RAWK Goes into Meltdown 2014/2015 - The "We go again" Edition

You can blame souness but sticking with roy evans for years was a bit of a disaster.
The attitude of the club at the time was weird. The whole spice boys thing.

They just went about a decade and a half with shit managers when the whole money side of the game was really taking off.
The stadium is relevant too but they didn't lack money for a long time during that period.
 
Going with managers like Houllier and Benitez when the club had a history of playing attractive attacking football just went against the ethos of the club too.

One thing I always found interesting is if you read the interviews from the summer of 2004, Mourinho appeared to be holding out for the Liverpool job before Liverpool decided on Benitez. He was quoted as saying "Liverpool are a team that interests everyone and Chelsea does not interest me so much because it is a new project with lots of money invested in it. I think it is a project which, if the club fail to win everything, then [Roman] Abramovich could retire and take the money out of the club. It's an uncertain project. It is interesting for a coach to have the money to hire quality players but you never know if a project like this will bring success"

You'd wonder how different Liverpool's and indeed Chelsea's fortunes may have been if Liverpool had gotten Mourinho that summer
 
NickSantigo said:
Going with managers like Houllier and Benitez when the club had a history of playing attractive attacking football just went against the ethos of the club too.

One thing I always found interesting is if you read the interviews from the summer of 2004, Mourinho appeared to be holding out for the Liverpool job before Liverpool decided on Benitez. He was quoted as saying "Liverpool are a team that interests everyone and Chelsea does not interest me so much because it is a new project with lots of money invested in it. I think it is a project which, if the club fail to win everything, then [Roman] Abramovich could retire and take the money out of the club. It's an uncertain project. It is interesting for a coach to have the money to hire quality players but you never know if a project like this will bring success"

You'd wonder how different Liverpool's and indeed Chelsea's fortunes may have been if Liverpool had gotten Mourinho that summer
Click to expand...

When the hell did that happen? Liverpool always has a reputation of pragmatic football even when they won everything in the 70's and 80's. The teams who have been particularly known for attacking football for sustained periods over the last few decades are Manchester United, West Ham and Tottenham. Arsenal have had that reputation in the last few years (before that they were boring boring Arsenal) but never Liverpool.
 
There must be other places on the interweb for attempting to understand the deep rooted persistence of their misery?
 
Before we get too upset, they bought plenty of the other team's best players with the winning/being in Europe ££££ they accumulated.

Ok, if you're the only one doing it, innit?
 
Attila said:
I wasn't alive when Liverpools demise started with Souness etc but I still don't understand how they fell behind so fast. Surely after all that 70s and 80s success they would have had plenty of money to spend on star players? Like from what I've read is that Alan Shearer rejected United for Blackburn but why weren't Liverpool after him as well?

They seemed to have some good young players too in Fowler and McManaman + some others that I've forgotten about. It must have taken staggering amounts of mismanagement to have fallen behind like that.

Does anyone remember when Liverpool fans started to get worried about the future of the club and the direction it was going? 2-3 years after no league title...5-7 years?

Makes you shudder at the thought of us giving Moyes more time and going through the same thing.
Click to expand...
I was too young to be aware of it all, but I'm pretty sure the big money came with the start of the Premier League. That would mean that Liverpool's success didn't really earn them that much money, because they fell behind just before it started to become lucrative. Then, because we happened to be successful at the right time, we got the cash that allowed us to build on our foundations. Obviously a lot of other stuff fell into place for us - the class of 92 for instance - and we were always a huge club and just needed the right circumstances to push us back into an era of success.
 
Raptori said:
I was too young to be aware of it all, but I'm pretty sure the big money came with the start of the Premier League. That would mean that Liverpool's success didn't really earn them that much money, because they fell behind just before it started to become lucrative. Then, because we happened to be successful at the right time, we got the cash that allowed us to build on our foundations. Obviously a lot of other stuff fell into place for us - the class of 92 for instance - and we were always a huge club and just needed the right circumstances to push us back into an era of success.
Click to expand...
I was looking at their signings and they did have plenty of money but it got wasted on bad players. Like they bought Dean Saunders for a record english record £2.9m (Shearer went for £3.2m the season after).

