Don't think they make enough profit for them to do that if they wanted to, do they? And I can't see they have masses of retained earnings to do so or there probably wouldn't be the problems there are now.

Liverpool were owned by the Moores family. They owned the Littlewoods pools and retail chain.

Everton were owned by Sir John Moores. He took over chairmanship of Everton in 1961. Everton won the league in 62/63 and 69/70. They hadn't won the league since 1939.

Liverpool fans will say that their success was built by Shankly. But look at Shankly's utterly awesome career before he went to Liverpool.

Money has always been important in football. Arsenal have always been dripping with money - you don't build a stadium with marble halled entrances unless you've got wealth behind you. It's okay for Arsenal to preach that their way should be the only way, but it's a lot easier to do things the Arsenal way if you've got a board who've got a few hundred million each.

Would Newcastle be the size they are now without the investments of Sir John Hall? IMO no way. Would Wigan Athletic ever get to the PL without Dave Whelan? Not a chance.

Look into most clubs history you will see that money has played a part although not on the scales of your Chelsea's and Man City's the latter being lots of money without success so far.

Glentoran 1-0 Portadown BURROWS GOAL

on youtube

Lucky...

Nigel de Jong won the ball fairly and squarely. It's a shame that Ben Arfa got injured but these things happen in football. There was no foul and that should be the end of the matter.

I'm not his biggest fan by a long stretch, but the witch hunt over a perfectly legal tackle is just another example of the press looking to put the boot in on us at every possible chance.

Interesting to see Liverpool fans getting all excited about the New England boys coming in. I believe the guy has a personal wealth of about £540m which is absolute peanuts in this day and age.

The debts may be wiped out but I can't see much money being available in terms of transfer funds.

City have spent nigh on £1 billion and are still nowhere near good enough, so what effect will the drop in the ocean that this group can bring have on Liverpool?

It seems to me that they are that desperate to get rid of Hicks and Gillette, that they will sell to anyone no matter who they are.

but if Ben Arfa did the same to de jong you wouldnt be saying the same story

end of the day it was a bad tackle and should of got a yellow or red

I will be delighted if the guys coming in keep there promise, clear the debts and either build the new stadium or upgrade Anfield.

If they do that, then i would be more than happy for us to compete in the transfer market etc with money that we have earned, rather than thrown at us. If that means being a mid table side, or just trying to compete to get back in the champions league then so be it.

No seen anyone I know get excited about it, its more to do with getting rid of millions and millions of debts and getting rid of them two, nobodys thinks it going to be a City type takeover with them being silly with money £10-20m (net) going into the squad every year will do me, though City seemed to be able to spend as much as they like without even a league Cup to show for it must be a City thing.

Like a young LFCRhino special

Liverpool are big enough to earn the revenue they need to compete. Smaller clubs need money thrown at them - Chelsea, City etc. Should the new owner rid the club of debt, Liverpool will be on the road to recovery.

On the upgarde of Anfield - how much could they it extend by?

In the semi final of the FA Cup, when John Terry won the ball cleanly, got kicked by Milner straight after, was then booked by the ref and after the game had to put up with claims that he should've been sent off, you were backing Terry were you? Because I don't remember seeing anyone on here who didn't think Terry should have been off.

Of course it's all an anti-Citeh witch hunt. Nothing to do with two broken legs and a kung-fu kick through someone's chest in the space of a few months.

I have to retract what I said about De Jong barely winning the ball. The only angle I'd seen the ball barely seemed to move. I've just managed to see a clip again and he did win the ball and divert it to a Citeh play, so in that it was a "good" tackle. My problem with De Jong's challenges are simply that he goes in to take man and ball each time.

Easily 15k

They could do an OT style rebuild of the Anny road and having the road go under the stand.

Pretty sure the club owns the houses at the back of the main stand which have just be left to ruin so that could lead to them adding to that.

You'd think that's a sensible option then. 60k, full house every week, jobs a good 'un.

Chelsea had an income of £149m to Liverpool's £122m when Liverpool won the CL on 2004/05.

The following figures are in Euros:

In 2007/08 Chelsea 268.9 Arsenal 264.0 Liverpool 210.9
2006/07 Chelsea 283.0 Arsenal 263.9 Liverpool 198.9

For the last season Chelsea just edged Liverpool. Obviously last season was slightly different because Chelsea got knocked out of the first round of the knock out stages and Liverpool went into the Europa League when they didn't make it out of the group stages.

But I know you mancs and the scousers have a "You suck me and I'll suck you" relationship.

They're getting the building work done for free, are they? They're going to fill a 60,000 seat stadium with the squad they have and not have to significantly strengthen the side?

Mancs turnover £286 million

£100m operating profit

Yet still make £83m loss due to debts.

Get rid of the debts they would be unstoppable money wise.

Your turn RedTez

3/4 of 'facts' are made up.

87% of all people know that.

Of course they're not going to get it done for free. You being silly now, petal. It would be cheaper than building a new stadium though, no? And yes, the vermin probably would still fill it with the current squad. But the takeover is all about clearing the debt and making funds available, not Abramovich / Mansour funds, but funds all the same.

But Liverpool will need 'Mansour funds' to build a competitive playing squad.

Its not as if they've not had green to spend though over the past 5 years or so.

What is the spends of PL teams since 1992?

£83m loss? Get Ocean Finance on the phone...

Can any United supporter (anyone apart from Scouse Mark) confirm whether or not United received some, or all, of the AON sponsorship money upfront?

=#0080FF[size=200TICK TOCK [/size

Not really 3-4 players would do the trick along with a good manager.

Yes they did. The first years I believe. We're in deep s**t.

Keep an eye on this over the next couple of days for some analysis on the United figures [urlhttp://andersred.blogspot.com/[/url

There's also some interesting comments from Tampa Bay Bucs fans at the bottom of this article which is linked in teh above blog [urlhttp://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/aug/25/271832/are-glazer-loan-delinquencies-problematic/[/url

Despite the announced loss by United, get your David Gill & Fergie cliché bingo cards at the ready.
"The debt is not a problem."
"The Glazers have been fantastic owners."
"Never been denied funds for the right player."
etc etc etc