Steven Gerrard To Aston Villa - Official

[The Specky Forum Organiser 65,802]

3 minutes ago, Kylegib said:

I was wondering where you were

 

[Kylegib 516]

7 minutes ago, The Specky Liar said:

 

100% vermin not a chance I'll attempt to defend scum like that.

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,254]

1 hour ago, Kylegib said:

Do you not think the money that was front loaded was recovered by how well we were performing in the EL. I do agree we should've been good enough to beat a very average 10 man Malmo team however we'd have improved our chances had we strengthened prior to playing them. Regarding being backed more if we made the group stages I wouldn't be too sure of that as GVB got us there and wasn't backed after getting us there.

Somebody who’s more into the business and accounting side of things can probably explain it, but how well we were doing in the Europa League didn’t recover anything. We still posted losses every year under Gerrard IIRC and yet the board still backed him financially and let him increase the wage budget massively year on year during his time as our manager.

Gio maybe wasn’t backed, but by agreeing to sell players this Summer we as a club were able to go out and spend 12-15 million on new players to freshen up the squad. Have all of them worked out? Absolutely not, but it just shows the position we are in and that’s that player trading was the best and most sustainable way to reshape our squad.

How it reads is that you seemingly think the board should have kept bankrolling Gerrard despite his alleged unwillingness to compromise on assets potentially going out the door because he wanted to keep the squad together and his failure as a manager in terms of getting us to the champions league, and that’s not and never ever would be sustainable. 

The fact that so many people on here, people who criticise the board almost daily, still back them over Gerrard whenever you bring this up surely highlights that you are in the minority in terms of thinking Gerrard was hard done by or handed a raw deal?

[BelfastWillie 1,126]

13 minutes ago, The Specky Liar said:

 

Self-Pity City, they goi for the sympathy vote when it suits them. None of these bastards is from Warrington I assume.

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,254]

Here, somebody who knows better than me confirm or deny this, but are we not also on a FFP watch list because the board spent beyond their means backing Gerrard?

 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 65,802]

1 minute ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Here, somebody who knows better than me confirm or deny this, but are we not also on a FFP watch list because the board spent beyond their means backing Gerrard?

 

We are.

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/20897879.uefa-financial-fair-play-rules-work-will-affect-rangers/

[Kylegib 516]

2 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Somebody who’s more into the business and accounting side of things can probably explain it, but how well we were doing in the Europa League didn’t recover anything. We still posted losses every year under Gerrard IIRC and yet the board still backed him financially and let him increase the wage budget massively year on year during his time as our manager.

Gio maybe wasn’t backed, but by agreeing to sell players this Summer we as a club were able to go out and spend 12-15 million on new players to freshen up the squad. Have all of them worked out? Absolutely not, but it just shows the position we are in and that’s that player trading was the best and most sustainable way to reshape our squad.

How it reads is that you seemingly think the board should have kept bankrolling Gerrard despite his alleged unwillingness to compromise on assets potentially going out the door because he wanted to keep the squad together and his failure as a manager in terms of getting us to the champions league, and that’s not and never ever would be sustainable. 

The fact that so many people on here, people who criticise the board almost daily, still back them over Gerrard whenever you bring this up surely highlights that you are in the minority in terms of thinking Gerrard was hard done by or handed a raw deal?

I'm definitely in the minority that's for sure.

Most of what you say I agree with apart from where it says Gerrard's unwillingness to sell. Gerrard would've known what he was getting into coming to manage us and a big part of his remit would've or should've been a successful player trading model, I don't believe Gerrard would've been allowed to dictate that and if he was then our board are weaker than I thought. 

I believe the board did front load the squad to try put us in a position to challenge however with our performances in Europe should've balanced that off especially getting past the group stages.

The board in my opinion missed a huge opportunity by not investing after we won the league. 

[Kylegib 516]

7 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Here, somebody who knows better than me confirm or deny this, but are we not also on a FFP watch list because the board spent beyond their means backing Gerrard?

 

We are although not sure it was to do with Gerrard's spending. 

[Kylegib 516]

10 minutes ago, BelfastWillie said:

Self-Pity City, they goi for the sympathy vote when it suits them. None of these bastards is from Warrington I assume.

What is a group of scumbags singing about murdering bastards got to do with self pity?

[The Dude 20,026]

9 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Here, somebody who knows better than me confirm or deny this, but are we not also on a FFP watch list because the board spent beyond their means backing Gerrard?

 

yes and no. FFP stuff relates to Covid money from ScotGov enabling us to meet FFP (UEFA granted an exemption to that sort of funding). All the 'warning' from UEFA was that such an exemption t  state funding no longer applies in next reporting period.

[The Dude 20,026]

5 minutes ago, Kylegib said:

I'm definitely in the minority that's for sure.

Most of what you say I agree with apart from where it says Gerrard's unwillingness to sell. Gerrard would've known what he was getting into coming to manage us and a big part of his remit would've or should've been a successful player trading model, I don't believe Gerrard would've been allowed to dictate that and if he was then our board are weaker than I thought. 

I believe the board did front load the squad to try put us in a position to challenge however with our performances in Europe should've balanced that off especially getting past the group stages.

The board in my opinion missed a huge opportunity by not investing after we won the league. 

Gerrard had the chance. The only player he wanted who cost £ that summer was Nisbet. The same Nisbet you agree the board were right not to fund a move for.

[BelfastWillie 1,126]

1 minute ago, Kylegib said:

What is a group of scumbags singing about murdering bastards got to do with self pity?

Nothing, my point was Liverpool overstretches its Victimpool status, and it's pretty fcking ironic that they reach for our sympathy regarding everything from Hillsborough to tear gas, but are prepared to then do something like this, and gloat over other people's suffering.  The ones involved I mean. 

