New Liverpool manager agreed

[Brian Marwood]

He was 23 when I spotted him here is my report....you can't argue with any if it
-------------------------
However Cov's best player, the best forward on the pitch and Nobby's choice was No 17 Viktor Gyokeres.
This lad was a strong and physical presence up front and caused us problems throughout. With a nice touch to bring others into the game he held the ball up well and made some strong runs into the box getting several shots off. I would certainly like him in our squad.

Age 23 this Swedish International moved from his homeland to Brighton in 2018 to join the U23 squad and was loaned out to Swansea and Coventry.
Signing for Cov on a 3 year permanent deal at the start of this season he has 10 goals already.
This lad has a good career ahead of him and as such he's in the famous

Anybody could have seen the talent at this stage, you were hardly unearthing an undiscovered diamond.

 

[BeanBeany]

I can't think of a team where there has been a successful transition from a big name / personality manager leaving at the top of their game to a new less experienced manager, certainly not in England but I'm not the biggest follower of these things so happy to be told otherwise but even with the squad he is inheriting which is definitely not the worst I think they will do very well to get top 4 next season and that would go for virtually any manager taking over

 

[Nobby_Barnes]

Anybody could have seen the talent at this stage, you were hardly unearthing an undiscovered diamond.

Yes I was, nobody had heard of him
Now he's worth 85 Million Bar

 

[Pak_Doo_Ik]

Hope so. I can’t stand Man City and the success they’ve bought. Nothing against Guardiola or the players, but none of it would happen without Middles Eastern petrodollars.

No and without them we’d have the usual top 3 clubs winning everything. As ive said on numerous occasions I’ve loved the City dominance and pray it continues for the next few years and the bitterness from the old guard continues.

 

[Brian Marwood]

No and without them we’d have the usual top 3 clubs winning everything. As ive said on numerous occasions I’ve loved the City dominance and pray it continues for the next few years and the bitterness from the old guard continues.

Which three clubs out of curiosity? Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea?

 

[Pak_Doo_Ik]

You had your moment in the 90’s with your speciallydesignedliquidtankersandtransportdollars

Exactly this, I get people don’t like where the city money comes from but any team should be allowed to buy success if the opportunity arises. We lived the dream for a couple of years, buying the Brazilian player of the year and a champions league goal scorer on record wages in the PL. We paid Paul Merson the same as Dennis Betgkamp when convincing to drop down a division and enticed Boksic with pretty hefty pay packet.

I’ll never understand Boro fans being bitter about City (and we’re still the only te that Pep has faced in the PL and hasn’t beaten) apart from the morality question of where the money comes from.

 

[Pak_Doo_Ik]

Which three clubs out of curiosity? Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea?

Probably Chelsea for a couple of years and then Liverpool would have won a couppe more I assume

 

[TheYorkshireTerrier]

The reports are being ‘rubbished’ aren’t they? Would be a surprise if this happened.

 

[h_m_boro]

Exactly this, I get people don’t like where the city money comes from but any team should be allowed to buy success if the opportunity arises. We lived the dream for a couple of years, buying the Brazilian player of the year and a champions league goal scorer on record wages in the PL. We paid Paul Merson the same as Dennis Betgkamp when convincing to drop down a division and enticed Boksic with pretty hefty pay packet.

I’ll never understand Boro fans being bitter about City (and we’re still the only te that Pep has faced in the PL and hasn’t beaten) apart from the morality question of where the money comes from.

I'm not bitter about City at all. Let the long standing fans enjoy it while it lasts. It will end one day, all dynasties do.

But clubs that are state owned - but not state owned as that isn't allowed ...... - being part of a "group" which owns other professional football clubs around the world, being able to hoover up talent, stockpile players etc......its great for football isn't it?

And the 115 charges hanging over them ......not a good look.

One thing I will applaud them for is their transfer model - or rather Peps model. They identify the player who will fit the system, more often than not replacing a departing one. If they cost £10 / 15 / 30 / 40m whatever - they don't just lob money at anyone available. If they need a CM, they buy a CM to plug in - not just spaff £100m on a RW just because they can.

 

[Nero]

Exactly this, I get people don’t like where the city money comes from but any team should be allowed to buy success if the opportunity arises. We lived the dream for a couple of years, buying the Brazilian player of the year and a champions league goal scorer on record wages in the PL. We paid Paul Merson the same as Dennis Betgkamp when convincing to drop down a division and enticed Boksic with pretty hefty pay packet.

I’ll never understand Boro fans being bitter about City (and we’re still the only te that Pep has faced in the PL and hasn’t beaten) apart from the morality question of where the money comes from.

I reckon you would think slightly differently, if the Saudis were allowed to do with Newcastle, what their neighbours did with Man City.

The likes of Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal have spent more historically, but it’s because they have always been big well supported teams. They’ve generated their own revenue and often developed their own players.

Man City went from rubbish to what they are now because of billions of petrodollars. There was no sustainable development, or long term progress. Literally zero to a hundred miles an hour.

 

[Pak_Doo_Ik]

I reckon you would think slightly differently, if the Saudis were allowed to do with Newcastle, what their neighbours did with Man City.

The likes of Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal have spent more historically, but it’s because they have always been big well supported teams. They’ve generated their own revenue and often developed their own players.

Man City went from rubbish to what they are now because of billions of petrodollars. There was no sustainable development, or long term progress. Literally zero to a hundred miles an hour.

