|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Only 2 Champions League Titles? What a silly thing to say. Only Ancelotti and Paisely have won more.
Knocking us off our Perch isn't pipping us to a league title. Leeds, Arsenal, Blackburn, these lot never eclipsed us. Knocking us off our perch was overtaking our League Title count, our trophy count, and our status as biggest club in England. Our own mistakes contributed to that, but even as we declined, we were the bigger club before Ferguson.
Most of the riches the club has to day are the result of Fergie's success too. They were an institution, sure, but they were flirting with relegation the year before he arrived, and they hadn't won a league title since 67 before him.
He is a pr*ck and I won't argue about that. But he isn't a little snot like Jose is, and he's done a long-term transformation job that Jose never could. I said only 2 Cl 'in 27 years' ... context is importnat. For the richest club in the world that's quite poor... I don't think that's a silly thing to say at all - it's an opinion. 'Knocking us off our perch' - again it's a definition issue. Of course those other teams didn't do it individually. My point is that it wasn't Fergie who put us under pressure and out did us thereby replacing us as the top team in the country. We ourselves had already reached the end of an era and had faded. We had already fallen off our perch. Fergie's team were on the up and esp when the PL was formed and the TV deal arrived, they were in poll position to take full advantage. We were never the bigger club in terms of finance or support base as far as I'm aware. They were always the bigger club in that respect. Also, of course Fergie had a big part to play. However, in my opinion, other factors were perhaps equally significant - finance being the key. I suppose we'll just have to disagee on some thinsgs. A manager is the difference for any team especially in those days when money had a bit less impact. I think Fergie was the better manager since KD left, I have heard here that the decline started with the latter, but he didn't stay very long after winning the last title and I think we were 2nd in the league when he left. Souness was nowhere near Fergie who built a great team and as they were expanding their stadium the got more revenues to invest in top players, gate revenues was much more important then. We couldn't expand and had to invest huge sums in a new stadium nobody could afford. Then came the tv money and world merchandising with international broadcast which helped the most successful team then. So they were in a virtuous circle while we ended up in a vicious one. So there is not only one reason, but having Fergie and a good CEO, are the main reasons. Management is always the difference
Last edited by TiredReds; 22/03/18 04:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 8,564
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 8,564 |
Only 2 Champions League Titles? What a silly thing to say. Only Ancelotti and Paisely have won more.
Knocking us off our Perch isn't pipping us to a league title. Leeds, Arsenal, Blackburn, these lot never eclipsed us. Knocking us off our perch was overtaking our League Title count, our trophy count, and our status as biggest club in England. Our own mistakes contributed to that, but even as we declined, we were the bigger club before Ferguson.
Most of the riches the club has to day are the result of Fergie's success too. They were an institution, sure, but they were flirting with relegation the year before he arrived, and they hadn't won a league title since 67 before him.
He is a pr*ck and I won't argue about that. But he isn't a little snot like Jose is, and he's done a long-term transformation job that Jose never could. I said only 2 Cl 'in 27 years' ... context is importnat. For the richest club in the world that's quite poor... I don't think that's a silly thing to say at all - it's an opinion. 'Knocking us off our perch' - again it's a definition issue. Of course those other teams didn't do it individually. My point is that it wasn't Fergie who put us under pressure and out did us thereby replacing us as the top team in the country. We ourselves had already reached the end of an era and had faded. We had already fallen off our perch. Fergie's team were on the up and esp when the PL was formed and the TV deal arrived, they were in poll position to take full advantage. We were never the bigger club in terms of finance or support base as far as I'm aware. They were always the bigger club in that respect. Also, of course Fergie had a big part to play. However, in my opinion, other factors were perhaps equally significant - finance being the key. I suppose we'll just have to disagee on some thinsgs. Maybe they were bigger in th 60s and 70s riding off the highs of the Busby years, but were bigger in every sense in 1986 when he took over them. We ruled England, we ruled Europe (when English teams were allowed to compete at least), we were richer, and we had more trophies in every category. They were a sleeping giant in debt issues and just about fought off relegation the year before. They couldn't have considered themselves bigger than us back then any more than we could consider ourselves bigger now. United are bigger and richer than us now because Ferguson took them there and kept them there when the premier league money came into play. Full Stop. As for the 2 cl titles being poor comment, that is absurd in any context. Juventus is Italy's richest and most successful club and they only have 2 in their entire history. Are they still not considered a massive European power? There are only 8 clubs in history with 3 or more titles: Us, them, Barca, Milan, Inter, Real, Barca, Bayern, and Ajax. During his tenure winning it twice, making it to two other finals, winning the cup winners cup, and the Inctercontinetal cup (when it was still relevant). Ferguson is one of the only 6 managers to manage more than 100 CL games, holds the record for most games managed (190), and is in the top 8 for overall win percentage in the CL era(53.7). I say this absolutely hating the wiskey-nosed, bacon-faced F*ck, and I feel like I need to puke, writing all that about him now, but us LFC fans get enough stick about being deluded and being revisionist with history. To call Ferguson's reign at Manchester anything other than a dynasty is just incorrect.
