Topic: The creeping silent army of the ether (Twitter-Whoppery)

[Bobinhood]

There's this one site on my news feed, cant remember which one but they make a living from packaging outraged lfc "Fans" tweets on a daily basis. They will pick a topical subject any subject, write an opening paragraph explaining how a hat trick hero was also once caught in possession or misplaced 2 of 98 passes and then list 6-7 tweets which are always versions of:

"Get out of my club"
"Get Rid"
"Useless"
"Worst ever"
"Dont ever want to see him in a lfc shirt again"
"Im quitting this club cant take it anymore should have been replaced long ago"
and
"Washed up loser needs benching yesterday, Klopp must be blind"

Stopped clicking there long ago but the depths of pathetic in terms of "journalism" and the fact that the outrage never stops feeding the clicks ...well lets just say that style and those "fans" deserve each other. Its disheartening this crap exists. Who are these people and why do they watch football, let alone shit post twitter about it?

[leinad]

Been seeing this ratio term a lot lately, and I can't for the life of Brian figure out what it means. 

What it means is basically if you were to post a tweet and I replied ratio and get more likes than the original tweet then you have been ratioed. It's just kids messing about, nothing too deep.

[Eeyore]

There's this one site on my news feed, cant remember which one but they make a living from packaging outraged lfc "Fans" tweets on a daily basis. They will pick a topical subject any subject, write an opening paragraph explaining how a hat trick hero was also once caught in possession or misplaced 2 of 98 passes and then list 6-7 tweets which are always versions of:

"Get out of my club"
"Get Rid"
"Useless"
"Worst ever"
"Dont ever want to see him in a lfc shirt again"
"Im quitting this club cant take it anymore should have been replaced long ago"
and
"Washed up loser needs benching yesterday, Klopp must be blind"

Stopped clicking there long ago but the depths of pathetic in terms of "journalism" and the fact that the outrage never stops feeding the clicks ...well lets just say that style and those "fans" deserve each other. Its disheartening this crap exists. Who are these people and why do they watch football, let alone shit post twitter about it?

Have you ever thought that perhaps it might be the site that makes a living from packaging outraged LFC fans might be the one behind the absurd tweets in the first place.

It is nothing new the tabloids have had letters pages doing that for decades.

[keyop]

So posts backing the owners like the one I replied to are fine. One's pointing out the concerns a lot of fans have over the lack of spending from FSG are heresay.

Yes I did read the OP especially this bit.

Over the past few days the cranks have been cranking it up. As the transfer window came to an end, internet users will have become increasingly aware that a cohort of Liverpool fans were dissatisfied with the fiscal prudence showcased by the club’s American owners.

Then you have the brass fucking neck to complain about me bringing up the owners. It's in the OP.

Let's be honest here there are extremists on both sides of the debate, so please do not try and discredit a point of view widely held by a lot of our fans by pointing out the idiots on one side and pretending that it is one way traffic.

It is like the politics in which each side just points out the nutters on the other side, instead of looking to see if there is a genuine point to be made.

The thrust of the OP is regarding the platforms, tone and language used, and the lack of wider context. It wasn't about FSG or the lack of transfers.

But that didn't stop you posting another few paragraphs of anti-FSG rhetoric. You literally posted in a manner that the the OP said was typical of the modern internet warrior, without any sense of irony 

[JCB]

Leicester has just spent £100m on a new training facility but still had a net spend of £60m bringing in the likes of Daka, Soumare, Vestergaard, Bertrand and Lookman on loan.

I did not now that, well good on them: they've just spent £160m, we've spent £146m, I guess that means they must have won the "transfer window".

Look, my point is that most of these whinging brats don't even take a moment to think about all the other investments that are being made in the club (not just the squad). They complain about everything, want everything and know nothing.

By the way, off topic but I got to say for years now I have been very impressed by the way Leicester have been run.

[Eeyore]

I did not now that, well good on them: they've just spent £160m, we've spent £146m, I guess that means they must have won the "transfer window".

Look, my point is that most of these whinging brats don't even take a moment to think about all the other investments that are being made in the club (not just the squad). They complain about everything, want everything and know nothing.

By the way, off topic but I got to say for years now I have been very impressed by the way Leicester have been run.

Isn't that the point though. The problem is that the fact that FSG have made a net transfer profit over the last three seasons is lost in the idiocy of the twitter whoppers. There is a relevant point there but the message it is being obfuscated by people trying to devalue the argument by trying to throw all the dissenting voices into one camp.

As I said earlier it reminds me of politics especially the demonisation of the left. Highlight the idiots and cranks and pretend that encompasses everyone who is opposed to right wing politics.

