DixieDean59 Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I've read up some on Everton's history: one of the original Football League founders, almost always in the top flight, numerous trophies, Liverpool split into its own club off Everton. How did Liverpool become the more followed club over the years? I've even read Pete Best' comments the Beatles were Everton supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieDean59 Posted October 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yes, they are a lub, not club. Stupid iphone keypad.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 look at their honours list compared to ours. Only reason I can think that people would think theyre bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubecula Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I think the whole thing can actually come down to one name, Bill Shankley. Popular with the press and charismatic, and a pretty good manager. He set it in motion. Mind you they also carry the name of the city which may have some sort of effect. I am not sure. And as Matt says they have a lot of honours that we don't. YET Droobie and Matt 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yes, they are a lub, not club. Stupid iphone keypad.... sorted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c1982 Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way as it's a sensitive subject but the European ban for English clubs on the back of the Heysel disaster seemed to have fooked us over more than any other team at a time where the was a potential power shift in our favour - with the sky millions just a few years away had we been able to maintain our dominance of the mid-eighties into the late-eighties/early ninties then things could have been so so different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieDean59 Posted October 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Reminding me about Shankley answered my question quite nicely. Thank you! Memmaclub 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieDean59 Posted October 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I read about the ban and its timing on Everton as well. I agree things might have been different. I dont watch baseball, but the MLB strike in 94 cost Montreal their team. They were almost the best in MLB that year, and after it returned, they were destroyed and ended up leaving to Washington DC. Many bitter people up in Montreal about that even to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way as it's a sensitive subject but the European ban for English clubs on the back of the Heysel disaster seemed to have fooked us over more than any other team at a time where the was a potential power shift in our favour - with the sky millions just a few years away had we been able to maintain our dominance of the mid-eighties into the late-eighties/early ninties then things could have been so so different. what ifs and maybes though, so kinda pointless bringing it up considering the question of the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way as it's a sensitive subject but the European ban for English clubs on the back of the Heysel disaster seemed to have fooked us over more than any other team at a time where the was a potential power shift in our favour - with the sky millions just a few years away had we been able to maintain our dominance of the mid-eighties into the late-eighties/early ninties then things could have been so so different. We're not allowed to say that though because it makes us bitter. But there's no denying the truth of it. pete0 and Lowensda 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinalaff Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 They're not very big at the moment. Most RS fans are only RS fans if asked, otherwise they don't follow football at all, unless they happen to be in the pub when it's on the tv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c1982 Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 what ifs and maybes though, so kinda pointless bringing it up considering the question of the thread. My point, written in a fair way, doesn't answer the question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieDean59 Posted October 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 It helped answer it for me. And, with Fox showing Being Liverpool almost everyday, you'd think they were bigger in the US than United, Barca and Madrid combined! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalziel Kane Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 As anybody knows if it wasn't for EFC than the shite would never have existed to begin with. We are essentially, responsible for the bastard creation that is Liverpool FC, and all the great teams and subsequent success that they would go on to have. Can be a bit of a weight on your shoulders sometimes, but that's where it all began. I remember, or know, that Liverpool didn't become a proper force until the mid 1960s. And that was largely down to one individual, William Shankly. He was a great amongst men, a fucking giant of a managerial figure and I don't mind saying it. Assembled a great side after only a short time with players like Yeats, St John, Hunt and Smith etc, went from almost obscurity to League champions in such a short space of time. This sounds like a damn LIverpool love-in and I'm going to stop there, but as much I really don't like them, you have to give credit where it's due, the man was immense, and largely responsible for making them into the force they were to become. Before 1964, the shite, while successful here and there in sporadic periods, where nothing like what they were to become, and had never even won an FA cup yet, and only a couple of league titles. We can hide away from the Heysel issue all we like, but the fact of the matter is, they were largely responsible, no, fuck that, they were responsible for the ban on all English League clubs in 1985 on European competitions, or at least a portion of stupid moronic supporters if you want to put it better, for denying (us) a damn good chance of winning the European Cup in 1986 and maintaning that great side of the time that (instead) was slowly broken up and Kendall went to Bilbao and some insist we would have entered the inauguration of the EPL in 1992 as one of the top sides of the country or in a far stronger position than we had become by that time, if not for what had happened before. Of course, Hillsborough then occured a year or two later in time, and anything bad to say about Heysel gets swept under the fucking carpet. Let's not shy away from the issue in hand, but that's all I got to say about it this day. Liverpool are a shadow of the team of the 1980s, at least in terms of League accomplishments, although they still do well (or get lucky sometimes, or other teams fuck it up, or become complacent) in the Cup competitions, but that elusive prize of a first league title since 1990 has been going on for the best part of 20 years now, and their supporters must believe they will never see another success again in their lifetimes. I think after the Sheffield disaster, they were never quite the same again. I remember watching the Arsenal game in 1989 on the last day of the season, and they just looked drained, and emotionally scarred and they never did quite fully recover. That was a fucking great night though, one that will live with me forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) My point, written in a fair way, doesn't answer the question? wasnt saying it was written in an unfair way, just dont see the relevance since the vast majority of Liverpools honours had been won before that happened and for us to catch up, we wouldve needed to go on a Man Utd esq run to make up the deposit - i.e. a what if. And a "what if" doesnt answer the question for me. apologies if it came across as confrontational, wasnt intended that way. Edited October 21, 2012 by Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c1982 Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Doesn't really matter fully what teams have won previously - look at forest, would anyone say they're bigger than man city? Many would argue that