| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed 09:11 - Jul 4 with 2050 views | itfcjoe |
Good luck to him, think he'll do ok there if given a couple of years with transfer ban with lower expectations.
Could be best thing to happen to them if he surronds himself with the right peopl from the academy and developmental sides. |  |
| |  |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:13 - Jul 4 with 1431 views | BigManBlue |
Hope he does well and sticks around for years to come - though given the way Chelsea and their fans have operated since Abramovich, I expect him to be getting booed out by February. |  |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:14 - Jul 4 with 1420 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
OK is not good enough for Roman.
Will be good to see the youth get a chance (maybe). |  |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:18 - Jul 4 with 1413 views | itfcjoe |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:13 - Jul 4 by BigManBlue |
Hope he does well and sticks around for years to come - though given the way Chelsea and their fans have operated since Abramovich, I expect him to be getting booed out by February. |
I don't see the fans turning on him unless disaster, he is an absolute legend there and will have so much good will | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:18 - Jul 4 with 1413 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
I hope he's a massive failure and Chelsea suffer miserably because I now despite Chelsea and Manchester City for their part in the demise of our game and buying their way to success, especially Chelsea for sacking manager every year when only winning one trophy isn't good enough, even when it's the most prestigious one.
Strange how I hated Liverpool in the 70's and 80's and Manchester United in the 90's for winning everything so relentlessly and for every mate who didn't support Town deciding that they supported one of those two instead. Whilst money has always been in the game, at least Manchester United are genuinely massive, generated a lot of that revenue naturally and in 1992 brought through some absolutely incredible kids. Likewise with Liverpool, some of the signings they made back in the day were very shrewd and even now they've done some fantastically clever business.
I now find myself in this weird position of admiring United and Liverpool for what they did and disliking City and Chelsea. As someone said yesterday, without Abu Dhabi Manchester City would be Sunderland! [Post edited 4 Jul 2019 9:28]
|  |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:19 - Jul 4 with 1406 views | ElderGrizzly |
|  | | |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:19 - Jul 4 with 1400 views | Swansea_Blue |
Brave move |  |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:20 - Jul 4 with 1399 views | itfcjoe |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:18 - Jul 4 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
I hope he's a massive failure and Chelsea suffer miserably because I now despite Chelsea and Manchester City for their part in the demise of our game and buying their way to success, especially Chelsea for sacking manager every year when only winning one trophy isn't good enough, even when it's the most prestigious one.
Strange how I hated Liverpool in the 70's and 80's and Manchester United in the 90's for winning everything so relentlessly and for every mate who didn't support Town deciding that they supported one of those two instead. Whilst money has always been in the game, at least Manchester United are genuinely massive, generated a lot of that revenue naturally and in 1992 brought through some absolutely incredible kids. Likewise with Liverpool, some of the signings they made back in the day were very shrewd and even now they've done some fantastically clever business.
I now find myself in this weird position of admiring United and Liverpool for what they did and disliking City and Chelsea. As someone said yesterday, without Abu Dhabi Manchester City would be Sunderland! [Post edited 4 Jul 2019 9:28]
|
How can you admire Man Utd with all they've done over the last few years - become a joke of a club since Fergie left? | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:23 - Jul 4 with 1368 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:20 - Jul 4 by itfcjoe |
How can you admire Man Utd with all they've done over the last few years - become a joke of a club since Fergie left? |
Didn't phrase that well.
I mean I can admire what they achieved under Fergie and how they went about being so dominant. Not particularly keen of them sacking Moyes so quickly, then van Gaal, the Jose saga and so on, but I do feel like they've realised how Liverpool have had success and at least are giving a young manager a go and buying young players, not handing out contracts to just anybody.
What I meant to say is that as annoying as United and Liverpool were when they were dominant, they at least were massive clubs who earned success. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:27 - Jul 4 with 1351 views | chicoazul |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:23 - Jul 4 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
Didn't phrase that well.
