The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Liverpool captain Steven Gerrard has indicated a desire to leave Anfield following the European champions' decision to reject a bid from Chelsea.
Gerrard has declared his intention to quit his only club after rejecting Liverpool's offer of a new contract.
The two parties have been engaged in talks in a bid to end 12 months of uncertainty regarding his future on Merseyside.
Chelsea were keen to sign the midfielder last summer but Gerrard opted to reject the club's overtures to stay with his boyhood heroes.
The Reds' recent success in the UEFA Champions League final against Milan appeared to sway Gerrard into committing his long-term future to Rafa Benitez's side.
But discussions regarding a new deal have broken down in recent days and Gerrard's relationship with Liverpool's top brass is now beyond repair.
Liverpool have confirmed that talks to extend Gerrard's deal, which currently runs until 2007, are now over after the skipper expressed his determination to leave.
"The club has made it crystal clear we want to keep Steven at Anfield," read a club statement.
"Sadly, he has told us this afternoon that he will not accept our offer of an improved and extended contract because he wants to leave Liverpool.
"We very much regret the decision he has taken."
Gerrard's decision to publicly confirm his eagerness to quit Liverpool will now spark a transfer scramble for his services.
Chelsea have already confirmed their initial offer for the 25-year-old, believed to be in the region of £32 million, has been rejected and they are likely to come in with a revised bid.
Real Madrid are also interested but lack the financial muscle to compete with the Premiership champions and that could leave Chelsea as the sole realistic bidders for Gerrard.
The Reds will now be left in the position of trying to negotiate the best price for their midfield powerhouse and it is likely a British transfer record fee will be required to secure Gerrard's signature.
[URL]http://skysports.planetfootball.com/LIST.ASP?HLID=289598[/URL]
Gerrard has declared his intention to quit his only club after rejecting Liverpool's offer of a new contract.
The two parties have been engaged in talks in a bid to end 12 months of uncertainty regarding his future on Merseyside.
Chelsea were keen to sign the midfielder last summer but Gerrard opted to reject the club's overtures to stay with his boyhood heroes.
The Reds' recent success in the UEFA Champions League final against Milan appeared to sway Gerrard into committing his long-term future to Rafa Benitez's side.
But discussions regarding a new deal have broken down in recent days and Gerrard's relationship with Liverpool's top brass is now beyond repair.
Liverpool have confirmed that talks to extend Gerrard's deal, which currently runs until 2007, are now over after the skipper expressed his determination to leave.
"The club has made it crystal clear we want to keep Steven at Anfield," read a club statement.
"Sadly, he has told us this afternoon that he will not accept our offer of an improved and extended contract because he wants to leave Liverpool.
"We very much regret the decision he has taken."
Gerrard's decision to publicly confirm his eagerness to quit Liverpool will now spark a transfer scramble for his services.
Chelsea have already confirmed their initial offer for the 25-year-old, believed to be in the region of £32 million, has been rejected and they are likely to come in with a revised bid.
Real Madrid are also interested but lack the financial muscle to compete with the Premiership champions and that could leave Chelsea as the sole realistic bidders for Gerrard.
The Reds will now be left in the position of trying to negotiate the best price for their midfield powerhouse and it is likely a British transfer record fee will be required to secure Gerrard's signature.
[URL]http://skysports.planetfootball.com/LIST.ASP?HLID=289598[/URL]
Page:
Not really. Because not "everyone else" will say that.
And if they "clearly aren't", how did they overcome Juventus, Chelsea and Milan? Yeah, they flopped in the Premiership, and maybe they did get lucky in the Champions League, but they have earned the right to use the term "best team in Europe", seeing as they won a tournament which aims to crown the best team in Europe.
Sorry, but your team are technically only best in England. :-)
And if they "clearly aren't", how did they overcome Juventus, Chelsea and Milan? Yeah, they flopped in the Premiership, and maybe they did get lucky in the Champions League, but they have earned the right to use the term "best team in Europe", seeing as they won a tournament which aims to crown the best team in Europe.
Sorry, but your team are technically only best in England. :-)
So basically what you're saying is that Liverpool have the right to claim that they are the best. But everyone else can and will laugh as they clearly aren't.
Colourless wrote:
> What if a team beat them twice in the league and once in the FA Cup?
> And finished higher in the league? Can they then claim to be better
> than them?
They can, yes. My main point, however, was that whether or not it was deserved, Liverpool have the evidence which allows them to claim to be the best side in Europe. Just like Chelsea happen to have in England. Just like Greece happen to have as a European nation. Now I don't think that they were the best side in Euro 2004 (and I don't think Liverpool were, football-wise, in the Champions League) but my point was they have the trophy to prove that they beat the best on their way to the top.
> What if a team beat them twice in the league and once in the FA Cup?
> And finished higher in the league? Can they then claim to be better
> than them?
