Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
11 May 22 23:15
Date Joined: 13 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 4,331 | Blogger: thelatarps's blog
What gets me is this claim that Liverpool have grown into a title challenging team 'organically'.
Yeah right.
LFC have spent outrageous sums of money throughout the EPL era. For most of the time just to cling on to the coat tails of SAF and Utd. And dont get me started on them. Or Arsenal.
Lets just look at the 'organic' growth of these 3 aristocrats of english football..

1 @rse
Bought their way into the top flight during the first world war. Then BOUGHT the best manager in england (Herbert Chapman) along with a team of northern footballers so they could dominate during the economically depressed 1930s when no one had any money. Have enjoyed sporadic periods of success in the long ball era with Stroller Graham and another under Wenger. Who really was the kaiser Soze of the EPL. He seemed to convince much of the media that 'paupers' Arsen'al were up against financial dopers. As Jose Mourinho said, were all his foreign signings a gift?
2 Liv
Nothing much to see until Shankly made them into champions. Dominated the 70s when they were run by the Moores family who owned Littlewoods pools. Which is like being owned by the National Lottery today. ANd they splashed the cash accordingly in another era when nobody had a pot to you-know-what in. Yes they were well coached by the boot room but all that would have meant diddly squat without the owners largesse in the transfer market.
3 Utd
Sir Matt Busby more or less built this club. Dominated with his Babes who were slaughtered at the hands of english xenophobia in the Munich Air disaster. An utter tragedy but not to be too callous a similar thing happened to Torino in Italy in the 40s. Turin have never been much of a force since. But the love in the UK showed to MUFC kept them as arguably the jewel in the english football crown. Busby came back, won the UCL then the whole thing went to horse sh!t.
Cue an extravagant era of spending to keep up with Liverpool. Blowing millions on the likes of Garry Birtles, Peter Davenport, Alan no knees Brazil, Frank the W@nk Stapleton, Brian McClair. To name but a few.
Then the premier league came along. At last a league title was landed. ANd plenty more under the astute tenure of SAF. It was Fergies stated intent that Utd would become what Juve, Bayern, Madrid were in their respective leagues. ie Too big for their boots. Such was Utd finanical dominance success came easy. As in Italy, Spain, Germany, Utd maintained their position simply by buying the best players of their rivals. Yorke COle, Sheringham, Rooney, Van Persie.
Problem was that the EPL became such a success that more and more money poured in. To everyone. Within 18 months of Fergus retiring hitherto compliant stoke city under good friend Tony Pulis turned into a squad of ex Bayern and Barcelona superstars under one of the many former pupils with whom SAF fell out. Mark Hughes.

The point is all clubs in the EPL have access to good players now.
It just happens that City and CHelsea have dominated this era because they are the best run clubs with owners who know how to handle big money and big names.
City have just signed one of the two biggest names in world football.
That makes them to my mind the biggest club in England.
More power to them. They deserve it.
Pause Switch to Standard View Why I want Citeh to win the EPL
Show More
Report tobermory May 12, 2022 2:45 AM BST
It's a fair point that those clubs did not start off as 'big clubs', and, if you went back 100 years and rounded up the top football writers of the day, they would be no more interested in talking about them than they would about 15 other clubs.

The Arsenal ownership did a lot of dodgy things to get on top. The Herbert Chapman era, with massive expenditure on players was actually a failure for 5 years, until they won the FA Cup in 1930. Dominating for a decade then made Arsenal so famous that they were always of interest thereafter, even when they had a mediocre team from mid 50s to late 60s.

United were the most stylish team of the 1960s; the first decade that you could actually see the players on TV regularly. This secured them fans around the country.

Liverpool then benefited from having the strongest team at the time when colour TV became the norm, and having those runs to European Cup Finals back when it was automatic to 'support the British team'.

Being a big club is simply about how many fans you have outside of your area, and of how much interest you are to neutrals. The secret is to have a run of success, or at least contention at the top, just at a time when there are potential new fans getting interested. And if you get big enough then you can maintain your status through a few lean years.

Chelsea have had decades of success now and have definitely got enough non local interest to sustain themselves under new ownership. All the Chelsea fans I meet are early 30s at the oldest, captured for life because they got interested in the 2000s. So they are now a 'natural' big club, just like United etc. It doesn't matter how it came about.

With City I'm not sure they would sustain themselves near the top if the oil guys left now. But give it another 10 years and they will be just as established as the others, because they will have so many 15-25 year old fans around the world.
Report loui May 12, 2022 7:10 AM BST
City can't sell their Wembley allocations, Stamford. Bridge been half empty for last few months, Where's all their new found fans atm.
Report sparrow May 12, 2022 8:33 AM BST
Not what you'd call proper fans at all.
Report lurka May 12, 2022 9:04 AM BST
Except there were no rules against it back then
Report lurka May 12, 2022 9:13 AM BST
Every big team has spent 'outrageous sums of money during the PL era' because the PL era is all about outrageous sums of money. Liverpool didn't have cash pumped into them. That's organic. They are proof that being a well run club who spends well can get you to the very top and every proper club should strive for that. You are competing with Chelsea, City, Man U and Arsenal who are all financial basket cases in one way or another and have wasted a lot of their money.

Supporting a team who has the wealth of a nation behind it over a team which doesn't is not what a real football fan would do. If it were an EU member state backing one of its own clubs it would be banned under EU law (which it was for Real Madrid) but if it's a non-EU state it's fine? It's absolutely ridiculous and shows the extent of corruption in the modern game to allow it. Chelsea, City and PSG could have a reasonable amount pumped in, be well-run and be successful with more money than Liverpool had before Klopp arrived. But their owners have no interest in doing it the hard way.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539