I mean I can admire what they achieved under Fergie and how they went about being so dominant. Not particularly keen of them sacking Moyes so quickly, then van Gaal, the Jose saga and so on, but I do feel like they've realised how Liverpool have had success and at least are giving a young manager a go and buying young players, not handing out contracts to just anybody.
What I meant to say is that as annoying as United and Liverpool were when they were dominant, they at least were massive clubs who earned success. |
Liverpool and Man U were the most successful clubs because they had the most money and bought the best players, same as it ever was is and will be. |  |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:31 - Jul 4 with 1328 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:27 - Jul 4 by chicoazul |
Liverpool and Man U were the most successful clubs because they had the most money and bought the best players, same as it ever was is and will be. |
But they also had this money through being two massive clubs, generating income naturally through gate receipts and clever player sales as well. They also marketed themselves very well and made a lot of money in this respect.
Chelsea and Manchester City are massive solely because of billionaires taking them over. Not because they have massive crowds, partly because of how they have marketed themselves (off the back of becoming big clubs from the billions they have had thrown at them).
There's a massive difference. Of course they've all had money. United could go out and buy Cole, Ferdinand and so on, who were top players at rival clubs, but they lured them there because they were Manchester United.
Nobody was lured to Manchester City for any reason other than money initially. | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:36 - Jul 4 with 1299 views | chicoazul |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:31 - Jul 4 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
But they also had this money through being two massive clubs, generating income naturally through gate receipts and clever player sales as well. They also marketed themselves very well and made a lot of money in this respect.
Chelsea and Manchester City are massive solely because of billionaires taking them over. Not because they have massive crowds, partly because of how they have marketed themselves (off the back of becoming big clubs from the billions they have had thrown at them).
There's a massive difference. Of course they've all had money. United could go out and buy Cole, Ferdinand and so on, who were top players at rival clubs, but they lured them there because they were Manchester United.
Nobody was lured to Manchester City for any reason other than money initially. |
Both clubs had enormous stadiums that put themn at a hige financial advantage compared to everyone else. It's exactly the same situation; money talking. The only difference is it's money from a single person/despotic state as opposed to lots of fans. | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:38 - Jul 4 with 1284 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:36 - Jul 4 by chicoazul |
Both clubs had enormous stadiums that put themn at a hige financial advantage compared to everyone else. It's exactly the same situation; money talking. The only difference is it's money from a single person/despotic state as opposed to lots of fans. |
Liverpool is funded by a group of Americans too? It’s not a group of fans throwing in a few quid each.
Without that American backing (or any other backing), Liverpool would be a mid-table side too | | | |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:45 - Jul 4 with 1262 views | chicoazul |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:38 - Jul 4 by ElderGrizzly |
Liverpool is funded by a group of Americans too? It’s not a group of fans throwing in a few quid each.
Without that American backing (or any other backing), Liverpool would be a mid-table side too |
Think he is referring to the days when Liverpool were actually successful though, 70s/80s. | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:04 - Jul 4 with 1214 views | itfcjoe |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:31 - Jul 4 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
But they also had this money through being two massive clubs, generating income naturally through gate receipts and clever player sales as well. They also marketed themselves very well and made a lot of money in this respect.
Chelsea and Manchester City are massive solely because of billionaires taking them over. Not because they have massive crowds, partly because of how they have marketed themselves (off the back of becoming big clubs from the billions they have had thrown at them).
There's a massive difference. Of course they've all had money. United could go out and buy Cole, Ferdinand and so on, who were top players at rival clubs, but they lured them there because they were Manchester United.
Nobody was lured to Manchester City for any reason other than money initially. |
They just took different routes to being big clubs - Man City now attract players because they are Man City. | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:16 - Jul 4 with 1172 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:36 - Jul 4 by chicoazul |
Both clubs had enormous stadiums that put themn at a hige financial advantage compared to everyone else. It's exactly the same situation; money talking. The only difference is it's money from a single person/despotic state as opposed to lots of fans. |
They had huge stadiums because of the demand to see them! Not sure what point you're trying to make. They increased their capacities due to how well supported they were. | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:19 - Jul 4 with 1151 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:38 - Jul 4 by ElderGrizzly |
Liverpool is funded by a group of Americans too? It’s not a group of fans throwing in a few quid each.
