What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Do we get at least a point back and the scousers deducted 2 points?

Good to have Frank back available but there is no consolation for the match almost certainly lost because of it.

I not the FA rediculously refused to give Bosingwa a red - and we all know why - they would have then had to study video evidence of Gerrard in the 3rd minute and act upon it. That is the only reason they bottled it on Bosingwa - to avoid giving St Stevie a red. Shame Stoke didn´t appeal Delaps red - would have got really interesting.

.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Like it's been said before,its good that the FA recognizes that Riley is a moron. Now will they do anything to him? Good to have Frank back.

Quite correct, but retrospectively does not and cannot affect the result. No one can say for certain that this outrageous mistake by the referee did or did not change the course of the match. Fair to assume it did methinks.

Bosingwa should probably have gone near the end and, more significantly, Gerrard should certainly have been dismissed much earlier. The latter, a serial diver and cheat, leads a charmed life with match officials and sychophantic sports journalists alike. At least Smiley Riley booked him in the second half for diving (again) but alas, too little too late. An overrated and sly con-artist - fits perfectly, and personifies, the Liverpool FC module.

By the way Kuyt should have got a yellow for unsporting behaviour following the unjust and now discredited Lampard red card.

Charlie.

Watch out - here's the next part of the cunning plan. Off to the Court of Human Rights to get Sunday's result quashed, the game replayed, Gerrard deported, Rafa sectioned and Torres to play with a paper bag over his head.

JT for PM and Frank a knighthood followed shortly afterwards with canonisation.

Charlie.

God, you lot get thicker.

"Do we get at least a point back and the scousers deducted 2 points?"

You lot didn't even deserve half a point, super fat frank or no super fat frank. You we're dominated start to finish.

Fat Frank's red recinded, no red for Boswinga, no action taken, and you always say the refs are out for you.

Are they f*ck!

I really can't believe the B@LL@CKS you's lot are saying, 2 shots in the whole match one went into row Z at Goodison. Reina fell asleep waiting for some action up his end.

Lumplard was so average I thought he wern't even on the pitch, if it wern't for a bit of brave defending ( did I say that....? ) & cheks lucky howlers he got away with it would have been more than 2.

All I can say is you's got off lightly...

Big hairy balls!

(although a couple of nice posts from Bluesman).


80´s Gooner:

It´s no use saying we wouldn´t have got a point because, in your words, "Liverpool dominated". We have dominated so many teams this season and got sweet fa for it (the same, I´m sure has also happened to Arsenal this season). You only get the 3 points if you score.

Liverpool only scored once Frank was sent off and your post ignores what the match would have looked like if Gerrard had been sent off in the 3rd minute.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Its all ifs and butts. You could say if Boswinga was sent off on 90 Liverpool could have scored in extra time.

True a lot of trams dont get what they deserve. But saying you want points back over a red card (I know you're joking btw), when you should also have had a red is a bit much. It evened itself out.

You talk about ifs and buts but yet you insist that Liverpool would have scored!


.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

I'm saying your argument can be used both ways. Best just not to us that argument and just say you deserved to lose, Lampard or no Lampard.

Im not insisting Liverpool would have scored. You're kinda insisting they wouldn't have had Lampard stayed on.

You said Liverpool would have won - how could they win without scoring?!

How would the match have changed if Gerrard would have been sent off in the 3rd min for example?

Is it not also possible that Chelsea would have improved with 11 men on and Deco and Drogba introduced in a normal situation instead of being down to 10 men?

You say too many ifs and buts - yet you yourself saying Liverpool would have won is also an if.


.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Exactly. So just dont use the ifs and buts argument is what I'm saying.

Forget it anyway.

"Exactly? !!!"

What? So you are agreeing now that my argument is IF but so is yours?

Isn´t that what I said to you in the very beginning?!




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Jeez Dixon. Are you missing the point on purpose.?

Im saying:

You talk about IF Lampard wasn't sent off Liverpool wouldn't have scored/won. Im saying that you shouldn't even bring that argument to the table BECAUSE Liverpool could just come back and say IF Bosingwa was sent off then they WOULD have scored/won.

So Im saying the argument YOU'RE using can just as equally be used against you by Liverpool fans.

So MY point is dont say you should have two points back when the argument you're using can also be used by Liverpool.

So to be clear, MY argument isn't that Liverpool definitely would or wouldn't have scored, its just pointing holes in YOUR argument that you somehow deserve two points back.

No more going in circles.

In what minute should Bosingwa been sent off?

What was the score when he he should have been sent off?

So would it have affected the outcome of the match? NO!


Using Bosingwa as an example is just plain desperate on your part - you are trying to now say that Lampard being off for almost half the game is the same as Bosingwa being off for 2-3 mins!

You just DON¨T (or refuse to) get it do you?

You are saying that my argument has IFs in it - that is correct.

But yet you are also saying Liverpool deserved to win (meaning that Liverpool would have scored - they can´t win without scoring can they?!) which ALSO has IFs in it - that is also correct.

You still fail to see the irony in your argument that in some way my argument isn´t valid because it has IF´s in it?

This is what I have been trying to get across to you from the very beginning.

If you don´t understand this quite simple point I really don´t know what else to say to you.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

In what minute should Bosingwa been sent off?

What was the score when he he should have been sent off?

So would it have affected the outcome of the match? NO!

As usual, one rule for you, another rule for the other. Lampard getting sent off changed the game, but if Boswinga got sent off it would'nt have. Only takes a second to score a goal mate.

You said you should get two points back, because if Lampard never got a red Liverpool wouldn't have scored.

And ok, if thats how YOU look at it, then if Boswinga DID get a red then Liverpool would have scored. Works both ways, not just in your favour.

So theres absolutely no way whatsoever to prove what would have happen to Liverpool or Chelsea had Lampard and Boswinga both received red or not. The argument works both way, and nothing can be proved. Maybe if Lampard had stayed on he would have scored an own goal, none of us have a "what if" Crystal Ball do we?

