Pacinofan

I see, so in your little world the whole of the North East is counted as one, but you'll seperate Merseyside from the North West. Good swerve, pity it says more about your own delusions than your areas attractiveness to visitors. Funny how this shithole pops up on peoples list of places to visit so often don't you think? From The Telegraph and probably a year or so old now but, no mention of Newcastle. Mind you, I suppose you could always say that they've already been there. These were the cities Britons most wanted to visit before dying: 1. Edinburgh 2. Bath 3. Liverpool 4. Belfast 5. Glasgow 6. Oxford 7. London 8. Cardiff 9. York 10. Cambridge

Do you have figures for that manc mag, I'd be interested, because I worked in the city centre for around 20 years and came across as many UK citizens visiting the city as I did foreigners? I realise anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. I read somewhere that Manchester was the 3rd most visited city, but that people using the airport were included in the figures. I realise that the same would apply to all cities with airports, but Manchester airport must be 2nd or 3rd in the country for passenger numbers. Don't have the source but I'm pretty sure Liverpool's overall tourist numbers are more heavily skewed towards the foreign visitor when compared to other comparable cities. Manchester's is also kept conspicuously high by Man U though I concede. Newcastle is by far more UK based tourists. Hardly any there for eg the football (Man U/Liverpool) or the music (Beatles), all there for the present day vibrancy of the city (ie stag and hen parties getting slaughtered). We'll have to agree to disagree then manc-mag. Our biggest group of week-enders are from Ireland, but you're right in as much as we do get more foreign visitors than Newcastle. I'd say it's half and half. Here's the International visitor top 20 Most popular UK cities

Do you have figures for that manc mag, I'd be interested, because I worked in the city centre for around 20 years and came across as many UK citizens visiting the city as I did foreigners? I realise anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. I read somewhere that Manchester was the 3rd most visited city, but that people using the airport were included in the figures. I realise that the same would apply to all cities with airports, but Manchester airport must be 2nd or 3rd in the country for passenger numbers.

I can imagine, what with there being such a dearth of that type of character on Merseyside. Yeah, we have them, and they also come unstuck at times but an oot doing it would be far less tolerated.

Fucking hell is it possible Pacinofan believes that? Is it? Has to be a wind up? Oh yeah, I certainly believe it and so do many others. Each to his own though eh?

What? You telling me that any self respecting Scouser would miss out on a chance to make a claim? Load of shit really. If one police force in this country doctors figures then you can rest assured every other force does exactly the same. Merseyside's crime figures have been going down steadily year on year, but as to how good or bad they are coming down from is anyones guess, unless Fish, who seems to have nothing better to do, could look in to it. The reported crimes are reducing across the country, even in Liverpool. I honestly believe this provides only a portion of the facts, how many crimes aren't being reported, how many crimes are being re-classified. Especially when officers have targets to meet. Changing one crime to another by simple interpretation can make "violent Crime" in the neighbourhood take a nose dive. It's easier to gauge performance with ticks in a box, rather than invested assessment. However you duke the stats, Liverpool's reputation seems merited. Just sayin' Same as for ALL forces so nothing there to distinguish Liverpool from any others. You say 'seems to be merited', which is your perception and you're entitled to it, but actually Liverpool is one of the safest city centres in the UK. It has a hard edge yeah, but that adds to the excitement for many people. Most things here are on the up although there are still problems, as with most towns and cities, but a lot of progress has been made over the last decade or so. We're usually in the top ten of most things, retail, tourism, uk cities to see before you die etc....so, happily, your perception doesn't stretch to the evryone in the UK. Yeah, just what you're looking for on any trip away, that wonderful attraction of the possibility of getting stabbed or nutted - it fuels the buzz of any trip away that. One of the safest city centres in the country, with a purple flag to prove it, although I wouldn't condone it, I could understand if the likes of you got attacked in some way. We don't like Billy Big Bollicks types with loud mouths round here.

