The Gooner Forum

Dan_85 wrote:

Andrei says Shhhhh wrote:A mate of mine was in Istanbul and Athens for the Liverpool AC Milan finals and he says the behaviour from scousers on both occasions was sickening.

Storming the gates & stealing tickets from fellow fans, including women & children. Remember when they came to our place for the CL in 2008 & tried doing the same thing? Then moaned that it was all the fault of the police. How many other away fans come to our ground & never have a problem operating the turnstiles in an orderly manner. Fucking scumbags.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 51610.html

Interesting quote from that article:

Uefa's counter-argument is that thousands of ticketless fans who rushed the gates, gained access with forged tickets or stole from genuine ticket-holders were to blame for filling the Olympic Stadium beyond capacity and leaving the Greek authorities no option but to shut the gates early

They just dont fucking learn do they?

LDB wrote:

Dan_85 wrote:

Andrei says Shhhhh wrote:A mate of mine was in Istanbul and Athens for the Liverpool AC Milan finals and he says the behaviour from scousers on both occasions was sickening.

Storming the gates & stealing tickets from fellow fans, including women & children. Remember when they came to our place for the CL in 2008 & tried doing the same thing? Then moaned that it was all the fault of the police. How many other away fans come to our ground & never have a problem operating the turnstiles in an orderly manner. Fucking scumbags.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 51610.html

Interesting quote from that article:

Uefa's counter-argument is that thousands of ticketless fans who rushed the gates, gained access with forged tickets or stole from genuine ticket-holders were to blame for filling the Olympic Stadium beyond capacity and leaving the Greek authorities no option but to shut the gates early

They just dont fucking learn do they?

Of course it's all UEFA's fault according to Rick Parry if you read further into the article Typical.

LDB wrote:

Dan_85 wrote:

Andrei says Shhhhh wrote:A mate of mine was in Istanbul and Athens for the Liverpool AC Milan finals and he says the behaviour from scousers on both occasions was sickening.

Storming the gates & stealing tickets from fellow fans, including women & children. Remember when they came to our place for the CL in 2008 & tried doing the same thing? Then moaned that it was all the fault of the police. How many other away fans come to our ground & never have a problem operating the turnstiles in an orderly manner. Fucking scumbags.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 51610.html

Interesting quote from that article:

Uefa's counter-argument is that thousands of ticketless fans who rushed the gates, gained access with forged tickets or stole from genuine ticket-holders were to blame for filling the Olympic Stadium beyond capacity and leaving the Greek authorities no option but to shut the gates early

They just dont fucking learn do they?

Since the scousers boycotted The Sun all other media wont make headlines about things like this :awnker: and Liverpool fans still wont accept any blame for Hillsborough. *word censored*

Looking at the style and length of Brian Moore's answer on the Comments section - even down to the spelling mistakes and repetition - I have to ask whether USMartin is his alter-ego on this forum?!!


brianmoore
51 minutes ago
Recommended by
2 people
Can I make a few points on the comments thus far:-

- Your disagreeing with my comments and conclusions does not make me lazy. In fact this comment is redolent of laziness, particularly when it is not backed by a detailed critique.

- The sort of personal abuse on hear only seems to come from certain supporters of certain clubs and Liverpool is one of them.

- regarding research - the very first poster identified a major point that I made which has been totally missed by most of the comments I have read in the press and a myriad of fanzones and comment sites. the impression has been accepted that NESV transformed the Red Sox due to non-interference and brand development. fundamentally wrong. In all but name NESV is a media holding company and their ability to ratchet the divergent nature of broadcasting rights has produced the cash to enable the Sox to buy the best players - this is also the model successfully used by the Yankees and the YES company. this is absolutely crucial because that business model is not available in the UK and how is it that all your well-researched views failed to highlight this issued.

- One of the problems is that of sport and business. Sorry, but owners are not any longer just there to sign the cheques. When you play in the business world you have to play by the rules of business which include leveraged debt and all the other things. What I am saying is that when the sale took place the Board will have had advice from lawyers, accountants and bankers regarding the structure and they should have asked the questions about how the promised expansion would be financed and if there were doubts should not have recommended the sale.

- you cannot have it both ways; claiming you are a business with business ethics and then disavow this when something happens you do not like. Investors get returns in normal businesses.

- As for what fans could have done - you could have demanded that these questions were put properly and when not forthcoming mounted campaigns demanding Moores did not sell. I accept that even then they might not have worked but you could then take the moral high ground; sitting about and not taking action is tacit, in practical terms, to support. What sort of opposition is it if it is not put publicly?

- as for transfers; argue all you like about minutiae - net spend is only relevant if it hampers a club - if a manager is told he cannot buy before he sells. This did not happen at Liverpool; no star names were reluctantly sold to finance purchases, Benitez did not have that restriction and if you look at the list of his dealings they are mind-boggling.

- if net spend impacts on wages it may be relevant but what is the evidence that Liverpool were not able to recruit because they could not offer the right rate of pay - none because the big names were signed.

- as for loading debt - this is what happens when you recommend selling to people whose proper business assets and most importantly their liquidity are not realised for what they are. the same applies to NESV but hardly any of the much-more-informed-than-you posters on here appear to understand this.