But yet you are also saying Liverpool deserved to win (meaning that Liverpool would have scored - they can´t win without scoring can they?!) which ALSO has IFs in it - that is also correct.

Ok listen. How many games have Chelsea drawn when they deserved to win? A lot I'm guessing. On the basis of play they deserved to win, they also scored the two goals to get that win. If Chelsea had been on top for the whole game and then got a red that changed the game, or Liverpool should have blatently seen red but didn't and that player scored the winner or cleared a potential Chelsea equaliser off the line in the last minute then maybe you can use that "what if" argument. So my first point is that this "What if" rubbish should just be thrown out the window because in this case (the Chelsea Liverpool game) the argument can be used by Chelsea AND Liverpool fans. So instead look at who deserved to win. Liverpool deserved it 100%, plus scored the 2 goals to take all three points.

No need to mention that Boswinga got his red on 90 minutes and Liverpool wouldn't have had time to score. There we're 4 minutes injury time, Boswinga should have seen red on 93 mins, and Torres scored in the 94TH MINUTE while you had 10 men. So how do you know if Lampard was still on, Boswinga got his red on 93mins and it was still 0-0 that Torres wouldn't have still scored in the 94TH MINUTE while you had 10 men?

Still playing against 10 men with 1 minute to go, so maybe Torres still would have scored. No one can say what would or wouldn't have hapened had this or that player got a red or not, its near impossible. THATS my point, not that Liverpool would have scored or whatever else you're saying I said.

As usual, one rule for you, another rule for the other. Lampard getting sent off changed the game, but if Boswinga got sent off it would'nt have. Only takes a second to score a goal mate.

Sorry mate - but that´s just desperate! You know it and I know it!

You still fail to see the irony of your origonal "IF" comments.

There is nothing else I can do to help you.

You carry on!

.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:04:14:13:06 by dixon9.

Not desperate cos I'm saying if it was 0-0 and Boswinga got a red. Not if it was 1-0.

Anyway theres no points dealing with you. Even when I tell you that I wasn't pointing out that LIVERPOOL WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY SCORED if Lampard was still on, but that the whole "what if" argument is simply VOID, in this and most other cases. But you are still obsessed with talking about "irony"

For the last time IM NOT SAYING THAT LIVERPOOL WOULD HAVE SCORED. IM SAYING IT CANT BE PROVED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SCORED. NEITHER CAN IT BE PROVED THAT CHELSEA WOULD HAVE SCORED, OR LIVERPOOL WOULDN'T HAVE HAD LAMPARD STAYED ON.

ONCE AGAIN, IM NOT SAYING LIVERPOOL WOULD HAVE SCORED.

SO STOP WITH THIS "IRONY". BUT FROM READING THE DEBATES BETWEEN YOU AND THE LIVERPOOL LOT, I NOW KNOW THAT IF YOU CANT PROVE A POINT YOU JUST FOCUS ON SOME OTHER NON-EXISTENT FACT-LIKE SAYING THAT WHAT IM SAYING IS IRONIC WHEN IT ISN'T.

But fine, if Lampard stayed on you wouldn't have lost, thats a 100% fact. Whatever you say Dixie

Im gone

No! Please carry on...


.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Goona why are you shouting?



Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free

Getting a bit wound up I think.

He´s alright though....



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

wound up?

Just clearly stating my point guys, defo not shouting.

Anyway, to Liverpool

Straight jacket for Dixon.

Where did 80'sGooner say that Liverpool would have scored and would have won?

Quote:

Dixie
You said Liverpool would have won - how could they win without scoring?!

He never said that. Stop reading through your blue coloured specs.

A hem!

He said they deserved the win.

To win, you have to score.


.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Scarlett might aswell leave it. Dixon will tell you the sky is green. And when you show him its blue he'll still insist its green.

Dixon you crack me up mate lets just leave it. Big important games coming up

Oh so I say the sky is green do I?


"Do we get at least a point back and the scousers deducted 2 points?"

You lot didn't even deserve half a point, super fat frank or no super fat frank. You we're dominated start to finish.
80´s Gooner


Please please tell me you can FINALLY see it now?

I´ll give you and Capn some help:

"You lot didn't even deserve half a point...."
Jeeeeeez!




Still, as you say, big games coming up, let´s "leave it".



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:05:10:17:22 by dixon9.

Funny guy. point out where I said "Liverpool would have scored"
My words, which you've quoted, are :

You lot didn't even deserve half a point..You we're dominated start to finish.

Did I say Liverpool deserved to win and you deserved to lose-Yes.
Did I say they would have won or would have scored 11 v 11?-No
Did I say no team from that match should use the what if argument?- Yes
Will you understand this?- No

Where exactly do I say they would have scored? Nowhere. Do YOU finally see?

We didn´t even deserve half a point you said - correct?

We therefore did´n´t deserve a draw (i.e. 1 point) - correct?

So therefore Liverpool deserved to win according to you!

UNLESS the football regulations re 1 point for a draw or 3 points for a win have changed there is no way you can deny that you felt Liverpool deserved to win - it is mathmatically impossible for you to have meant the contrary - something which you and even Capn above denied.

I could try and help you by asking you what you felt Liverpool deserved - but if you felt that Liverpool didn´t deserve to win then how do explain that we didn´t deserve even a half a point?

Whichever way you look at it - YOU´RE WRONG!

If you can´t see this then I´m afraid I cannot help you anymore.


.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

I´ll give you some more help in one last effort to help you see:

You just said above:

Where exactly do I say they would have scored? Nowhere. Do YOU finally see?


And you also earlier said:

You lot didn't even deserve half a point, super fat frank or no super fat frank. You we're dominated start to finish.

Now, I´m sure you´ll agree that the outcome of the match could ONLY produce 1 point each or 3 points for one. Therefore, can you equate those two sentences above? (Don´t forget - 1 point for a draw, 3 points for a win).


,



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:05:12:13:02 by dixon9.

I'll put it this way so its easier for you.