You're right of course Paddock Lad. It all centres around LFC when they wanted to extend, and two old ladies, whose house was in the way, held them up for nearly ten years. After that Liverpool bought up every house as it became empty and boarded them up. The council started doing the same with those that they owned with a view to regeneration of the whole area. LFC will be responsible for a good part of the regeneration and the whole lot was planned around the new ground and was the reason that LCC gave planning permission for Stanley Park. As we all know our previous owners talked alot about a new ground, and spent a lot of money in the process, but the spades still haven't gone in to the ground. Our new owners are, as yet, undecided about a new ground and if they decide to do up Anfield christ knows where it will leave the boarded up houses.

I disagree with you totally Tom. I have nothing against Newcastle at all, it's a nice place but I think Liverpool pisses all over it. Don't really want to get abusive, even in a mild way, but the irony in your confused drunks comment is laughable. There isn't anywhere in the UK that didn't benefit from the slave trade unless they walked around naked, and much of Liverpools architecture was built well after the abolition. Liverpool is very much on the up and in many things leaves Newcastle well behind.

Tell that to John Lennon! That reedy voiced, mother obsessed, over rated weirdigan has been dead longer than I've been alive, so it would be hard to communicate with him. Smeckles! I have been to Liverpool a few times, and this is what I found. The derby match was one, and both sets of fans were in the same pubs, and there was no hint of it kicking off, the Albert Docks are a waste of a World Heritage Site, Toxteth looks like the riots happened the weekend before and the original design for the Catholic cathedral would have made Hitler and Speer proud in terms of scale. I couldn't live in Liverpool though because of the accent. Maybe it was the Blackburn accent that made Shearer take up residence in Merseyside 40 odd miles away. Have you any idea how big an area the world heritage tag covers? The Albert Dock is only a small portion. It stretches from there right along to Stanley Dock and comes in to the city centre as far as The Rope Walks. Depends which part of Toxteth you went to really, love this part myself.

To be fair you've got the deserved Champions of by far the two best leagues on earth, and the two teams which have dominated European football over the last 5 or 6 years head to head. It's the complete opposite of a Liverpool v Milan, or a Porto v Monaco. No small clubs tonight mate. PMSL

What? You telling me that any self respecting Scouser would miss out on a chance to make a claim? Load of shit really. If one police force in this country doctors figures then you can rest assured every other force does exactly the same. Merseyside's crime figures have been going down steadily year on year, but as to how good or bad they are coming down from is anyones guess, unless Fish, who seems to have nothing better to do, could look in to it. The reported crimes are reducing across the country, even in Liverpool. I honestly believe this provides only a portion of the facts, how many crimes aren't being reported, how many crimes are being re-classified. Especially when officers have targets to meet. Changing one crime to another by simple interpretation can make "violent Crime" in the neighbourhood take a nose dive. It's easier to gauge performance with ticks in a box, rather than invested assessment. However you duke the stats, Liverpool's reputation seems merited. Just sayin' Same as for ALL forces so nothing there to distinguish Liverpool from any others. You say 'seems to be merited', which is your perception and you're entitled to it, but actually Liverpool is one of the safest city centres in the UK. It has a hard edge yeah, but that adds to the excitement for many people. Most things here are on the up although there are still problems, as with most towns and cities, but a lot of progress has been made over the last decade or so. We're usually in the top ten of most things, retail, tourism, uk cities to see before you die etc....so, happily, your perception doesn't stretch to the evryone in the UK.

What? You telling me that any self respecting Scouser would miss out on a chance to make a claim? Load of shit really. If one police force in this country doctors figures then you can rest assured every other force does exactly the same. Merseyside's crime figures have been going down steadily year on year, but as to how good or bad they are coming down from is anyones guess, unless Fish, who seems to have nothing better to do, could look in to it.

