He flipped the finger at the ref?
Jurgen Klopp Sack Watch
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Last season you were pretty much a Chelsea level side. City and Liverpool were much better teams than you.
A Liverpool fan with a laptop they nicked in 2005 and a torrented copy of Photoshop
Surely that should be Taylor's head?
They had it stitched up before Covid, why keep acting like Covid had anything to do with them winning it? Ir somwhow taints or diminishes it?
It was a season that didn't have the same rules throughout, that can't be denied, so no matter what, it comes attached with an "*", as every other season, then every other team won, the season started and finished using the same rules throughout it.
This is literally grasping at straws. When we beat united 2-0 at anfield I think we were around 17 points clear. Covid has nothing to bleeding do with us winning the league. It was over.
I see there's no discussion about the loud and sustained offensive chants from City fans on here or the vile graffiti left behind in the stadium. I expected no more, this being a fans' website that supports any team from Manchester. 
More worryingly very little discussion about City's board making no apology and instead blaming Klopp for starting it all by his "xenophobic" attack on Abu Dhabi FC. Not to mention the dozens of shill 'journalists' paid to detract from the actual offences in the stadium. Sounds very Israeli-y with their fallback line of "anti Semitism" when anyone dares attack them with some truths. Here's a journalist that makes this point more eloquently (minus the Israel comparison, that's mine and it's also correct):
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/jurgen-klopp-man-city-liverpool-b2205082.html
More worryingly very little discussion about City's board making no apology and instead blaming Klopp for starting it all by his "xenophobic" attack on Abu Dhabi FC. Not to mention the dozens of shill 'journalists' paid to detract from the actual offences in the stadium. Sounds very Israeli-y with their fallback line of "anti Semitism" when anyone dares attack them with some truths. Here's a journalist that makes this point more eloquently (minus the Israel comparison, that's mine and it's also correct):
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/jurgen-klopp-man-city-liverpool-b2205082.html
I see there's no discussion about the loud and sustained offensive chants from City fans on here or the vile graffiti left behind in the stadium. I expected no more, this being a fans' website that supports any team from Manchester.
More worryingly very little discussion about City's board making no apology and instead blaming Klopp for starting it all by his "xenophobic" attack on Abu Dhabi FC. Not to mention the dozens of shill 'journalists' paid to detract from the actual offences in the stadium. Sounds very Israeli-y with their fallback line of "anti Semitism" when anyone dares attack them with some truths. Here's a journalist that makes this point more eloquently (minus the Israel comparison, that's mine and it's also correct):
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/jurgen-klopp-man-city-liverpool-b2205082.html
News to me personally, but then I literally don't read up on Liverpool or city unless it's the run up to playing us.
I see there's no discussion about the loud and sustained offensive chants from City fans on here or the vile graffiti left behind in the stadium. I expected no more, this being a fans' website that supports any team from Manchester.
More worryingly very little discussion about City's board making no apology and instead blaming Klopp for starting it all by his "xenophobic" attack on Abu Dhabi FC. Not to mention the dozens of shill 'journalists' paid to detract from the actual offences in the stadium. Sounds very Israeli-y with their fallback line of "anti Semitism" when anyone dares attack them with some truths. Here's a journalist that makes this point more eloquently (minus the Israel comparison, that's mine and it's also correct):
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/jurgen-klopp-man-city-liverpool-b2205082.html
i think klopp is for the most part a clown. But, in this instance, he is absolutely, irrefutably, correct. And eddie Howe, the puss that he is, is cowardly at best, and more accurately wilfully ignorant, and MCFC’s response, istextbook deflection.
the entire league should be speaking out about how broken the system is. They won’t, but should. Can’t fault klopp being the only one ballsy enough to bear the brunt
There's also no word about the Man City bus being attacked after the game.
The worry is the role the media are playing in this sport wash. Clearly paid off to do so. Very dangerous precedent.
We will becomes Trump's America very, very soon. Not quite there yet but not far away either.
Never thought I'd live to see this day. Jürgen Norbert Klopp has been charged by the FA
This is all Baconface's doing. He STILL runs football.
should have to forfeit the points imo.
Maybe he's been charged, but he'll just send a big piece of paper to the FA with the word PASHUN scrawled over it and get let off.