That year when Mourinho was here and Chelsea played up at Old Trafford, the game where he moved Essien to right back and the 2nd half was just wave after wave of Chelsea attacks. Chelsea DESERVED to win that match, even when watching it it was clear that Chelsea deserved all three points. If I remember correctly it ended 1-1. Its impossible to say if Chelsea would have or wouldn't have scored during the game, but everybody agrees that Chelsea deserved to win the game. Chelsea deserved to beat Man Utd but didn't. Liverpool deserved to beat Chelsea and did.

Life lesson for Dixon-You dont always get what you deserve.

I simply said Liverpool deserved to win, Chelsea didn't. So you coming with all this about 1 point 3 points etc is needless, cos ALL I have said is that Liverpool DESERVED to win. Not once have I said this team or that team would have definitely scored.

Now if you want to make it out that me saying "Liverpool DESERVED to win" is the same as "Liverpool WOULD HAVE scored" then go right ahead. That game we played against CSKA moscow 2 years ago we had something like 25 shots to their one, and about 70% possession. We deserved to win that game, but we didn't we drew 0-0.

Still dont get it? Its so simple to understand.

You and captain! What a couple of thickies!

LOOK:

3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw - correct?

How can you say "Chelsea didn´t even deserve half a point AND then say you didn´t say Liverpool deserved to score or win?

If Liverpool didn´t deserve to score or win THEN what are you saying?

What do you think Liverpool deserved then? (AT LEAST answer that question as you are delibertately avoiding the others).



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:05:13:44:02 by dixon9.

You lot didn't even deserve half a point, super fat frank or no super fat frank. You we're dominated start to finish.

80´s Gooner


Im not insisting Liverpool would have scored. You're kinda insisting they wouldn't have had Lampard stayed on.

80´s Gooner


Straight jacket for Dixon.

Where did 80'sGooner say that Liverpool would have scored and would have won?

Capn thicksplat


I simply said Liverpool deserved to win, Chelsea didn't. So you coming with all this about 1 point 3 points etc is needless, cos ALL I have said is that Liverpool DESERVED to win.

80´s Gooner


I simply said Liverpool deserved to win, Chelsea didn't. So you coming with all this about 1 point 3 points etc is needless, cos ALL I have said is that Liverpool DESERVED to win. Not once have I said this team or that team would have definitely scored.

80´s Gooner






Once you explain to me how you win without scoring please let us all know!



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

How can you say "Chelsea didn´t even deserve half a point AND then say you didn´t say Liverpool deserved to score or win?

This is the reason why you go around in circles for ages with anyone you get into a discussion with.

I say to you that I think Liverpool DID deserve to win. I also say to you that that doesn't mean that they would have gone on to score or win

You come back by putting words in my mouth. I cleary said Liverpool deserved it, you come back by telling me that what I actually said was that I "DONT think Liverpool deserved it" --you see Since 66, THATS why I used Capital letters, to make clear what Im saying. But Dixon STILL put different words into my mouth.

I didn't say Liverpool didn't deserve it, yet you reply by saying thats what I said. Thats weak.

Dixon, straight Yes or No. If a team deserves to win on the basis of during the match they are having a lot more shots, the opponents are having next to no shots, they are dominating possession and are playing the better football etc does that mean that they will definitely go on to win the match win? Simple Yes or No.

If you say no, then you agree with me when I say that liverpool, on the basis of play during the game, looked like they deserved to go on and win the game mainly based on how the game was going, before the red and after.

MAYBE the red changed the game, I never said it didn't. BUT if you choose to use that argument of "what if Lampard didn't get sent off" then you have to accept it if Liverpool fans use the argument "well what if Boswinga DID get sent off, even if Lampard was still on it still would have been 11 vs 10 with one minute to go" BTW, Torres scored with one minute to go when it was also 11 vs 10, so how can you say that If the ref got both red decisions correct, Liverpool still wouldn't have won? And to be very clear, I'm not saying they would or wouldn't have definitely scored, I'm pointing out that you simply cant tell what would have happend had the two red decisions been different, and that If you wanna use the what if card then so can Liverpool in this case since the refs got both decisions wrong, with one each going against both teams

Isn't it just better for Chelsea fans not to mention getting two points back, and Liverpool not to say"well what if Boswinga got his red", and rather just say Liverpool deserved to win, just so happens they managed to scored the goals also.

I did say Liverpool deserved it
I didn't say that meant they they'd definitely go on to score or win
I did say the whole "what if" from chelsea is void because Liverpool can use that same argument.


Thats it, end of-whether you decide to put words in my mouth again or not.

He can consider himself lucky, never a but a
so having it rescinded he got away with it

Quote:

dixon9
80´s Gooner






Once you explain to me how you win without scoring please let us all know!

This is where you're confused.
Deserving to win and actually winning are two different things, like I have pointed out.

Dixon, straight Yes or No. If a team deserves to win on the basis of during the match they are having a lot more shots, the opponents are having next to no shots, they are dominating possession and are playing the better football etc does that mean that they will definitely go on to score or win the match? Simple Yes or No.

And now you're taking words OUT of my mouth Dixon you're getting hilarious now.

You cant win a game without scoring, BUT you can DESERVE to win a match without scoring, which is what I've been saying all along.

Im sure you've been in conversation after a 0-0 draw and said "we deserved to win that match". Im sure you've even said that over on our board.

I say to you that I think Liverpool DID deserve to win. I also say to you that that doesn't mean that they would have gone on to score or win

It´s quite simple:

You can´t win if don´t score - that is a FACT. If you say they deserved to win then AUTOMATICALLY you are saying they deserved to score - agreed?

They didn´t come close to scoring BEFORE Lampard was sent off - yet you dismissed that. You also dismiss that games can change,

-------------------------------------------------------------

All of this started out with you saying that my argument was using IF´s - I said yours was as well.

You then went on this mega long rant - which was really quite needless. You should have agreed that your argument was also an IF from the beginning.

As for DESERVE to win; I think if a team has most of the possession, hits the post, hits the bar etc etc (far from what Liverpool were doing - I think Cech only had to make one meaninful save) then I would say they were unlucky - but you only deserve to win if you score.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:05:15:06:40 by dixon9.