I'm not knocking either Shankly or the success you have had since he built the club into what they became. Liverpool were a great club during the days of Shankly and Paisley and Shankly was a fantastic manager. You were, however, stagnating in the old 2nd division when Shankly became your manager, like we were when Keegan came in, having been taken over by the Halls and Shepherd, in fact we had one foot in the 3rd division when they appointed Keegan. I'm just stating the facts, and using the example of Liverpool to say what NUFC should be striving for, I don't see any reason why NUFC should not think they are capable of having great success too. Liverpool made their success, we should also be aiming to make our own success, but some people are determined to think it is impossible. It isn't impossible at all. We finished above you a few times, about 3 or 4 without looking through the record books, [we did finish 2nd twice, 3rd twice, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th during those years], while owned by the Halls and Shepherd, my point being that this is the ONLY time in my lifetime we have achieved such consistenly high league positions, and other things. Before that, we finished 10th, 9th and 7th between 1969 and 1971 and 5th in 1976-77 [relegated next season], and 8th in 1987, the remainder of the 1960's, 70's and 80's were all spent either in the 2nd division or struggling to stay in the 1st. I am quoting Liverpool and Spurs because I think most of us realise the likes of Man City, Chelsea and Man U are pretty much out on their own, at least while they are bankrolled and in the case of ManU have the global appeal, but the next clubs down the list are yourselves and Spurs at the moment, and some posters for some reason think I'm advocating catching the top 3 clubs so I'm just emphasising this is not the case. I'm sure you will be looking at Arsenal and thinking their place in the current top 4 could be up for grabs when Arsene Wenger calls it a day, so why should we not too ? First things first though, we have to stop selling our best players and aim for it again. You follow this message board so you should have seen by now how many people slate the Halls and Shepherd, I point out they are the best owners we have had in half a century and giving the facts to show why, its just a shame some people are too wrapped up in their hatred to see that this is the truth. I know the club was run badly during the 70's and 80's, but it wasn't run badly by the Halls and Shepherd, hence those league positions. Unfortunately it is now being run like a selling club again, which must change. If it does, then we could be up challenging again, hopefully, depending on the ambitions etc of the owners. I believe LFC are a global club as well as ManU, but other than that, fair post LM. I can't comment on the Halls and Shepherd because no outsider knows the club like their own fans, but speaking as an outsider it's the only time in my lifetime I've looked at Newcastle as challengers for a few seasons. I, like everyone else, thought you'd win the title in '96 and deservedly so, but Ferguson, unlike all title winning managers before him, had to get an edge, always trying to make the level playing field unlevel to his advantage. Keegan, up to that point, had let his team do the talking on the pitch, which is how I believe all team managers should act. I know it's no consolation, but though you lost the title, you had all the respect. No manager should make the accusations Ferguson made. Unfortunately the record books don't record the details.

LM, how many times did you finish above Liverpool during the Shepherd years? Or even over the whole history of both clubs? Liverpool haven't finished lower than 8th in 5 decades, as far as I know Newcastle, during that time, haven't done that more than 4 or 5 times. Not sure on that one, I stand to be corrected. We'd won 5 league titles before Shankly, although I fail to see what relevance Shanks makes to being nothing beforehand. Does that apply to every club before they appoint someone who wins something? And does it make every club who hasn't won a trophy nothing? Liverpool have a great history and even back in the day were able to pay a record transfer fee for one of your players, Albert Stubbins, so where you get this nothing from I don't know. Clubs appoint someone who they think will take them forward, if that man fails then the board has failed. Shanks wasn't just a spur of the moment appointment, the chairman at the time knew who he wanted and was prepared to back him, believe in him, and saw Shanks as the saviour of his beloved club.

Same could be said for Mary Bell though, couldn't it? And that situation was a lot closer to home! Same old scouse media sympathy here in reality though. Venables is to Mary Bell what Hillsborough is to Bradford. I'd keep them locked away and throw away the key if it was up to me, but in reality all civilised societies have to try and rehabilitate the offender. I don't think any of us really know what kind of a person Mary Bell is as an adult, but as a child murderer of two young children she was just as evil as Venables and Thompson. Her handling of the police questioning was horrifying. All three belong in institutions imo.