Forest have won the European Cup so must be but if you compare fan bases then it's a non contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fearthainn Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 How do you define a big club anyway? Because we'll always be the classiest club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalziel Kane Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 MCFC have won the league more times and did win a Euro trophy long before NFFC ever did. Also City FA cup winners at least four of five times, while Forest managed it once in the 20th century I think. I was genuinely upset for Clough that he never managed an FA cup winning side - damn well knows the man deserved such an honor. It was the one trophy he couldn't quite manage Did you see that nonsense going on at Hillsborough the other day. I like this - some Idiot runs on to the field to attack an opposition player - unaware the game was being shown live to a nationwide audience on Sky TV. Can't condone actions like that, but it's fact that Sheffield Wednesday are the biggest and most successful club in all of Yorkshire. Maybe he was upset by that or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c1982 Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 How do you define a big club anyway? Exactly!!! The shite have more resources, trophies and a hell of a lot more worldwide fans but they're in our shadow when it comes to heart, passion, loyalty and current league position!!! Fearthainn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Doesn't really matter fully what teams have won previously - look at forest, would anyone say they're bigger than man city? Many would argue that Forest have won the European Cup so must be but if you compare fan bases then it's a non contest. ?? Thats all that there is to go on! Form over 5 years is 1 thing, form over 50+ is something different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c1982 Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 ?? Thats all that there is to go on! Form over 5 years is 1 thing, form over 50+ is something different. I meant less recent - surely size is to do with fan base/resources as much as previous success... English football is worldwide now - totally different to say in the 80's... Man.Utd have been the biggest benificiaries of the sky tv years because they had a smart business model and were the best team when the prem formed (e.g won the first league) - due to their success in the prem era they are the most supported team in the world - does that make them the biggest team in the world? I would say so, although there are better teams than them and probably more successful teams on the world stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieDean59 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I read about Heysal, and the behaviour of Pool fans in general in Europe, such as mugging children to take their match tickets (dunno if that one's true), and being ranked by FIFA at one point as having the worst behaved fans. That made me despise them right from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 They overtook us in the 70s in terms of attendances. By thay stage we were similar succes wise so I'm not sure. Maybe they were marketed better so new fans thought they were supporting a fashionable club perhaps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalziel Kane Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 They said Liverpool had five superstars in the 1960s - The Beatles and Shankly. I think at one time Goodison held more people than Anfield ever did, and of course it was our own venue to begin with before the rent dispute. We can argue about Liverpool fans behavior at specific times as long as the day is long but at the time of the 1984 European Cup Final, Roma's supporters made shite fans look like choirboys in comparison. I refer particularly to the semi-final with Dundee United that some may remember. Horrible set of people. Once again, LFC didn't really exist for me before 1964 and have only really come to the fore since then. We were big and successful long before that. We could have entered the EPL era so much better than we were, if not for the European Ban, there can be no dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I meant less recent - surely size is to do with fan base/resources as much as previous success... English football is worldwide now - totally different to say in the 80's... Man.Utd have been the biggest benificiaries of the sky tv years because they had a smart business model and were the best team when the prem formed (e.g won the first league) - due to their success in the prem era they are the most supported team in the world - does that make them the biggest team in the world? I would say so, although there are better teams than them and probably more successful teams on the world stage. fair enough mate. Utd are the biggest team in the world, or one of, because they consistently won things over a long period. Suppose were both arguing the same thing here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinalaff Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I prefer the Liverpool of the 50's. Also, why does Shankly get all the applauds, when for me, Paisley was the more successful manager? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c1982 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 What I was trying to say in a round about way was you can pretty much discard pre-premiership years success when talking fan bases as the most supported teams worldwide are those who have succeeded in the sky/premier league era hence man.utd, Chelsea and arsenal being the most supported premier league teams worldwide - man.city won't be far off the latter 2 and the red shite can be ranked in that group. All other prem teams can't compete in regards to worldwide fan base which I believe reflects size of club. Obviously success usually brings support (which we've been saying) and sadly money can buy success but fan base also brings money which can bring success... (I need a lie down). Back to my original point - Everton were robbed of their best chance of a European Cup in our most successful era due to the euro ban and maybe this knocked on to us possibly being better placed for the formation of the premiership... as said it is speculation but at the same time it is very relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieDean59 Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Maybe I'm starting a new worldwide trend then and others will follow in my wake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blueboy122 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way as it's a sensitive subject but the European ban for English clubs on the back of the Heysel disaster seemed to have fooked us over more than any other team at a time where the was a potential power shift in our favour - with the sky millions just a few years away had we been able to maintain our dominance of the mid-eighties into the late-eighties/early ninties then things could have been so so different. I have always thought that as well that it is done to the euro ban however I was having a debate with a Liverpool fan and obviously the bitter blue comment was pulled out and how can it be Liverpools fault that we fell apart after that etc. But the burning question is why did we suffer so badly whilst the other teams that got banned recovered and kept hold of thier players whilst we had to sell ours basically this kopite was saying it was nothing to do with Liverpool as it was bad management by the club at that time and that is why we never made it into the big time again and also the Heysel incident was a punishment for all British clubs as it was all clubs that misbehaved at that time not just Liverpool. My question is why were all English teams banned from european football and why did we never recover and all the other clubs did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieDean59 Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 My understanding is English fans were causing the majority of the problems during that period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.