Meanwhile, United will get a huge fine for doing nothing.
Meanwhile, United will get a huge fine for doing nothing.
3 match ban for Casemiro
Genius!
I actually like Klopp and wish we had him! Without doubt he is correct.
Howe has made an ass of himself and Fcuk MCFC & Pep.
Agree 100%. City, Newcastle & PSG are abominations.I see there's no discussion about the loud and sustained offensive chants from City fans on here or the vile graffiti left behind in the stadium. I expected no more, this being a fans' website that supports any team from Manchester.
More worryingly very little discussion about City's board making no apology and instead blaming Klopp for starting it all by his "xenophobic" attack on Abu Dhabi FC. Not to mention the dozens of shill 'journalists' paid to detract from the actual offences in the stadium. Sounds very Israeli-y with their fallback line of "anti Semitism" when anyone dares attack them with some truths. Here's a journalist that makes this point more eloquently (minus the Israel comparison, that's mine and it's also correct):
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/jurgen-klopp-man-city-liverpool-b2205082.html
Well said. Fergie melted the ears off plenty of refs and linesmen in his day.
After 10 games.
Klopp is a genius.
I had picked Real, Chelsea, Arsenal, Milan, Napoli and City on accy so he cost me about a grand - cheeky fecker - but in a way I was glad he wiped the smirk of Pep's face. He's one of the good guys in football and if Woodward had any braincells left he'd be managing United
I had picked Real, Chelsea, Arsenal, Milan, Napoli and City on accy so he cost me about a grand - cheeky fecker - but in a way I was glad he wiped the smirk of Pep's face. He's one of the good guys in football and if Woodward had any braincells left he'd be managing United
If they were much better, they would have beaten Madrid, reality says they didn't.
And Liverpool wasn't better than Madrid in the final, they even got lucky that Madrid goal was wrongly disallowed.
I dislike oil clubs, so City losing to Real Madrid will always be great, Chelsea too.
I may get flak for this but as much as I dont like him being Liverpool manager and for him being a clown sometimes on the other hand I respect him, even more so cause he's in minority of people speaking against state owned clubs and huge hypocrites like Pep and co.
The better side doesn't always win. Madrid somehow won when it mattered. More times than not, they would lose those games. Especially over the two legs to City. They were given a pounding at the Etihad.
I was quite happy with the outcome too
I see there's no discussion about the loud and sustained offensive chants from City fans on here or the vile graffiti left behind in the stadium. I expected no more, this being a fans' website that supports any team from Manchester.
More worryingly very little discussion about City's board making no apology and instead blaming Klopp for starting it all by his "xenophobic" attack on Abu Dhabi FC. Not to mention the dozens of shill 'journalists' paid to detract from the actual offences in the stadium. Sounds very Israeli-y with their fallback line of "anti Semitism" when anyone dares attack them with some truths. Here's a journalist that makes this point more eloquently (minus the Israel comparison, that's mine and it's also correct):
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/jurgen-klopp-man-city-liverpool-b2205082.html
Summary? Article is behind a paywall and I'm cheap
And there is the difference between a manager that thinks he’s great and a manger that everyone knows is great.
During Fergies time, he dealt with Blackburn, Chelsea and City and didn’t complain once. He just beat them all. The greatest of them all!
Fergus never complained once about his own owners either and still doesn't, and for that opposition fans are eternally grateful. He was definitely a great manager in everyone's eyes.
Same way we love Klopp for backing FSG and watching them suffer after only 2 injuries to their attackers.Fergus never complained once about his own owners either and still doesn't, and for that opposition fans are eternally grateful. He was definitely a great manager in everyone's eyes.
Lovely jubbley.
Bored again?Fergus never complained once about his own owners either and still doesn't, and for that opposition fans are eternally grateful. He was definitely a great manager in everyone's eyes.
Here it is @Slevs
Personally I am so relieved that Utd and Liverpool swerved the oil states 10-15 years ago. It means we can continue our rivalry, along with Arsenal and Spurs if they find their mojos. For now. Chelsea, hmmm, not sure I can put them in there with us.
Manchester City’s claims of racism are a bogus attempt at suppression of badly-required criticism
The recent report that figures at Manchester City believe Jurgen Klopp’s comments could be construed as bordering on xenophobic and racist is not the first time that this bogus argument has been broached.