90-91 - 2.2 vs 0.8
91-92 - 3.6 vs 2.6
92-93 - 3.8 vs 4
94-95 - 6.7 vs (-3.7)
95-96 - 12.3 vs 1.3
96-97 - 7.5 vs (-0.3)
97-98 - 4.5 vs 15.5
98-99 - 17.5 vs 11.7
99-00 - 14.5 vs 13.7

Total Liverpool Net spending during the 90s = £75.6m
Total United Net Spending during the 90s = £46.3m

Edit - Got the numbers from a Liverpool website so you'd imagine it wouldn't be biased in our favour. http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2012/08/lfc-vs-man-utd-21-year-grossnet.html

Class of 92 was Giggs, Scholes, Butt and Neville brothers
Liverpool had McManaman and Fowler who were both meant to be really good from what I've read so they had about 30m extra to spend on finding the equilvalent of Butt and Gary+Phil Neville.

It kind of sounds like a myth that we got lucky from the class of 92/sky money and it sounds more like Liverpool fecked it all up themselves and the only difference was Fergie who came in at the right time to just dominate the league.
 
Last edited:
It always makes me laugh that they try to portray themselves as some kind of David and Goliath, whereas in actuality they're a Goliath who inexplicably amputated his own legs.
 
Attila said:
I was looking at their signings and they did have plenty of money but it got wasted on bad players. Like they bought Dean Saunders for a record english record £2.9m (Shearer went for £3.2m the season after).

90-91 - 2.2 vs 0.8
91-92 - 3.6 vs 2.6
92-93 - 3.8 vs 4
94-95 - 6.7 vs (-3.7)
95-96 - 12.3 vs 1.3
96-97 - 7.5 vs (-0.3)
97-98 - 4.5 vs 15.5
98-99 - 17.5 vs 11.7
99-00 - 14.5 vs 13.7

Total Liverpool Net spending during the 90s = £75.6m
Total United Net Spending during the 90s = £46.3m

Edit - Got the numbers from a Liverpool website so you'd imagine it wouldn't be biased in our favour. http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2012/08/lfc-vs-man-utd-21-year-grossnet.html

Class of 92 was Giggs, Scholes, Butt and Neville brothers
Liverpool had McManaman and Fowler who were both meant to be really good from what I've read so they had about 30m extra to spend on finding the equilvalent of Butt and Gary+Phil Neville.

It kind of sounds like a myth that we got lucky from the class of 92/sky money and it sounds more like Liverpool fecked it all up themselves and the only difference was Fergie who came in at the right time to just dominate the league.
Click to expand...
Hah, that's interesting - the numbers definitely don't fit the narrative then. :D
 
Didn't their downfall start with Dalglish being shocking in the transfer market (imagine that...) - I'm sure I've read something about Dalglish as manager bringing in older players with limited shelf-life, which left Souness with an ageing squad and a lot of replacing needing to be done? Or is that inaccurate?
 
Need them to win this game tonight, purely for FPL reasons.

They win, they get a double game week soon.
 
Antisocial said:
Didn't their downfall start with Dalglish being shocking in the transfer market (imagine that...) - I'm sure I've read something about Dalglish as manager bringing in older players with limited shelf-life, which left Souness with an ageing squad and a lot of replacing needing to be done? Or is that inaccurate?
Click to expand...

It's ban-hammer tastically inaccurate, is that.

It's entirely Roy Hodge-Podge what is single-handedly responsible for their zero League triumphs in the Premier League era.

And Howard Webb, obv.
 
Rafabio said:
Need them to win this game tonight, purely for FPL reasons.

They win, they get a double game week soon.
Click to expand...

I want them to lose, it will accelerate the meltdown. They'll have nothing to play for, they don't even believe they can get top 4 at this stage.
 
Crumpsall Red said:
When the hell did that happen? Liverpool always has a reputation of pragmatic football even when they won everything in the 70's and 80's. The teams who have been particularly known for attacking football for sustained periods over the last few decades are Manchester United, West Ham and Tottenham. Arsenal have had that reputation in the last few years (before that they were boring boring Arsenal) but never Liverpool.
Click to expand...

'Last few years.'

Wenger has been here for 20 years. Not exactly the 'last few,' is it?
 
Antisocial said:
Didn't their downfall start with Dalglish being shocking in the transfer market (imagine that...) - I'm sure I've read something about Dalglish as manager bringing in older players with limited shelf-life, which left Souness with an ageing squad and a lot of replacing needing to be done? Or is that inaccurate?
Click to expand...

No and yes. Dalglish signed some of the best players we ever had -- John Barnes and Peter Beardsley, for example. One of his two last signings was a 17yo Jamie Redknapp. The other was David Speedie.

