United...1990s Liverpool re-enacted?

Meh, United already has a very good squad and investments in the region of £150m each summer will be spent until things are right again.

Also we do not have a behemoth to face up against like Liverpool had in the 90's United.

We'll never be as dominant as we once were though, with the spread of money and relative strength of the top 6 no one will be unless they stumble upon some managerial freak like Fergie and funds him properly.
 
Still only makes you champions of England. A PL title is no different to the titles we won prior to the change.

I think it is, (unfortunately). Or it's starting to come.

I mean, fecking Leeds won the last one of the other, what sort of competition was that?**

**(puke inducing shambles that was) :(
 
Last edited:
Not a chance. That would mean no big ears taking up permanent residence at Anfield. I've seen my club become champions of England on many occasions. Champions of Europe is a much better feeling.

This is interesting - might depend on one's relationship with football, with the club. Personally, start of any season, ever - I always wanted to see the League won. CL without winning the domestic League kinda hollow in a way - you got lucky in a Cup competition I'd disparage it with.

Think Champions of Europe is historically more significant which kinda Travellers the WCC argument too (that has NO history anyone does it).

League is cake, CL is icing.
 
I have written this, not to antagonise or provoke, but as something that I think carries more than a degree of truth…

Since SAF left United in 2013 I have considered it a formality for United to return to winning ways sooner rather than later – by winning ways I mean challenging for league titles in the manner they have become used to. While comparisons with Liverpool’s demise have been uttered, the conventional wisdom has been that the same thing won’t happen as United’s financial infrastructure will mean that success will be far easier to come by compared to a Liverpool that totally lost their way at the end of Dalglish’s reign in 1991. However, there are striking similarities, albeit in a very different era.

End of an era – end of a philosophy:

Liverpool’s long run of success was built on the bootroom, which transcended any individual and allowed new managers to be appointed from within the club and sustain success. Continuity and fluid transition from one man to the next led to success. Keep it ‘in-house’ was the name of the game. The spell was broken the moment the internal candidates ran out. Souness arrived and engaged in a destructive transfer policy that saw a complete lowering of standards: Dicks, Stewart, Tanner, Clough and Ruddock being prime examples. Aging legends were being replaced by average cloggers. The era of domination was over…

United’s success was built differently but with similar results. Continuity came through the vision and brilliance of one man – SAF’s ability to build, refresh and renew was his great talent. Create successful teams over and over again. He’d use a variety of sidekicks but he was the constant. His drive to succeed was worth tons of points every season. If he was knocked back one season he’d build again and prove doubters wrong. It was an unerring era of supreme dominance. But like Liverpool, the spell has been broken. In 2013 SAF left and a new regime stepped in, dismantling the successful apparatus that had led to a generation of brilliance. Moyes brought his own men and ideas to the table and mediocrity reigned. United became mortal – late winners stopped coming, ‘never say die’ was no longer a mission statement, Old Trafford stopped being a fortress. The era of domination was over…

But United are still winning stuff:

Yes, they are and they remain extremely relevant. Despite United’s disappointing league position last week’s Manchester Derby felt as important as ever. It was a crunch game. No doubt, United are still box office. But so were Liverpool; so ARE Liverpool. Despite Liverpool’s regular disappointments over the past 20 odd years, they remain very relevant (despite what certain rivals like to suggest). I read recently that MirrorSport’s daily chart has Liverpool and United as bankers in terms of guaranteeing traffic to their website. Like United in the years that have proceeded SAF’s departure, Liverpool won an FA Cup and League Cup within four years of Dalglish leaving…ring any bells? Soon, Liverpool became cup specialists in a league that became increasingly tough to compete in. Winning cups gives the veneer of success and keeps the wolf from the door, but it doesn’t really scratch that itch, does it?

