Author Topic: The Fall Of Liverpool - from "Pay As You Play" (Tomkins, Riley and Fulcher)  (Read 9851 times)

Offline TipTopKop

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,072
  • Call Meeeeeee The Splund
Deriliction of duty on all levels. This is what got the club to it's 2nd tier status.

The OP highlights economic issues and changing landscapes, and these hold true, but it's not all.

The dumbing down of excpectations on the fans part must also be taken into account.

Simple indifference to the all too obvious decline, an acceptance to mediocrity, and any dissent or basic questioning of the man in charge (or men in the boardroom), why we're no longer in regular contention for the league, or one of the favourites were thought of as anathema to the hallowed Liverpool Way.

The banner of "come back when you've won 18" or whatever it was may have been done in jest, but to me was indicative of the attitude at the time, we sat on our perch, no-one was going to catch up, nevermind another club won the league this year, we'll just roll out yet another banner that bangs on about the past.

The irony of course was, in the past we settled for nothing but the future.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Deriliction of duty on all levels. This is what got the club to it's 2nd tier status.The OP highlights economic issues and changing landscapes, and these hold true, but it's not all.The dumbing down of excpectations on the fans part must also be taken into account. Simple indifference to the all too obvious decline, an acceptance to mediocrity, and any dissent or basic questioning of the man in charge (or men in the boardroom), why we're no longer in regular contention for the league, or one of the favourites were thought of as anathema to the hallowed Liverpool Way.The banner of "come back when you've won 18" or whatever it was may have been done in jest, but to me was indicative of the attitude at the time, we sat on our perch, no-one was going to catch up, nevermind another club won the league this year, we'll just roll out yet another banner that bangs on about the past.The irony of course was, in the past we settled for nothing but the future.

A good post.

If I had to identify a pivotal point it would be Heysel. The loss of European prestige and experience  as a result of the ban was massive, and as a Club we did not handle the disaster well. Outwardly the team continued to perform successfully, but the combination of the knowledge that football success was not worth the deaths of 39 people, and that the pinnacle of achievement , European Competition, had been taken from us represented a profound loss. On the field it is a bit like Usain Bolt knowing that he can't compete in the Olympic games - something goes from within you. Compound that with Hillsborough and you get the 90's.

In retrospect the 90's, post Heysel and post Hillsborough, was an opportunity for reinvention.Instead, understandably to a point, we looked backwards and within, rather than forwards and without. And that tendency still exists, back to Rafa, Dalglish, Shankly and "the Liverpool Way" ,tempered by a modern preference for the foreign, for the exotic, rather than the homegrown.

Fenway now own us at a cross-roads. They could be the harbingers of globalisation, where a world vision puts us firmly back on the top table - or they could be the polar opposite of what is currently making Barcelona a success, who themselves are imitating what we did in the 80's. I hope it is the former.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Torpedo Tommy

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,526
  • Always next year!
Great post Roy. Certainly sold it to me.

Offline Torpedo Tommy

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,526
  • Always next year!
Needs more context. it's one thing to focus on the failings of the club internally, but lets not forget the rebranding exercise undertaken by Sky has made the whole process much more money and media driven. The success of United and its timing became a vehicle for Sky to launch its coverage and from early on United and Sky were synonymous, two brands developing together and with a  positive feedback loop that kept United top of the pile and allowed them to become the monolith that they are.

It was in this environment that Liverpool were trying to compete and the only way anyone could compete was in terms of money. Blackburn succeeded and Liverpool failed. That for me is the story of the 90s, huge cash gambles failing to pay off. The last two decades has been about United success and Liverpool failing to maintain parity. Only two teams have threatened that hegemony. Arsenal, with limited resources put together a team that finally wrested dominance from united. However, since that early gooner success United have poured even more funds in and Arsenal have been forced into retreat. Into their stead has come Chelsea, a billionaire's plaything. Even they are running out of steam. Thankfully Man City have stepped up to the mark and will challenge United for the foreseeable.

The point here is, to focus only on the shortcomings of the club is to overlook the obvious, not so much the decline of Liverpool but the corporatisation of the game and United's readiness to become top dog by wholly engaging with the corporate teat. It's unsavoury but successful Unfortunately the result is a warped football system, one so bad that the most successful team of the last two decades has seen a group of disillusioned fans break away and set up their own team. What's even more depressing is that Liverpool are now going down the same route, in an effort to compete.