YOUR argument is "if Chelsea didnt get a red, they would have won"

YOU are saying that MY argument is "if Boswinga had got sent off Liverpool definitely would have gone on to score and win"

When MY argument is actually "BOTH CHELSEA and LIVERPOOL can use the what if argument on this occasion so no-one should use it. Had Boswinga not done what he did to Benayoun then we wouldn't be having this discussion, I'd be agreeing that you should get those two points back, but its because Liverpool ALSO had that decision going against them (Chelsea not going down to 10), coupled with the fact that Chelsea we're really poor and Liverpool were the better team that I say in this case the "what if" shouldn't be used.


you only deserve to win if you score.

You're probably the only guy who would say that, which is why this is a useless discussion. After a 0-0 haven't you ever heard a commentator say "on the basis of play they deserved to win"

I know you'll still make out like Im wrong and you're right, just like how you make out how the Liverpool lot are wrong over that 2million on players story and they say you're wrong. Never decided who I though we're right, but now its VERY clear, it must be them.

Seeya later Dixie.

Dixie, you've finally lost it, although I always knew it was on the cards.

We deserved to win. You deserved @#$%& all.

You deserve to be shot, but unfortunately probably won't.

Unlike a Liverpool fan to want to cause death to other fans!

Some habits will never change eh Capn?!

I´ll leave it other oppo fans to deliver the verdict on you:














.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

YOUR argument is "if Chelsea didnt get a red, they would have won"

YOU are saying that MY argument is "if Boswinga had got sent off Liverpool definitely would have gone on to score and win"

When MY argument is actually "BOTH CHELSEA and LIVERPOOL can use the what if argument on this occasion so no-one should use it. Had Boswinga not done what he did to Benayoun then we wouldn't be having this discussion, I'd be agreeing that you should get those two points back, but its because Liverpool ALSO had that decision going against them (Chelsea not going down to 10), coupled with the fact that Chelsea we're really poor and Liverpool were the better team that I say in this case the "what if" shouldn't be used.

IF´s IF´s IF´s - which is what I said to you from the very beginning!

you only deserve to win if you score.

You're probably the only guy who would say that, which is why this is a useless discussion. After a 0-0 haven't you ever heard a commentator say "on the basis of play they deserved to win"

I know you'll still make out like Im wrong and you're right, just like how you make out how the Liverpool lot are wrong over that 2million on players story and they say you're wrong. Never decided who I though we're right, but now its VERY clear, it must be them.

I doubt very much I am the only one to say that. My definition is that you are unlucky if you dominate etc but don´t score.

As for the 2m I have told them repeatedly about that (scan on search on this forum and see for yourself - don´t bother on theirs - most stuff that shows them up gets deleted as others will back me up). And it wasn´t just the 2m - it was also their history which they were unaware of - there´s loads and loads of it on here - if you are really interested (which you are not - you just want an ally) then scan. I made them look right numpties and they know it).


.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

"BOTH CHELSEA and LIVERPOOL can use the "what if" argument on this occasion so no-one should use it.

Thats my entire argument pretty much. Theres no IF this or that happened.

Which is what I said to you from the beginning!

I can´t wait for you lot to get a man sent off unfairly, THEN the other side score and win and someone says "Yeah! But they deserved it!"

.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

We Gooners went through this last season. After the Birmingham game (penalty where Clichy clearly got the ball) nearly every game had either the opposition getting an offside goal, us having a fair goal disallowed, the oppositiion scoring from a free kick/penalty they dived to get, but the only thing we ever heard was "stop moaning just cos the wheels are falling off"

You lost one game
We lost the title

If thats what you said from the beggining then we've just wasted a lot of time. Lets not waste anymore.

He can't remember what he said at the beggining.

you only deserve to win if you score.

Remember this line dixie.

What if you lose 3-1?

Are you really that desperate to keep a thread going that you post such utter shiite?

WTF are you on about you prize plum duff?

Haven´t you had enough of me making you look stupid without you coming on here and doing it yourself?

Carry on mate! Carry on!

Comedy gold!


.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

its kinda true though

I said:

"BOTH CHELSEA and LIVERPOOL can use the "what if" argument on this occasion so no-one should use it.

You replied with:

Which is what I said to you from the beginning!

A hem!

Right at the beginning you said my scenario had ifs and buts - I replied that yours did also.

Then you said neither should use that arguement - although you already had without realising it.



.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Since the start of this thread I've had the same argument.

"BOTH CHELSEA and LIVERPOOL can use the "what if" argument on this occasion so no-one should use it.- Thats all of it.

No ifs and Butts in that.

You replied with:

Which is what I said to you from the beginning!

So from the begining you said "no one should use the what if Lampard got sent off argument"-thats what you've just said right?

So we both agree? Liverpool and Chelsea both shouldn't use the "what if" argument on this occasion.

finally we agree.

Dont reply by saying my argument was "Liverpool would have scored for definite" because that obviously wasn't what I was saying. It was, like I said

"BOTH CHELSEA and LIVERPOOL can use the "what if" argument on this occasion so no-one should use it.

Which you replied to by saying that is what I said to you from the beginning!

Look...



You saying that Liverpool were really dominant and deserved the win - I´m saying that is ALSO a BIG IF argument also. The game could have changed (especially with 11 men on the field and Deco and Drogba coming on). You can´t say Liverpool deserved to win if there are unknown circumstances (unless you can see into the future) ahead.

Phewwww!


.

.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Dixon making anyone look stupid

Theres only one person on here thats been made to look stupid.
I'll let you try and redeem yourself a little by seeing if you can guess who that person is. Well?

I wont even respond with the same repititions.

Leme say this though, if it had finished 0-0, I'd still be saying Liverpool deserved to win. Maybe that helps, maybe not. But lets forget it now, we're both wrong.

80's gooner, you're a star. The patience you've shown over Dixons tediousness is a credit to your character.