United are in a much stronger position than ‘1991 Liverpool’:

United are dead rich and can blow nearly any team out of the water. In 1991, Liverpool couldn’t quite match United’s allure for top players and also didn’t have the equivalent youth system to prop themselves up to compete. But such comparisons are useless, today’s footballing reality isn’t the same. Yes United have huge funds, but is that still the game changer it was even 5 years ago. United find themselves as the richest club amongst a load of other really rich clubs. Squad building for the Premier League’s elite isn’t a problem – about 5 or 6 clubs now have huge funds to buy big. And even if United buy ‘biggest’, it’s not enough to stop rivals in their tracks.

My point is that, relatively speaking, United’s financial predominance isn’t enough in itself to achieve footballing dominance. It’s not the marginal gain it once was.

Money is, in fact, the problem

Financial might is so far removed from what really made United great that a preoccupation of big money signings is the very thing that’s holding them back. Compare transfer activity since SAF left to when he was in charge – it’s a totally different approach. Some United fans have become seduced into the idea that the chequebook will bail them out of the current stasis. This, despite the fact that SAF’s primary principals were never about splurging huge amounts on talent. He built TEAMS…expensive teams, but teams that had a collective endeavour and not side tracked by individual distractions (see selling of Beckham and Stam to observe how team trumped individual brilliance).

Back in the 90s, Liverpool were guilty of breaking transfer records to buy back their success. Saunders and Collymore both broke the British transfer record…that worked, didn’t it?




Lazy comparisons?

Yes, this whole piece could be regarded as shoe-horning in a load of convenient factors that link 1990s Liverpool to modern-day United. Fair cop…

…But the one factor I will keep coming back to is that of the ‘spell has been broken’. In 1991 Liverpool stopped doing the things that made them the best. In 2013 United stopped doing the things that made them the best.

The road back is an absolute quagmire.


Money is, in fact, the problem
. Are you living in a parallel universe where deploying such a statement would somehow give credence to your theory? Sorry to burst your bubble but that's just not true, mate. Fergie was a known serial spender of large sums of money, in his time as manager of United he broke the British transfer record on three seperate occasions, helping to set a precedent that would have a significant impact on modern football today.

He built TEAMS…expensive teams.
You said it yourself; expensive teams. Yes Fergie's team were built around his ideologies (as is the case for any football manager the world over, they each have their own set of principles and ideals which they believe will bring them success) but first and foremost they were built on the strength of an open cheque book, the Class of 92 being the exception. You would be naive to believe anything less.

Selling of Beckham and Stam to observe how team trumped individual brilliance. Do you think he would have sold Beck's and Stam had he not the funds available to purchase suitable replacements? Of course he wouldn't. After Beck's there was Ronaldo, after Stam there was Rio. Fergie sold top players and replaced them with suitable alternatives, all of which cost a pretty penny to acquire.

Money is everything in football, sponsorship agreements, matchday revenue, commercial value, merchandising, all are essential to a club's financial status as either a run-of-the-mill football club or a financial behemoth and United are most definitely the latter, that was true during Fergies tenure just as it is today. Make no mistake, Jose will have to pay through the nose in order to bring us a league title, just as he did with Chelsea, Real and Milan. If you can inform me of a viable alternative method to get us back to the top I'd like to hear it, I'm sure Jose would to.


 
I think it is, (unfortunately). Or it's starting to come.

I mean, fecking Leeds won the last one of the other, what sort of competition was that?**

**(puke inducing shambles that was) :(

Haven't Blackburn and Leicester won this one ?
 
It is a scouse fantasy that United will emulate Liverpool's decline, but the owners recognised the error in appointing Moyes, and dispensed forthwith.
LVG was afforded more time but, despite winning a cup, he went, so they could bring in the most successful manager since Fergie.
It is this acknowledgement of what is necessary, along with our financial might that will keep us at the top table, whereas Liverpool dropped their standards and gambled on managers (until hiring Klopp).
 
Right this is interesting, :wenger:.

