Manchester City & Chelsea are 20 years behind Liverpool – Rodgers

Manchester City & Chelsea are 20 years behind Liverpool – Rodgers

please log in to view this image

By Ewan Roberts

The Northern Irishman believes that only Manchester United sit on par with the Reds, suggesting that Raheem Sterling would be taking a step down if he left Anfield
claims that and are the two biggest clubs in England – and that it will take “20 years” for new-money sides like , and even , to catch up.
Rumours are swirling that Raheem Sterling could quit Anfield either to join either Jose Mourinho’s team or Manuel Pellegrini’s but Rodgers argues that such a move would represent a step down for the England international.
The Reds may only occupy fifth spot in the Premier League – and have not won the title in 25 years – but the Northern Irishman is adamant that City are incomparable to Liverpool and are instead scrapping with Chelsea and Arsenal to be the country’s third-biggest club.
“I wouldn’t say that this was a development ground for going to bigger clubs. If you say that Manchester City is a bigger club than Liverpool, you’re wrong,” Rodgers told reporters ahead of an FA Cup semi-final showdown with Aston Villa.
“At this moment in time, Manchester City are on a great project. They’re a wonderful club, I’ve seen it for myself a few years ago when I spoke with them. I’ve got big respect for what they’re doing there.
“They’re trying to build it the right way and hopefully they’ll get young players through at this Sport City, all of that, but, at this moment in time, you can’t compare as a club the size of the two.
“You’ve got Liverpool and Manchester United, the two biggest clubs in this country, and the rest of them are fighting to be there over the next 20 years.”
Liverpool have won the league title on 18 occasions, as well as lifting the Champions League – or European Cup – five times, whereas City have one Cup Winners’ Cup and four top-flight titles, two of those coming in the last four years.
Goal.com News – England
Manchester City & Chelsea are 20 years behind Liverpool – RodgersApr 19, 2015Manchester City & Chelsea are 20 years behind Liverpool - RodgersBy Ewan RobertsApr 19, 2015 14:40:00The Northern Irishman believes that only Manchester United sit on par with the Reds, suggesting that Raheem Sterling would be taking a step down if he left Anfieldclaims that and are the two biggest clubs in England – and that it will take “20 years” for new-money sides like , and even , to catch up.Rumours are swirling that Raheem Sterling could quit Anfield either to join either Jose Mourinho’s team or Manuel Pellegrini’s but Rodgers argues that such a move would represent a step down for the England international.The Reds may only occupy fifth spot in the Premier League – and have not won the title in 25 years – but the Northern Irishman is adamant that City are incomparable to Liverpool and are instead scrapping with Chelsea and Arsenal to be the country’s third-biggest club.“I wouldn’t say that this was a development ground for going to bigger clubs. If you say that Manchester City is a bigger club than Liverpool, you’re wrong,” Rodgers told reporters ahead of an FA Cup semi-final showdown with Aston Villa.“At this moment in time, Manchester City are on a great project. They’re a wonderful club, I’ve seen it for myself a few years ago when I spoke with them. I’ve got big respect for what they’re doing there.“They’re trying to build it the right way and hopefully they’ll get young players through at this Sport City, all of that, but, at this moment in time, you can’t compare as a club the size of the two.“You’ve got Liverpool and Manchester United, the two biggest clubs in this country, and the rest of them are fighting to be there over the next 20 years.”Liverpool have won the league title on 18 occasions, as well as lifting the Champions League – or European Cup – five times, whereas City have one Cup Winners’ Cup and four top-flight titles, two of those coming in the last four years.Goal.com News – England

http://www.ikenyanews.com/latest-wo...helsea-are-20-years-behind-liverpool-rodgers/

 

Sounds extremely hollow

 

Usual thing of media taking one line out of context to get a headline.

 

it's just a bit of cack fo the fans. And def a question asked and the reply turned into an article as if Brod offered that up

Everyone knows it will take them 20 years or more to catch up on silverwear, but as football brands, Chelsea are huge these days, City not so much. They drew players by offering massive wages and thier owner using financial influence no doubt.

Aguero might have got a great contract, but maybe someone bought his whole family new cars, or houses too

#sweeteners

 

Chelsea have had now 11/12 under abramovich winning stuff constantly and before that bates bankrupted them but won cups and in Europe

Chelsea have won all 3 European trophies thanks to Benitez, even Utd have not done that

The only thing separating Utd and Chelsea is about 30k seats and a bit longer history

Chelsea are a much bigger club than lfc today, by freaking miles

This bolloxology about stroking egos at every opportunity out of Rodgers gets tired and it's all about results not the sound of ones voice

 

This.

I think he needs to focus on the present rather try to start some argument about who is the biggest or among the top 2. He has no need to embellish our position or the club by talking it up. Chelsea and arsenal are currently bigger than us in so many respects so why " 20 years to catch up" ?

He needs to stop to pander to some sections of our support who likes to hear this sort of thing.

 

LFC have a large section of sheep who blindly follow the manager and Gerrard, and if you dare critcise them, then people question your loyalty and call you disrespectful. Quite a few on this board as well who think it's 'funny' to be condescending to those who challenge the status quo.

 

Aye. We know these obvious ones

 

It's the phrase 'bigger clubs' that's ambiguous and problematic here right. It depends how you look at it.

Historically and in terms of heritage Liverpool are a 'bigger club' than the likes of City and Chelsea. More titles and successes across the board. So are Man U.

In terms of modern success in the game Man City and Chelsea are the 'bigger clubs' (City only just as they haven't won the Champions League in the modern era like us, if you're still calling 2008 modern). We're lagging badly behind here which is why we all crave a league title or two so much. These 'new money' teams are currently writing their legacies for the future which hopefully means in the next few years hoards of kids will still be buying the shirt, even as the teams themselves are about to enter into very fallow periods, just as it happened to me when I got my first LFC gear. This didn't stop me. But if you'd told me just how long it would be before we won another league then I probably would have taken another minute to think before donning the famous red anyway.

Then there's 'brand'. This is extremely subjective. People will buy into the Chelsea and Man City brand at this moment in time because they win and they have the biggest players, just as they did into LFC in the 80s. But people will also buy into our brand and Utd's brand because of the illustrious history and past successes, and the fact that the clubs are still right at the top of the game in England even if they aren't currently in a position to win the Premier League.

 

Big schmig Brod

What players can we attract? We were competing with and losing out to Spurs for players ffs. Never mind Chelsea City United Arsenal.

 

All i want to hear from BR is (doing his best Marcellus Wallace impersonation), we are concentrating on shutting Christan Benteke down along with the rest of Aston Villa, anything else can wait till May.
Not arsed what he meant, not arsed if media tricked him, just want the head on the job. End of.