So 2 seasons of no CL erases decades of success? We have more trophies than Chelsea and we have a much much larger fanbase than chelsea and I think our commercial revenues are higher than yours too. It takes more than splashing a bit of cash to be a big club. Not that telling you this makes any difference, we've already established on the other thread that you think your opinions are facts
Red your quite stupid ( not surprised being a liverpool fan though ), Decades of success = your history, which means you were a big club due to your history but in recent times your no longer one of the big clubs because you haven't had no success or as you said been in CL for 2 seasons or even competed in the league. Hence the past and present contexts if you can understand that, most big clubs challenge for trophys and actually make the cut for the champions league and in your case you didn't even make it on channel 5 this season.
A big club is one with tradition, tophies, a global fan base, a club that can keep itself going without a sugardady. Having success in recent times or thinking you have a better future than another club doesn't make you a big club. Chelsea have been very very successful in recent times, but keep it going for another 10/15 years and let your own revenues buy your players, then you'll be big.
You really are a very silly little boy. In today's reality a truly BIG club has a major global fanbase and makes major profits from it's commercial activities. The fact that we out-perform your little club without 2 years CL activity merely shows just how BIG a club Liverpool actually are. Whereas Chelsea does not figure outside of the UK.
Liverpool are historically a big club, but in recent years they have fallen into dormancy. They're like a volcano. People are always paying attention to them when they're active, but when they become dormant, people tend to not really give a shi[/]t about them.
I would say a big club is one that competes for trophies 90% of the time, has a global fan base, and a squad full of quality internationals. Don't see what a sugardaddy has to do with it.
90% of what time? What does that even mean? So we've been out of the CL for 2 seasons, can you please calculate our percentage for trophy competition...? The only reason you've mentioned CHALLENGING for trophies rather than WINNING trophies is to include Arsenal in the big club bracket when, even through our dyre times we've still won a trophy more recently than you! Being a big club takes time and can weather periods of ****ty form. The big global clubs in the UK are United, Liverpool and Arsenal. Chelsea will be in several years and city much later down the line.
Yep I did it to include us and other clubs who have bad years and do not challenge for trophies, like liverpool last year for example. Don't see how you can accuse my definition of being subjective when your one is just aimed at having a cheap dig at chelsea.
Yea it was a dig at Chelsea. I fail to see how splashing millions of pounds a few years ago makes them a big club. By your definition City are a big club too? Call them rich, or sucessful in recent times, but to me a "big" club takes years and years of competition and winning all the while growing a huge fanbase to the point where the club is so big that Libyan rebels are wearing their jerseys!
Hmm so we spend millions and you spend nothing? From 2007-2010 you spent over 150m on players we spent about 110m, now add on the january signings and this summers signings that totals about £240million for us, and 220million for you. Thats only 20million difference red, suggest you do your facts before hand.
They have a very strong standing in today's game so yeah I guess I would call them a big club. Wouldn't describe them as a historic one though.
Actually I was referring to Abramavich's millions and how out of nowhere you were splashing millions upon millions of pounds, none of which the club had earnt and all of which would have made your club grossly ineligable for Europe had FIFA's fair play rules been employed earlier. Most clubs spend years and years building themselves up to the level where they can spend big money under their own steam.
Well at least our money has produced things, this should make you laugh aswell thought i'd do some research and working outs to shut you up about millions of pounds being spent by us in recent years, since 2007 you've spent about 30million more than us - Torres - 20 mill Aquilani - 20 mill Keane 19mill Mascherano - 18mill Glen Johnson - 17.5 million Ryan Babel -11.5 million Kuyt - 9million Riera - 8million Dossena - 7million Leiva - 6.75million Skrtel - 6.5million Benayoun - 5million Cavalieri - 4million Arbeola - 2.6 million Coates - 6million Enrique - 6million Downing - 20mill Henderson - 20million Adam - 6 million Carrol - 35 million Suarez 22million There all your signings over 2mill since 2007 Total = about 270million Our signings Malouda - 13.5million Belleti - 5million Di Santo - 3.4million Ivanovic - 9million Anelka -15million Bosingwa 16million Anderson De Souza - 7million Zhirkov - 18million Sturridge - 5million Ramires - 18million Mata - 22million Torres - 50million Luiz - 25million Lukaku - 18million Romeu - 4million Meireles - 12mill Theres our signings over 2mill since 2007 Total = 240.9 million. Your trophies since 2007 - None Ours - 3 fa cups, a league title, a community shield a league cup and a champions league final.
I think you missed the point Or I take it you accept my point by saying the following "Well at least our money..."? I have no doubt that you've made some shrewd buys and we've bought badly. I'm just saying we didn't get a sugardaddy to finance our signings and our money came from the result of revenues brought in by being a big club . Night mate, remember to take your plastic flag to bed with you
Think you're fighting on the wrong front here mate. Chelsea attracting a big investor is not entirely different from Liverpool gain lots of little investors through sponsorship etc that add up to a big investment. Ok we earned it in a sense, but football is a business. Whether Chelsea are a 'big club' is a different matter though and i agree with you to some extent here. A 'big club' to me means large fan base, sustainable growth and success, and other unquantifiable aspects such as reputation. Now Chelsea have had recent success, but i don't see how they are going to be maintained as a 'big club', especially if financial fair play is actually enforced. £50mil on Torres, what if he doesn't come good? Chelsea's best players are mostly at the end of their careers and Abrahmovic won't be able to spend £100mil every year to get the best current players if FFP is enforced. By changing managers so often, it has meant Chelsea haven't managed to form a long term strategy. Where are the youth players being blooded in? Where is that core of players that are hitting their prime right now? Cech, Cole, Essien, Lampard, Drogba, Malouda, Terry, Anelka, Alex, Mereiles are all within their final couple of years and yet all still make the Chelsea first team on a regular basis. I'm not saying they can't do it, but it will be difficult for Chelsea to have a settled team of equivalent ability when these guys start to finish since they seem to have so little planning in place. Will be interesting to watch how they do!
Sorry i can't take you seriously with the name " terrific traore " considering traore is probably one of the worst defenders in the game. And Red you do realise we have had a higher revenue than you in recent times don't you lol so if your revenue is paying for all them signings and not your owners then our revenue must be paying for ours