- it is actually a genuine shame that a club with Liverpool's history is in this position, but stop blaming everyone else and look at yourselves.Can I make a few points on the comments thus far:-

- Your disagreeing with my comments and conclusions does not make me lazy. In fact this comment is redolent of laziness, particularly when it is not backed by a detailed critique.

- The sort of personal abuse on hear only seems to come from certain supporters of certain clubs and Liverpool is one of them.

- regarding research - the very first poster identified a major point that I made which has been totally missed by most of the comments I have read in the press and a myriad of fanzones and comment sites. the impression has been accepted that NESV transformed the Red Sox due to non-interference and brand development. fundamentally wrong. In all but name NESV is a media holding company and their ability to ratchet the divergent nature of broadcasting rights has produced the cash to enable the Sox to buy the best players - this is also the model successfully used by the Yankees and the YES company. this is absolutely crucial because that business model is not available in the UK and how is it that all your well-researched views failed to highlight this issued.

- One of the problems is that of sport and business. Sorry, but owners are not any longer just there to sign the cheques. When you play in the business world you have to play by the rules of business which include leveraged debt and all the other things. What I am saying is that when the sale took place the Board will have had advice from lawyers, accountants and bankers regarding the structure and they should have asked the questions about how the promised expansion would be financed and if there were doubts should not have recommended the sale.

- you cannot have it both ways; claiming you are a business with business ethics and then disavow this when something happens you do not like. Investors get returns in normal businesses.

- As for what fans could have done - you could have demanded that these questions were put properly and when not forthcoming mounted campaigns demanding Moores did not sell. I accept that even then they might not have worked but you could then take the moral high ground; sitting about and not taking action is tacit, in practical terms, to support. What sort of opposition is it if it is not put publicly?

- as for transfers; argue all you like about minutiae - net spend is only relevant if it hampers a club - if a manager is told he cannot buy before he sells. This did not happen at Liverpool; no star names were reluctantly sold to finance purchases, Benitez did not have that restriction and if you look at the list of his dealings they are mind-boggling.

- if net spend impacts on wages it may be relevant but what is the evidence that Liverpool were not able to recruit because they could not offer the right rate of pay - none because the big names were signed.

- as for loading debt - this is what happens when you recommend selling to people whose proper business assets and most importantly their liquidity are not realised for what they are. the same applies to NESV but hardly any of the much-more-informed-than-you posters on here appear to understand this.

- it is actually a genuine shame that a club with Liverpool's history is in this position, but stop blaming everyone else and look at yourselves.



Only kidding matey.

You have to admit though, it is fucking hilarious watching scousers trying to comprehend how business works

LDB wrote:You have to admit though, it is fucking hilarious watching scousers trying to comprehend how business works

What is the business equivelant of storming a shop and grabbing a load of ben sherman shirts and legging it?

DB10GOONER wrote:

LDB wrote:You have to admit though, it is fucking hilarious watching scousers trying to comprehend how business works

What is the business equivelant of storming a shop and grabbing a load of ben sherman shirts and legging it?

Being on the Arsenal board?

They're doing a sterling job I believe.

BOJDE LFC wrote:They're doing a sterling job I believe.

Oh dear! Here we go again!

Alert, alert, USMartin will be all over this

BOJDE LFC wrote:They're doing a sterling job I believe.

A scouser doing a job?

Pull the other one unless you mean bank job?

Percy Dalton wrote:

BOJDE LFC wrote:They're doing a sterling job I believe.

A scouser doing a job?

Pull the other one unless you mean bank job?

Fucking blowjob more likely.

goonersid wrote:

Percy Dalton wrote:

BOJDE LFC wrote:They're doing a sterling job I believe.

A scouser doing a job?

Pull the other one unless you mean bank job?

Fucking blowjob more likely.

That's what their mums do for a living!

goonersid wrote:

Percy Dalton wrote:

BOJDE LFC wrote:They're doing a sterling job I believe.

A scouser doing a job?

Pull the other one unless you mean bank job?

Fucking blowjob more likely.

That's what their mums do for a living!

When they are not selling crack that is!

I think many here miss the key point - which is the impact of debt leverage here. If Hicks and Gillette had paid in full from their own pockets for the club and not dumped massive amounts of addtional debt on their books those purchases would not have had the catastrophic finanical impact they have helped to have, but simply a catastrophic footballing impact because well, let's face it Benitez wasted a lot of money on shit players

If anything, and putting aside the issue of their actual motives in the operation of our club, one could say we are seeing a preview of Arsenal under a debt-leveraged ownership. At least a responsible debt-leveraged ownership. Liverpool has suffered like this because of irresposible debt-leveraged ownership. Debt-leveraged owndership never works out for the club but always for the owners, in the best case scenario.

The point simply being while the spending by Benitez alone can be criticized because of how he spent it on shit players, I don't think it can be for the financial problems at Liverpool because they wouldn't exist relatively speaking without the additional budren of the leveraged debt.

Basically Hicks and Gillette said, "Money is NOT available to spend, but if the manager wants to we'll spend it anywey" something the Glazers did at Man U as well.

Martin: a simpler way of saying all that is:

SCOUSERS ARE WHINING *word censored* WHO CAN'T ACCEPT BLAME FOR THEIR ACTIONS.