Last edited by redordead13; 22/03/18 11:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Only 2 Champions League Titles? What a silly thing to say. Only Ancelotti and Paisely have won more.
Knocking us off our Perch isn't pipping us to a league title. Leeds, Arsenal, Blackburn, these lot never eclipsed us. Knocking us off our perch was overtaking our League Title count, our trophy count, and our status as biggest club in England. Our own mistakes contributed to that, but even as we declined, we were the bigger club before Ferguson.
Most of the riches the club has to day are the result of Fergie's success too. They were an institution, sure, but they were flirting with relegation the year before he arrived, and they hadn't won a league title since 67 before him.
He is a pr*ck and I won't argue about that. But he isn't a little snot like Jose is, and he's done a long-term transformation job that Jose never could. I said only 2 Cl 'in 27 years' ... context is importnat. For the richest club in the world that's quite poor... I don't think that's a silly thing to say at all - it's an opinion. 'Knocking us off our perch' - again it's a definition issue. Of course those other teams didn't do it individually. My point is that it wasn't Fergie who put us under pressure and out did us thereby replacing us as the top team in the country. We ourselves had already reached the end of an era and had faded. We had already fallen off our perch. Fergie's team were on the up and esp when the PL was formed and the TV deal arrived, they were in poll position to take full advantage. We were never the bigger club in terms of finance or support base as far as I'm aware. They were always the bigger club in that respect. Also, of course Fergie had a big part to play. However, in my opinion, other factors were perhaps equally significant - finance being the key. I suppose we'll just have to disagee on some thinsgs. Maybe they were bigger in th 60s and 70s riding off the highs of the Busby years, but were bigger in every sense in 1986 when he took over them. We ruled England, we ruled Europe (when English teams were allowed to compete at least), we were richer, and we had more trophies in every category. They were a sleeping giant in debt issues and just about fought off relegation the year before. They couldn't have considered themselves bigger than us back then any more than we could consider ourselves bigger now. United are bigger and richer than us now because Ferguson took them there and kept them there when the premier league money came into play. Full Stop. As for the 2 cl titles being poor comment, that is absurd in any context. Juventus is Italy's richest and most successful club and they only have 2 in their entire history. Are they still not considered a massive European power? There are only 8 clubs in history with 3 or more titles: Us, them, Barca, Milan, Inter, Real, Barca, Bayern, and Ajax. During his tenure winning it twice, making it to two other finals, winning the cup winners cup, and the Inctercontinetal cup (when it was still relevant). Ferguson is one of the only 6 managers to manage more than 100 CL games, holds the record for most games managed (190), and is in the top 8 for overall win percentage in the CL era(53.7). I say this absolutely hating the wiskey-nosed, bacon-faced F*ck, and I feel like I need to puke, writing all that about him now, but us LFC fans get enough stick about being deluded and being revisionist with history. To call Ferguson's reign at Manchester anything other than a dynasty is just incorrect. Fergie's United definitely dominated the EPL but not CL as great teams like ourselves, Barca and Real did in their peak.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279 |
As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's all about perspective, perception and opinion.
Just on the point of dynasty though, a dynasty in my understanding is something that is passed on from one person to another within the same family/clan etc, between generations and multiple times such that something is thus continued across many generations. Often used to describe rulers of a country over centuries, e.g the Ming dynasty.
So in football, for us Shankly certainly established a dynasty. Because his work was continued subsequently by Paisley, Fagan and Dalglish.
In Fergie's case, no one was able to carry on his work. They had to go outside the club immediately by turning to Moyes. I don't need to explain what happened and what has happened since.
'I was only in the game for the love of football - and I wanted to bring back happiness to the people of Liverpool.' Bill Shankly
'We should have made a signing or two in the last couple of transfer windows.' Vish
|
|
|
|
|
|
swapshop
Unregistered
|
|
swapshop
Unregistered
|
Only 2 Champions League Titles? What a silly thing to say. Only Ancelotti and Paisely have won more.