I remember the disquiet when united first went PLC. The fears, that ultimately proved true, that such a route would isolate the real fan and promote the prawn sandwich eater. That is the route that Liverpool are now on and in truth it feels unavoidable, such is the manner in which the PL is now pursued by competing billionaires. Its sad but there is no longer any place for a community club in the top sphere of the PL. The last two decades of Liverpudlian decline have basically been the death throes of that model of football club, that vision. It really is adapt or die. Now we have (ostensibly) well-meaning but football-wise, clueless owners the transition feels complete.Who is to blame? Sky, the money pimp? United its whore? No, the answer is the FA for suckling on the devil's tits like a starving wain.

Brilliant post Donkeywan. So much truth in there and maybe the basis of another book?

SKY's and Man United's rise to prominence purely coincidental. About as coincidental as Murdoch wanting to buy them years later!

What a really good thread this is!

Offline Torpedo Tommy

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,526
  • Always next year!
Deriliction of duty on all levels. This is what got the club to it's 2nd tier status.

The OP highlights economic issues and changing landscapes, and these hold true, but it's not all.

Yep. We've stood still whilst others have moved on. To an extent, this has happened with Everton too.

How many top teams in the EPL have not increased their stadia size substantially or moved to a new ground? Success came naturally - it was a tradition that would continue.

The Mancs where already ready for SKY in the late 80's / 1990 when they spent a fortune on Pallister, Bruce, McClair, Webb, Parker etc. Whilst they built we were preparing for demise. Still don't know where the Mancs money came from in the late 80's. One FA Cup win in 85 can't have paid for that lot!

Offline BabuYagu

  • It's Portuguese for 'BabyYoghurt'. The John Motson of RAWK. Or Barry Davies. Or Charley Boorman, even. Expertly silent fist-pumper. Needs to pay more attention. Repeatly analing goalkeepers.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,350
  • wakelet.com/@BabuYagu
    • Wakelet of the Articles I have written
i think kirkland was signed on the same day as dudek.  i might be misremembering though.

great read by the way.  i'll hunt the book out.  was it really self-published?  they seem to have got some great distribution if so...

Is right, he was signed the same day.

I remember reading that the intention was to sign either or. The Dudek deal seemed dead with his agent holding out for something, so we sealed Kirkland only for Dudeks agent to come back at the 11th hour and say "done deal" also. For me another example of poor management from whoever was in charge of transfers then (was it Parry?) if it's true. Why leave the Dudek contract on the table if you've just tied up a deal for another £6.5m goalkeeper?
My first article on Anfield Index on Shaqiri. Enjoy. bit.ly/2mAq3Qd

Offline Black Bull Nova

  • emo
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,697
  • The cheesy side of town
I have a simple analysis;

Liverpool, through many years built up a well oiled football machine, supported by the heirarchy at the club. They had a manager in Shankly who, through a simple honesty and the ability to motivate both fans and players created something, that whilst relatively successful felt more than just a football club, more a family. Off the pitch a series of CE's, Williams, Peakes, Cartwright and Roberts, stayed out of the limelight and supported their manager. In the mid 70s Paisley, supported by John Smith as Chairman, developed this well oiled machine into one that was significantly more successful as well. Values and principles dominated the club throughout and shrewd management and the spirit of the club took the foundations laid down onto greater things.

Heysel and later Hillsborough created cracks in the club which showed through later, Heysel broke Fagen and Hillsborough probably helped to break Dalglish, although we will never properly know, either way it did not help. Kenny's sudden disappearance around the same time as Smith saw the foundations start to be undermined and although others from the past (Robinson, Evans, Moran) remained the balance had shifted.

The appointment of Souness was a key moment, I remember the day and everyone was delighted that a massive figure from the club's past who had proved himself by breaking Celtic's stranglehold in Scotland was the man to fill the gap left by Kenny's unexpected departure. What we had forgotten was that Souness was no great respector of tradition and a man who stamped his authority wherever he went, right or wrong. I saw his first game at LFC and he took to the pitch in a team who had just won the EC like a man who wanted control. In Scotland he'd signed a catholic for Rangers, he'd ripped out the scottish heart of the team and he set about removing the old guard at Liverpool in a way that he himself recognised later as to much too soon.

He couldn't replicate the success he'd had in Scotland and whilst he'd been trying Manchester United had moved in and filled the vacuum and we'd signed alongside some average players, others who would not have been tolerated in the past, notably Neil Ruddock. LFC had always run a tight ship in terms of discipline, plenty of players were shipped out for indiscipline and whilst that continued, tolerance crept in. Football fundamentally changed at this time and a new economics meant that old practices on their own could not guarantee the same results.