Isn't the rumour that Pedro fucked Mrs Dogleash and Kenny found out??? Surely no-one in their right mind would think that Marina Dalglish would fancy Peter Beardsley, loved him as a player but c'mon. Even if you disregarded his looks you'd have to be hard up to enjoy his company if his first autobigraphy was anything to go by. One of the most boring football books I've read. The rumours up here at the time were that the wives fell out because Mrs Beardsley was very mouthy about her husband being benched, and she thought he should be in the team. Kenny was supposed to have responded to a journo asking a question about the team that 'maybe you should ask Mrs Beardsley' Kenny says it was a tactical decision to bench him and Beardsley say they never fell out and are friends still. It was Souness who sold him, not Kenny. Too soon in my mind, he was a great player for us.

Not sure myself either. Think they might put a few bob extra in, beside sales, because players nowadays are bought on the drip and with no big interest payments to be made, future profits should be quite healthy, despite no CL.

Man Utd - no chance Man City - no chance Arsenal - no chance Chelsea - no chance Liverpool - as I've said used generated funds to buy new players and as the Livepool fan said will probably spend a fair bit in the summer. they are a long way ahead of us. Spurs - used transfer profits over the last 4 years to build a squad which is a lot better than us The latter two is a level I'd like to aim for and I accept your argument that there's nothing wrong with that but they are streets ahead of us - that's simple realism without millions being spent which is what I keep saying. So where does that leave us? - you keep mentioning Blackburn but I'd say its more Villa, Everton, the Mackems and "functional" teams like Stoke. That is the next tier and thinking that we can compete above that is unrealistic - again as I keep saying "accepting" that Ashley won't invest. The funny thing is if a new owner did come in and try and do the same turnover expansion as the previous regime using revenue and loans only, you're probably talking a maximum spend of £50m - do you think that would give us a better squad than Spurs or Liverpool? you've just said how Spurs and Liverpool are aiming higher than we are, now. I like how you concede inferiority to Arsenal, where exactly do you think they will go when Wenger goes and if they don't make a similar calibre appointment ? Nothing is permanent, that is a fundamental you and others appear to fail to grasp. We have one of the biggest clubs and fanbases in the country, there is simply no excuse for any owner not attempting to capitalise on it. They are aiming higher because obviously they have better owners - what I'm saying is that they have funded most of their recent squad building by either transfer profits or debt in Liverpools case which has then been written off. At the end of the day they still have lot better squads than us which is why its unrealistic to expect competition in the immediate future. Arsenal will have to be judged when the new owner shows his hand - they may have a lot of money to spend to go with a much better academy than us at the moment. If you want to predict how things will be in 5 or 10 years time then good luck - obviously we agree we should be going all out but I think its going to be difficult given the present situation. As I've said before I've never been able to figure Ashley out and to a large extent I don't think he know what he wants either. We are of course the victims of that but I don't see the point of railing against it until things become clearer. We didn't have debt by buying players NJS. Our debt was down to a leveraged buy out and the two owners putting the buying of the club on to the club itself a year after they'd 'bought' it. Player transfers showed a net profit for their last two and a half years ownership. Prior to the Yanks all profit from annual turnover (usually around 10 to 15 million) and player sales were put back in to the club. David Moores made a complete hash of selling the club, and his merchandising of it during his time was shit, but neither he nor the directors ever took a penny out of it in dividends or anything. That's how it always was before him too. I thought that's how all clubs had to work. DM invested 12 million to buy the majority of shares in '92 and sold them for 80 million 15 years later, that was the way it always worked wasn't it? The owners made a profit only when they sold their shares on? I remember the uproar when Martin Edwards made himself Chief exec so that he could draw a wage because the FA had said one board member could be paid. Our new owners paid 300 million for the club to RBS because that's who the debt of buying the club was owed to. If they hope to make money from it surely the best way is to build it up, win things, and then sell it on at a profit 6 or 7 years down the line.

Basing their incoming transfers on money generated by sales. Might change in the summer but that's what January was. What they said in the beginning, and continue to say, is that, yes, money generated by sales will all be re-invested but so will all profits. There is no aquisition debt on the club so the 27 million interest payment paid by the previous owners will now become profit, which they say will also be re-invested. That being so, and with all merchandise and matchday boycotts now off, I'd imagine our profits will rise year on year. Of course this is the kind of thing our other Yank friends said so it remains to be seen whether this actually happens. It's still early days but up to now they've been as good as their word. Far too early to judge them and still wary.