I brought up Leicester because it is a perfect example of being able to invest in infrastructure and the playing staff at the same time.

[Morgana]

Isn't that the point though. The problem is that the fact that FSG have made a net transfer profit over the last three seasons is lost in the idiocy of the twitter whoppers. There is a relevant point there but the message it is being obfuscated by people trying to devalue the argument by trying to throw all the dissenting voices into one camp.

Have they, though? Surely any surplus of unspent money from player sales is likely gobbled up by other expenses (wages, the pandemic, stadium expansion, etc.). The crucial thing is that they want the club to be self-sustaining, meaning we spend what we earn. There's no rule that says money from player sales must only be spent on buying more players.

Leicester has just spent £100m on a new training facility but still had a net spend of £60m bringing in the likes of Daka, Soumare, Vestergaard, Bertrand and Lookman on loan.

This sounds really childish to me, and I think that's part of the problem. Like when United signed Sancho or Chelsea signed Lukaku, some so-called LFC fans losing their shit on Twitter demanding that we spend a hundred million on sombody...anybody... as if to keep up with the Jones sort of thing. For all we know Klopp is happy with the players he has and doesn't want a bigger squad right now. Plus, we don't know if they're saving up to get a big player in January or next year who isn't available right now.

Bottom line, I think, is that sometimes we as fans forget that it's not our money. Yes, we pay good money to consume the product and to be part of it all, but ultimately someone else is investing hundreds of millions into running the club and developing its facilities. Fans shouldn't  feel so entitled to be constantly demanding that more hundreds of millions be spent right now or else.... That's childish, and we're better than that. Some of you lot are beginning to sound like whiny, moany brats demanding a bigger, more expensive toy because the kids next door have big expensive toys. Never mind that the neighbour is likely selling crack to fund his family's expensive habits; or if not, then probably up to his eyeballs in debt.

We're doing fine. The Twitter mob and the "FSG-out" moaners just need to take a chill pill already.

[Eeyore]

Have they, though? Surely any surplus of unspent money from player sales is likely gobbled up by other expenses (wages, the pandemic, stadium expansion, etc.). The crucial thing is that they want the club to be self-sustaining, meaning we spend what we earn. There's no rule that says money from player sales must only be spent on buying more players.

This sounds really childish to me, and I think that's part of the problem. Like when United signed Sancho or Chelsea signed Lukaku, some so-called LFC fans losing their shit on Twitter demanding that we spend a hundred million on sombody...anybody... as if to keep up with the Jones sort of thing. For all we know Klopp is happy with the players he has and doesn't want a bigger squad right now. Plus, we don't know if they're saving up to get a big player in January or next year who isn't available right now.

Bottom line, I think, is that sometimes we as fans forget that it's not our money. Yes, we pay good money to consume the product and to be part of it all, but ultimately someone else is investing hundreds of millions into running the club and developing its facilities. Fans shouldn't  feel so entitled to be constantly demanding that more hundreds of millions be spent right now or else.... That's childish, and we're better than that. Some of you lot are beginning to sound like whiny, moany brats demanding a bigger, more expensive toy because the kids next door have big expensive toys. Never mind that the neighbour is likely selling crack to fund his family's expensive habits; or if not, then probably up to his eyeballs in debt.

We're doing fine. The Twitter mob and the "FSG-out" moaners just need to take a chill pill already.

Isn't that the whole point I am making though. There is a huge difference between wanting spending for spending’s sake and the club continually going in to seasons with the squad palpably short in certain areas.

That is where I disagree with Fitzy's excellent OP. Don't put the people who have concerns over the lack of spending on the squad in the same boat as the spoilt twitter extremist mob.

We haven't replaced Gini who was practically indestructible and we haven't brought in another top quality attacker. Given the likelihood that we will lose Mo, Sadio and Naby for a big chunk of the busiest part of the season I think there are reasons to be disappointed with the lack of recruitment.

The only signing we have made is to bring in a replacement for Lovren, something that quite clearly should have been done a year ago.

That opinion is totally different to the childish agenda of certain people on social media and personally I think it is quite clearly wrong to try and lump everyone in together.

[vivabobbygraham]

Isn't that the whole point I am making though. There is a huge difference between wanting spending for spending’s sake and the club continually going in to seasons with the squad palpably short in certain areas.

That is where I disagree with Fitzy's excellent OP. Don't put the people who have concerns over the lack of spending on the squad in the same boat as the spoilt twitter extremist mob.

We haven't replaced Gini who was practically indestructible and we haven't brought in another top quality attacker. Given the likelihood that we will lose Mo, Sadio and Naby for a big chunk of the busiest part of the season I think there are reasons to be disappointed with the lack of recruitment.

