And the answer is yes.
It's all so tedious.
But it's a good point. Since I started rubbing I've found that I give less of a **** about football.
-
And the answer is yes.
It's all so tedious.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post. -
For me the fact it's all being done in the open through the media is what riles me. Of course it's always gone on or there would be very few transfers around. It's not " the Liverpool way ".Comment
-
One question I always end up asking myself is why we didn't sue a few papers that branded Suarez a racist, like The Mirror?
Why didn't we do that at that time?
He isn't a racist and wasn't banned eight games because of racism.
So again, why didn't we sue a few papers that branded him a racist?Stop the cyberhate
from now on I will skip talking about our finances. That is a promise and will save myself from looking like a 
Susan Black
Comment
-
loyalty is another concept thats meaningless these days. we want players to be loyal to us but we dont show any loyalty back.
andy carroll was treated poorly by the club. where's the loyalty there ?
when we as a club dont want a player for whatever reason we will get rid of them without a second thought. But when a player who we want to keep wishes to leave he's disloyal.[B]Sir Isaac Newton knew the universal law of karma - any action has its equal and opposite reaction.[B]Comment
-
It's the way it is. The old Liverpool Way wouldn't work and that's why no one does it, including LFC.
Besides, it wasn't the Liverpool Way for fans to mope and moan and cheer and generally talk utter bilge on the internet either because it didn't exist. Yet here we all are..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Amazing Owen and Torres come out of this looking far better. Who'd a thought that.
RIP LuisComment
-
I take your point about loyalty being a two-way street.
Applies to the fans too...
I think loyalty has pretty much always been a meaningless concept in professional football. When players were paid a pittance, the clubs had them over a barrel. When the maximum wage was abolished the clubs still had them over the same barrel, they just paid them a bit more. And players didn't really want to move that much anyway - people generally were less mobile, fewer moved around, and footballers weren't much different. Playing for their home town club, earning more than they'd get in a sh*t factory job or whatever, of course they stayed.
When freedom of contract - the Bosman ruling - came in then the balance of power changed quite a bit. And of course the massive rewards - for clubs as well as players - has affected things. And the proliferation of media and football's ridiculously overhyped profile all make situations far more explosive and mercenary. Imagine how pitiful Jim White's career would be without players moving left, right and centre a couple of times a year?
But back in prehistory a lot of players stayed a long time at clubs because few had any other option. The only thing that ever really helped players was when more than one club wanted them and that usually only happened to the very best. Which is why it's always been that the clubs that pay the highest wages win the league.
That's not say that some - perhaps many - didn't feel a genuine affection and commitment to the club they played for but it was a result of circumstances really. It looked like loyalty, an emotional attachment, and maybe it felt like that to them too but cognitive dissonance is like that.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
Comment