At the same time David Moores took the helm, with Robinson still present for a short while and, now with evans in control the club lacked the confidence and discipline that it formerly had. Evans restored some of the values that had been lost but too few. Similiarly Houllier, who, unusually for a french manager, had an appreciation of the clubs history did his share of restoring discipline in the early years, Benitez made further contributions to improving the quality of players on the pitch and organisation on it, unfortunately the loss of values and strength off the pitch undermined the financial potential of the club and, in a related move alllowed two charlatans to walk through the front door and mug this respected club, effectively tieing it up in the corner and pilfering the valuables whilst at the same time attempting to dress it up and sell it on. This dressing up for sale plan went awry once their decorating funds were hit by the credit crunch.

It takes years of work to build traditions and values and principles are the things that keep them in place. It takes only a short time to destroy these traditions with greed, intolerance, lack of respect and a failure to listen to the heart of the club (the fans) being the forces let in to do that damage. Some of the values remain, only just in cases, others are slowly being restored but as everyone knows it harder to build than destroy and if your foundations are unsound you are wasting your time.
« Last Edit: December 1, 2010, 11:03:56 pm by Black Bull Nova »
aarf, aarf, aarf.

Offline redjohnnw

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • sos 6135 ynwa
Great thread with quality posts.

I think that as with most things it's never just one reason but usually a combination of things. Certainly, as Xerxes1 says, Heysel certainly had an effect and Liverpool's banishment from the European competition when they were at the top (with the possibility of a number of other European cups over the next few seasons) had a debilitating effect on the club and supporters. I also remember thinking was football really worth it? There was also a financial cost to LFC, although all English clubs suffered from lack of European mone,y Liverpool were banned for longer. 

As Breitner says Hillsborough had a massive impact on the club, is without doubt. The feelings following Heysel were compounded a hundredfold. It made the club more introspective and protective.

Royhendo's OP and Donkeywan introduce more valid reasons for the demise.

But I think you have to add into the mix the rise of player power. Player power had effectively been squashed by Shankly, with succeeding managers continuing the practice. So now fast forward to Souness's appointment. I remember talking at length to Souness after he had taken over as manager from Kenny. He had a vision for a forward looking Liverpool using his experience of playing in Italy. He wanted to introduce new training regimes, nutrition & diet and introduce different tactics to compete with the best in Europe and England. He didn't introduce these things straight away but wanted to after the end of his first season. It was met with resistance from some key players who had perhaps enjoyed a more 'democratic' relationship with Kenny. Their, not unreasonable, opinion was "if it ain't broke don't fix it."  But Souness wanted to stamp his authority on the club. He eventually replaced players but he did so in the main with inferior stock. (Royhendo gives a very good description of Souness's transfer record.) I'm not defending Souness over this just pointing out some details (I thought he was a great player by the way.) Perhaps his vision was just too early and perhaps he could have introduced it in a different way over a longer term, who knows? One thing is though eventually other teams like Arsenal did, now it is the norm for the all top clubs.

Going back to player power: Maybe the fact that when Kenny became player-manager the players he now managed were his team mates. They certainly played their hearts out for him and the rest is legend. But did that closeness of the players to the manager change things? Is that why Souness wasn't successful in pioneering continental style training and nutrition at LFC? Is that why we now have ex-players - particularly from this era - criticising past managers and directly or indirectly supporting such actions from key players notably Carragher? It certainly is a phenomenon that seems almost unique to Liverpool. With the rise of such 'respected' journalists/pundits, is that why weak chairmen and ceo's listened to them instead of backing their manager? I don't mean just what is printed in the press but what is said at social events both formal and informal. The pundit's status seems to have been revered by some at the club instead of taking it for what it is - a person's opinion (albeit a knowledgeable one(?!))

Whatever the merits of the preceding points I believe that player power (and ex-player power) at Liverpool has and will have a destabilising  effect on the team which can only weaken the club. Unfortunately we have to look down the M62 to see how, in the main, it has been dealt with successfully, not just by the manager but by their board as well, to the advantage and stability of that club. 
"Never wrestle with pigs. You get dirty, and besides, the pigs like it".

Offline redjohnnw

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • sos 6135 ynwa
I have a simple analysis;

......


......



and a correct one I'd say.
"Never wrestle with pigs. You get dirty, and besides, the pigs like it".