They can, yes. My main point, however, was that whether or not it was deserved, Liverpool have the evidence which allows them to claim to be the best side in Europe. Just like Chelsea happen to have in England. Just like Greece happen to have as a European nation. Now I don't think that they were the best side in Euro 2004 (and I don't think Liverpool were, football-wise, in the Champions League) but my point was they have the trophy to prove that they beat the best on their way to the top.
I'd settle for a Shaun Wright-Phillips bit. That'd be nice. He'd cost £20 million (based on Chelsea's £18 mill offer being 2 mill short, that's math) and then we can buy Hargreaves as well, he's the man. Plus Joe Cole/Figo as part of the Stevie deal, respective of club. Then buy a defender, say....Daniele Bonera.
Reina
Finnan-Carra-Bonera-Riise
Figo/SWP-Alonso-Hargreaves-Figo/Garcia
Cisse/Baros-Morientes
My fantasy deal with the Stevie money?
Joaquin.
Reina
Finnan-Carra-Bonera-Riise
Figo/SWP-Alonso-Hargreaves-Figo/Garcia
Cisse/Baros-Morientes
My fantasy deal with the Stevie money?
Joaquin.
AfroJoe wrote:
> You can't state that
> someone else is better than Liverpool if they were beaten by them in
> a tournament which is meant to determine who is best in the
> continent.
What if a team beat them twice in the league and once in the FA Cup? And finished higher in the league? Can they then claim to be better than them?
> You can't state that
> someone else is better than Liverpool if they were beaten by them in
> a tournament which is meant to determine who is best in the
> continent.
What if a team beat them twice in the league and once in the FA Cup? And finished higher in the league? Can they then claim to be better than them?
You're correct in that the Champion's League is the premier European competition, but my point is that it is essentially nothing more than a glorified knockout competition. As such, the best team will not always win it. The last two years alone are testimony.
Manchester United losing to eventual winners Porto because of a shocking offside decision. Liverpool beating AC Milan thanks to a Gerrard dive.
These things happen, but in such tight circumstances where one of these decisions determines ultimate victory, a team that is not necessarily superior to their opponents always have a chance of squeezing through.
As I say, Liverpool are the Cup holders, but that does not make them the best team in Europe. It simply means they had a good run in a cup competition. Middlesborough have had equal fortune in recent years. Millwall can also claim almost as much.
Manchester United losing to eventual winners Porto because of a shocking offside decision. Liverpool beating AC Milan thanks to a Gerrard dive.
These things happen, but in such tight circumstances where one of these decisions determines ultimate victory, a team that is not necessarily superior to their opponents always have a chance of squeezing through.
As I say, Liverpool are the Cup holders, but that does not make them the best team in Europe. It simply means they had a good run in a cup competition. Middlesborough have had equal fortune in recent years. Millwall can also claim almost as much.
Winning the Premiership is clearly a higher accolade than winning the FA Cup, though.
To make this situation truly comparable we'd need a European league as well. If there was a European league with the supposed top 20 teams in Europe in it (as well as the Champions League), it would be more highly rated than the Champions League. As there isn't, however, winning the Champions League is the biggest achievement that can be made in European club football.
Meanwhile, the FA Cup would only be the more prestigious title in England if the Premiership didn't exist. As the Premiership exists, this is not the case.
The Champions League is the tournament for the biggest teams in Europe. Seeing as Liverpool won that tournament, they can easily lay claim to being the best team in Europe. They might not be on paper, but they've got the title to prove it. You can't state that someone else is better than Liverpool if they were beaten by them in a tournament which is meant to determine who is best in the continent.
To make this situation truly comparable we'd need a European league as well. If there was a European league with the supposed top 20 teams in Europe in it (as well as the Champions League), it would be more highly rated than the Champions League. As there isn't, however, winning the Champions League is the biggest achievement that can be made in European club football.
Meanwhile, the FA Cup would only be the more prestigious title in England if the Premiership didn't exist. As the Premiership exists, this is not the case.
The Champions League is the tournament for the biggest teams in Europe. Seeing as Liverpool won that tournament, they can easily lay claim to being the best team in Europe. They might not be on paper, but they've got the title to prove it. You can't state that someone else is better than Liverpool if they were beaten by them in a tournament which is meant to determine who is best in the continent.
AfroJoe wrote:
> But if you win the Champions League, technically you are the best
> team in Europe.
By the same logic, the winners of the FA Cup are the best team in England. Doesn't really stack up, does it?
> But if you win the Champions League, technically you are the best
> team in Europe.
By the same logic, the winners of the FA Cup are the best team in England. Doesn't really stack up, does it?
Indeed, thanks to an uncharacteristic miss of a foul by Collina
Mozzy wrote:
> Meh, that wasn't what I meant. The best team in Europe isn't the team
> that won this years CL.
Agreed. The best team in Europe lost 4-2 to us to go out in the first knockout stage.....
> Meh, that wasn't what I meant. The best team in Europe isn't the team
> that won this years CL.
Agreed. The best team in Europe lost 4-2 to us to go out in the first knockout stage.....
Page: