Kid Dynamite 5908 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Gerrard - 2nd only to Ronaldinho What would liverpool be without him. Everytime they mess things up and then rely on him to get them back, and he does so everytime in spectacular fashion. Its ridiculous really..... 135719[/snapback] ronaldinho couldnt have scored that last goal. the sad thing is, if gerarrd hadnt been playing west ham would have won easy. hes everything to that team, benitez is getting bummed all over by the press and he knows for a fact without gerarrd he still wouldnt have a trophy with liverpool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17776 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much. What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us. Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish. A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 135782[/snapback] Rafa Benitez and Gerrard. 135837[/snapback] And who appointed Benitez? And why haven't we developed talented young local lads like the scouse clubs have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 And who appointed Benitez? And why haven't we developed talented young local lads like the scouse clubs have? 135879[/snapback] wouldnt that be down the the Youth team coach....now then who was that again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much. What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us. Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish. A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 135782[/snapback] Rafa Benitez and Gerrard. 135837[/snapback] And who appointed Benitez? And why haven't we developed talented young local lads like the scouse clubs have? 135879[/snapback] Don't worry, it won't be long now before we're finding a Gerrard a month with Lee Clark at the helm. He's a Geordie ye knaa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much. What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us. Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish. A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 135782[/snapback] Rafa Benitez and Gerrard. 135837[/snapback] And who appointed Benitez? And why haven't we developed talented young local lads like the scouse clubs have? 135879[/snapback] Bloody hell it's rhetorical city with you today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 How are Liverpool no bigger than us? We haven't won the Champions League 5 times, to start off with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 How are Liverpool no bigger than us? We haven't won the Champions League 5 times, to start off with. 135901[/snapback] I think in terms of how they were no better than us and vice-versa under SBR... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much. What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us. Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish. A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 135782[/snapback] I wanted West Ham to win, I would have prefered to see the joy on faces not used to winning silverware rather than yet another trophy for the reds. Lets face it, winning the Champions League from 3 goals down against Milan is going to take the gloss off coming from 'only' 2 down against 'mere' West Ham. Or any other cup win come to that, it simply won't get any better than that night in Istanbul. However, I do find it fascinating that some clubs (particularly Liverpool) can keep that winning mentality (they know how to win trophies if you like, don't let pressure effect them) no matter how many changes of players/ managers/ back-room staff thery have. Other clubs (ourselves, Inter Milan maybe?) can throw money around until the cows come home and never win anything because we lack that mental edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17776 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 How are Liverpool no bigger than us? We haven't won the Champions League 5 times, to start off with. 135901[/snapback] In terms of support. In terms of our revenue less than 3 years ago. Notts Forest are a huge club, are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hopefully people won't still say Lampard's better than Gerrard. 135742[/snapback] I wouldn't argue the toss between them, the biggest question regarding the pair is why can't the play as well for their country as they do for their clubs ! 135744[/snapback] Can they play together ? If you had to choose, I'd go for Gerrard every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 How are Liverpool no bigger than us? We haven't won the Champions League 5 times, to start off with. 135901[/snapback] In terms of support. In terms of our revenue less than 3 years ago. Notts Forest are a huge club, are they? 135918[/snapback] Its a strange thing in football theres for soem reason a problem separating the two entirely different words big and successful. NUFC are a big club, in terms of stadium size, average crowd, revenue, turnover, money spent on players/wages etc. They are big in terms of profile nationally and to a lesser extent worldwide, and have had enough high profile players and managers. For quite a while now we have been in europe nearly every year. And we have massive potential. We are a big club. However in recent and indeed not so recent times we have in terms of winning trophies, not been a successful club and would never claim that we have been. But this is completely separate from size. Its the same as the argument that you're not a great player if you haven't won trophies, which concludes that Shearer isn't as good as Phil Neville. A great player is great irespective of how many trophies the have or haven't won and an average or shite player doesn't become great just because they happened to be part of a great team who won trophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 (edited) Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much. What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us. Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish. A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 135782[/snapback] I wanted West Ham to win, I would have prefered to see the joy on faces not used to winning silverware rather than yet another trophy for the reds. Lets face it, winning the Champions League from 3 goals down against Milan is going to take the gloss off coming from 'only' 2 down against 'mere' West Ham. Or any other cup win come to that, it simply won't get any better than that night in Istanbul. However, I do find it fascinating that some clubs (particularly Liverpool) can keep that winning mentality (they know how to win trophies if you like, don't let pressure effect them) no matter how many changes of players/ managers/ back-room staff thery have. Other clubs (ourselves, Inter Milan maybe?) can throw money around until the cows come home and never win anything because we lack that mental edge. 135915[/snapback] totally agree. Keegan said the 1st trophy will overcome a huge psychological barrier and he's exactly right. EDIT. having seen the Fairs Cup win, there was a different air about the club initially at the start of the next season, all the players played with a different aura and stature about themselves. It didn't last though, because the club didn't attempt to build on it and that must have transmitted itself throughout the club, so things soon returned back to the air of mediocre normality that existed in those days, where they were happy just to not get relegated so they could "play the big clubs every week". Utter shite. Edited May 14, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much. What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us. Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish. A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 135782[/snapback] I wanted West Ham to win, I would have prefered to see the joy on faces not used to winning silverware rather than yet another trophy for the reds. Lets face it, winning the Champions League from 3 goals down against Milan is going to take the gloss off coming from 'only' 2 down against 'mere' West Ham. Or any other cup win come to that, it simply won't get any better than that night in Istanbul. However, I do find it fascinating that some clubs (particularly Liverpool) can keep that winning mentality (they know how to win trophies if you like, don't let pressure effect them) no matter how many changes of players/ managers/ back-room staff thery have. Other clubs (ourselves, Inter Milan maybe?) can throw money around until the cows come home and never win anything because we lack that mental edge. 135915[/snapback] totally agree. Keegan said the 1st trophy will overcome a huge psychological barrier and he's exactly right. 135922[/snapback] Its true, never mind the title we should have had, if we had just fluked a run through to and won a cup final it would have broken a massive barrier and lead surely to more trophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8870 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hopefully people won't still say Lampard's better than Gerrard. 135742[/snapback] I wouldn't argue the toss between them, the biggest question regarding the pair is why can't the play as well for their country as they do for their clubs ! 135744[/snapback] Can they play together ? If you had to choose, I'd go for Gerrard every time. 135919[/snapback] I think that is the main problem of the English midfield. Accomodating two very good players. The fact that they are so much better at club level might have to do that the one has his Makelele the other one his Alonso who keep them their backs free. It will be interesting how Mourinho tries to accomodate Ballack and Lampard next season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 (edited) Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much. What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us. Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish. A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 135782[/snapback] I wanted West Ham to win, I would have prefered to see the joy on faces not used to winning silverware rather than yet another trophy for the reds. Lets face it, winning the Champions League from 3 goals down against Milan is going to take the gloss off coming from 'only' 2 down against 'mere' West Ham. Or any other cup win come to that, it simply won't get any better than that night in Istanbul. However, I do find it fascinating that some clubs (particularly Liverpool) can keep that winning mentality (they know how to win trophies if you like, don't let pressure effect them) no matter how many changes of players/ managers/ back-room staff thery have. Other clubs (ourselves, Inter Milan maybe?) can throw money around until the cows come home and never win anything because we lack that mental edge. 135915[/snapback] totally agree. Keegan said the 1st trophy will overcome a huge psychological barrier and he's exactly right. 