Knocking us off our Perch isn't pipping us to a league title. Leeds, Arsenal, Blackburn, these lot never eclipsed us. Knocking us off our perch was overtaking our League Title count, our trophy count, and our status as biggest club in England. Our own mistakes contributed to that, but even as we declined, we were the bigger club before Ferguson.
Most of the riches the club has to day are the result of Fergie's success too. They were an institution, sure, but they were flirting with relegation the year before he arrived, and they hadn't won a league title since 67 before him.
He is a pr*ck and I won't argue about that. But he isn't a little snot like Jose is, and he's done a long-term transformation job that Jose never could. I said only 2 Cl 'in 27 years' ... context is importnat. For the richest club in the world that's quite poor... I don't think that's a silly thing to say at all - it's an opinion. 'Knocking us off our perch' - again it's a definition issue. Of course those other teams didn't do it individually. My point is that it wasn't Fergie who put us under pressure and out did us thereby replacing us as the top team in the country. We ourselves had already reached the end of an era and had faded. We had already fallen off our perch. Fergie's team were on the up and esp when the PL was formed and the TV deal arrived, they were in poll position to take full advantage. We were never the bigger club in terms of finance or support base as far as I'm aware. They were always the bigger club in that respect. Also, of course Fergie had a big part to play. However, in my opinion, other factors were perhaps equally significant - finance being the key. I suppose we'll just have to disagee on some thinsgs. Maybe they were bigger in th 60s and 70s riding off the highs of the Busby years, but were bigger in every sense in 1986 when he took over them. We ruled England, we ruled Europe (when English teams were allowed to compete at least), we were richer, and we had more trophies in every category. They were a sleeping giant in debt issues and just about fought off relegation the year before. They couldn't have considered themselves bigger than us back then any more than we could consider ourselves bigger now. United are bigger and richer than us now because Ferguson took them there and kept them there when the premier league money came into play. Full Stop. As for the 2 cl titles being poor comment, that is absurd in any context. Juventus is Italy's richest and most successful club and they only have 2 in their entire history. Are they still not considered a massive European power? There are only 8 clubs in history with 3 or more titles: Us, them, Barca, Milan, Inter, Real, Barca, Bayern, and Ajax. During his tenure winning it twice, making it to two other finals, winning the cup winners cup, and the Inctercontinetal cup (when it was still relevant). Ferguson is one of the only 6 managers to manage more than 100 CL games, holds the record for most games managed (190), and is in the top 8 for overall win percentage in the CL era(53.7). I say this absolutely hating the wiskey-nosed, bacon-faced F*ck, and I feel like I need to puke, writing all that about him now, but us LFC fans get enough stick about being deluded and being revisionist with history. To call Ferguson's reign at Manchester anything other than a dynasty is just incorrect. Fergie's United definitely dominated the EPL but not CL as great teams like ourselves, Barca and Real did in their peak. think it was a bit easier to win the European Cup back in the day and even easier when Real Madrid used to win it on the black and white television sets...
|
|
|
|
|
|
swapshop
Unregistered
|
|
swapshop
Unregistered
|
As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's all about perspective, perception and opinion.
Just on the point of dynasty though, a dynasty in my understanding is something that is passed on from one person to another within the same family/clan etc, between generations and multiple times such that something is thus continued across many generations. Often used to describe rulers of a country over centuries, e.g the Ming dynasty.
So in football, for us Shankly certainly established a dynasty. Because his work was continued subsequently by Paisley, Fagan and Dalglish.
In Fergie's case, no one was able to carry on his work. They had to go outside the club immediately by turning to Moyes. I don't need to explain what happened and what has happened since. so is Shanks the only manager in your opinion who had created a dynasty...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054 |
Only 2 Champions League Titles? What a silly thing to say. Only Ancelotti and Paisely have won more.
Knocking us off our Perch isn't pipping us to a league title. Leeds, Arsenal, Blackburn, these lot never eclipsed us. Knocking us off our perch was overtaking our League Title count, our trophy count, and our status as biggest club in England. Our own mistakes contributed to that, but even as we declined, we were the bigger club before Ferguson.
Most of the riches the club has to day are the result of Fergie's success too. They were an institution, sure, but they were flirting with relegation the year before he arrived, and they hadn't won a league title since 67 before him.
He is a pr*ck and I won't argue about that. But he isn't a little snot like Jose is, and he's done a long-term transformation job that Jose never could. I said only 2 Cl 'in 27 years' ... context is importnat. For the richest club in the world that's quite poor... I don't think that's a silly thing to say at all - it's an opinion. 'Knocking us off our perch' - again it's a definition issue. Of course those other teams didn't do it individually. My point is that it wasn't Fergie who put us under pressure and out did us thereby replacing us as the top team in the country. We ourselves had already reached the end of an era and had faded. We had already fallen off our perch. Fergie's team were on the up and esp when the PL was formed and the TV deal arrived, they were in poll position to take full advantage. We were never the bigger club in terms of finance or support base as far as I'm aware. They were always the bigger club in that respect. Also, of course Fergie had a big part to play. However, in my opinion, other factors were perhaps equally significant - finance being the key. I suppose we'll just have to disagee on some thinsgs. Maybe they were bigger in th 60s and 70s riding off the highs of the Busby years, but were bigger in every sense in 1986 when he took over them. We ruled England, we ruled Europe (when English teams were allowed to compete at least), we were richer, and we had more trophies in every category. They were a sleeping giant in debt issues and just about fought off relegation the year before. They couldn't have considered themselves bigger than us back then any more than we could consider ourselves bigger now. United are bigger and richer than us now because Ferguson took them there and kept them there when the premier league money came into play. Full Stop. As for the 2 cl titles being poor comment, that is absurd in any context. Juventus is Italy's richest and most successful club and they only have 2 in their entire history. Are they still not considered a massive European power? There are only 8 clubs in history with 3 or more titles: Us, them, Barca, Milan, Inter, Real, Barca, Bayern, and Ajax. During his tenure winning it twice, making it to two other finals, winning the cup winners cup, and the Inctercontinetal cup (when it was still relevant). Ferguson is one of the only 6 managers to manage more than 100 CL games, holds the record for most games managed (190), and is in the top 8 for overall win percentage in the CL era(53.7). I say this absolutely hating the wiskey-nosed, bacon-faced F*ck, and I feel like I need to puke, writing all that about him now, but us LFC fans get enough stick about being deluded and being revisionist with history. To call Ferguson's reign at Manchester anything other than a dynasty is just incorrect. Fergie's United definitely dominated the EPL but not CL as great teams like ourselves, Barca and Real did in their peak. It was also harder to win the CL in the 80's/90's as we still had the 3 foreigners rule in Europe, which hit the PL harder as the Welsh/Irish/Scottish players were seen as foreigners and they were a main stay our teams, so Fergy had to drop players like Schmeichael/Irwin/Kanchelskis so he could play the likes of Giggs/Cantona/Keane., so he often couldn't play his strongest team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
swapshop
Unregistered
|
|
swapshop
Unregistered
|
No chance for me it was much easier to win back in the day...you played non footballing countries mostly in the first couple of rounds from countries like Finland, Sweden, Ireland and Hungary, you got a half decent team once you reached quarters and semi...Dundee United came within a whisker of meeting us in the European Cup final in 1984...they beat Roma in the semi 2-0 and lost the return 3-0 with some dodgy Italian goings on the culprit...shows it was easier...the only hard part was it was knock out all the way through and there was no country protection like now...good discussion tho about what was harder...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279 |
so is Shanks the only manager in your opinion who had created a dynasty... It's not something I've thought of.... and it's a much bigger question than simply assessing whether one particular case can be considered to be a dynasty. I don't claim to have a full knowledge of football history across every league in the world... but I can't think of any other examples similar to the dynasty established by Shankly. Can you? Even after Dalglish, the dynasty continued, albeit not as succesfully, but we had Ronnie Moran, Graeme Souness and Roy Evans. The bootroom became a world famous institution. It only came to an end when Houllier took full charge I suppose.
'I was only in the game for the love of football - and I wanted to bring back happiness to the people of Liverpool.' Bill Shankly
'We should have made a signing or two in the last couple of transfer windows.' Vish
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
so is Shanks the only manager in your opinion who had created a dynasty... It's not something I've thought of.... and it's a much bigger question than simply assessing whether one particular case can be considered to be a dynasty. I don't claim to have a full knowledge of football history across every league in the world... but I can't think of any other examples similar to the dynasty established by Shankly. Can you? Even after Dalglish, the dynasty continued, albeit not as succesfully, but we had Ronnie Moran, Graeme Souness and Roy Evans. The bootroom became a world famous institution. It only came to an end when Houllier took full charge I suppose. Wasn't the bootroom scrapped by Souness?
|
|
|
|
|