Without that American backing (or any other backing), Liverpool would be a mid-table side too |
Without that backing Liverpool weren't a mid-table side though were they and suggesting they'd be mid-table is laughable. They'd have as much TV money as everyone else and still be 5 times European Cup winners and a huge draw (assuming they wouldn't have just won another one).
Liverpool sold Coutinho for £130m or whatever it was and have reinvested it. They sold Suarez for huge money before that and did likewise. They only spent £40m on Salah (which is only just more than Chelsea bought Drinkwater for) and £30m on Mane (the same sum Leicester are spending on Ayoze Perez!). They have been very clever with their spending (since Andy Carroll).
They paid £8m for Robertson too. Yet got £20m for Solanke and £20m for Ings!
Liverpool's recent business has been amazing. They may spend £150m but they bring in £150m.
Man City spend £300m whilst releasing Vincent Kompany. That's the difference. | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:28 - Jul 4 with 1130 views | chicoazul |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:16 - Jul 4 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
They had huge stadiums because of the demand to see them! Not sure what point you're trying to make. They increased their capacities due to how well supported they were. |
My point is very simple. Money talks in football, since the early 70s. You, like a lot of people on here, seem to think there was once a halcyon era when it was jumpers for goal posts and clubs who didnt have enormous income streams didnt win the trophies all the time. All this nonsense about "modern football is rubbish" is what people have been saying for 40 years. | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:57 - Jul 4 with 1076 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:19 - Jul 4 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
Without that backing Liverpool weren't a mid-table side though were they and suggesting they'd be mid-table is laughable. They'd have as much TV money as everyone else and still be 5 times European Cup winners and a huge draw (assuming they wouldn't have just won another one).
Liverpool sold Coutinho for £130m or whatever it was and have reinvested it. They sold Suarez for huge money before that and did likewise. They only spent £40m on Salah (which is only just more than Chelsea bought Drinkwater for) and £30m on Mane (the same sum Leicester are spending on Ayoze Perez!). They have been very clever with their spending (since Andy Carroll).
They paid £8m for Robertson too. Yet got £20m for Solanke and £20m for Ings!
Liverpool's recent business has been amazing. They may spend £150m but they bring in £150m.
Man City spend £300m whilst releasing Vincent Kompany. That's the difference. |
Liverpools net spend last season was £142m, Man City’s £13m
But yes, they did spend it very well |  |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:57 - Jul 4 with 1077 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:28 - Jul 4 by chicoazul |
My point is very simple. Money talks in football, since the early 70s. You, like a lot of people on here, seem to think there was once a halcyon era when it was jumpers for goal posts and clubs who didnt have enormous income streams didnt win the trophies all the time. All this nonsense about "modern football is rubbish" is what people have been saying for 40 years. |
And there are two types of money.
Those who work bloody hard to graft for 16 hours a day to get their business empire off the ground and those who get handed it all by daddy or via a lottery win.
Manchester United and Liverpool grafted hard. They had a little bit of help along the way, but most of what they achieved was by tapping into a big following and snowballing it from there.
Manchester City and Chelsea have literally won the lottery.
There's a clear distinction. Nobody is arguing they don't all have money.
But look at the difference between Swansea and Bournemouth. Swansea worked their way up the divisions with some great managerial appointments, players that developed that were capable of stepping up multiple divisions and shrewd signings.
Bournemouth had a decent manager also, then had a Russian come in and pay £1m for them to play Real Madrid in a friendly and allow them to blow other League One and then Championship teams out of the water. | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 11:50 - Jul 4 with 1006 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 10:57 - Jul 4 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Liverpools net spend last season was £142m, Man City’s £13m
But yes, they did spend it very well |
Nice work, cropping the real situation over a number of years to suit an agenda.