Dixon has done what Dixon always does. He lies, makes things up and moves the goalposts, or even, as you can see, uses the dead to make petty little points every time he's made a fool of, or indeed, makes a fool of himself, which is quite often. He suffers from small club syndrome,

---------------------------------
“Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose.�. Bill Shankly

Dixon has done what Dixon always does. He lies, makes things up and moves the goalposts, or even, as you can see, uses the dead to make petty little points every time he's made a fool of, or indeed, makes a fool of himself, which is quite often. He suffers from small club syndrome,

Pot, meet kettle!

I could do just what you do Kate... Just delete posts or threads that show you up = thickie syndrome.

And in the words of Juve fans considering their supporters killed at Heysel by Liverpool fans (not Chelsea fans as your club tried to make out just after the murders):




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:06:05:09:17 by dixon9.

"BOTH CHELSEA and LIVERPOOL can use the "what if" argument on this occasion so no-one should use it.- Thats all of it.

Yet you had used it yourself!

How can you say they deserved to win IF they hadn´t even scored before Lampard had been sent off and there was still half an hour to go with the possibility of subs and 11 men on the field? How can you see into the future and assume that Liverpools dominance would have continued?

Unless you have a crystal ball you won´t convince me otherwise.

OR..

You honestly believe that a team that has more attacks and one meaningful shot on goal more than the other team in 60 mins automatucally deserves to win a match that is supposed to last 90 mins? In which case I would have to respectfully disagree with you as I believe crystal balls don´t work.

And I wouldn´t put much store in Kate´s back-up -she is still fuming at being shown up ages ago and STILL hasn´t got over it - she has an agenda.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:06:05:06:11 by dixon9.

So this is where we agree to disagree.

I believe that Liverpool, on the basis of play before the red, deserved to go on to win. Maybe they wouldn't have, just saying I believe they deserved it imo. Same after the red card.

You believe that had Lampard stayed on Liverpool wouldn't have scored. You believe the red changed the game. Maybe it did.

I believe that Boswinga not getting the red also could have affected the result. Im not even sure your stance on this but I'm past caring.

We'll agree to disagree.

Carry on deluding yourself Dixon. There are quite a few on sportnetwork who saw your complete decimation when you spectacularly failed to answer the questions asked of you.

Sky stats
Goals ...............Liverpool 2....Chelsea 0
Shots on Target...............9..........2...
Shots off Target..............7..........4...
Blocked Shots.................9...........2
Corners.........................12..........1..
Fouls.............................26..........16
Offsides..........................0..........2
Yellow Cards...................4..........3
Red Cards......................0..........1
Passing Success ............77.7.......71.7
Tackles.........................22.........22
Tackles Success................81.8.......68.2
Possession ....................52.3.......47.7
Territorial Advantage.........57.3.......42.7

---------------------------------
“Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose.�. Bill Shankly

Pretty much agree (although the Bosingwa incident happened in the 89th min (?) so stretching it a bit with that one compared to Gerrard missing almost the entire game)..

You can even have the last word if you like...





.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

ok i will

Haven't compared the Boswinga incident to Gerrard's. I said earlier that:

Lampard saw red in on 60. It was 11 vs 10 when the clock said 90+3. Torres scored on 90+4

Now if the ref made the correct decision on both incidents. No red for Lampard but a red for Boswinga then:

Boswinga would have seen red on 90+2. It again would have been 11 vs 10 when the clock says 90+3. So maybe Torres would still have scored on 90+4.

Last word?

.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

If only he'd stay that way.

Yeah but then who would,you have to teach you about your own clubs history captain?

Consider it a service, an education in fact. You should be grateful!





"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

Captain Scarlet
If only he'd stay that way.

Hope not, you're discussions are actually kinda interesting.

Yeah but...





.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Quote:

Reds
Carry on deluding yourself Dixon. There are quite a few on sportnetwork who saw your complete decimation when you spectacularly failed to answer the questions asked of you.

Kate,

You were missing 30 years of your own clubs financial history - it was frankly, EMBARRASSING. When you realised your world caved in didn´t it?

I know the wound is deep and you still haven´t recovered from it. If I knew it was going to have such a damaging effect on you and you were going to desperately follow me around straining for a glimpse of revenge then I would have gone easier on you.

What can I say? Sorry!

My only advice to you is forget about it and try to move on.

(although the only thing I would say to you is if you want to recover a modicum of dignity than STOP DELETING POSTS AND THREADS when you get shown up - there are many on the network and those that have now moved on that knew you as famous for doing this - all it does it make you look even worse...and of course your nickname was Miss Google - you often had to scurry away in search of answers to prop up your lack of knowledge).

.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:06:20:14:00 by dixon9.

Quote:

dixie
Yeah but then who would,you have to teach you about your own clubs history captain?
Consider it a service, an education in fact. You should be grateful!

I'd be grateful if you tell me where the £2m Shankly had to spend went.
While you're at it Kate had a few questions that you dodged, ran away from, need to answer.

I'm all ears mate. Let the lesson begin.

On the same wavelength as me Cap. I'm hoping to be educated too....

OK Dixon, let's pretend accept that you taught me about my clubs history, there are one or two of your 'truths' I don't understand so here's hoping you can teach me more of my clubs history.

1) You said that we'd had a Moores chairman for 50 years, I kept having to correct you until you realised that no, we actually hadn't and that it was Everton who'd had Moores the multimillionaire for a chairman. You then moved the goalposts to say that the Moores family had been involved with Liverpool for 50 years. If you call having a few hundred pounds worth of shares being involved then so was I. BTW, that few hundred pounds worth of shares was information I received straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak.
My question to you is this: How does that relate to Abramovich buying Chelseas trophies, after finding them bankrupt and nearly out of business?


2) You said that Shanks was given 2 million by Sir John Moores the Everton chairman to buy players, to get us out of the 2nd division and also to win trophies. I pointed out to you that Shanks had spent only £606,000 net in 13 years as boss of Liverpool, you ignored it and kept copying things you’d read from Chelsea sites and Chelsea journos.
My question to you is this: Where did the 2 million go, which players were bought for all that money?