It was raised by club chairman Khaldoon al Mubarak at the end of the 2018-’19 season. He at the very least made the comments publicly, when responding to La Liga president Javier Tebas’s comments on state-owned clubs, although they were no less wrong.
“There’s something deeply wrong in bringing ethnicity into the conversation,” Khaldoon said. “This is just ugly. The way he is combining teams because of ethnicity, I find that very disturbing to be honest.”
Tebas had not, of course, brought in ethnicity. He had merely mentioned “state-run clubs” and “petrol money and gas money”.
While the vast majority of people can see past this line of defence, and refused to even give it credence on Sunday evening, it is worth addressing why it is wrong – especially since it threatens to grow.
There is a very specific reason that Klopp mentioned “three clubs in world football who can do what they want financially”. It certainly isn’t anything to do with ethnicity.
It is that there are currently only three states that own clubs. They are the UAE through Manchester City, Qatar through Paris Saint-Germain and now Saudi Arabia through Newcastle United.
No other state owns a club, no other ownership group is on that scale. These clubs cannot go bust because they have oil economies behind them. This is what Klopp was getting at.
And there are even more specific reasons why it is so far only these states that own clubs. It is all related to the politics of the Gulf blockade and a longer-term rivalry, where Qatar have been on the opposite side to Abu Dhabi, and the United Arab Emirates they form part of, and Saudi Arabia.
It is essentially an arms race with soft weapons, where they can see the benefits of such strategies. Abu Dhabi was the first to realise the immense benefits of owning a western European football club in 2008, through the purchase of City, which led Qatar to immediately seek to respond. The Qatari royal family tried to buy Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Roma, before eventually winning this hugely controversial 2022 World Cup in 2010, and then settling on PSG. Saudi Arabia finally followed with Newcastle, using Abu Dhabi’s playbook.
No other state has yet pursued that route because it is something so particular to a regional political rivalry. An irony is that Klopp was not getting at anything more than financial disparity, but the claims also warrant rebuttal for more serious reasons.
The long-held view of all human-rights groups and academics on the area is that these states own these clubs as “sportswashing projects”. That is in part because they can continue business and economic pursuits despite hugely criticised human-rights records.
Most of those human-rights issues, as goes without saying, concern their own citizens. According to Amnesty, the UAE – of which Abu Dhabi forms the most influential emirate – continues to “arbitrarily detain Emirati and foreign nationals”.
“They’ve moved from limited basic rights to basically full-on no civil or political rights whatsoever, mass arrests of political opposition,” Adam Coogle of Human Rights Watch said in 2020. “Some really insidious practices have started coming to the fore: forced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture . . .”
They do not have a free press, something that makes these attempts at media spin all the more relevant.
“The UAE’s approach to criticism of its various human rights abuses and ruinous foreign interventions is to deny or ignore, and to smear and discredit its critics,” FairSquare’s Nick McGeehan said.
Such facts make the accusations of xenophobia or racism all the more absurd, but also all the more serious.
It looks little more than a disgraceful attempt to suppress discussion on one of the most serious issues in football, which has a wider moral dimension.
The implication of some of Sunday’s reports is all the more troublesome: if you even deign to comment on this –especially ahead of a fixture where it is never more relevant – you run the risk of abuse, and references to tragedies?
It is actually why it is all the more important that Klopp raised these issues. For all the limited discussion of sportswashing in the media, most of football has danced around one of the most serious issues of the game.
Without proper discussion, ludicrous defences like claims of “xenophobia” can take hold.
They must be immediately seen for what they are: attempts at suppressing the most badly-required criticism. This is what is really ugly here.
The recent report that figures at Manchester City believe Jurgen Klopp’s comments could be construed as bordering on xenophobic and racist is not the first time that this bogus argument has been broached.
It was raised by club chairman Khaldoon al Mubarak at the end of the 2018-’19 season. He at the very least made the comments publicly, when responding to La Liga president Javier Tebas’s comments on state-owned clubs, although they were no less wrong.
“There’s something deeply wrong in bringing ethnicity into the conversation,” Khaldoon said. “This is just ugly. The way he is combining teams because of ethnicity, I find that very disturbing to be honest.”
