Before money ruined football...

[Sisterstiffticket]

I'm sure we have all seen this before but its worth a re post...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Ywgj2PWx0

I would do anything to go back in time and stand on the Kop with my Dad,looks fantastic.And what about that kid..."just for the honour"!

Gay and ferocious? Sounds like a party I stumbled upon once upon a life

Great to watch this tho'. Reminds me of when I started going to games.

[Darth Marty]

"I wish Gene Hunt was still around to sort the *******s out."

Maybe then id wake up and Liverpool would still be No.1

[Norbs]

That argument is a bit like saying if Wigan beat Man Utd and then Spurs beat Wigan, it means spurs are better than United.

It also implies that the biggest spenders will always win the title, regardless of how well they spend, who they buy, how good their manager is, and how well he gets the team performing.

The fact of the matter is Chelsea HAVE spent three times the amount Man Utd have in the last few years, and whilst there's always been a 'biggest spender', they have never previous spent 3 times the amount spent by the 2nd biggest spenders.

I cant believe such a simple issue is causing so much confusion

Shut yer face

I haven't been implying that spending the most will win you the league but the oppposite! I'm saying that it doesn't guarantee it at all, which is why I pointed out who won it last year. Your heading says 'before money ruined football' but there is some hope. Not all footballers go where the biggest money is and we'll have a chance as Rafa seems to be instilling some solidarity among our players.

[Norbs]

That argument is a bit like saying if Wigan beat Man Utd and then Spurs beat Wigan, it means spurs are better than United.

It also implies that the biggest spenders will always win the title, regardless of how well they spend, who they buy, how good their manager is, and how well he gets the team performing.

The fact of the matter is Chelsea HAVE spent three times the amount Man Utd have in the last few years, and whilst there's always been a 'biggest spender', they have never previous spent 3 times the amount spent by the 2nd biggest spenders.

I cant believe such a simple issue is causing so much confusion

Chelsea have come from nowhere and have built from very little whereas Man U's squad building stretches back way further. To achieve their aims they've had to spend a hell that much but it's clear now that their spending has levelled out and is similar to Utds. I understand what you say that they have the ability to spend 3 times what their nearest rival does but it's irrelevent. Everton offered twice what we offered for Riera, Chelsea offered far more than us for Torres.

Man City will now have to splash big in order to claw their way to the top. There spending will far outweigh anyone elses and they might displace Arsenal as the country's 4th team but we'll still be there. I don't think that the Arab buyers will show the same long term spending ability that Abramovich has. They'll bore of it far quciker, then someone else will pop up and take the limelight for a while.

What shines through though is that we are LFC, and we don't care

[Ryan_Derrick]

How many of them goals came from quality wide play? Rafa take note!

[JonesLegend02]

Chelski/Citeh may have the money but they will NEVER have memories like that. Proper football.

By the way, I want that 1988 home shirt. If anyone has an XL one in decent condition I will pay good money!

[Darth Marty]

How many of them goals came from quality wide play? Rafa take note!

Yeah thats exctly what I noticed too. In fact when I look back through the archives a lot, a massive amount of our best play was defense to midfield, out wide, maybe a one 2 or some magic to get past a man then a cross where our strikers smashed them home or if a defender got his noggin to it our adnancing midfield cleared up the pieces. Not this ****ing dull as **** try and play it through 12 men narrow midfield bollocks of today.

Thats proper football.