The only signing we have made is to bring in a replacement for Lovren, something that quite clearly should have been done a year ago.

That opinion is totally different to the childish agenda of certain people on social media and personally I think it is quite clearly wrong to try and lump everyone in together.

I think the thread title and the op is a very clear indication of who he is talking about. As per 'tis you who are moving the goalposts to fit your own agenda. Piece of advice, Al. Start your own thread, take ownership of it with a brilliantly worded op that captivates us with your sensibleness. I'm sure it will be well frequented...

[Eeyore]

I think the thread title and the op is a very clear indication of who he is talking about. As per 'tis you who are moving the goalposts to fit your own agenda. Piece of advice, Al. Start your own thread, take ownership of it with a brilliantly worded op that captivates us with your sensibleness. I'm sure it will be well frequented...

That is the whole point of my argument though mate.

The last thing we need is two threads with opposing views in which neither interacts. Things aren't black and white they are shades of grey. I would say the problem with social media is the lack of nuance.

[Bobinhood]

Have you ever thought that perhaps it might be the site that makes a living from packaging outraged LFC fans might be the one behind the absurd tweets in the first place.

It is nothing new the tabloids have had letters pages doing that for decades.

Sadly, my suspicion is the tweets are real. My assumption is they gather the tweets and create the "article" backwards. It's not much different from the half time threads, somebody's always being blamed for something. No need to make it up at all.

[Morgana]

Isn't that the whole point I am making though. There is a huge difference between wanting spending for spending’s sake and the club continually going in to seasons with the squad palpably short in certain areas.

That is where I disagree with Fitzy's excellent OP. Don't put the people who have concerns over the lack of spending on the squad in the same boat as the spoilt twitter extremist mob.

We haven't replaced Gini who was practically indestructible and we haven't brought in another top quality attacker. Given the likelihood that we will lose Mo, Sadio and Naby for a big chunk of the busiest part of the season I think there are reasons to be disappointed with the lack of recruitment.

The only signing we have made is to bring in a replacement for Lovren, something that quite clearly should have been done a year ago.

That opinion is totally different to the childish agenda of certain people on social media and personally I think it is quite clearly wrong to try and lump everyone in together.

Agree that Lovren should have been replaced because in previous season we always seemed to be running low on defenders around the winter months. On the other hand, I don't think anyone could have foreseen the kind of injury crisis we had last season, plus the cruel way VVD was taken from us. This year we have plenty of defenders, with Nat Phillips, Joe Gomez and Konate waiting in the wings in case shit happens again.

On replacing Gini: I was hoping we'd finally land that Doku kid from Belgium, but no, I don't think we're missing a replacement now because it's obvious they are grooming Harvey for an attacking midfield role. And with Thiago and Fabinho in the squad I think we have a lot good players who can play that position, plus young players coming through, to fight for that spot. Don't forget the ethos of Klopp has always been to develop young players. You have to facilitate a pathway for them. Look at Chelsea spending 90-odd million this year to bring in a player that used to be in their academy (they haven't been ridiculed enough for this in my view), because they didn't have the wherewithal to develop him themselves.   

Plus, it's not like FSG aren't spending money at all on the squad. That's a fallacy. Liverpool brought in Thiago and Jota last season (that's 70+ million in one summer), so I think plenty of money is being spent every year, with at least one good player coming in (except for the year we only bought Sepp Van den Berg but went on to win the league). This year the marquee signing was Konate, and like all new signings they are giving him time to bed in before throwing him into the fire. Maybe because they bough him so early people forget that money's been spent... Not a lot, but still. We added to the squad.

We just don't have budgets to spunk 90+ million on one player (plus another 50-60 million on three more) season after season. That's not Klopp's way, and if we are to spend what we earn we can't afford it anyway. People seem to want to take the piss out of City and Chelsea for their wantonly spent oil money, but at the same time berate our owners for not having that kind of cash to splash. We can't have it both ways.

[Eeyore]

Sadly, my suspicion is the tweets are real. My assumption is they gather the tweets and create the "article" backwards. It's not much different from the half time threads, somebody's always being blamed for something. No need to make it up at all.

The problem with that theory is that they would have gone out of business in 19/20. 

[Eeyore]

Agree that Lovren should have been replaced because in previous season we always seemed to be running low on defenders around the winter months. On the other hand, I don't think anyone could have foreseen the kind of injury crisis we had last season, plus the cruel way VVD was taken from us. This year we have plenty of defenders, with Nat Phillips, Joe Gomez and Konate waiting in the wings in case shit happens again.