You type and I quote "your ignorance is staggering on so many levels", now the bit in bold given the statement I've just quoted is the most ironic I've seen, you utterly clueless nobhead. Before I continue I want to tell you something irrelevant to my points, see when you type all I can hear is that dullcet borin voiced announcer at Anfield coming through in your letters. Anyway we hounded Robson out did we?!?!?!?!?!?!? Some fans weren't happy that we only came fifth, and given the mediocrity of the team in fourth it wasn't unreasonable, fans were frustrated but we were fucked with injuries, and the majority didn't blame Robson, and despite his age, virtually no one NO ONE wanted rid of him despite getting TWO points from FOUR games at the start of 04/05. So what you on about you scouse cunt? Allardyce. Now to be fair I didn't like him from the start, we played Liverpool at home, you weren't an outstanding side, decent yes, but that's always a game we should be looking to win at home, we're 0-2 down with 20 minutes to go and he takes an attacking player off and replaces him with a defensive playe 2-0 down at home to a side we can get a result off. The ensuing reaction would've happened in ANY stadium in ANY country in the world. 2-0 down at home and he goes defensive, so half the ground sings you don't know what you're doing, that is the biggest stick he ever got here. His LAST game away at Stoke in the FA Cup, we played one of the worst games in his reign a 0-0 draw, we didn't create one chance 4,000 toon fans down there 6pm on a Sunday neet, and he gets a standing evation off. That was his last game, so WHERE THE FUCK was he hounded out you fuckin tool??!??! Dalglish despite ruining the best side we've had in 50 years, replacing Ginola with Garry Brady, Les Ferdinand with ANDREAS ANDERSSON, signing 37 year olds Ian Rush and John Barnes to a club that had title ambitions, from 2nd top to 13th, and we still didn't get on his back when he didn't win the first two games of the next season. So how did we get on his back?!?!?! Souness I'm not even going to dignify with an answer. You are typically scouse clueless cunt. Do NOT comment on things you haven't got the slightest comprehension about you arsehole. The loyalty of our fans, the humility of our fans and the dignity and unblemished reputation of our fans is and always be in a different planet to Liverpool fans. It’s hard to believe that you, of all on this board, actually use the word irony. George Sephton has been the announcer at Anfield for 40 years. He’s a warm, knowledgeable and far from boring man, and his voice always makes me feel at home. He’s a big part of the match day experience and long may he continue. I'd also like to add a bit of an irrelevant comment about boring speech, is your confidence in your own identity so low that you need to at times write some of your posts in dialect? Using local words is one thing but writing how you talk is a bit juvenile. It appeared that many of your fans at the time were unhappy with Robson but have it your own way. The team in fourth were as mediocre as the team in 5th as far as I could see. Being born a Scouser is one of my proudest moments. Being called a Scouse cunt by an ugly minded dickhead just adds to that pride tbh. As I said earlier, all fans are the same when it comes to failure. Your boring, long winded explanation of the Allardyce regime does nothing to alleviate my belief in that fact. Kenny was a winner, he’d already won 4 English titles but still some of your fans slagged him. Keegan was a winner as a player, but never as a manager unless you count promotions. Your fans thought he was a winner though and that’s what’s important. I’d be very happy not to comment on things I know little about, perhaps you could do the same. For the clubs and fans you hate, you lie, make up stories and even change words in articles to try and back up your ugly hate, I’m sure there are many who can see right through your shallow, inferior soapbox spiel. The highlighted line could be said by all fans in the Premier and Football league, and very often is, your fans are only special to themselves and those who've played for your club or worked for it. Every clubs fans get praised at one time or another for different things, including Liverpools, sorry if that upsets you like.

Without doubt they were a contributing factor. Your ignorance is quite startling on so many levels.