3)You said that Shanks was criticized by fans for not playing local players, I then gave you a longish list of local players and frees who’d won him titles and cups. Again you ignored this and repeated adnauseum that Shanks had ignored local players.

My question to you is this: Could you name me a Shanks trophy winning team that had no locals in it?

Please Mr Dixon, educate me.

---------------------------------
“Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose.�. Bill Shankly

Kin hell!

AGAIN THE SAME!

Can´t keep away can you!

All the answers are on the other threads on here - do a search - we´ve done REAMS of threads on this on at least 3-4 occasions as you well know. Help yourself - even start a new thread if you want and copy and paste my answers.

Have fun!



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

As I said Dixie. We're all ears and sitting at our desks.

As I said Captain -its all on here - all you have to do is bring the thread up - its all been said many times - hours and hours of threads.(on here they dont get deleted)

Bring the threads up! Help yourself! All my responses are there - the 2m - moores being 50 years at your club - the lot (as well you know).

(or are you too thick and dont know how to do it?)



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

As we already knew......NO FECKIN ANSWERS YET AGAIN.

What's the feckin use of bringing up threads where you just waffle, waffle, waffle......

I've asked three straight forward questions, should be easy for someone as know all as yourself to answer.

You know, as does everyone else, that you dug a gigantic hole for yourself and haven't got the guts to answer on this thread something that YOU yourself brought in to it.

BTW, I was proud of my Miss Google title and quite miss it, the explanation you give of it though is way wide off the mark, but that's you all over isn't it, make up what you don't know...

Dixon = I'm good at making up fairy stories but don't ask me for facts to back it up because I'm a gutless fool who writes shiiite and thinks no-one notices.

---------------------------------
“Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose.�. Bill Shankly

Kate

I have ALREADY answered your questions - over and over -from years ago - the threads are on here. Why should I keep have to go over this with you again and again when its ALREADY on here.

I am satisfied with my side of the debate - you are not - well tough!

IF you want to - then YOU can bring the threads up BECAUSE YOU are the one who wants to debate it.

Believe it or not there are people whi get peed off with us going over and over and over and over about this - it has been going on for years.

Help yourself - or run along.
-----------------------------------------------------
Although I am curious about one new thing you have brought into the argument;

When did you buy your shares and for how much?





.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

YOU brought it up in this thread Dixon, show some bloody guts for once and back up what you say.

The other threads had no facts either just your made up fairy stories and waffling.....

Here's your chance to set the record straight once and for all and prove us wrong.

You won't though will you, because you know full well that you fell flat on your face and looked the prize idiot that you are. Get a spine ffs.

---------------------------------
“Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose.�. Bill Shankly

You get a spine - YOU want to argue the toss again - I don´t (for reasons expressed above 2-3 times now!).

The threads are on HERE.

Bring them UP.

YOUR CHOICE - YOU DECIDE - or run along,

Note no reply on the shares question. I wonder why? Lol!

.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:07:01:51:10 by dixon9.

You answered the questions. Did you @#$%&.

We've all been waiting months for the answers, but didn't hold our breath.

All you gave was a quote from Dalglish (spelt wrong as well) which had nothing to do with anything.

A "quote" from "a fan"

A "quote" from a journo.

Oh and there was loads and loads of waffle which carried no weight at all.

C'mon dixon. Show everyone here and now that you know your stuff and answer (with facts) the three easy (should be for you) questions.

Think of it as though me and Kate are in detention.

Come on Capn!

Bring the threads up here then? Show me up!

Despite you and Kate repeating that I am tedious, reptitive and a liar YOU CAN´T STAY OFF THIS BOARD. And we know why don´t we? You are still reeling from before and are desperate for some form of revenge.

I say again:

We have argued about this maybe 3,4,5,6,7 times over the course of what, 4-5 years? On this site the threads are here - REAMS of them. Bring them up if you so wish. I do not want to nor need to as I am secure in my arguments.


People find this discussions boring and a pain - in fact, new posters may even think this is some kind of hysterical madhouse. I have no wish to continue and continue for years to come.

You either agree or disagree - I don´t care.

At the end of the day, if you don´t like it, then don´t come on here - it´s quite simple.


.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Re: Cap - About Dixon
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 19 June, 2008 18:02


"Through the Darkness of Despair"

…On arrival at Anfield he found a run down ground, where the wind rattled through the corrugated roof of all parts of the ground…

…He approached the board for money to buy a young Jackie Charlton, but was unsuccessful. He approached the board for money to buy the Scottish midfield dynamo Dave MacKay, but was unsuccessful. Shankly had been assured by the board that they were as ambitious as he was to improve the clubs standing, but this was not proving to be true.

…Coming third in the second division was a fate so cruel it often brought tears to the eyes of fans, who wondered how long “The Darkness of Despair” would last. Shankly was already showing signs of desperation, he needed a benefactor who would not run away from signing cheques, they didn’t need to fill them out, Bill could do that, all they had to do was SIGN THEM!

Fortunately for Bill, that time was not that far away. Eric Sawyer an accountant with Littlewood Pools had been nominated by John Moores (WHILST CHAIRMAN OF EVERTON!!!) for a place on the board and if Eric had one skill that Liverpool needed, it was his ability to sign his name. The Liverpool boss could now spend the summer of 1961 looking for the ammunition that would fire Liverpool back to the top league,

Liverpool History artcle on Liverpool web by a life-time Liverpool fan


“At Liverpool the fans are monumentally sentimental, but they know their history and understand that money talks. The Shankly reawakening came only with the help of some Moores' money in the 1960s. Liverpool was one of the few clubs originally formed as a commercial venture.”

David Conn – The Guardian


Now, with Mourinho looking for friends after being pilloried from all quarters about his team and the methods they employ, he has found an unlikely ally in Dalglish.

"I had the same thing when I was at Blackburn," Recalled Dalglish. "If the usual contenders aren't winning the League then they are going to gripe. That's how football is.
"Chelsea are a fantastic club and I certainly don't have any problem with the fact that they are now the team everybody has to beat.

"People ' say they are all about Roman Abramovich's money, but so what? "Which club wouldn't love to have Chelsea's money? It's just jealousy.