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
But I think you have to add into the mix the rise of player power. Player power had effectively been squashed by Shankly, with succeeding managers continuing the practice. So now fast forward to Souness's appointment. I remember talking at length to Souness after he had taken over as manager from Kenny. He had a vision for a forward looking Liverpool using his experience of playing in Italy. He wanted to introduce new training regimes, nutrition & diet and introduce different tactics to compete with the best in Europe and England. He didn't introduce these things straight away but wanted to after the end of his first season. It was met with resistance from some key players who had perhaps enjoyed a more 'democratic' relationship with Kenny. Their, not unreasonable, opinion was "if it ain't broke don't fix it."  But Souness wanted to stamp his authority on the club. He eventually replaced players but he did so in the main with inferior stock. (Royhendo gives a very good description of Souness's transfer record.) I'm not defending Souness over this just pointing out some details (I thought he was a great player by the way.) Perhaps his vision was just too early and perhaps he could have introduced it in a different way over a longer term, who knows? One thing is though eventually other teams like Arsenal did, now it is the norm for the all top clubs.

Going back to player power: Maybe the fact that when Kenny became player-manager the players he now managed were his team mates. They certainly played their hearts out for him and the rest is legend. But did that closeness of the players to the manager change things? Is that why Souness wasn't successful in pioneering continental style training and nutrition at LFC? Is that why we now have ex-players - particularly from this era - criticising past managers and directly or indirectly supporting such actions from key players notably Carragher? It certainly is a phenomenon that seems almost unique to Liverpool. With the rise of such 'respected' journalists/pundits, is that why weak chairmen and ceo's listened to them instead of backing their manager? I don't mean just what is printed in the press but what is said at social events both formal and informal. The pundit's status seems to have been revered by some at the club instead of taking it for what it is - a person's opinion (albeit a knowledgeable one(?!))

An excellent piece Redjohn.

Whilst accepting that Souness's reign here was not a success, I think that his tenure of office is often misrepresented. He inherited a side and Club that was fabulously successful, yet through (ironically) the very blinkered nature of the boot room, and the introspection of first Heysel and then Hillsborough, was very inward looking.

Many of his ideas were good. And the Club DID need a shake-up but his confrontational style was too much, too soon, history shows the results. But make no mistake, we were running on empty in the 90's.

Brad Friedel in his biography tells of when he first arrived at the Club, one he considered to be amongst the greatest in the World- only to discover the facilities, and training regime at Mellwood to be behind that which he had experienced at most American College Sports Grounds.

Our decline did not just happen - it was allowed to happen.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
SKY's and Man United's rise to prominence purely coincidental. About as coincidental as Murdoch wanting to buy them years later!
Man U's rise coincided with their good fortune in appointing  Ferguson who has subsequently proved to be one of the greatest managers of all time, making shrewd well financed decisions in ground redevelopment, and spending wisely consistent with the financial and (relative)commercial muscle of being the best supported Club in England by average attendance.

The "sky conspircacy theory" lets off the hook those at our Club who took poor decisions- or none at all.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline redjohnnw

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • sos 6135 ynwa
An excellent piece Redjohn.

Whilst accepting that Souness's reign here was not a success, I think that his tenure of office is often misrepresented. He inherited a side and Club that was fabulously successful, yet through (ironically) the very blinkered nature of the boot room, and the introspection of first Heysel and then Hillsborough, was very inward looking.

Many of his ideas were good. And the Club DID need a shake-up but his confrontational style was too much, too soon, history shows the results. But make no mistake, we were running on empty in the 90's.

Brad Friedel in his biography tells of when he first arrived at the Club, one he considered to be amongst the greatest in the World- only to discover the facilities, and training regime at Mellwood to be behind that which he had experienced at most American College Sports Grounds.

Our decline did not just happen - it was allowed to happen.

Yes, I know it does no good but I occasionally think "What if the problem that Souness identified and grasped had been dealt with successfully?" 

Your Friedal story illustrates the then situation at the Club very well.


Man U's rise coincided with their good fortune in appointing  Ferguson who has subsequently proved to be one of the greatest managers of all time, making shrewd well financed decisions in ground redevelopment, and spending wisely consistent with the financial and (relative)commercial muscle of being the best supported Club in England by average attendance.

The "sky conspircacy theory" lets off the hook those at our Club who took poor decisions- or none at all.

Ignoring Chelsea and leaving present and recent ownership aside, it beggars belief how quickly Man U (and Arsenal) overtook Liverpool's dominant position and, more importantly, how quickly Liverpool fell behind. You can compare the business acumen of the clubs managements by the results - they speak for themselves.