135922[/snapback] Its true, never mind the title we should have had, if we had just fluked a run through to and won a cup final it would have broken a massive barrier and lead surely to more trophies. 135924[/snapback] I've edited the last post mate. It breaks your fuckin heart seeing all these close shaves when you are sure all we need is a bit of luck. I was on about this in the pub the other night. The 1998 Cup Final and Keown stands on the ball, Shearer hits it with his left foot against the post...why doesn't it fall to his right foot ? The 1999 Cup Final, Keane goes off and his replacement scores with his first touch ? The 2000 Semi Final, we outplay Chelsea and lose to a goal that could have been disallowed. The overriding factor in the 2 Cup Finals was the non-event. I put that down totally to the fact they just didn't believe they could win. The same as 1974. However the 1976 League Cup was a different kettle of fish, we played brilliantly despite having half the team carrying flu, but then again I think Gordon Lee was ahead of his time and nobody appreciated him. If we had had the club we have now, our history would have been totally different. The fact that he [correctly] sold MacDonald blinds too many people to how good he could have been for Newcastle. Edited May 14, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hopefully people won't still say Lampard's better than Gerrard. 135742[/snapback] I wouldn't argue the toss between them, the biggest question regarding the pair is why can't the play as well for their country as they do for their clubs ! 135744[/snapback] Can they play together ? If you had to choose, I'd go for Gerrard every time. 135919[/snapback] I think that is the main problem of the English midfield. Accomodating two very good players. The fact that they are so much better at club level might have to do that the one has his Makelele the other one his Alonso who keep them their backs free. It will be interesting how Mourinho tries to accomodate Ballack and Lampard next season... 135926[/snapback] I've thought for a while he should only play one of them. He has to decide. Probably alongside Carrick, on the basis that the team shape is far more important than playing your best players and hoping they gel. This has been proved historically many many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 How are Liverpool no bigger than us? We haven't won the Champions League 5 times, to start off with. 135901[/snapback] In terms of support. In terms of our revenue less than 3 years ago. Notts Forest are a huge club, are they? 135918[/snapback] In that respect then yes, but trophies and history always count to club size. Anyway it's impossible to calculate club size and it doesn't mean much, so I'm not really worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hopefully people won't still say Lampard's better than Gerrard. 135742[/snapback] I wouldn't argue the toss between them, the biggest question regarding the pair is why can't the play as well for their country as they do for their clubs ! 135744[/snapback] Can they play together ? If you had to choose, I'd go for Gerrard every time. 135919[/snapback] I think that is the main problem of the English midfield. Accomodating two very good players. The fact that they are so much better at club level might have to do that the one has his Makelele the other one his Alonso who keep them their backs free. It will be interesting how Mourinho tries to accomodate Ballack and Lampard next season... 135926[/snapback] I've thought for a while he should only play one of them. He has to decide. Probably alongside Carrick, on the basis that the team shape is far more important than playing your best players and hoping they gel. This has been proved historically many many times. 135929[/snapback] Exactly! I've thought for a long time that SGE should only play one of them. They are too similar, for me, and the two just don't fit together imo. Gerrard is better imo but everyone has their own thoughts. It's a bit like the old Clemence/Shilton thing - two great players but only one can play. Yes, we can play more than one midfielder but the point I am making is that we can only play one midfielder of that type. Gerrard OR Lampard alongside someone else. Maybe Carrick is the man to get the nod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hopefully people won't still say Lampard's better than Gerrard. 135742[/snapback] I wouldn't argue the toss between them, the biggest question regarding the pair is why can't the play as well for their country as they do for their clubs ! 135744[/snapback] Can they play together ? If you had to choose, I'd go for Gerrard every time. 135919[/snapback] I think that is the main problem of the English midfield. Accomodating two very good players. The fact that they are so much better at club level might have to do that the one has his Makelele the other one his Alonso who keep them their backs free. It will be interesting how Mourinho tries to accomodate Ballack and Lampard next season... 