidental that since Klopp arrived their has been growth and progress in all areas since that date, when the fans were only too delighted to accept Klopp as manager.
As far as I remember there was barely a voice to be heard wondering if we'd have been better off with Carlo Ancelotti taking the job, which was a mark of how Klopp was appraised in suiting the club with the level of investment he'd likely have to work with under our owners.
It is all about running a club correctly. On and off the pitch.
From the tea lady, to kit man, to groundsmen.
Getting all the fine margins.
What did klopp do when he first came to the club...
Got everyone to know each other, names, Liverpool is one big family all the staff and fans.
The definition of a well run club.
Man Utd isn't at the moment; owners , players , and whatever else behind the scenes.
@Steveo
Real Madrid, Chelsea and Barcelona are three examples of clubs that have done exceedingly well under different managers - a dynasty if you will. Just like Liverpool they had a bit of a "dynasty". Naturally such a sequence of good managers has to start somewhere and ours did with Shankly, but when the reigns were passed on the conditions had to be there for the next manager to succeed in a tough situation. They weren't at United, which in my book makes them poorly run in that specific aspect.That can be judged many ways - but I am yet to hear an argument that any behind the scenes magic leads to a genuine football dynasty.
The BVB are an example of a club which has done quite well with several different managers because of the structure rather than any individual. Bayern are a great example too - they're basically the Man City of their league, except they've earned their money fair and square. Juventus too. Different managers, same great results.
Arsene surely benefitted from what he inherited, but so did Klopp - his club captain, second captain, centre forward and right back were all already here when he joined and that was four years ago!
Last edited by Balinkay; 23rd November 2019 at 08:12 AM.
Etiam si omnes, ego non
I started picking up Steveo on this because he was banging on about how badly run the club was. The comparison with Spurs was only to tease out what his actual views are.
It’s enjoyable to enter into a discussion about things no one is certain about if there is a generosity of spirit but that is lacking in Steveo’s case. He won’t admit to what he is saying, he won’t work towards an actual point and therefore there is no hope of separating things out into an actual position. Then he makes babyish posts with inane insults like the one above. He’s more focused on not being wrong than having a discussion so it gets nowhere.
Thanks for your efforts but I’m a bit bored of trying to identify what the actual discussion is about at this moment. I’m sure it will crop up again.
I think Jose’s comments are fairly straight forward and true by the way. A nice insight from the perspective of a manager on how success works.
And I am picking you up on telling porky pies Taksin.
I will continue to use babyish insults for someone who behaves like a child - romancing and bending reality - suggesting someone has said one thing when they simply have not. As I have said before - you tell lies.
At no point did I say we were badly run or that Spurs are better run than us. I stated that on the issue of the stadium - Levi has battered FSG. You wanted to portray our relative small spend v quality return of how well run a club is and I said that - on that score - Spurs are better run .... Who could argue that?
That doesn’t mean I want a shiny new stadium either - always preferred to stay at Anfield PROVIDED it was viable to make Anfield big enough - which it surely is with the will..
In the 15 years since Parry realised that new owners were needed to bring the club in line with its rivals almost 10 of them have been with FSG who have only managed to add 8,500 ( it’s less than that actually )..for a cost of £110 million. That’s a small 45,600 to a slightly bigger 54,074 - making Anfield the seventh largest stadium in England for one of the worlds most successful clubs.. The new main stand is fantastic BTW - I think it is great but we desperately need more seats - lots of them.
Compare with Levi who managed to get planning - design and build in the far more densely populated and vastly more expensive North London - as Stadium costing £1 Billion - 36,000 - 62,000 suck it up..
I assume you have a season ticket - right? So you are alright then... And your view of Anfield as the best stadium in the land is laughable.. The fans inside are the best and what make Anfield special but the building is not even close.
This clearly is a thorn in Your side and leads you to make up stories.
It doesn’t mean they (Spurs) are better run as a club - as a whole - which involves many more aspects than just infrastructure and I would absolutely HATE Levi’s minescule transfer spend - but I also can’t argue that he has got a huge amount of bang from a relatively small outlay...
Let’s also now look at Jose Mourinho. Does the Taksin brain compute enough to understand WHY a loathed rival such as Mourinho might want to blow smoke up our arses? Surely even the most naive of fans could spot the reasoning and the timing..
Thank the good lord for the Borefest thread..
Last edited by Steveo; 23rd November 2019 at 10:33 AM.
Well tbf Spurs have paid 38k per new seat, whereas we paid around 14k by that arithmetic. Their shiny new stadium is less than 8% larger than ours but they've just put nine times the money into it and won't be expanding anytime soon, whereas we seem like we might do just that in the next two years.
Etiam si omnes, ego non
Yes Bali it costs a huge amount to do what they did at crazy London prices - but tight fisted Levy still believed it needed to happen.. Is he mad? Perhaps..
We don’t need to spend anything close to £1 Billion though or even the £400 million spent by Arsenal pre 2004 for the Emirates yet we haven’t done so and we are a far bigger and more successful club than either with a far bigger fan base.
Pretty much anyone who hasn’t got a season ticket or who regularly tries to buy a ticket to watch their club at Anfield will understand the need that is still unfulfilled. .
What we may or may not do in a few years. - it seems - is bring Anfield to 60,000 by finally improving the tiny Anfield road ( Loftus Road I call QPR cause it’s tiny and crammed ) - IF we get the go ahead. It’s better than now mate but it is not enough...!
I couldn’t give a flying feck what it costs the owners BTW unlike some of you lot - who want to do the accounts FFS. are we here to worry about how deep their pockets are?! . What matters is getting more of those die hard And desperate Liverpool fans into that stadium.. It can’t happen quick enough for me - build it already....!
Last edited by Steveo; 23rd November 2019 at 01:40 PM.
Bookmarks