On replacing Gini: I was hoping we'd finally land that Doku kid from Belgium, but no, I don't think we're missing a replacement now because it's obvious they are grooming Harvey for an attacking midfield role. And with Thiago and Fabinho in the squad I think we have a lot good players who can play that position, plus young players coming through, to fight for that spot. Don't forget the ethos of Klopp has always been to develop young players. You have to facilitate a pathway for them. Look at Chelsea spending 90-odd million this year to bring in a player that used to be in their academy (they haven't been ridiculed enough for this in my view), because they didn't have the wherewithal to develop him themselves.   

Plus, it's not like FSG aren't spending money at all on the squad. That's a fallacy. Liverpool brought in Thiago and Jota last season (that's 70+ million in one summer), so I think plenty of money is being spent every year, with at least one good player coming in (except for the year we only bought Sepp Van den Berg but went on to win the league). This year the marquee signing was Konate, and like all new signings they are giving him time to bed in before throwing him into the fire. Maybe because they bough him so early people forget that money's been spent... Not a lot, but still. We added to the squad.

We just don't have budgets to spunk 90+ million on one player (plus another 50-60 million on three more) season after season. That's not Klopp's way, and if we are to spend what we earn we can't afford it anyway. People seem to want to take the piss out of City and Chelsea for their wantonly spent oil money, but at the same time berate our owners for not having that kind of cash to splash. We can't have it both ways.

I don't want to derail the thread so I will reply to only one point. Chelsea sold Lukaku for £28m in 2014 and bought him back for £97.5m in 2021 given the ridiculous rate of football inflation that is decent business.

[Red1976]

There's this one site on my news feed, cant remember which one but they make a living from packaging outraged lfc "Fans" tweets on a daily basis. They will pick a topical subject any subject, write an opening paragraph explaining how a hat trick hero was also once caught in possession or misplaced 2 of 98 passes and then list 6-7 tweets which are always versions of:

"Get out of my club"
"Get Rid"
"Useless"
"Worst ever"
"Dont ever want to see him in a lfc shirt again"
"Im quitting this club cant take it anymore should have been replaced long ago"
and
"Washed up loser needs benching yesterday, Klopp must be blind"

Stopped clicking there long ago but the depths of pathetic in terms of "journalism" and the fact that the outrage never stops feeding the clicks ...well lets just say that style and those "fans" deserve each other. Its disheartening this crap exists. Who are these people and why do they watch football, let alone shit post twitter about it?

I think you may be referring to MSN which seems to have these tweets on it during LFC posts. It also posts threads about how LFC are buying this player or that; players who I have never seen mentioned, or mentioned years ago, on other LFC sites.

[Eeyore]

I think you may be referring to MSN which seems to have these tweets on it during LFC posts. It also posts threads about how LFC are buying this player or that; players who I have never seen mentioned, or mentioned years ago, on other LFC sites.

So do MSN show all the tweets or just pick out the juicy ones that will create a reaction.

[Black Bull Nova]

It's not real you know, there is nobody out there, just machines learning and tweeting and getting inside your head.

They are inside your head, whatever you think, they have you and they are reeling you in slowly and surely until one day you will be fed solely on Garth Crooks tweets and by then it will be too late.

You see Garth Crooks does not exist either, he is just a vehicle for greater forces, Garth, Darth.......

[afc tukrish]

It's not real you know, there is nobody out there, just machines learning and tweeting and getting inside your head.

They are inside your head, whatever you think, they have you and they are reeling you in slowly and surely until one day you will be fed solely on Garth Crooks tweets and by then it will be too late.

You see Garth Crooks does not exist either, he is just a vehicle for greater forces, Garth, Darth.......

Brienne of Tarth...

[Black Bull Nova]

Brienne of Tarth...

I was thinking more of Garth Brooks myself

Darth Brooks, now there's a country and western act I'd pay to see

[Morgana]

So do MSN show all the tweets or just pick out the juicy ones that will create a reaction.

The MSN newsfeeds are the worst, appealing to the lowest common denominator and provoking every bigoted perspective you can think of in the comments... Hard Brexiteers, intense Meghan-Markle hatred, climate change deniers, the “Let the refugees drown” brigade... you name it, you’ll find it there.

[Morgana]

I don't want to derail the thread so I will reply to only one point. Chelsea sold Lukaku for £28m in 2014 and bought him back for £97.5m in 2021 given the ridiculous rate of football inflation that is decent business.