League won in 4 seasons in a row by 4 different teams

1970-1973 Everton Arsenal Derby Liverpool

it doesn't happen again until

1990-93 Liverpool Arsenal Leeds Man Utd

it doesn't happen again until

2013 -16 Man Utd Man City Chelsea Leicester

I hope I've read that right from here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions

because it OBVIOUSLY means that someone is about to dominate for the next 20 years and it would look like being Chelsea or City or next year's Champions does it? is that right? to keep the thing repeating closest to the previous pattern <----- should be Leicester, innit?

or City & Chelsea in a new duopoly of Evil - back it now, :D

edit - that page also worth a look for the amazing scoring record of Jimmy Greaves - 6 times top scorer in the top division, be some player who equals or surpasses that
 
Last edited:
Selling of Beckham and Stam to observe how team trumped individual brilliance. Do you think he would have sold Beck's and Stam had he not the funds available to purchase suitable replacements? Of course he wouldn't. After Beck's there was Ronaldo, after Stam there was Rio. Fergie sold top players and replaced them with suitable alternatives, all of which cost a pretty penny to acquire.
That's written in hindsight. Selling Beckham and buying Ronaldo worked out, but in 2003 it was a strategic gamble. Ronaldo wasn't a refined established player. Beckham went because he overstepped the mark.

To clarify, I'm not saying money isn't important. My point is, despite SAF using his chequebook, it was built around certain principles that facilitated success. He also built teams, which hasn't happened since 2012 at United. The buying and selling in recent years hasn't been primarily about team building. It's clear as day that United's transfers have been flawed - in part due to no single vision because of the changes of management. But that's why United's predominance has waned. The founding principles of the glory years have been corroded - you could construe that United are now just another rich club who change managers regularly. They don't standalone as different any longer.

Liverpool's problem in the 1990s wasn't about financial penury, it was that they became mortal. The magic formula had gone; a better formula was being put together up the road.
 
It is a scouse fantasy that United will emulate Liverpool's decline, but the owners recognised the error in appointing Moyes, and dispensed forthwith.
LVG was afforded more time but, despite winning a cup, he went, so they could bring in the most successful manager since Fergie.
It is this acknowledgement of what is necessary, along with our financial might that will keep us at the top table, whereas Liverpool dropped their standards and gambled on managers (until hiring Klopp).
But relatively speaking, Liverpool remained a side near the top of the table in the 1990s. Buying very expensive players, winning cups occasionally and challenging (inconsistently) for leagues. They even reached a European semi finals under Evans.

NB. This is about 1990s Liverpool - I don't include the Houllier or Benitez years as part of my comparison as that's unknown. I'm really just talking about the immediate years following Dalglish.
 
Liverpool's problem in the 1990s wasn't about financial penury, it was that they became mortal. The magic formula had gone; a better formula was being put together up the road.
Agreed. Also, their indestructible mystique was eroded by old father time. Other teams thought 'feck Anfield' and started winning there. That stuff is hard to reconstruct. Chelsea and Spurs will be looking to develop something similar at their new homes. Could be either one of those 2 dominate for a few years.
 
Agreed. Also, their indestructible mystique was eroded by old father time. Other teams thought 'feck Anfield' and started winning there. That stuff is hard to reconstruct. Chelsea and Spurs will be looking to develop something similar at their new homes. Could be either one of those 2 dominate for a few years.
Yep. Likewise, Moyes' biggest legacy may possibly be how he stopped OT be a scary place. How many sides have taken points from OT in recent years compared to the usual surrender?
 
But relatively speaking, Liverpool remained a side near the top of the table in the 1990s. Buying very expensive players, winning cups occasionally and challenging (inconsistently) for leagues. They even reached a European semi finals under Evans.

NB. This is about 1990s Liverpool - I don't include the Houllier or Benitez years as part of my comparison as that's unknown. I'm really just talking about the immediate years following Dalglish.

Kenny did buy some shite though, he shouldn't get off entirely scot-free.
 
Kenny did buy some shite though, he shouldn't get off entirely scot-free.
You could argue that the team that won it in 1990 and came second in 1991 were doing it on fumes and memory. A bit like United's 2013 side who were largely in decline but just knew the way home better than any other side in the league.
 
