Liverpool FC (The Reds) | Special Thread
Liverpool FC (The Reds) | Special Thread
MosDef
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 13, 2014
- 8,420
- 17,183
After our loss Vs Manure..
We were 11th
18 points off chelsea
15 points off City
11 points off Manure
7 points off West ham
5 points off southampton
5 points off Arsenal
NOW
we're 5th
4 points off City
3 points off Arsenal
2 points off Manure
NB, we've collected 33 points out of 39 points since we played Manure at Trafford!!!
WE'RE THE MOST INFORM FOOTBALL CLUB IN THE ENGLISH PREMIERE LEAGUE.
#Scary .
We were 11th
18 points off chelsea
15 points off City
11 points off Manure
7 points off West ham
5 points off southampton
5 points off Arsenal
NOW
we're 5th
4 points off City
3 points off Arsenal
2 points off Manure
NB, we've collected 33 points out of 39 points since we played Manure at Trafford!!!
WE'RE THE MOST INFORM FOOTBALL CLUB IN THE ENGLISH PREMIERE LEAGUE.
#Scary .
grafani11
JF-Expert Member
- May 24, 2011
- 15,441
- 5,816
Man U sehemu yake stahiki ni Ubingwa amefanya vibaya amechukua nafasi ya pili na sio nne bora kama wenger.
MosDef
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 13, 2014
- 8,420
- 17,183
katika msimu wake wa kwanza LFC 2012/2013, Round ya pili ya League BR alipoteza game 3 tu!!
Katika msimu wa Pili, 2013/2014, Round ya Pili, BR alipoteza game 1 tu..
Now, 2014/2015, katika round ya Pili, hajapoteza mchezo wowote mpaka sasa katka PL, Na its March already!!!!
Katika msimu wa Pili, 2013/2014, Round ya Pili, BR alipoteza game 1 tu..
Now, 2014/2015, katika round ya Pili, hajapoteza mchezo wowote mpaka sasa katka PL, Na its March already!!!!
Mr. Wise
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 23, 2012
- 7,733
- 6,469
Gwamahala
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 29, 2009
- 3,925
- 2,325
Jamaa second round anazipatia sana...sasa inabidi ajipange na kwa first round.
Tee Bag
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 21, 2013
- 7,220
- 5,622
Tumepokea hongera yako mkuu , ubingwa uchukue mapema maana mechi yetu hapo may si yakutangazia ubingwa
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Wise
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 23, 2012
- 7,733
- 6,469
Mkuu are u serious, mi nadhani mzee Wenger akomae na top 4 na FA Cup, atapoteza nguvu uko akajichosha alafu kastuka top 4 imeyeyuka bure
Mr. Wise
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 23, 2012
- 7,733
- 6,469
Ed n Edd nEddy
JF-Expert Member
- May 3, 2011
- 5,345
- 6,076
Brother hili utanisaidi katika mafaili yako ya records I heard BR he's collecting more points kwenye second round than first even before hajatua LFC....
Mr. Wise
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 23, 2012
- 7,733
- 6,469
Liverpool can't expect loyalty from Raheem Sterling if they don't offer him the same £150,000-a-week deal as Daniel Sturridge
The Raheem Sterling contract situation at Liverpool is coming to the boil, after the latest snub from the player's representatives, and an indication that talks won't resume until the summer.
Brendan Rodgers says he's relaxed but I find that hard to believe. He won't want to lose Sterling, a talent that he can rightly be proud of, and justifiably claim he has helped turn into a star quality player.
But I can't understand why Liverpool have consistently put the message out that there will not be a problem with the Sterling situation. The outcome of that policy is that Sterling looks greedy – why do the football club want to make one of their star players look bad in the eyes of the supporters?
So now there is a situation locally with fans and the press are questioning his representatives, with the Liverpool Echo declaring this week that Sterling ‘needs to ask who is looking after his best interests.'
The answer to that question is simple. In football terms, Liverpool have looked after him. In the same way QPR looked after him before he was snapped up by the Reds, and in the same way Real Madrid might look after him if they choose to pay big money.
Liverpool Football Club can't expect too much loyalty from a player who was happy to leave QPR after seven years at Loftus Road. What goes around comes around, I guess.