Hmmm... Gonna have to agree to disagree with you on this. To me a net spend of nearly 70 million on a player who used to be in your academy, who you let go, is bonkers, regardless of football inflation. It would be like us buying Brewster back in 2026, after he has a great season or two in another league, for £95M. No doubt prices will be super inflated 5 years from now but that price tag still seems like madness. Time will tell how good Lukaku actually is in this fast paced league with the crazy calendar. I’m looking forward to seeing how he’s getting on in, say, February 2022, when the title race is in full thrust and the CL fixtures coming in thick and fast, and the league and FA cups hovering in the background like pesky mosquitoes. Time will tell if Lukaku can handle the main front man role in a club with such high expectations for a full season.

[MBL?]

Thing that annoys me about it is there are some former rawk posters who were great and when they analyse football on Twitter they are as well but they keep mentioning/discussing the weirdo fsg out transfer dopes like they matter. I’m like a few have mentioned before, essentially guarded from the shite that comes from that cohort other than the aforementioned who seemingly think they should be arguing for common sense. I really don’t understand why they think they can change these kids minds with common sense and financial facts.

Will probably end up unfollowing them over this which is unfortunate because they do have genuine insight and knowledge of the game whether it be Liverpool or further afield.

[Eeyore]

Hmmm... Gonna have to agree to disagree with you on this. To me a net spend of nearly 70 million on a player who used to be in your academy, who you let go, is bonkers, regardless of football inflation. It would be like us buying Brewster back in 2026, after he has a great season or two in another league, for £95M. No doubt prices will be super inflated 5 years from now but that price tag still seems like madness. Time will tell how good Lukaku actually is in this fast paced league with the crazy calendar. I’m looking forward to seeing how he’s getting on in, say, February 2022, when the title race is in full thrust and the CL fixtures coming in thick and fast, and the league and FA cups hovering in the background like pesky mosquitoes. Time will tell if Lukaku can handle the main front man role in a club with such high expectations for a full season.

You are looking at Lukaku in isolation though. Chelsea hoover up youth talent on an industrial scale. The sale of Abraham, Zouma and Tomori has more than covered the Net spend loss on Lukaku.

As for Brewster we have a buy back clause that lasts for the next three years.

[El Lobo]

You are looking at Lukaku in isolation though. Chelsea hoover up youth talent on an industrial scale. The sale of Abraham, Zouma and Tomori has more than covered the Net spend loss on Lukaku.

As for Brewster we have a buy back clause that lasts for the next three years.

That still doesn't compute Al.

That's like saying 'it doesn't matter that we spent £95 million on Brewster, we more than covered that with the sales of Kaide Gordon, Konate and Joe Gomez'.

[Mighty_Red]

I put the bins out or wash the dishes or some other mundane tasks and turn the telly on just in time for kick off. Turn it off at half time, back on again for the second half and off at full time.

I'm the same, I'll only watch afterwards if we've won and they are showing scenes from the ground and/or interviews. The rest is fast becoming fluff, especially when we seem to be getting the same inane pundits working across multiple channels so you can't escape them.

I actually miss the first few years of MOTD2, the pundits were mostly new to punditry and seemed to offer actual insight. Now it's simply the Sunday version of MOTD will the same throwaway comments.

[OOS]

Football is social. For me, it's about every weekend, meeting up with mates, having bevvies, watch the game, chat shite about it, and then rock on with ye night out.

I find it exhausting talking about it 24/7, talking about data and finances. That doesn't interest me in the slightest, shove ye expected progressive carries and player depreciation values up ye arse.

Football is a day out, nice escape from life. And there is always next week! If we lose, who cares, we will win next week. Couldn't give a toss what anyone else thinks, and if some manc or cockney is giving it the biggins, just laugh at them. 

People take football too serious, just enjoy it. Ups and downs. Everything is out of your control.

[Sinos]

The thing is, it's always been there. Rashid has always been there. Corballyred has always been there. The Greek fella. He used to email people before there was twitter.

Is that actually the Rashid from TLW fame?

[Eeyore]

That still doesn't compute Al.

That's like saying 'it doesn't matter that we spent £95 million on Brewster, we more than covered that with the sales of Kaide Gordon, Konate and Joe Gomez'.

In 2014 Chelsea sold Lukaku to Everton for £28m and bought Diego Costa who scored 20 League goals and they won the League. The point of hoovering up young talent and then selling them on for big fees is that it distorts FFP. Young players have virtually no value on the books. So when you sell them it allows you to spend big in the transfer market and stay within FFP.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

People take football too serious, just enjoy it. Ups and downs. Everything is out of your control.

That's me. I had to completely ignore it for a couple of months when we were going through a bad batch last season. It was affecting my mental health badly.