You're right to say that there were "...those at our club who took poor decisions - or non at all." Liverpool's business management was blinkered to say the least, most companies will decide where they want to be in five years from now and plan accordingly. Sometimes it doesn't work as intended and so they 'tweek' it as time goes by. The LFC board's plan didn't go wrong - they didn't have a 'vision' for the club in the first place.
"Never wrestle with pigs. You get dirty, and besides, the pigs like it".

Offline gritsvanilla

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,900
  • A Light Souffle With Razor Blades
Whilst i take on board and agree that Hillsborough, Sky's dominance and United's crop of youngster are all part of the bigger picture, i still believe Roy's take on things to be an excellent summary of the key problem that is responsible for our decline, the loss of Dalglish and John Smith and the subsequent appointments of Souness/Moores was a body blow i firmly believe to be the club's major undoing, a rot that had begun to set in under Dalglish could well have been halted with the right appointments at the time, hindsight is a wonderful thing but Moores' reign at the helm was in my eyes pretty much a disaster, from his appointments of both Souness and Evans, the farce of the joint management debacle to his failure to recognise the need for the club to move forward financially in the same way United were doing, his decision to appoint his friends into the managers chair also led to one or two outstaying their welcome a season too far.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Yes, I know it does no good but I occasionally think "What if the problem that Souness identified and grasped had been dealt with successfully?"
There was much about the Souness appointment that was right. He understood the Club, was a hero, had earned his managerial spurs elsewhere, and was hugely admiring of the Italian way of doing things from his time there. He was also his own man and was not afraid to take decisions. On paper that is not a bad shout for a Club that needed a kick start into a new era.

Sadly though, this was perhaps the first evidence that the Board were not up to it. There was no-one above, or below him, to help to convert good intentions into results, and the downside of his abrasive style bcame all too apparent at Blackburn and Newcastle.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline llcooljoel

  • He's bad
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,218
  • Denying I wanted Owen Coyle since 2011.

Ignoring Chelsea and leaving present and recent ownership aside, it beggars belief how quickly Man U (and Arsenal) overtook Liverpool's dominant position and, more importantly, how quickly Liverpool fell behind. You can compare the business acumen of the clubs managements by the results - they speak for themselves.

You're right to say that there were "...those at our club who took poor decisions - or non at all." Liverpool's business management was blinkered to say the least, most companies will decide where they want to be in five years from now and plan accordingly. Sometimes it doesn't work as intended and so they 'tweek' it as time goes by. The LFC board's plan didn't go wrong - they didn't have a 'vision' for the club in the first place.

Spot on. If someone who'd hated Liverpool had wanted to create a set of circumstances which would devastate the club for years to come, he/she couldn't have done a better job than that which we did ourselves. Souness was just one piece in a depressingly large jigsaw depicting failure.
We all pay for life with death, so everything in between should be free.

Offline kwalitee, no?

  • Believer
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Kopite
  • ******
  • Posts: 878
I've only just got round to reading this thread and am going to put the book on my Christmas list. Thanks to all for the thoughts.

Offline llcooljoel

  • He's bad
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,218
  • Denying I wanted Owen Coyle since 2011.
Souness was clearly the wrong manager but sadly the nostalgia and short-sightedness of the owners at that time led to another mistake in appointing Evans. I think there's still enough support and a large enough fanbase for NESV to harness in order to compete at the top again, but I think another couple of seasons losing our best players and winning nothing might just do irreparable damage to that. With the new FIFA restrictions coming into place that would be a disaster.
We all pay for life with death, so everything in between should be free.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Souness was clearly the wrong manager but sadly the nostalgia and short-sightedness of the owners at that time led to another mistake in appointing Evans. I think there's still enough support and a large enough fanbase for NESV to harness in order to compete at the top again, but I think another couple of seasons losing our best players and winning nothing might just do irreparable damage to that. With the new FIFA restrictions coming into place that would be a disaster.
After Souness, Evans was the "soft option", no ripples, and the players were "happy" - which had been the problem that Souness tried to sort out. Another chapter in our decline was written.

I agree that Fenway can revive us ( whther they will is another matter), but disagreee that we are a couple of season away from atipping point of no return. A good CEO is THE key appointment to a reversal in our fortunes, and personally i am prepared to lose Torres and maybe a couple of others as we regroup.
« Last Edit: December 2, 2010, 09:02:51 pm by xerxes1 »
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline llcooljoel

  • He's bad
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,218
  • Denying I wanted Owen Coyle since 2011.
After Souness, Evans was the "soft option", no ripples, and the players were "happy" - which had been the problem that Souness tried to sort out. Another chapater in our decline was written.