His flaw wasn't that he signed older players, because he didn't. It was that he didn't replace the players he had as they began to age. Especially the ones he played with. So when Souness came in, he felt that everyone was too cozy and comfortable and that the squad needed refreshing urgently. Which he did very badly. Signing established stars from elsewhere who had already reached the top of their game - shades of Lovren, Lallana, and Lambert, actually - like Dean Saunders and Mark Wright from Derby. Rob Jones was a rare good Souness buy. Nigel Clough should have been. But then there were the likes of Paul Stewart, Mark Walters, Neil Ruddock, Julian Dicks? Seriously, what the eff were they thinking?

Oh, and the first player Souness sold? David Speedie.
 
Attila said:
I was looking at their signings and they did have plenty of money but it got wasted on bad players. Like they bought Dean Saunders for a record english record £2.9m (Shearer went for £3.2m the season after).

90-91 - 2.2 vs 0.8
91-92 - 3.6 vs 2.6
92-93 - 3.8 vs 4
94-95 - 6.7 vs (-3.7)
95-96 - 12.3 vs 1.3
96-97 - 7.5 vs (-0.3)
97-98 - 4.5 vs 15.5
98-99 - 17.5 vs 11.7
99-00 - 14.5 vs 13.7

Total Liverpool Net spending during the 90s = £75.6m
Total United Net Spending during the 90s = £46.3m

Edit - Got the numbers from a Liverpool website so you'd imagine it wouldn't be biased in our favour. http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2012/08/lfc-vs-man-utd-21-year-grossnet.html

Class of 92 was Giggs, Scholes, Butt and Neville brothers
Liverpool had McManaman and Fowler who were both meant to be really good from what I've read so they had about 30m extra to spend on finding the equilvalent of Butt and Gary+Phil Neville.

It kind of sounds like a myth that we got lucky from the class of 92/sky money and it sounds more like Liverpool fecked it all up themselves and the only difference was Fergie who came in at the right time to just dominate the league.
Click to expand...

It's frightning that out Net Spend during the 90's was about 75% of Di Maria's fee.
 
Have they declared the FA Cup to be the most important trophy in English football yet, far more meaningful than the league?
 
Phurry said:
Have they declared the FA Cup to be the most important trophy in English football yet, far more meaningful than the league?
Click to expand...

I just wait to see the euphoria if they do manage to win the FA Cup with Gerrard scoring the winner from a penalty.
 
Subho611 said:
I just wait to see the euphoria if they do manage to win the FA Cup with Gerrard scoring the winner from a penalty.
Click to expand...
feck that, I want him to melt into obscurity with them having lost in the semi final and finishing 6th (or even better 7th).
 
Phurry said:
feck that, I want him to melt into obscurity with them having lost in the semi final and finishing 6th (or even better 7th).
Click to expand...

True, although the way he has been going, I reckon Slippy/Stampy G might provide us more entertainment if he actually reaches the final.
 
Got a fair idea this bloke is serious, cos even by their standards, he's an absolute tool and a half

As for there being a proper way to support Liverpool football club, there absolutely is, the club has a pretty unique culture that most other clubs in the country will never replicate. And people are worried we are losing this culture because the home and away ends are getting more and more full of people who don't get it. maybe there should be a list of "dos and donts" send with every Thomas cook ticket by the club
Click to expand...
 
Gina11 said:
No and yes. Dalglish signed some of the best players we ever had -- John Barnes and Peter Beardsley, for example. One of his two last signings was a 17yo Jamie Redknapp. The other was David Speedie.

His flaw wasn't that he signed older players, because he didn't. It was that he didn't replace the players he had as they began to age. Especially the ones he played with. So when Souness came in, he felt that everyone was too cozy and comfortable and that the squad needed refreshing urgently. Which he did very badly. Signing established stars from elsewhere who had already reached the top of their game - shades of Lovren, Lallana, and Lambert, actually - like Dean Saunders and Mark Wright from Derby. Rob Jones was a rare good Souness buy. Nigel Clough should have been. But then there were the likes of Paul Stewart, Mark Walters, Neil Ruddock, Julian Dicks? Seriously, what the eff were they thinking?

Oh, and the first player Souness sold? David Speedie.
Click to expand...

I see, that's a fair bit different in that case. Sounds like there might have been a few parallels with us after Sir Alex retired in terms of the squad he left, with the successor completely failing to re-freshen and build on what was there (though Moyes failed by not doing anything worth talking about in his transfer windows, whilst it sounds like Souness failed by actually doing something in the transfer market).
 
Phurry said:
Have they declared the FA Cup to be the most important trophy in English football yet, far more meaningful than the league?
Click to expand...
I don't know about that but i have seen some of them talk about how crap the Champs League is after they lost to us and Arsenal.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.