[number 168]

I'm the same, I'll only watch afterwards if we've won and they are showing scenes from the ground and/or interviews. The rest is fast becoming fluff, especially when we seem to be getting the same inane pundits working across multiple channels so you can't escape them.

I actually miss the first few years of MOTD2, the pundits were mostly new to punditry and seemed to offer actual insight. Now it's simply the Sunday version of MOTD will the same throwaway comments.

Like you I find the whole thing a complete waste of time. I now treat it like going to the match: get in my seat about 15 minutes before kick off (pre-NFC of course), a bevvy at half time and then on to other things at the end of the match. As for MOTD I only watch it if we have won and then just to watch the footie, the pundits are clowns mostly particularly that Micah Richards. Dear me, how anybody thought that laughing like a drain was worth paying a hefty salary for is beyond me.

[Earl of Dingleberry]

I call them the ‘BellEnders’.

[Black Bull Nova]

Like you I find the whole thing a complete waste of time. I now treat it like going to the match: get in my seat about 15 minutes before kick off (pre-NFC of course), a bevvy at half time and then on to other things at the end of the match. As for MOTD I only watch it if we have won and then just to watch the footie, the pundits are clowns mostly particularly that Micah Richards. Dear me, how anybody thought that laughing like a drain was worth paying a hefty salary for is beyond me.

I don't know why they don't go the whole 'Blackpool Pleasurebeach' mile and just put him on with Kris Akabusi and Jimmy Carr

[Ghost Town]

I once got in to an argument on twitter with 'SilkyIlkay' and asked him how he slept at night with a name like that.

This is what Perez meant when he said modern fans are fans of players rather than clubs, but for the most part I think he's being very naïve. These virgins will create an account named after any random squad player just to get noticed, they have no extra love for that particular player.

The sooner people need to provide ID to use social media the better. Imagine finding out that your boss was 'SilkyIlkay' in his spare time.

Why haven't you signed up here with your real name and given your full details in your profile?

Which is just a way of saying that anonymity online has many advantages - some serious, some trivial - as well as the much claimed and publicised disadvantage of encouraging people to act like twats.

Yes, it's a fair hypothesis that forcing people to post under their real, verified names might reduce the level of twattery and lead to some people being more careful about what they say. There probably is some truth to that, though exactly how much is unclear as many people posting under real names on social media still act like complete whoppers, and lots of people are so thick that they won't even realise when they are incriminating themselves (consider those morons who go looting and pose with their spoils on their facebook and then wonder how they got caught) so it's unclear how much anonymity is the driving factor and how much it's just a consequence of the nature of the medium and the audience, and of mob mentality etc.

But in any case banning anonymity and requiring verifiable identity will not be a panacea and we will lose a lot more than we gain, in my opinion.

Social media whoppery is definitely real and can definitely be problematic at times - not the 'FSG out'-ers and stuff like that, that's just noise that can be easily ignored; I mean the instances of real abuse and bullying etc. But it's not a problem with an easy solution and I would urge caution about some of the 'simple' solutions that are proposed.

[Alan_X]

You are looking at Lukaku in isolation though. Chelsea hoover up youth talent on an industrial scale. The sale of Abraham, Zouma and Tomori has more than covered the Net spend loss on Lukaku.

As for Brewster we have a buy back clause that lasts for the next three years.

You mean Chelsea are a sell-to-buy club?... Aren't they doing exactly what you criticise FSG for?

Chelsea sell a load of youth talent to offset the cost of buying back Lukaku - thats a good thing and a well run club.

Liverpool sell a load of youth talent and 'dead wood' to lower net spend - #PleaseBanMeForALongTime

[El Lobo]

In 2014 Chelsea sold Lukaku to Everton for £28m and bought Diego Costa who scored 20 League goals and they won the League. The point of hoovering up young talent and then selling them on for big fees is that it distorts FFP. Young players have virtually no value on the books. So when you sell them it allows you to spend big in the transfer market and stay within FFP.

They sold Lukaku for £28 million, bought him back for £95 million and you think the sales of two of their most promising youngsters (including their top scorer from last season) and a first choice CB makes that a good deal. Its not. They didnt 'sell Lukaku to buy Costa', the two weren't linked at all because the whole point is that money is no object when you're a club like Chelsea. I mean great....they sell some youngsters for good money. They've also got well over £100 million worth of signings out on loan who'll never bring in any transfer fees, like Bakayoko, Drinkwater and Kenedy. They dont need to distort FFP because they've never given two fucks about FFP. Their business model isn't to hoover up young talent so they can make a profit that they can spend on first team players, their business plan is to spend whatever the fuck they want on players at every level (first team, U23s, U18s, U14s, U12s, womens etc etc) and occasionally they end up with some good players who they can sell for decent money whilst simultaneously ending up with a raft of players they can't sell for shit and have to loan out 9 times.