Liverpool spent £160m last season and brought in £30m. Net £130m. The season before they spent £150m and made £140m. The season before they spent £60m and made £70m. So prior to spending some money last season, they had broke even over the two years previous, which is extraordinary in modern football when keeping up with the Jones'.
In 2017-18, Man City spent £270m and recouped £60m. So a net of £210m, well in excess of what Liverpool spent last year. Biggest sale was Inheanacho for £25m. Last year they only spend £10m in total you are correct, offset by selling or releasing 34 players that they had stockpiled!
So in the last two years alone Liverpool have effectively spent £130m to Man City's £220m.
If you make that three years it is Liverpool's £130m to Man City's £370m and they spent big the year before too.
Liverpool's net spend was more last year but is three times LESS than Man City's over the last three seasons. | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 12:00 - Jul 4 with 971 views | MaySixth |
That play-off run papered over a huge amount of cracks in his true management ability |  |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 12:04 - Jul 4 with 953 views | hoppy |
So do they now become Frank Lampard's Chelsea? And do Frank Lampard's Derby now revert to their old name of Derby County FC? |  |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 12:09 - Jul 4 with 935 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 11:50 - Jul 4 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
Nice work, cropping the real situation over a number of years to suit an agenda.
Liverpool spent £160m last season and brought in £30m. Net £130m. The season before they spent £150m and made £140m. The season before they spent £60m and made £70m. So prior to spending some money last season, they had broke even over the two years previous, which is extraordinary in modern football when keeping up with the Jones'.
In 2017-18, Man City spent £270m and recouped £60m. So a net of £210m, well in excess of what Liverpool spent last year. Biggest sale was Inheanacho for £25m. Last year they only spend £10m in total you are correct, offset by selling or releasing 34 players that they had stockpiled!
So in the last two years alone Liverpool have effectively spent £130m to Man City's £220m.
If you make that three years it is Liverpool's £130m to Man City's £370m and they spent big the year before too.
Liverpool's net spend was more last year but is three times LESS than Man City's over the last three seasons. |
I thought we were only talking about recent business seeing as your post only noted Man City releasing Vincent Kompany on a free
So anyway, Abu Dhabi FC spending money is bad but American Investment Vehicle FC spending £140m+ to close the gap to the top is fine, yeah? | |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 12:10 - Jul 4 with 927 views | Superblue95 |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 09:18 - Jul 4 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
I hope he's a massive failure and Chelsea suffer miserably because I now despite Chelsea and Manchester City for their part in the demise of our game and buying their way to success, especially Chelsea for sacking manager every year when only winning one trophy isn't good enough, even when it's the most prestigious one.
Strange how I hated Liverpool in the 70's and 80's and Manchester United in the 90's for winning everything so relentlessly and for every mate who didn't support Town deciding that they supported one of those two instead. Whilst money has always been in the game, at least Manchester United are genuinely massive, generated a lot of that revenue naturally and in 1992 brought through some absolutely incredible kids. Likewise with Liverpool, some of the signings they made back in the day were very shrewd and even now they've done some fantastically clever business.
I now find myself in this weird position of admiring United and Liverpool for what they did and disliking City and Chelsea. As someone said yesterday, without Abu Dhabi Manchester City would be Sunderland! [Post edited 4 Jul 2019 9:28]
|
So it’s ok to admire Liverpool and Man Utd because they’ve always spent ridiculous sums of money but it’s not ok to admire Chelsea and Man City because they’ve only done it in this century? |  |
| |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 12:11 - Jul 4 with 918 views | Superblue95 |
| Lampard to Chelsea confirmed on 12:04 - Jul 4 by hoppy |
So do they now become Frank Lampard's Chelsea? And do Frank Lampard's Derby now revert to their old name of Derby County FC? |
I think they become “the side formerly known as Frank Lampards Derby County” | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