In financial terms - his agent is looking after his best interests, obviously. He's got a family, he wants to set himself up comfortably for the rest of his life, and I can't think of a reason why a player shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Sterling's contract runs out in 2017 and there is no way Liverpool will want this impasse to continue. If he even approaches the final year of his current deal without this being resolved, Liverpool could lose out.
The days of a player accepting less than he feels he is worth because he is at a great club that gave him a big opportunity are long gone. It's naive to think otherwise.
A five-year deal of £100,000 a week has been rejected by Sterling. Daniel Sturridge is on £150,000 a week.
Is there a reason why Sterling shouldn't be on the same as Sturridge?
Sterling is younger, but I'm not sure why age should come into it. Sterling has proved he can be a match winner, a key player and is a regular starter for Liverpool – same as Sturridge. Sterling's fitness record is considerably better, which is unfortunate for Sturridge, but when an agent is negotiating on behalf of his player it is definitely something which counts in Sterling's favour.
The big difference between the careers of Sturridge and Sterling is that Sterling has proved himself at a much younger age. Why should he accept a less lucrative deal because of that? Makes no sense.
If a player is committing to a club long-term, then the deal has to be right. The figures are ridiculous – but this is the Premier League where players' salaries are abnormally high. That's not news. And to expect Sterling to launch his own one-man crusade for fairer wages in football is laughable
It's a harsh reality for some who haven't quite caught up with how modern football works, but Sterling is an excellent footballer, and his agent is working for his player to get the best deal for him.
By making the offer of £100,000 a week, Liverpool Football Club have told Sterling that he is two-thirds of the player Sturridge is. If the agent had accepted that then Sterling would surely have sacked him.
The Raheem Sterling contract situation at Liverpool is coming to the boil, after the latest snub from the player's representatives, and an indication that talks won't resume until the summer.
Brendan Rodgers says he's relaxed but I find that hard to believe. He won't want to lose Sterling, a talent that he can rightly be proud of, and justifiably claim he has helped turn into a star quality player.
But I can't understand why Liverpool have consistently put the message out that there will not be a problem with the Sterling situation. The outcome of that policy is that Sterling looks greedy – why do the football club want to make one of their star players look bad in the eyes of the supporters?
So now there is a situation locally with fans and the press are questioning his representatives, with the Liverpool Echo declaring this week that Sterling ‘needs to ask who is looking after his best interests.'
The answer to that question is simple. In football terms, Liverpool have looked after him. In the same way QPR looked after him before he was snapped up by the Reds, and in the same way Real Madrid might look after him if they choose to pay big money.
Liverpool Football Club can't expect too much loyalty from a player who was happy to leave QPR after seven years at Loftus Road. What goes around comes around, I guess.
In financial terms - his agent is looking after his best interests, obviously. He's got a family, he wants to set himself up comfortably for the rest of his life, and I can't think of a reason why a player shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Sterling's contract runs out in 2017 and there is no way Liverpool will want this impasse to continue. If he even approaches the final year of his current deal without this being resolved, Liverpool could lose out.
The days of a player accepting less than he feels he is worth because he is at a great club that gave him a big opportunity are long gone. It's naive to think otherwise.
A five-year deal of £100,000 a week has been rejected by Sterling. Daniel Sturridge is on £150,000 a week.
Is there a reason why Sterling shouldn't be on the same as Sturridge?
Sterling is younger, but I'm not sure why age should come into it. Sterling has proved he can be a match winner, a key player and is a regular starter for Liverpool – same as Sturridge. Sterling's fitness record is considerably better, which is unfortunate for Sturridge, but when an agent is negotiating on behalf of his player it is definitely something which counts in Sterling's favour.
The big difference between the careers of Sturridge and Sterling is that Sterling has proved himself at a much younger age. Why should he accept a less lucrative deal because of that? Makes no sense.
If a player is committing to a club long-term, then the deal has to be right. The figures are ridiculous – but this is the Premier League where players' salaries are abnormally high. That's not news. And to expect Sterling to launch his own one-man crusade for fairer wages in football is laughable
It's a harsh reality for some who haven't quite caught up with how modern football works, but Sterling is an excellent footballer, and his agent is working for his player to get the best deal for him.
By making the offer of £100,000 a week, Liverpool Football Club have told Sterling that he is two-thirds of the player Sturridge is. If the agent had accepted that then Sterling would surely have sacked him.