That's written in hindsight. Selling Beckham and buying Ronaldo worked out, but in 2003 it was a strategic gamble. Ronaldo wasn't a refined established player. Beckham went because he overstepped the mark.

To clarify, I'm not saying money isn't important. My point is, despite SAF using his chequebook, it was built around certain principles that facilitated success. He also built teams, which hasn't happened since 2012 at United. The buying and selling in recent years hasn't been primarily about team building. It's clear as day that United's transfers have been flawed - in part due to no single vision because of the changes of management. But that's why United's predominance has waned. The founding principles of the glory years have been corroded - you could construe that United are now just another rich club who change managers regularly. They don't standalone as different any longer.

Liverpool's problem in the 1990s wasn't about financial penury, it was that they became mortal. The magic formula had gone; a better formula was being put together up the road.

I would say that all four of Mourinho's additions have been successes with only minor qualification.

Ibra - simply one of the very best forwards in Europe.

Mkhitaryan - has broken the 10 goal mark, carried us a bit in Europe. More to come. Class act.

Pogba - the best midfielder in the league on his day. Still yet to fully find his feet but looks like he'll dominate for years.

Bailly - an absolute gem and a near constant presence in the ever growing unbeaten run.

That's pretty good going, as the law of transfer averages would suggest that some of those shouldn't have worked out.

It's also a nice blend of experience and extremely talented younger players. The only expensive one was Pogba. That suggests some thought has gone into it, rather than simply 'buy loads of expensive players!' which seems to be the perception that green-eyed rivals take to this activity.

If Mourinho can keep up anything approaching that success rate with his planned signings then United will be competing for everything before long. Even a 50%-75% success rate would be enough I reckon. Not every transfer needs to be a success as Ferguson proved multiple times.

It's hard to know what to believe in the press but the firmer links suggest Mourinho is barking up the right trees. Targeting relatively experienced ready made world class players (Griezmann?) whilst also looking to add extremely talented younger players (Mbappe, Fabinho?). It doesn't feel at all scattergun to me, nor did last summer.
 
Think so, Pick. Yes.

And there is that thing where if most of the top players reach 'the end' at about the same time - they take a hell of a lot of replacing, or can do, or you can be lucky. Where 'lucky' can also be at least partly defined as not being unlucky.

Ronaldo - even if you say 'oh yeah certainty of a buy' - by the time he left Utd he was probably the best player in the world or adjacent thereto.

Scholes, Beckham, Giggs - all through at the same time approx & for yonks after (1) & (2)

Fowler (injury), McManaman (dunno, great talent, maybe lacked end product), Owen (injury)

The contrast is where the teams overlap because of a better age profile. Finn told me somewhere that the 1984 LFC team only had 4 survivors from 1978 - Neal (pen), Hansen, Souness & Dalglish. The last 3 were pretty handy players to be getting your 'continuity' from.
 
Being in Rome to see us win the first of our 5 European Cups the following Wednesday night more than made up for it :smirk:

You haven't get the real Treble though. Don't know how it feels to be the unquestionable, the perfect champion, because young United side prevented you from that.

It's always fell short one way or another with Liverpool. :lol: Club world cup is another one. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I would say that all four of Mourinho's additions have been successes with only minor qualification.
Quite possibly, but the point relates to dealings since 2012 which has seen the dismantling of a winning squad, untimely sales, haphazard purchases and missing out on targets.

José's business represents a rebuild rather than consolidation. That's a lot more difficult. He may be building something special, who knows? There are a few very good managers in this league who are trying to do likewise. The terrain is as tough as it's ever been.
 
Think so, Pick. Yes.

And there is that thing where if most of the top players reach 'the end' at about the same time - they take a hell of a lot of replacing
Totally agree. This is the crux of it, and why I think comparisons with 90s Liverpool is legitimate.
 
Two more seasons without CL and I will agree hat we are the new Liverpool.


WHat are you talking about?

We've won more in the last 11-months than Liverpool have won in the last 11 years.