135926[/snapback] I've thought for a while he should only play one of them. He has to decide. Probably alongside Carrick, on the basis that the team shape is far more important than playing your best players and hoping they gel. This has been proved historically many many times. 135929[/snapback] Exactly! I've thought for a long time that SGE should only play one of them. They are too similar, for me, and the two just don't fit together imo. Gerrard is better imo but everyone has their own thoughts. It's a bit like the old Clemence/Shilton thing - two great players but only one can play. Yes, we can play more than one midfielder but the point I am making is that we can only play one midfielder of that type. Gerrard OR Lampard alongside someone else. Maybe Carrick is the man to get the nod. 135938[/snapback] I think Rooneys injury gives him the opportunity to play both and Carrick. I would go: Beckham - Lampard - Carrick - J.Cole --------------------Gerrard ---------------------Owen giving Lampard the licence to bomb on from midfield knowing Carrick in the holding role is there as insurance, and Gerrard a role floating between midfield and attack dependind on who has possession, with instruction to shoot on sight and look for those killer through-ball he used to play to Owen at Liverpoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Liverpool no bigger than us? :D :icon_lol: :lol: Seriously, some people are really, really deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hopefully people won't still say Lampard's better than Gerrard. 135742[/snapback] I wouldn't argue the toss between them, the biggest question regarding the pair is why can't the play as well for their country as they do for their clubs ! 135744[/snapback] Can they play together ? If you had to choose, I'd go for Gerrard every time. 135919[/snapback] I think that is the main problem of the English midfield. Accomodating two very good players. The fact that they are so much better at club level might have to do that the one has his Makelele the other one his Alonso who keep them their backs free. It will be interesting how Mourinho tries to accomodate Ballack and Lampard next season... 135926[/snapback] I've thought for a while he should only play one of them. He has to decide. Probably alongside Carrick, on the basis that the team shape is far more important than playing your best players and hoping they gel. This has been proved historically many many times. 135929[/snapback] Exactly! I've thought for a long time that SGE should only play one of them. They are too similar, for me, and the two just don't fit together imo. Gerrard is better imo but everyone has their own thoughts. It's a bit like the old Clemence/Shilton thing - two great players but only one can play. Yes, we can play more than one midfielder but the point I am making is that we can only play one midfielder of that type. Gerrard OR Lampard alongside someone else. Maybe Carrick is the man to get the nod. 135938[/snapback] I think Rooneys injury gives him the opportunity to play both and Carrick. I would go: Beckham - Lampard - Carrick - J.Cole --------------------Gerrard ---------------------Owen giving Lampard the licence to bomb on from midfield knowing Carrick in the holding role is there as insurance, and Gerrard a role floating between midfield and attack dependind on who has possession, with instruction to shoot on sight and look for those killer through-ball he used to play to Owen at Liverpoo. 135960[/snapback] I agree this is possible because of Rooneys injury. However he could also play Joe Cole in Rooneys role, who is more used to playing in that position having done it before ? Looking at the papers today, Rooney will be going and may play though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Hopefully people won't still say Lampard's better than Gerrard. 135742[/snapback] I wouldn't argue the toss between them, the biggest question regarding the pair is why can't the play as well for their country as they do for their clubs ! 135744[/snapback] Can they play together ? If you had to choose, I'd go for Gerrard every time. 135919[/snapback] I think that is the main problem of the English midfield. Accomodating two very good players. The fact that they are so much better at club level might have to do that the one has his Makelele the other one his Alonso who keep them their backs free. It will be interesting how Mourinho tries to accomodate Ballack and Lampard next season... 135926[/snapback] I've thought for a while he should only play one of them. He has to decide. Probably alongside Carrick, on the basis that the team shape is far more important than playing your best players and hoping they gel. This has been proved historically many many times. 