Glazers Are Too Generous With You

We don't only care when*

Tbf there no point even explaining this to you. You'll just make some idiotic comment and miss the point completely.....much like your football club

comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 31 minutes ago
Glazers didn't spend any of their own money. The £80m was signed by the club for an player that many fans wouldn't have wanted for that amount. They could have got him for £20m cheaper the year before. Same with Luke Shaw, would have cost £20m the year before. These go on to show the shambles of the ownership. Like a negligent father thinking he can spend the company money buying gifts for their child who they treat like sheet to show some kind of "love".

They didn't care who they got and they humstrung Moyes with the inadequate Ed. We end up signing Fellaini as we couldn't get in our other signings and we ended up getting two of our targets for that window a year later. Worse still, signing players for singings sake like Mata, Van Der Beek, Sanchez, Fred, etc.

And you lot were toxic with Roy Hodgson and your previous owners. If Liverpool were making as much as United were when those Americans took over, they wouldn't have needed to sell and you'd have still have had the same owners. I don't see any love from Liverpool fans for them. So don't be such a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive difference between the cowboys and the Glazers though. Glazers have made United the biggest soenders in the league. The Cowboys didn't and we had to use Ngog upfront. You can't just ignore that.

comment by Clever - son son son - 'Ten Haaaagendas please' of the year Runner Up 2021 (U18599)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 minutes ago
Glazers didn't spend any of their own money. The £80m was signed by the club for an player that many fans wouldn't have wanted for that amount. They could have got him for £20m cheaper the year before. Same with Luke Shaw, would have cost £20m the year before. These go on to show the shambles of the ownership. Like a negligent father thinking he can spend the company money buying gifts for their child who they treat like sheet to show some kind of "love".

They didn't care who they got and they humstrung Moyes with the inadequate Ed. We end up signing Fellaini as we couldn't get in our other signings and we ended up getting two of our targets for that window a year later. Worse still, signing players for singings sake like Mata, Van Der Beek, Sanchez, Fred, etc.

And you lot were toxic with Roy Hodgson and your previous owners. If Liverpool were making as much as United were when those Americans took over, they wouldn't have needed to sell and you'd have still have had the same owners. I don't see any love from Liverpool fans for them. So don't be such a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not the brightest to be fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notsocleverson being ironic again I see.

comment by 19 + 6 > 20 + 3 (U22930)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Clever - son son son - 'Ten Haaaagendas please'of the year Runner Up 2021 (U18599)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 minutes ago
Glazers didn't spend any of their own money. The £80m was signed by the club for an player that many fans wouldn't have wanted for that amount. They could have got him for £20m cheaper the year before. Same with Luke Shaw, would have cost £20m the year before. These go on to show the shambles of the ownership. Like a negligent father thinking he can spend the company money buying gifts for their child who they treat like sheet to show some kind of "love".

They didn't care who they got and they humstrung Moyes with the inadequate Ed. We end up signing Fellaini as we couldn't get in our other signings and we ended up getting two of our targets for that window a year later. Worse still, signing players for singings sake like Mata, Van Der Beek, Sanchez, Fred, etc.

And you lot were toxic with Roy Hodgson and your previous owners. If Liverpool were making as much as United were when those Americans took over, they wouldn't have needed to sell and you'd have still have had the same owners. I don't see any love from Liverpool fans for them. So don't be such a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not the brightest to be fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notsocleverson being ironic again I see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffics calling babes x

comment by Clever - son son son - 'Ten Haaaagendas please' of the year Runner Up 2021 (U18599)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by 19 + 6 > 20 + 3 (U22930)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Clever - son son son - 'Ten Haaaagendas please'of the year Runner Up 2021 (U18599)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 minutes ago
Glazers didn't spend any of their own money. The £80m was signed by the club for an player that many fans wouldn't have wanted for that amount. They could have got him for £20m cheaper the year before. Same with Luke Shaw, would have cost £20m the year before. These go on to show the shambles of the ownership. Like a negligent father thinking he can spend the company money buying gifts for their child who they treat like sheet to show some kind of "love".

They didn't care who they got and they humstrung Moyes with the inadequate Ed. We end up signing Fellaini as we couldn't get in our other signings and we ended up getting two of our targets for that window a year later. Worse still, signing players for singings sake like Mata, Van Der Beek, Sanchez, Fred, etc.

And you lot were toxic with Roy Hodgson and your previous owners. If Liverpool were making as much as United were when those Americans took over, they wouldn't have needed to sell and you'd have still have had the same owners. I don't see any love from Liverpool fans for them. So don't be such a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not the brightest to be fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notsocleverson being ironic again I see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffics calling babes x
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers. Just about to head into a meeting. If you could take a message that will be really helpful. Ta hunnnn

comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 31 minutes ago
Glazers didn't spend any of their own money. The £80m was signed by the club for an player that many fans wouldn't have wanted for that amount. They could have got him for £20m cheaper the year before. Same with Luke Shaw, would have cost £20m the year before. These go on to show the shambles of the ownership. Like a negligent father thinking he can spend the company money buying gifts for their child who they treat like sheet to show some kind of "love".

They didn't care who they got and they humstrung Moyes with the inadequate Ed. We end up signing Fellaini as we couldn't get in our other signings and we ended up getting two of our targets for that window a year later. Worse still, signing players for singings sake like Mata, Van Der Beek, Sanchez, Fred, etc.