We are nowhere near Liverpool. They haven't won a league title in 28-years, we haven't won one in 4. Get a grip. We haven't even begun to slide anywhere near to Liverpool.

We are still hungover from the high of having the greatest manager of all time at our club for over quarter of a decade. That hang-over is now fading away...we'll be back to the top an awful lot quicker than Liverpool will be. Wouldn't surprise me if we won the title next year at all. Comparing us to Liverpool doesn't compute in any way, shape or form.
 
Quite possibly, but the point relates to dealings since 2012 which has seen the dismantling of a winning squad, untimely sales, haphazard purchases and missing out on targets.

José's business represents a rebuild rather than consolidation. That's a lot more difficult. He may be building something special, who knows? There are a few very good managers in this league who are trying to do likewise. The terrain is as tough as it's ever been.

Moyes was a joke.

Van Gaal sold too much too quick, but his purchases were on balance good - Blind, Rojo, Herrera, Romero, and Martial have been the pick of the bunch. And Mourinho seems to still be getting even more from some of them, including Darmian who I wouldn't put near the successes yet. Shaw's career is in the balance in my view.

Di Maria I'd still contend was an important player who helped secure United top 4 in his single season but obviously didn't work out for other reasons.

The rest like Falcao and Schweinsteiger were freebie gambles.

Mourinho is rebuilding yes, but a lot of the blocks are in place, with the solidity of the team the best possible base. Now he has a great opportunity to enhance the other areas. I don't think Mourinho will be too fussed what others are doing. He'll know if he gets it right, then his record shows even the best can't match him. His only focus should be United. Focusing too much on what others are doing would indeed be very Liverpooly.
 
Liverpool's problem in the 1990s wasn't about financial penury, it was that they became mortal. The magic formula had gone; a better formula was being put together up the road.

Liverpool didn't really do anything wrong in the context of the time. You just happened to hit a wall after years of boot room success, at the same time the game was modernising. It's easy in hindsight to say you should've moved with the times faster, but why would you?

You still could've regained some ground if the Spice Boy era had been a success though. Whether you could've monetised it as well as us is another matter, but that period was as much a footballing failure as a business one. The likes of Redknapp, Fowler and MacManaman would've been just as marketable as our lot, had they actually won anything...
 
Last edited:
I don't think Mourinho will be too fussed what others are doing.
José is proven quality, I've never doubted that. However, in the history of football I don't think there's been a manager more preoccupied with others. He's spent a career talking about them and falling out with them. He builds standalone tactical displays on how others play. That's his raison d'etre - it's part of his brilliance.

That's not necessarily a flawed approach, it seems to add fuel to his fire. I'm almost certain his motivation to overcome Chelsea will be burning inside him. I'm also certain that he knows he's got a tough assignment at United. Chelsea, Spurs, City and Liverpool are bonafide competition and largely on an upward trajectory.
 
José is proven quality, I've never doubted that. However, in the history of football I don't think there's been a manager more preoccupied with others. He's spent a career talking about them and falling out with them. He builds standalone tactical displays on how others play. That's his raison d'etre - it's part of his brilliance.

That's not necessarily a flawed approach, it seems to add fuel to his fire. I'm almost certain his motivation to overcome Chelsea will be burning inside him. I'm also certain that he knows he's got a tough assignment at United. Chelsea, Spurs, City and Liverpool are bonafide competition and largely on an upward trajectory.

Oh, he certainly likes to bait his old adversaries, and no doubt his attention to tactics is second to none.

I'm talking more about how he goes about building United. If he gets it right, the bar will be so high that it will take something truly exceptional to match. When Mourinho gets things right he tends to break points and goals records. Whilst much less impressive, his unbeaten run suggests the correct tweaks will take him far.

I actually think the strength of the league is over-rated. There are no single standout teams and most of the top managers are flattering to deceive in terms of actually building teams to win trophies. Chelsea are an exception but I wouldn't see them as unassailable at all.