I agree that Fenway can revive us ( whther they will is another matter), but disagreee that we are a couple of season away from atipping point of no return. A good CEO is THE key appointment to a reversal in our fortunes, and personally i am prepared to lose Torres and maybe a couple of others as we regroup.

I would hate to lose Torres but it's looking inevitable now. It'll be a big ask for the fans to get behind NESV if it happens but hopefully a positive change of manager at the same time will soften that blow.
We all pay for life with death, so everything in between should be free.

Offline Torpedo Tommy

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,526
  • Always next year!
Man U's rise coincided with their good fortune in appointing  Ferguson who has subsequently proved to be one of the greatest managers of all time, making shrewd well financed decisions in ground redevelopment, and spending wisely consistent with the financial and (relative)commercial muscle of being the best supported Club in England by average attendance.

The "sky conspircacy theory" lets off the hook those at our Club who took poor decisions- or none at all.

I'm not trying to say that SLY caused Liverpool's demise. You are spot on about the vision not being there from within the club. And let's be honest we've not been anywhere near good enough in the last 20 years.

I can think of many a flop that Ferguson has bought (Webb, Veron, Forlan) etc. But the majority have achieved. Let's not also forget that Ferguson was a gnats cock away from the boot and I recall much displeasure among their fans when Dion Dublin was signed in '92.

However, there is certainly a 'love' between SLY and other teams just isn't there with LFC. That is the point.

Offline Black Bull Nova

  • emo
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,697
  • The cheesy side of town
Souness was clearly the wrong manager but sadly the nostalgia and short-sightedness of the owners at that time led to another mistake in appointing Evans. I think there's still enough support and a large enough fanbase for NESV to harness in order to compete at the top again, but I think another couple of seasons losing our best players and winning nothing might just do irreparable damage to that. With the new FIFA restrictions coming into place that would be a disaster.

I don't think Evans was as bad as people made out, he's the only manager since Dalglish who never finished outside the top 4, a lot of local players came through during that time and the early days of Carragher and Gerrard are also in there. Liverpool did at least feel like Liverpool when he was in charge which had been lost with Souness. His biggest mistake, probably a weakness, was to retain Ruddock who is a natural misleader of men. Youngsters like Fowler and McManaman, who, let's face it are not that bad in the Andy Carroll, Paul Gascoigne, Joey Barton, Ashley Cole, John Terry list of strayers, needed some direction at that time. If Sami Hypia had been there instead of Ruddock we'd have done well. Babb was a mistake, but at the time everyone thought it was a coup but Berger, Bjornebe, Carragher, Fowler, Owen, Mcmanaman, Friedel, Harkness, Ince, James, Jones, Matteo, Thompson, Leonardsen, Mcateer, Murphy, Redknapp, James, Reidle, early Gerrard etc is a better legacy than the Walters, Stewart, Saunders, Picknick, Tanner etc sort of crap that had gone before.  He just didn't do well in the centre half department which is sort of important.
aarf, aarf, aarf.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
I don't think Evans was as bad as people made out, he's the only manager since Dalglish who never finished outside the top 4, a lot of local players came through during that time and the early days of Carragher and Gerrard are also in there. Liverpool did at least feel like Liverpool when he was in charge which had been lost with Souness. His biggest mistake, probably a weakness, was to retain Ruddock who is a natural misleader of men. Youngsters like Fowler and McManaman, who, let's face it are not that bad in the Andy Carroll, Paul Gascoigne, Joey Barton, Ashley Cole, John Terry list of strayers, needed some direction at that time. If Sami Hypia had been there instead of Ruddock we'd have done well. Babb was a mistake, but at the time everyone thought it was a coup but Berger, Bjornebe, Carragher, Fowler, Owen, Mcmanaman, Friedel, Harkness, Ince, James, Jones, Matteo, Thompson, Leonardsen, Mcateer, Murphy, Redknapp, James, Reidle, early Gerrard etc is a better legacy than the Walters, Stewart, Saunders, Picknick, Tanner etc sort of crap that had gone before.  He just didn't do well in the centre half department which is sort of important.

Another fine post. You make a good point on Evan's finishes. I agree that Evans did well, but in my opinion his remit of steadying the ship took us back to square one, without addressing the underlying issues at the Club and may even have served to give Moores a false sense of security that everything was ok.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"