You're ugly ignorance doesn't get any better does it? Houllier may have suffered the fans displeasure at Liverpool a few times, but his heart condition was not of the stress kind. LuckyLuke(?) can educate you better than I can, he seems to know what he's talking about. If anyone has stress related health problems why go in to a stressful job? Houllier, just like Kinnear, chose to do jobs that will always be stressful even if their teams are successful. I wonder if he can educate you in the differences between your and you're. The facts remain after winning 3 trophies in one year, just a few short short months later, he was put under intolerable stress from an ungrateful crowd which diminished to a paltry 33,000 for some league games. I think you need to educate yourself sonny. The word I correctly used was your No he wasn't put under intolerable stress you idiot. He was put under the same stress as most losing managers are, your own included. Can't be arsed to check our averages, I know it wasn't 33,000 for that season even though the football was the most boring shit I've ever seen, ( well perhaps marginally better than Hodgson) EDIT: Three seasons later BTW. We didn't put Hughton under any stress despite gaining 2 points from a possible 15 before he was sacked, and we were gutted he was. Look at poor Woy hounded out from day one, and look what he's done with a good crowd behind him at West Brom already, there's the difference. Anyway pipe down you stalker. Robson, Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce, of those I can remember anyway, but unlike you I know people who go for public profile jobs are always going to be shot down by fans, investors and players when things go wrong. Houllier got sacked 3 years after his heart trouble and, imo, that was a year later than it should have been. He was never the same afterwards. Hodgson is someone I wish could be written out of our history. As a manager of one of the biggest clubs he was arrogant, self posessed and tactically one of the worst I've seen. He's fine for a small club where the acheivement of mid table is fine, but for a club who hasn't finished out of the top 10 in 5 decades he was useless. His press conferences were an embarrassment of self praise, lowering of ambition and blaming the previous manager, and left with a much bigger pay out in comparison. You'll get no guilt, regret or even a smidgen of praise from me for that man. Good riddance.

Shit, I hate apologising to arseholes but you are indeed right, it was I who used the wrong word, sorry. Maybe now you can also apologise for accusing fans of causing his heart trouble.

You're ugly ignorance doesn't get any better does it? Houllier may have suffered the fans displeasure at Liverpool a few times, but his heart condition was not of the stress kind. LuckyLuke(?) can educate you better than I can, he seems to know what he's talking about. If anyone has stress related health problems why go in to a stressful job? Houllier, just like Kinnear, chose to do jobs that will always be stressful even if their teams are successful. I wonder if he can educate you in the differences between your and you're. The facts remain after winning 3 trophies in one year, just a few short short months later, he was put under intolerable stress from an ungrateful crowd which diminished to a paltry 33,000 for some league games. I think you need to educate yourself sonny. The word I correctly used was your No he wasn't put under intolerable stress you idiot. He was put under the same stress as most losing managers are, your own included. Can't be arsed to check our averages, I know it wasn't 33,000 for that season even though the football was the most boring shit I've ever seen, ( well perhaps marginally better than Hodgson) EDIT: Three seasons later BTW.

You're ugly ignorance doesn't get any better does it? Houllier may have suffered the fans displeasure at Liverpool a few times, but his heart condition was not of the stress kind. LuckyLuke(?) can educate you better than I can, he seems to know what he's talking about. If anyone has stress related health problems why go in to a stressful job? Houllier, just like Kinnear, chose to do jobs that will always be stressful even if their teams are successful. Tbh the stress response is a very broad and wide ranging process that can contribute to all manner of diseases and conditions, although it is 'traditionally' associated with ischaemic heart disease (ie angina and heart attacks). Not sure if Stevie is referring to Houiller getting the sack in 2004 rather than his health problems (he took ill following a game at Leeds in 2001). I found Joe Kinnear having to undergo coronary artery surgery months after taking the job with us almost comical in its predictability, he should never have contemplated taking a job here with his history and the chaos that was at a peak when he took the job, and still continues. But I guess he's got to earn a living. That he got his date wrong is nothing unusual for him, but I think his meaning is perfectly clear. Thanks for the explanation ll, I know his consultants said it wasn't stress related.