"Every club that has won the title has spent money - even going back to my days as a player at Liverpool.

"Bob Paisley spent a lot of money to bring me in from Celtic. It was a lot to spend on one player at that time. Liverpool did it, Nottingham Forest did it, Aston Villa did it and Manchester United, Arsenal and Blackburn have done it.

"Now Chelsea are doing it and they are the team that everyone is having a go”.

Kenny Dalgleish


"It's an emotional time for me because my family has been involved in this club for fifty years."

David Moores (Littlewoods Empire and one of the richest families in Britain) (and that´s 50 YEARS Kate - NOT since the 80´s as you´ve always said! - No doubt you are going to say Moores was drugged when he made the interview and that you are right?!!!)


LIVERPOOL LITTLEWOODS POOLS EMPIRE FC - BUYING TROPHIES FOR 50 YEARS.


You lot keep frothing and foaming and living in denial though!




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.


Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message•Reply via PM•Follow This

And THAT is the nub of the argument! But they STILL deny it!

One is a respected journalist

One is off their OFFICIAL site

One is a former player

and the other is DAVID MOOORES himself!


(The 2 million is peripheral to the main argument - in fact, I´ve said that Moores have contributed much more than that anyway, as for Moores he was pumping money into the club since the 60´s WHILST Chairman of Everton - think what that means!)




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:07:09:55:49 by dixon9.

David Moores (Littlewoods Empire and one of the richest families in Britain) (and that´s 50 YEARS Kate - NOT since the 80´s as you´ve always said! - No doubt you are going to say Moores was drugged when he made the interview and that you are right?!!!)


LIVERPOOL LITTLEWOODS POOLS EMPIRE FC - BUYING TROPHIES FOR 50 YEARS.


You lot keep frothing and foaming and living in denial though.

Chicken Dixon, when he first started this, said we'd had a Moores chairman for 50 years and after many corrections by me, he decided to use the Moores family have been involved with Liverpool for 50 years. The only arguement there being the amount of involvement, as I've said, and it was told to me by a member of the Moores family, Sir John Moores had a couple of hundred pounds worth of shares, that was his involvment. My uncle also had a few bobs worth of shares too, didn't mean he made any decisions whatsoever.

David Moores became a board member in the mid 80's and chairman in 1991.

As to the rest, maybe if you did the right kind of research you would have come up with this.

By the summer of 1960 when the board paled at the thought of meeting the 40,000 asking price for Brian Clough Shankly was beginning to tdoubt that Liverpool really wanted to regain their former glories.

Exactly a year later, three men had changed his mind, and with it the tide finally followed suit. Two of those faces were familiar to Shankly, the other-perhaps the most significant-was not.
The new acquaintance was Eric Sawyer, a Littlewoods director who joined the board in 1960 and who shared Shanklys ambition and believed in his vision.
The two known quantities were Ian St John and Ron Yeats. Now, in May 1961, with The Reds heading for yet another third-place finish,the opportunity to sign StJohn arose once more, and the managers relationship with the club stood at the crossroads once again.

The asking price was £37,000 but this time,with Sawyer now batting for him in the boardroom, the moths were released from the safe and St John became a Liverpool player
From a book by David Walmsley who also wrote The History of Liverpool FC after working for the Liverpool Echo for many years and reporting on local football.


Stephen Done (LFC museum curator): While he could see there was potential in the club, what we have to try and remember is that back in 1959 this club was in a bad state. Perhaps no worse than many First Division clubs of today but compared to the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton, who were very wealthy at that time,Liverpool Football Club was in a bit of a mess and quite frankly wasn't going anywhere fast. [b]LFC had plenty of money but wasn't spending it.[/b]


Sorry to piiiss on your chips like.

---------------------------------
“Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose.�. Bill Shankly

Back on the roundabout

The same rubbish offered as "proof"

You still haven't answered the 3 simple questions.

How does that relate to Abramovich buying Chelseas trophies, after finding them bankrupt and nearly out of business?


Where did the 2 million go, which players were bought for all that money?

Could you name me a Shanks trophy winning team that had no locals in it?

Even you can see that the money for Dalglish came from the Keegan transfer.

You want it dropped because the hole is getting deeper. Facts was asked for, not opinions. Give my love to Australia when you get there.

Oh and thanks carefree for your hard work. An extra shovel is just what dixon needed.

You have no wish to continue Dixon because you know you made a fool of yourself.

No answers to Liverpool buying trophies Abramovich style
No answers about the 2 million quid
No answers about local players being ignored by Shanks.

You're a spineless piece of chicken muck who isn't even man enough to admit he was wrong.

DIXON: (The 2 million is peripheral to the main argument - in fact, I´ve said that Moores have contributed much more than that anyway, as for Moores he was pumping money into the club since the 60´s WHILST Chairman of Everton - think what that means!)


The two million is far from peripheral, it was the main point of your argument you dozy imbecile. It's been proved to you time and again that Shanks and Paisley between them only spent three and a half million net over nearly 25 years How does that equate with the 2 million, and now more, that you said had been put in around 1960?

---------------------------------
“Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose.�. Bill Shankly



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:07:13:11:28 by Reds.

Right Kate,

THIS IS THE LAST TIME FROM ME ON THIS:

The whole reason for our argument over the years is that whilst you cite Abramovich buying titles for us I have countered with the Moores family (one of the richest families in Britain during that era) from Littlewoods Pools being a major reason for your success over the years and also for helping Shankly get out of the 2nd division - and that therefore you are being hypocritical? I have also pointed out that this happened whilst Moores himself was chairman of Everton (think about that for a moment!).

I don’t believe that you will deny this is the NUB of the whole argument? I trust you accept this?