[hammer93 15,071]

32 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Somebody who’s more into the business and accounting side of things can probably explain it, but how well we were doing in the Europa League didn’t recover anything. We still posted losses every year under Gerrard IIRC and yet the board still backed him financially and let him increase the wage budget massively year on year during his time as our manager.

Gio maybe wasn’t backed, but by agreeing to sell players this Summer we as a club were able to go out and spend 12-15 million on new players to freshen up the squad. Have all of them worked out? Absolutely not, but it just shows the position we are in and that’s that player trading was the best and most sustainable way to reshape our squad.

How it reads is that you seemingly think the board should have kept bankrolling Gerrard despite his alleged unwillingness to compromise on assets potentially going out the door because he wanted to keep the squad together and his failure as a manager in terms of getting us to the champions league, and that’s not and never ever would be sustainable. 

The fact that so many people on here, people who criticise the board almost daily, still back them over Gerrard whenever you bring this up surely highlights that you are in the minority in terms of thinking Gerrard was hard done by or handed a raw deal?

Great Post mate 👍 

[sassaaaa 11,406]

See hes playing against his boyhood heroes in a charity match.

[Kylegib 516]

39 minutes ago, sassaaaa said:

See hes playing against his boyhood heroes in a charity match.

I'm sure he'll get a nice reception. 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,788]

22 hours ago, Kylegib said:

That's great, but the truth will come out we were miles behind celtic when Gerrard arrived by the time he left he won us the title by a record points margin.The board failed to fulfil financial commitments that they made to him resulting in him leaving and us now trailing celtic again. People can dress that up how they like but that's what's happened. 

Gerrard didn't leave when he won the title, why are you conveniently ignoring the 3 months he spent post 55 title

[Kylegib 516]

1 hour ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Gerrard didn't leave when he won the title, why are you conveniently ignoring the 3 months he spent post 55 title

I know when he left and fact is he won us the league by a record margin and when he left after the 3 months you mentioned we had beaten celtic and were top of the league, if our board had kept their promises of backing in all liklihood we would've went on to win the league but they decided no to and were now watching our rivals go for another treble. 

[Hadron Collider 31,216]

11 minutes ago, Kylegib said:

I know when he left and fact is he won us the league by a record margin and when he left after the 3 months you mentioned we had beaten celtic and were top of the league, if our board had kept their promises of backing in all liklihood we would've went on to win the league but they decided no to and were now watching our rivals go for another treble. 

 

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,254]

11 minutes ago, Kylegib said:

I know when he left and fact is he won us the league by a record margin and when he left after the 3 months you mentioned we had beaten celtic and were top of the league, if our board had kept their promises of backing in all liklihood we would've went on to win the league but they decided no to and were now watching our rivals go for another treble. 

He added Lundstram, who came in for nothing but immediately became one of our top earners because of the level he came from, and he added Sakala which gave us another option right across the front line, to an already strong squad which lost no key players that Summer either.

You keep talking about how we won the league by a record margin, and how we were so far in front, so if that was the case then how much investment did we really need to retain the title? 

 

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,788]

12 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

He added Lundstram, who came in for nothing but immediately became one of our top earners because of the level he came from, and he added Sakala which gave us another option right across the front line, to an already strong squad which lost no key players that Summer either.

You keep talking about how we won the league by a record margin, and how we were so far in front, so if that was the case then how much investment did we really need to retain the title? 

 

 

Plus he fails to blame gerrard for winning by a record amount then fucking it up big time to allow a tarrier rebuild team within 4pts of us

Oh and lets not forget malmo

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,788]

29 minutes ago, Kylegib said:

I know when he left and fact is he won us the league by a record margin and when he left after the 3 months you mentioned we had beaten celtic and were top of the league, if our board had kept their promises of backing in all liklihood we would've went on to win the league but they decided no to and were now watching our rivals go for another treble. 

Backed with what? Where was the money to back him with? 

[Kylegib 516]

13 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

He added Lundstram, who came in for nothing but immediately became one of our top earners because of the level he came from, and he added Sakala which gave us another option right across the front line, to an already strong squad which lost no key players that Summer either.

You keep talking about how we won the league by a record margin, and how we were so far in front, so if that was the case then how much investment did we really need to retain the title? 

 

 

So do you think we invested enough after winning the title or do you think it was a massive opportunity missed?

[Kylegib 516]

Just now, Jimbeamjunior said:

Backed with what? Where was the money to back him with? 

No idea but if the board have promised financial backing they must've been getting it from somewhere. 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,788]

Just now, Kylegib said:

No idea but if the board have promised financial backing they must've been getting it from somewhere. 

The board might well have promised financial backing, but unfortunately FFP rules and the lack of player sales would have hampered that, plus gerrard was front loaded (like the papes did with oneill) to the point that even a europa league last 16 run still had us with major losses

Would you or gerrard have been happy had we not added roofe, itten and hagi for the title season, or sold morelos and maybe say kent pre title season

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,254]

41 minutes ago, Kylegib said:

So do you think we invested enough after winning the title or do you think it was a massive opportunity missed?

It probably was a missed opportunity but that is because Gerrard blew the champions league and we wouldn’t sell any players, apparently at his demand, not because of the board refusing to put their hands into their pockets again.

The board had already done their part and backed him massively to get us to where we were at the end of the 55 season.  It would have been financially stupid, to keep doing so, and as frustrating as it was as a supporter I’m glad they didn’t because the clubs long term viability has to be the number one priority. Gerrard knew what our model as a club was and as soon as things didn’t pan out how he wanted he lost interest (which definitely reflected in our performances on the park) and then upped sticks and ran away at the first real offer he got.