It was a much tougher assignment for Mourinho when he was having to overcome peak Ferguson and Wenger, or peak Guardiola in Spain.
 
We'll find out in 23years. As somebody who lived during United's barren run in the 70s and 80's, anything is possible.
 
WHat are you talking about?

We've won more in the last 11-months than Liverpool have won in the last 11 years.

We are nowhere near Liverpool. They haven't won a league title in 28-years, we haven't won one in 4. Get a grip. We haven't even begun to slide anywhere near to Liverpool.

We are still hungover from the high of having the greatest manager of all time at our club for over quarter of a decade. That hang-over is now fading away...we'll be back to the top an awful lot quicker than Liverpool will be. Wouldn't surprise me if we won the title next year at all. Comparing us to Liverpool doesn't compute in any way, shape or form.

At last some realism!
 
You haven't get the real Treble though. Don't know how it feels to be the unquestionable, the perfect champion, because young United side prevented you from that.

It's always fell short one way or another with Liverpool. :lol: Club world cup is another one. :lol:

2 CL's in 20 years compared to our 4 European Cups in 8 years. & you accuse us of falling short :wenger::lol:
 
I think it's a similar problem, in that your best players got old like there's, a legendardry manager left like they did and you and they had to rebuild. They never managed to re-create a great team and never were the richest team in the world as you are now, which is the real difference. Because of your wealth it should make success inevitable, but maybe nothing is fortold in sports.
 
WHat are you talking about?

We've won more in the last 11-months than Liverpool have won in the last 11 years.
If the thread was "United...same as last 11 years Liverpool", this point would absolutely nail it.

But it's not. It's not fortelling the next 20-odd years either. It's pointing out certain similarities between post-SAF United and post-bootroom Liverpool.

The jibes about Liverpool's current trophy drought neither affirms nor refutes the premise of this thread. But if using Liverpool's recent travails is a means of therapy then go 'ed.
 
If the thread was "United...same as last 11 years Liverpool", this point would absolutely nail it.

But it's not. It's not fortelling the next 20-odd years either. It's pointing out certain similarities between post-SAF United and post-bootroom Liverpool.

The jibes about Liverpool's current trophy drought neither affirms nor refutes the premise of this thread. But if using Liverpool's recent travails is a means of therapy then go 'ed.

You have brought up comparisons with Liverpool but then you complain about posters mentioning your current drought of trophies.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Whilst everyone should be able to see the logic behind Pickle's theory, in reality the game has changed so much that that in itself makes the likelihood of United failing to overcome their present under-achieving predicament negligible.

However what seems most likely, with football in it's current form and affluence, is that the PL will no longer be dominated by a couple of super-rich clubs as in recent seasons, but the current top six could be swapping places indefinitely until there is a major shift in the footballing landscape equivalent to the formation of the PL (Brexit ?). The difference in quality of players that each team can afford no longer being of a great magnitude.

With the potential decisive factors, between those six teams each season, being accorded to injuries, manager rotation, scheduling overload or anything else that can destabilise a club, or of course something such as critical decisions (refereeing, managerial or player) in decisive games, an extremely successful transfer window or early departures from cup competitions. Fine lines for the foreseeable future perhaps.
 
Whilst everyone should be able to see the logic behind Pickle's theory, in reality the game has changed so much that that in itself makes the likelihood of United failing to overcome their present under-achieving predicament negligible.

However what seems most likely, with football in it's current form and affluence, is that the PL will no longer be dominated by a couple of super-rich clubs as in recent seasons, but the current top six could be swapping places indefinitely until there is a major shift in the footballing landscape equivalent to the formation of the PL (Brexit ?). The difference in quality of players that each team can afford no longer being of a great magnitude.

With the potential decisive factors, between those six teams each season, being accorded to injuries, manager rotation, scheduling overload or anything else that can destabilise a club, or of course something such as critical decisions (refereeing, managerial or player) in decisive games, an extremely successful transfer window or early departures from cup competitions. Fine lines for the foreseeable future perhaps.

Agreed. Good post. I think the comparison is lazy.
 