Tebas had not, of course, brought in ethnicity. He had merely mentioned “state-run clubs” and “petrol money and gas money”.
While the vast majority of people can see past this line of defence, and refused to even give it credence on Sunday evening, it is worth addressing why it is wrong – especially since it threatens to grow.
There is a very specific reason that Klopp mentioned “three clubs in world football who can do what they want financially”. It certainly isn’t anything to do with ethnicity.
It is that there are currently only three states that own clubs. They are the UAE through Manchester City, Qatar through Paris Saint-Germain and now Saudi Arabia through Newcastle United.
No other state owns a club, no other ownership group is on that scale. These clubs cannot go bust because they have oil economies behind them. This is what Klopp was getting at.
And there are even more specific reasons why it is so far only these states that own clubs. It is all related to the politics of the Gulf blockade and a longer-term rivalry, where Qatar have been on the opposite side to Abu Dhabi, and the United Arab Emirates they form part of, and Saudi Arabia.
It is essentially an arms race with soft weapons, where they can see the benefits of such strategies. Abu Dhabi was the first to realise the immense benefits of owning a western European football club in 2008, through the purchase of City, which led Qatar to immediately seek to respond. The Qatari royal family tried to buy Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Roma, before eventually winning this hugely controversial 2022 World Cup in 2010, and then settling on PSG. Saudi Arabia finally followed with Newcastle, using Abu Dhabi’s playbook.
No other state has yet pursued that route because it is something so particular to a regional political rivalry. An irony is that Klopp was not getting at anything more than financial disparity, but the claims also warrant rebuttal for more serious reasons.
The long-held view of all human-rights groups and academics on the area is that these states own these clubs as “sportswashing projects”. That is in part because they can continue business and economic pursuits despite hugely criticised human-rights records.
Most of those human-rights issues, as goes without saying, concern their own citizens. According to Amnesty, the UAE – of which Abu Dhabi forms the most influential emirate – continues to “arbitrarily detain Emirati and foreign nationals”.
“They’ve moved from limited basic rights to basically full-on no civil or political rights whatsoever, mass arrests of political opposition,” Adam Coogle of Human Rights Watch said in 2020. “Some really insidious practices have started coming to the fore: forced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture . . .”
They do not have a free press, something that makes these attempts at media spin all the more relevant.
“The UAE’s approach to criticism of its various human rights abuses and ruinous foreign interventions is to deny or ignore, and to smear and discredit its critics,” FairSquare’s Nick McGeehan said.
Such facts make the accusations of xenophobia or racism all the more absurd, but also all the more serious.
It looks little more than a disgraceful attempt to suppress discussion on one of the most serious issues in football, which has a wider moral dimension.
The implication of some of Sunday’s reports is all the more troublesome: if you even deign to comment on this –especially ahead of a fixture where it is never more relevant – you run the risk of abuse, and references to tragedies?
It is actually why it is all the more important that Klopp raised these issues. For all the limited discussion of sportswashing in the media, most of football has danced around one of the most serious issues of the game.
Without proper discussion, ludicrous defences like claims of “xenophobia” can take hold.
They must be immediately seen for what they are: attempts at suppressing the most badly-required criticism. This is what is really ugly here.
Personally I am so relieved that Utd and Liverpool swerved the oil states 10-15 years ago. It means we can continue our rivalry, along with Arsenal and Spurs if they find their mojos. For now. Chelsea, hmmm, not sure I can put them in there with us.
i would have stopped supporting United, on moral grounds. So i agree with you. All city psg and Newcaslte successes mean nothing to me.
As much as we hate Liverpool, we should *all* be backing klopp in this one, singular, instance. Because he is entirely correct. And what’s happening with the British media, and these “xenophobia” smokescreens, is a disgrace.
This.
Agreed .
Same boat. It just wouldn’t be the same club. Even just from a sporting project, for all of our history we never went out trying to sign Mbappe, Haaland etc in one window which would be the only benefit from this. It just wouldn’t feel real
Yep, we'd have won numbers 19, 20, 21, etc, had Qatar taken us over but you lot wouldn't have to keep reminding us that we never really overtook your 20 league titles. We'd know. I'd know.
So you’d celebrate it? Doesn’t that go against your praise for Klopp today?