The Newcastle one is slightly different as I don’t like them anyway, in the same way I wouldn’t like it if Sunderland or Leeds suddenly became state owned and started spending billions and winning everything, but I wouldn’t care if Plymouth or Gillingham suddenly started doing it.

This is what UEFA and the PL wanted, they just didn’t think it would be a team like City they just assumed the money would always be pumped in to the Real Madrid, Barcelonas and Manchester United’s of this world.

 

[Nero]

The Newcastle one is slightly different as I don’t like them anyway, in the same way I wouldn’t like it if Sunderland or Leeds suddenly became state owned and started spending billions and winning everything, but I wouldn’t care if Plymouth or Gillingham suddenly started doing it.

This is what UEFA and the PL wanted, they just didn’t think it would be a team like City they just assumed the money would always be pumped in to the Real Madrid, Barcelonas and Manchester United’s of this world.

The only difference between Newcastle and Man City is FFP has stopped the Saudis creating exactly the same thing. They probably would have gone bigger in fact.

 

[1finny]

Boro did not do what Abu Dhabi has done to Man City. Having the backing of a small nation with unlimited wealth, is not the same as a local lad using some of his millions to make Boro a top flight club.

I didn’t say it was the same - it’s not.
I was commenting on the fact that clubs funded well (by local millionaires or sovereign wealth funds) tend to do well.
We were funded well and had success as a result and….. we were all fine and dandy about it.

There is always a distinction to be made when it is another club.

 

[junos_boots]

I can't think of a team where there has been a successful transition from a big name / personality manager leaving at the top of their game to a new less experienced manager, certainly not in England but I'm not the biggest follower of these things so happy to be told otherwise but even with the squad he is inheriting which is definitely not the worst I think they will do very well to get top 4 next season and that would go for virtually any manager taking over

Liverpool did OK in the 70s, early 80s with changes in manager. Went through at least 4 and kept winning things. Shankley and paisley there a while

 

[Brian Marwood]

I can't think of a team where there has been a successful transition from a big name / personality manager leaving at the top of their game to a new less experienced manager, certainly not in England but I'm not the biggest follower of these things so happy to be told otherwise but even with the squad he is inheriting which is definitely not the worst I think they will do very well to get top 4 next season and that would go for virtually any manager taking over

Phil Brown did a very good job after Peter Taylor.

 

[exeterboro]

Phil Brown did a very good job after Peter Taylor.

 

[Nero]

I didn’t say it was the same - it’s not.
I was commenting on the fact that clubs funded well (by local millionaires or sovereign wealth funds) tend to do well.
We were funded well and had success as a result and….. we were all fine and dandy about it.

There is always a distinction to be made when it is another club.

What Gibson did was closer to what Man City did with the Thai millionaire. Buy a load of players and pay them more than they would have been able to do previously.

What Abu Dhabi has done is totally different. Man City is a club transformed beyond anything they could have realistically achieved. It was done as a PR exercise, and to enhance Abu Dhabi, while allowing their Royal family to have fun spending unlimited amount of money.

 

[jonny_greenings_sock]

I can't think of a team where there has been a successful transition from a big name / personality manager leaving at the top of their game to a new less experienced manager, certainly not in England but I'm not the biggest follower of these things so happy to be told otherwise but even with the squad he is inheriting which is definitely not the worst I think they will do very well to get top 4 next season and that would go for virtually any manager taking over

Yeah, there’s hardly any.

Ferguson - Moyes - LVG
Mourinho - Avram Grant lol - Scolari
Wenger - Emery - Arteta, who got it right in the end
Spurs went from top 4 with Harry Redknapp to AVB and Tim Sherwood, then from Poch to Mourinho and Nuno
Keegan - Gullit - Robson - Souness
Liverpool’s 70s / 80s boot room more tailed off with Souness then Evans. Rafa Benitez - Roy Hodgson

The only outlier that comes to mind is Pep’s Barcelona, who just appointed his number 2 and didn’t totally tail off. Brighton have improved under De Zerbi from Potter and Saints got better with Poch than Koeman, who did a fantastic job, but totally different levels of pressure when you’re not in the elite.

It’s very hard to get it right twice in a row.

 

[Nano]

Man City went from rubbish to what they are now because of billions of petrodollars. There was no sustainable development, or long term progress. Literally zero to a hundred miles an hour.

City can definitely be accused of spending big quickly but they can't be accused of not sustainably developing the club or making long term progress. Their infrastructure is incredible. They've built the whole sports village thing around the Etihad with the smaller stadium for youth/women's team. They've got the sports campus for their youth development. They probably have one of the best youth setups in the world.

They have the biggest revenue in all of football now and that takes some beating considering that includes the wealth/history/fanbases of teams like Madrid, Barcelona and Man Utd. They were now a super club on a par with the others and if the Abu Dhabi lot walked away the club would be fine without them as someone else would happily take them on. They are very well run.

 

[1finny]

What Gibson did was closer to what Man City did with the Thai millionaire. Buy a load of players and pay them more than they would have been able to do previously.

What Abu Dhabi has done is totally different. Man City is a club transformed beyond anything they could have realistically achieved. It was done as a PR exercise, and to enhance Abu Dhabi, while allowing their Royal family to have fun spending unlimited amount of money.

City have done it differently for sure - young player development and sustainable.