2 CL's in 20 years compared to our 4 European Cups in 8 years. & you accuse us of falling short :wenger::lol:

Well, from 18/5 to now only 5.. need I say more? ;)

Don't you know your club had just deleted "Most successful club in England" from their twitter profile? Could you guess who kick you out? :lol:
 
2 CL's in 20 years compared to our 4 European Cups in 8 years. & you accuse us of falling short :wenger::lol:

I remember when Liverpool fans used to taunt Utd fans about having 18 League titles to their name, funnily enough we don't hear that taunt as much anymore...
 
That's written in hindsight. Selling Beckham and buying Ronaldo worked out, but in 2003 it was a strategic gamble. Ronaldo wasn't a refined established player. Beckham went because he overstepped the mark.

To clarify, I'm not saying money isn't important. My point is, despite SAF using his chequebook, it was built around certain principles that facilitated success. He also built teams, which hasn't happened since 2012 at United. The buying and selling in recent years hasn't been primarily about team building. It's clear as day that United's transfers have been flawed - in part due to no single vision because of the changes of management. But that's why United's predominance has waned. The founding principles of the glory years have been corroded - you could construe that United are now just another rich club who change managers regularly. They don't standalone as different any longer.

Liverpool's problem in the 1990s wasn't about financial penury, it was that they became mortal. The magic formula had gone; a better formula was being put together up the road.

Yes it was.

Torypool owners were the Moore family. They owned a big pools company. They were one of the richest families in the UK and Europe.

John Moores was worth £1.7billion in 1989.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22188762

Then the national lottery came and their pools company took a big hit.

It because so bad that they had to sell to the two Cowboys-who were welcomed with open arms by the KOP. Then after that went sour Liverpool fans openly begged for investment from Middle-Eastern sources with really poor records on human rights(Proud socialist tradition la :rolleyes:)

The decision to sell was taken in 2003, when it became clear that greater investment in the club was needed than Moores could provide
http://www.lfchistory.net/Articles/Article/3038


Also under the Moore ownership Liverpool(a club with a proud socialist tradition :rolleyes:) they change many things in football to the benefit of the bigger clubs. Ironically in the end the main beneficiaries of it were United.
 
Last edited:
This is interesting - might depend on one's relationship with football, with the club. Personally, start of any season, ever - I always wanted to see the League won. CL without winning the domestic League kinda hollow in a way - you got lucky in a Cup competition I'd disparage it with.

Think Champions of Europe is historically more significant which kinda Travellers the WCC argument too (that has NO history anyone does it).

League is cake, CL is icing.
Once upon a time maybe, but now that any Johnny no trophy who finishes 4th can qualify it means a lot less to me personally than winning the league
 
Banter aside, for sure United is at the cross road. One will lead to a long mediocrity and another will lead to greatness (not as great as SAF era since that's once in a lifetime phenomenon but greatness no nonetheless). You can see how tough it is now. Even world class manager like Mourinho is finding it difficult to get us back on track. The evidence is quite clear on how many games we drew this season.

The reason is not "the end of era" but the immense pressure. Teams that win title sometimes like Arsenal, City, Chelsea never face this pressure in its full force like teams that dominated the era: Liverpool and us. The past domination bring so much expectation from fans, media etc. Every match is a must win or be laughed at. Every season is a must win or be a failure. This expectation/pressure is enormous. Soft players can't handle it. Average players can't deliver. That's why we needed players like Cantona to deliver it to us, needed Roy Keane to maintained it, needed Ronaldo to bring the title back. You need strong team and special player. And you need a manager that can keep the team focused.

Liverpool didn't have all these in their barren years. We didn't have them after Fergie. It remains to be seen if Mourinho and his future buys can make a difference.
 
I do think we are seeing the end of an era for Utd. They are no longer the big dogs in the Premier league and aren't as attractive a club to join for top players as they were 10 years ago. I don't believe Mourinho can change things at Utd, they've been on a downfall since Ferguson left and the remnants are still apparent from this.