Can definitely see that happening. And even if Liverpool can't get Klopp, his shadow will be hanging over Rodgers.
Last edited:
Brentan Rodgers
- Thread starter The Neviller
- Start date
- Status
Can definitely see that happening. And even if Liverpool can't get Klopp, his shadow will be hanging over Rodgers.
How old are you, mate? As a Chelsea fan you should know that feeling very well considering your club was nothing more than a cup team before the money came in.
The arrogance of your fans is astounding. Liverpool are one of England's historically elite clubs - you are a small team that was doing 10k attendances before the Russian money rolled in.
In that case it must have been Brendan Rodgers.
Even if you guys do let go of him, who do you think you can bring in, realistically?
I liked you more when you were pretending to be a Man Utd fan.
Why are Arsenal fans getting so touchy over what a Chelsea fan has said about Liverpool?
This is uncalled for. It sounds a bit harsh but that's the truth right now. What happened with Chelsea doesn't change that.
Who gives a shit about Liverpool's distant history now? No one but Liverpool's fans. Players these days certainly don't.
Yeah, money is pretty much all that matters.
Not a clue. It's not my job to know and I don't really play those sort of wishlist games. I just feel that the club is being guided by people who know less. Personally, I like the guy at Sevilla - allegedly we've been talking to their Director of Football too. I think Bielsa would make life interesting. Frank de Boer? Why not go the whole Southampton hog and buy Koeman? Possibly it's time for LFC to go Dutch.
...End of Chorus...
@Orc Believe me I know that Chelsea's oil money and CL football makes you more attractive a prospect for players. But going around pretending you're a bigger club than Liverpool is a bit silly considering you are a small team who got lucky.
Liverpools problem is structural. They simply cannot compete at the top of the market. They are forced to buy second tier players or ones with other flags and hope to strike lucky like they did with suarez or spend a lot to buy young talents and hope they develop into world class players. The problem is that this strategy requires a lot of luck. For every Suarez you have a lalanna and for every continho you have a Coates or Origi.
Short of finding a transcendent manager, they won't be able to be a consistent top 4 club. Their finances put them more on the level of Spurs.
Short of finding a transcendent manager, they won't be able to be a consistent top 4 club. Their finances put them more on the level of Spurs.
While some of that is true, its this attitude of "look what we've done" that held Liverpool back for years - always looking back on what they've achieved rather than looking forwards.
The reality is top players want to come to clubs where they'll a) be paid a fortune and b) compete for top honours with a good chance of winning. The Sterling situation sums it up - he wants away to a side where ha can do both of those things because he doesnt think he can at Liverpool.
In that sense, to a player "Big Clubs" are those that a doing well now, not 20 years ago.
Indeed. They need to get the stadium redevelopment of the ground so they can compete. Matchday revenue needs to be significant if you want to compete at the top level without huge investment from your owners.
Liverpool are a testament to Wenger's achievement at Arsenal. When he came to us we were in a relatively similar situation with a relatively similar stadium and financial clout. Now, we can compete for the best players whereas Liverpool can't.
Liverpool need (and needed) a manager who can transform, like you say, the structure of the club to put them on a footing with the rest of the worlds best.
In this 'we need everything now' era of football though, where the short-term is everything and true genius often isn't recognised, fans simply won't have the patience for it and Liverpool will continue to linger where they are, occasionally developing top quality but never being able to attract it.
In England we aren't. Globally I'd argue Chelsea is bigger than Liverpool now.
Argue all you want. You're not close to them yet, although you're definitely gaining what with all the kids bred on plastic these days.
You're not even close here in Denmark.
Still a plastic club in my eyes though, Chelsea started this whole "name your price" game that you see these oil clubs doing now. Back when they were paying through the arse for guys like Sean Wright-Phillips.
Even though Chelsea brought 83,000 to ANZ Stadium in Sydney, Liverpool and United are by far the two most popular clubs down under in Australia.
You want to argue that they're bigger, fine. To say it's not close is ridiculous.
Arguing that it's not even close is a lot less ridiculous than arguing that Chelsea is bigger, to be fair.
No it's not. Give it a few generations though.
Indeed, and it wasn't that long ago that were in the second division too.
In every quantifiable way other than "history" Chelsea is now a bigger club.
Erm... What about the number of fans?
How do you measure that? If I remember correctly, one of the other Chelsea fans here posted up a recent study that said we are ahead of Liverpool globally in terms of fans.
I know not every fan in the world is on social media, but Chelsea has over a million more Twitter followers. Obviously that's not an accurate way to determine these things but it would suggest that we're significantly more popular amongst the younger generation of football fans.
Financially i think, if liverpool were to get a sugar daddy tomorrow, they'd shit all over chelsea.
How big is your stadium?
The big things about Chelsea are the depth of Abramovich's pockets, the ego of the manager, and the mouths of the plastic gobshite fans.
Chelsea brought less fans to their CL and PL parades combined than we did to either of our two FA Cup parades. According to Twitter, we have more fans than Chelsea in Chelsea and Fulham (if you've ever been to the area). I wouldn't be surprised if Liverpool have more fans than us worldwide but as for Chelsea and Liverpool, it truly isn't close.
I don't see why you have to have us justify that you're a 'big club' to you. You're not mate. You're a small club who got lucky.. stop worrying what other teams think of you and enjoy it because it might go back to the way it was before (if you were one of the 10000 that used to attend).
In the UK, Liverpool absolutely have more fans (than Chelsea). Worldwide? I dunno, we're pretty popular in Africa and Asia.
Very popular in the West African countries I've visited. Liverpool... not so much.
Generally speaking, Chelsea are more relevant to this generation of fan and this generation of player than Liverpool.
Death to megathreads.
Here today, gone tomorrow. West Brom could be the biggest team in Africa and Asia two decades from now if the right guy takes them over.. it's really not a stable market or fanbase. But yes, if you're trying to claim that you are popular in markets with plastic fans that buy into the current big thing.. I wouldn't disagree. I'm sure Chelsea are very popular in all the notoriously plastic markets.
Fans growing up in most countries (the current/new generation) will see Liverpool more in line with Tottenham. They'll see Chelsea more in line with United and Barcelona.
Yeah I was surprised when I travelled to Asia (Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong), felt like I was more Chelsea shirts than Liverpool ones. Utd shirts being the most noticeable though! 
Well, I'm being entirely unscientific here: Off the top of my head I know 2 (two!) Chelsea fans, and this is coming from someone who's played football for 19-20 years. I'm fairly sure I'd be able to name upwards of 40 Liverpool fans. It's true I see a few of the youth players at my club sporting Chelsea gear, but you still see kids in Liverpool gear as well, so that's probably about even.
I'd be surprised if most people on here didn't experience similar situations wherever they live.
- Status