And that business model works a lot easier when you have a Russian gangster in charge worth £15 billion who likes to play football owner.

[ianburns252]

Why haven't you signed up here with your real name and given your full details in your profile?

Which is just a way of saying that anonymity online has many advantages - some serious, some trivial - as well as the much claimed and publicised disadvantage of encouraging people to act like twats.

Yes, it's a fair hypothesis that forcing people to post under their real, verified names might reduce the level of twattery and lead to some people being more careful about what they say. There probably is some truth to that, though exactly how much is unclear as many people posting under real names on social media still act like complete whoppers, and lots of people are so thick that they won't even realise when they are incriminating themselves (consider those morons who go looting and pose with their spoils on their facebook and then wonder how they got caught) so it's unclear how much anonymity is the driving factor and how much it's just a consequence of the nature of the medium and the audience, and of mob mentality etc.

But in any case banning anonymity and requiring verifiable identity will not be a panacea and we will lose a lot more than we gain, in my opinion.

Social media whoppery is definitely real and can definitely be problematic at times - not the 'FSG out'-ers and stuff like that, that's just noise that can be easily ignored; I mean the instances of real abuse and bullying etc. But it's not a problem with an easy solution and I would urge caution about some of the 'simple' solutions that are proposed.

My preference would be something to the effect of you being able to post under any name you choose but that when signing up you should have to provide some sort of proof of ID - this brings with it the standard questions of whether or not you can trust a company like Twitter with personal details but considering how much personal data people willing throw about without thinking about it and the fact that having a bank account plus a phone to post with means you are identifiable easily enough (even VPNs aren't perfect) then how much more information are you really giving up.

You are right that people will still post utter shite under their own names, but having the traceability of a user back to a name and address would surely make the process of identifying those spewing hate much easier and so allow the police to take the necessary action with fewer impediments.

I would imagine having to provide traceable information such as an address etc would be more likely to get people to think twice about what they post and certainly if they saw people getting cracked down on for using hate speech some of them might think twice.

[rob1966]

My preference would be something to the effect of you being able to post under any name you choose but that when signing up you should have to provide some sort of proof of ID - this brings with it the standard questions of whether or not you can trust a company like Twitter with personal details but considering how much personal data people willing throw about without thinking about it and the fact that having a bank account plus a phone to post with means you are identifiable easily enough (even VPNs aren't perfect) then how much more information are you really giving up.

You are right that people will still post utter shite under their own names, but having the traceability of a user back to a name and address would surely make the process of identifying those spewing hate much easier and so allow the police to take the necessary action with fewer impediments.

I would imagine having to provide traceable information such as an address etc would be more likely to get people to think twice about what they post and certainly if they saw people getting cracked down on for using hate speech some of them might think twice.

I think we still need absolute anonymity when registering for social media, but the ability for users to be able to require people to have registered with ID to read/reply to their posts. This covers the likes of Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other regimes where you can be imprisoned and executed for things you post.

My surname is a rare, old english surname that is mainly found in the Derbyshire area and more down South these days, so I will not post anything that identifies it. As far as I know, we're the only ones in GM, certainly in the phone book, with the surname, my Dad and my half sister are one of about 4 or 5 in Liverpool. I want that anonymity, so I would not post on here if that was public knowledge. My FB user name is not my real name and my account is locked as tight as I can get it.

[RainbowFlick]

There's a large set of whoppers, of which Twitter-whoppery is a subset.

Then there's a subset of Twitter whoppers which I really think is what's being discussed. IMHO it's a cousin of gaming culture and chan culture and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a source of a lot of the racist abuse that filters into black players: essentially children (whether under 18 or not) who have grown up on the internet acting without any consequence.

there definitely is a subset of 'football twitter' that draws from chan culture and they're usually the ones that get very edgy. i would say generally the bigger Liverpool FT accounts are usually not part of that subset in my experience though (i use twitter a lot). yes there are a lot of knobs and trolls for the engagement, but maybe not the most extreme set of football fans.

social media just brings out a lot into the open, good or bad.

[Jookie]

That is where I disagree with Fitzy's excellent OP. Don't put the people who have concerns over the lack of spending on the squad in the same boat as the spoilt twitter extremist mob.

Completely agree with this. There's scope for people to raise concerns about playing squad, investment etc without resorting to some of the extreme views we see on social media. Whether you are very much against the owners, generally supportive or somewhere in the middle I think most people can agree that a section of our fans are taking it too far.