Forget the 2m - that is largely peripheral anyway as Moores has pumped a lot more into your club than that amount (more rope for you) - you surely realise that? I said to you that at one point it was 2m. Please also bear in mind that investment in football clubs does not only cover transfer fees - there are other matters such as players wages etc)

By the way, you have often mocked me for calling the Moores family a clan (see below from your post). Here is an example for you to peruse (look at the title and I trust you won´t quibble with the source? ;-) )

LINK

There are reams of posts/threads on this but here is a more recent one, as an example, that can be easily found on your board at the moment on the Athens thread which is a sticky at the top of your board (Please do not delete it - I have copied it here anyway):

“Dixon, you went on and on that the Moores had been running our club for the last 50 years, you know you're a lying arrsehole and I know it. The Moores family in the shape of David ran our club from '92 and unlike Chelsea our teams were built and our trophies won.....NOT BOUGHT.”

You have also said:

“The Moores clan, as you call them, plus Littlewoods Pools were involved with EVERTON, not Liverpool. Sir John Moores was a blue through and through, it was his empire, he started it. FFS, stop reading your Chelsea blog shiiite and learn the truth.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOW:

This is what your most popular site says within a history article:

"Through the Darkness of Despair"

…On arrival at Anfield he found a run down ground, where the wind rattled through the corrugated roof of all parts of the ground…

…He approached the board for money to buy a young Jackie Charlton, but was unsuccessful. He approached the board for money to buy the Scottish midfield dynamo Dave MacKay, but was unsuccessful. Shankly had been assured by the board that they were as ambitious as he was to improve the clubs standing, but this was not proving to be true.

…Coming third in the second division was a fate so cruel it often brought tears to the eyes of fans, who wondered how long “The Darkness of Despair” would last. Shankly was already showing signs of desperation, he needed a benefactor who would not run away from signing cheques, they didn’t need to fill them out, Bill could do that, all they had to do was SIGN THEM!

Fortunately for Bill, that time was not that far away. Eric Sawyer an accountant with Littlewood Pools had been nominated by John Moores for a place on the board and if Eric had one skill that Liverpool needed, it was his ability to sign his name. The Liverpool boss could now spend the summer of 1961 looking for the ammunition that would fire Liverpool back to the top league,

Liverpool History article by a life-time Liverpool fan on your most popular site

LINK


NEXT:


“At Liverpool the fans are monumentally sentimental, but they know their history and understand that money talks. The Shankly reawakening came only with the help of some Moores' money in the 1960s. Liverpool was one of the few clubs originally formed as a commercial venture.”

David Conn – The Guardian

LINK


NEXT:
(Not so damning perhaps but nevertheless)


Now, with Mourinho looking for friends after being pilloried from all quarters about his team and the methods they employ, he has found an unlikely ally in Dalglish.

"I had the same thing when I was at Blackburn," Recalled Dalglish. "If the usual contenders aren't winning the League then they are going to gripe. That's how football is.

"Chelsea are a fantastic club and I certainly don't have any problem with the fact that they are now the team everybody has to beat.

"People ' say they are all about Roman Abramovich's money, but so what? "Which club wouldn't love to have Chelsea's money? It's just jealousy.

"Every club that has won the title has spent money - even going back to my days as a player at Liverpool.

"Bob Paisley spent a lot of money to bring me in from Celtic. It was a lot to spend on one player at that time. Liverpool did it, Nottingham Forest did it, Aston Villa did it and Manchester United, Arsenal and Blackburn have done it.

"Now Chelsea are doing it and they are the team that everyone is having a go”.

Kenny Dalglish


NEXT:


"It's an emotional time for me because my family has been involved in this club for fifty years."

David Moores (Littlewoods Empire and one of the richest families in Britain)
(I have the full transcript of the interview if you wish)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to have missed out a rather large chunk in your own clubs financial history I´m sure you will agree?

Now, you can call me a liar etc and say that I’m wrong; BUT how do you say that your most popular site is wrong, that a respected journalist is wrong, to some extent that Kenny Dalglish is wrong and most of all, that David Moores himself is wrong?!

Don´t argue with me anymore - take it up with them!

To make matters even worse with regard to your hypocrisy and ignorance, whilst you constantly snipe at “Abramovich the sugar daddy”, your own club has been searching the world for one itself even before Abramovich bought Chelsea. Parry was hawking your club around the globe for years before the likes of Hicks and Gilet came along (which you welcomed with open arms by the way) and now you are hoping that rich Arab businessman buy out Hicks and Gilet. It is unfortunate that you are too stupid to see the irony.

THIS IS THE LAST TIME – I refuse to comment anymore. If in the future you come on here blurting out your frantic, erroneous propaganda and lack of knowledge about your own club I shall refer you to this post.

Enough is enough! This debate has clogged up this board for years now and there must literally be hundreds of posts on it – very very boring and tedious for current posters and potential new posters.

Now, I shall let you stew in your own frustrated juice for years to come.






.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:07:17:32:56 by dixon9.

So chicken shiiit, you won't comment anymore, even though you have failed to answer the questions you were asked following your initial allegations which were.

2million quid given to Shanks to buy trophies Abramovich style.
No answers to Shanks ignoring local players.
No answers to who the players were that came with the 2 million quid.
No answer to the fact that over 25 years of winning trophy after trophy,
LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB HAD A NET SPEND OF TWO AND A HALF MILLION.

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY STILL CARRY ON WITH YOUR SHIIITE AFTER READING THAT YOU IDIOTIC BUFOON?
Add that to the comments of the two historians and anything you have said falls down irrevocably. Are you just too feckin dumb to see that?

Are you saying that a few journos know more about Liverpool Football Club than the curator of the museum who has access to all the relevant papers and records?

Liverpool won their trophies fair and square with teams built up of lower league players and money earned by the club itself.

Chelsea won trophies the easy way with a sugar daddy ploughing millions upon millions in to a bankrupt club just to buy them. Not by hard work and development of players or by the clubs own earnings.

---------------------------------
“Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose.�. Bill Shankly

I refer you to my answer above.




-.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.

Answer? You haven't answered any question yet idiot.

You're a bluff merchant who thinks no-one sees through you. Believe me they do. You dug yourself a hole and were too stupid to see that you'd buried yourself in it.

---------------------------------
“Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose.�. Bill Shankly

I refer you to my answer above.




.



"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.