135929[/snapback] Exactly! I've thought for a long time that SGE should only play one of them. They are too similar, for me, and the two just don't fit together imo. Gerrard is better imo but everyone has their own thoughts. It's a bit like the old Clemence/Shilton thing - two great players but only one can play. Yes, we can play more than one midfielder but the point I am making is that we can only play one midfielder of that type. Gerrard OR Lampard alongside someone else. Maybe Carrick is the man to get the nod. 135938[/snapback] I think Rooneys injury gives him the opportunity to play both and Carrick. I would go: Beckham - Lampard - Carrick - J.Cole --------------------Gerrard ---------------------Owen giving Lampard the licence to bomb on from midfield knowing Carrick in the holding role is there as insurance, and Gerrard a role floating between midfield and attack dependind on who has possession, with instruction to shoot on sight and look for those killer through-ball he used to play to Owen at Liverpoo. 135960[/snapback] I agree this is possible because of Rooneys injury. However he could also play Joe Cole in Rooneys role, who is more used to playing in that position having done it before ? Looking at the papers today, Rooney will be going and may play though. 135964[/snapback] On the strength that Rooney's been spotted riding a bike ! He's not kicked a ball in anger yet ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17776 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Liverpool no bigger than us? :D :icon_lol: :lol: Seriously, some people are really, really deluded. 135961[/snapback] Read PL's post to explain what I meant. Liverpool is a similar sized city to Newcastle (I'm including North Tyneside and Gateshead in that), and the people are no more fanatical about football than us - probably less so in fact. They have to "share" their support with another big and relatively successful club, Everton (not to mention about another 10 clubs within 50 miles). True, they have a sizable international and ex-pat support, but so do we. We get bigger crowds, despite not being successful. So please tell me, without talking about trophies recently won (again, see PL's post), how are they a bigger club than us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Liverpool no bigger than us? :D :icon_lol: :lol: Seriously, some people are really, really deluded. 135961[/snapback] Read PL's post to explain what I meant. Liverpool is a similar sized city to Newcastle (I'm including North Tyneside and Gateshead in that), and the people are no more fanatical about football than us - probably less so in fact. They have to "share" their support with another big and relatively successful club, Everton (not to mention about another 10 clubs within 50 miles). True, they have a sizable international and ex-pat support, but so do we. We get bigger crowds, despite not being successful. So please tell me, without talking about trophies recently won (again, see PL's post), how are they a bigger club than us? 135972[/snapback] The mackems are also a big club. The fact they have been run like a crappy corner shop for decades doesn't change that fact. Taking the Tyne and Wear region as a whole, we share support the same as Everton and Liverpool over Merseyside. The difference between us and Liverpool is only that Liverpool have been successful, massively successful, having appointed a man back in 1958 who laid down the club they still have today. Jealous ? Of course, but its true. Newcastle and Sunderland should both be in the countries top clubs, and should always have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Liverpool no bigger than us? :D :icon_lol: :lol: Seriously, some people are really, really deluded. 135961[/snapback] Read PL's post to explain what I meant. Liverpool is a similar sized city to Newcastle (I'm including North Tyneside and Gateshead in that), and the people are no more fanatical about football than us - probably less so in fact. They have to "share" their support with another big and relatively successful club, Everton (not to mention about another 10 clubs within 50 miles). True, they have a sizable international and ex-pat support, but so do we. We get bigger crowds, despite not being successful. So please tell me, without talking about trophies recently won (again, see PL's post), how are they a bigger club than us? 135972[/snapback] The mackems are also a big club. The fact they have been run like a crappy corner shop for decades doesn't change that fact. Taking the Tyne and Wear region as a whole, we share support the same as Everton and Liverpool over Merseyside. The difference between us and Liverpool is only that Liverpool have been successful, massively successful, having appointed a man back in 1958 who laid down the club they still have today. Jealous ? Of course, but its true. Newcastle and Sunderland should both be in the countries top clubs, and should always have been. 135973[/snapback] Agree, both us and the mackems if run properly from way back would be established in the mythic "big 5" and would have trophies to macth Liverpool, Everton, arsenal et al But a combination of bad luck and bad managment (from top to bottom) have seen both clubs fail to ever reach their potential. Thers only really manu who could claim that at full potential they would be bigger than the others and thats hard to test unless you take away all their success. But all the rest, the Pools, arsenals, us, the mackems etc. when run correctly and fullfilling their potential wouldn't have much between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now