Hurling sexist insults at the principal owners Wife on Instagram, piling in on people like Swiss Ramble who provide a factual summary of Liverpool's accounts, calling for demonstration against the owners due to transfer spend in the midst of a global pandemic are examples of behaviour that isn't reasonable. In fact it's deplorable type behaviour in parts.

There is an acceptable middle ground though. As long as people are open to a discussion and the evidence in front of them. My concern a little bit with debates on owners, transfers and specific players is that people become entrenched in their opinion and/or project their personal opinions and feelings onto what they think other people are thinking. My pet hate is people saying Klopp must be unhappy or that he's defending the owners despite being unhappy. Who knows if that is true or not. Klopp seems an honest man and he's rarely complained about transfers in his entire time at the club. Last January is the only major example where he's spoken up. Why would he not be speaking up if he was unhappy now? To the contrary, in public he seem relatively pleased with the squad composition going into the season.


The other aspect is that people need to see the other viewpoint and stop being quite so liberal with the truth. Al, I don't want to pick on you but the below isn't true based on the figures I have used (lfchistroy.net). Spend is about 133M and sales equal 117M. That's including the ad-ons for various deals (mainly sales of Brewster and Hoever).

FSG have made a net transfer profit over the last three seasons

The below is an opinion that says the decision not to replace Wijandlum or replace Lovren a year later is in essence a financial decision. I wanted to ask whether you've ever considered the alternative potential reality to this? That we repacled Lovren with Thiago, because there was the opportunity to exploit a situation to get a World Class player on board. That part of the decision was to keep Wijnaldum for another season and use Fabinho as 4th choice centre back (given we now had 1 extra midfield option) That this may have been a Klopp/recruitment team based decision rather than a decision that was completely dictated by finances. As Wijnaldum left we bought a new CB. In essence Lovren and Winadulm were replaced with Thiago and Konate but in a different order than expected.

We haven't replaced Gini who was practically indestructible and we haven't brought in another top quality attacker.

The only signing we have made is to bring in a replacement for Lovren, something that quite clearly should have been done a year ago.

How many games do we lose the 3 players to the AFCON for? How many league games? I'm assuming it's a fair few given it amounts to a 'big chunk of the busiest part of the season'.

Given the likelihood that we will lose Mo, Sadio and Naby for a big chunk of the busiest part of the season I think there are reasons to be disappointed with the lack of recruitment.

I think there's genuine debate to be had about our ownership model and in particular how we've navigated (and are going to have to continue to navigate) through the financial losses due to Covid19. I think there genuine debate to be had about long term succession to this squad and how we potentially deal with Klopp leaving in 3 seasons time. But you can only have a debate on these matters, and others, if people are in some way open to both sides of the argument. That applies to both sides also.

Twisted truths and representing opinion as fact don't help any debate. When it comes to discussions about FSG I do worry that we've gone to far along in the process that some people are so entrenched in their opinions. I suspect the reality is that for a proportion of people, despite being able see the positives and the limitations of our ownership model, there is no moving on their opinion. This comment is not necessarily aimed at you Al or anyone specifically on here, more a general feeling I'm getting. I think if we are not careful entrenched strong opinions could see a split in the fanbase. The whole FSG thing feels like it could go the way of anti-vax or Brexit discussions. Different sides shouting as loud and as extreme views as they can, without anyone really listening.

[ianburns252]

I think we still need absolute anonymity when registering for social media, but the ability for users to be able to require people to have registered with ID to read/reply to their posts. This covers the likes of Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other regimes where you can be imprisoned and executed for things you post.

My surname is a rare, old english surname that is mainly found in the Derbyshire area and more down South these days, so I will not post anything that identifies it. As far as I know, we're the only ones in GM, certainly in the phone book, with the surname, my Dad and my half sister are one of about 4 or 5 in Liverpool. I want that anonymity, so I would not post on here if that was public knowledge. My FB user name is not my real name and my account is locked as tight as I can get it.

What I meant was that your user name can be anything you want - can be Rob1966 or can be LFC4LYYYFFFSUPERMEGALOLZ and anything in between - I meant purely as part of registering you should have to provide some evidence of who you are so that the hosting site can identify.

Agree that there is risk around people, especially in the middle east and china, having any tangible connection so it would need the data controller to have some sort of protection for them to ensure their info won't be given away. If the data controller cannot guarantee the safety of the user's data then I agree that it should default to being able to be anonymous when registering.

Do you mean that you can choose whether your account is public or whether only certain people e.g. those who have provided ID/those you follow and so on can message you?

With FB I was pretty sure that was more or less already the case in that you can make it very difficult to be found/contacted with little effort - I'm not hot enough on Twitter and the like to comment there.