And you lot were toxic with Roy Hodgson and your previous owners. If Liverpool were making as much as United were when those Americans took over, they wouldn't have needed to sell and you'd have still have had the same owners. I don't see any love from Liverpool fans for them. So don't be such a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive difference between the cowboys and the Glazers though. Glazers have made United the biggest soenders in the league. The Cowboys didn't and we had to use Ngog upfront. You can't just ignore that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cowboys bought a club jot Making as much as United. If they did, they wouldn't have to worry about not spending as the club was and is generating the money itself.

comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 31 minutes ago
Glazers didn't spend any of their own money. The £80m was signed by the club for an player that many fans wouldn't have wanted for that amount. They could have got him for £20m cheaper the year before. Same with Luke Shaw, would have cost £20m the year before. These go on to show the shambles of the ownership. Like a negligent father thinking he can spend the company money buying gifts for their child who they treat like sheet to show some kind of "love".

They didn't care who they got and they humstrung Moyes with the inadequate Ed. We end up signing Fellaini as we couldn't get in our other signings and we ended up getting two of our targets for that window a year later. Worse still, signing players for singings sake like Mata, Van Der Beek, Sanchez, Fred, etc.

And you lot were toxic with Roy Hodgson and your previous owners. If Liverpool were making as much as United were when those Americans took over, they wouldn't have needed to sell and you'd have still have had the same owners. I don't see any love from Liverpool fans for them. So don't be such a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive difference between the cowboys and the Glazers though. Glazers have made United the biggest soenders in the league. The Cowboys didn't and we had to use Ngog upfront. You can't just ignore that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cowboys bought a club jot Making as much as United. If they did, they wouldn't have to worry about not spending as the club was and is generating the money itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller budget than United doesn't mean a small budget. Liverpool is a big club and you can't expect to compete without spending at the required level. The lack of sufficient investment in the team is well documented and debated.

comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 18 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 31 minutes ago
Glazers didn't spend any of their own money. The £80m was signed by the club for an player that many fans wouldn't have wanted for that amount. They could have got him for £20m cheaper the year before. Same with Luke Shaw, would have cost £20m the year before. These go on to show the shambles of the ownership. Like a negligent father thinking he can spend the company money buying gifts for their child who they treat like sheet to show some kind of "love".

They didn't care who they got and they humstrung Moyes with the inadequate Ed. We end up signing Fellaini as we couldn't get in our other signings and we ended up getting two of our targets for that window a year later. Worse still, signing players for singings sake like Mata, Van Der Beek, Sanchez, Fred, etc.

And you lot were toxic with Roy Hodgson and your previous owners. If Liverpool were making as much as United were when those Americans took over, they wouldn't have needed to sell and you'd have still have had the same owners. I don't see any love from Liverpool fans for them. So don't be such a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive difference between the cowboys and the Glazers though. Glazers have made United the biggest soenders in the league. The Cowboys didn't and we had to use Ngog upfront. You can't just ignore that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cowboys bought a club jot Making as much as United. If they did, they wouldn't have to worry about not spending as the club was and is generating the money itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller budget than United doesn't mean a small budget. Liverpool is a big club and you can't expect to compete without spending at the required level. The lack of sufficient investment in the team is well documented and debated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Glazers have not had to spend their own money. The money spent (badly) has been made by the club. With or without Glazers, the money would have been available. But now it seems like all the spending and non-investment from the owners is catching up. A club run by business people only looking to make money and milking it dry. They aren't forking out their own hard earned cash.

comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 3 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 18 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 31 minutes ago
Glazers didn't spend any of their own money. The £80m was signed by the club for an player that many fans wouldn't have wanted for that amount. They could have got him for £20m cheaper the year before. Same with Luke Shaw, would have cost £20m the year before. These go on to show the shambles of the ownership. Like a negligent father thinking he can spend the company money buying gifts for their child who they treat like sheet to show some kind of "love".

They didn't care who they got and they humstrung Moyes with the inadequate Ed. We end up signing Fellaini as we couldn't get in our other signings and we ended up getting two of our targets for that window a year later. Worse still, signing players for singings sake like Mata, Van Der Beek, Sanchez, Fred, etc.

And you lot were toxic with Roy Hodgson and your previous owners. If Liverpool were making as much as United were when those Americans took over, they wouldn't have needed to sell and you'd have still have had the same owners. I don't see any love from Liverpool fans for them. So don't be such a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive difference between the cowboys and the Glazers though. Glazers have made United the biggest soenders in the league. The Cowboys didn't and we had to use Ngog upfront. You can't just ignore that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cowboys bought a club jot Making as much as United. If they did, they wouldn't have to worry about not spending as the club was and is generating the money itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller budget than United doesn't mean a small budget. Liverpool is a big club and you can't expect to compete without spending at the required level. The lack of sufficient investment in the team is well documented and debated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Glazers have not had to spend their own money. The money spent (badly) has been made by the club. With or without Glazers, the money would have been available. But now it seems like all the spending and non-investment from the owners is catching up. A club run by business people only looking to make money and milking it dry. They aren't forking out their own hard earned cash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hold up. The Cowboys bought the club for £435 million which included £215m for the building of a proposed new stadium on Stanley Park.

The offer from Hicks and Gillett is accepted, valuing the club at £218.9m (£5,000 per share), and confirming debts of £44.8m. In their original press conference, Gillett promises work on Liverpool's new stadium would begin immediately, saying: "The spade has to be in the ground within 60 days."

Debts of £44m are very reasonable and manageable. They took over a healthy entity. We had a net spend of circa £30m for the entire period they owned us and they drove us to the very brink of bankruptcy. They took money from the club and no new stadium was ever built. Instead we were left with another debt of £50m which they incurred for the stadium.

Fack is wrong with u bro, there is no comparison with Glazers. Glazers are the best owners in the world compared to those clowns.