Talk:Liverpool F.C.

Archives
May 2005 – May 2006 June 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – January 2007 February 2007 – July 2010 July 2010 –

Edit request from vicktah, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Change "Liverpool Football Club are a professional football club who play in the Premier League and are the joint most successful team in the history of English football, with no other club having won more trophies." to "Liverpool Football Club are a professional football club who play in the Premier League and are the joint most successful team in the history of English football, only Manchester United having won as many trophies." Vicktah (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Liverpool are the most successful football club in the history of English football, having won more major honours than any other English football club. http://www.england2018bid.com/hostcity/liverpool.aspx Liverpool have won a total of 40 major honours including 18 League Titles, 5 European Cups, 7 FA Cups, 7 League Cups and 3 UEFA Cups. http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/honours

Where as Mancester United have a total of 36 major honors including 18 League Titles, 3 European Cups, 11 FA Cups, 4 League Cups and 0 UEFA Cups. http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={EE4D6083-FCB8-4FAB-A765-75E2B0F4B4E0} Manchester United however are the most successful club in the history of the Premier league, and there is a case that they could be referred to as the most successful club in the Premier League. http://www.premierleague.com/page/manchester-united —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattclayb (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: Rivalries

At the bottom of the rivalry section it states that Liverpool will play man utd on the 19th of September in one of the most anticipated matches of the season. How is this relevant to an encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not meant to be a tv guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.53.149 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, edit removed.Tmol42 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying or suggesting there is no Religious Rivalries between Liverpool and Everton is frankly rediculious, as is the comment that both Clubs 'stemmed from a Methodist origin'. During the last Troubles in Ulster it was common to see the Flags of Loyalist Paramiliteries being waved in The Cop, and Loyalist Songs being sung. It was a very small minority of Liverpool fans, but it was none the less present.Johnwrd (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Current squad

Given that N'gog came on against Sunderland on the weekend, I can;t see why he's not listed in the Premier league squad section (or in the article at all). --77.98.171.189 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is incorrect and is edited by football politics

I am sure the topic of NPOV regarding Liverpool FC being England's most successful football club has been discussed before but this article not stating such means it’s incorrect to how the majority of global non-football readers would understand the facts. This situation is made worse by the politic of 'wiki editors' bizarrely creating some convoluted (and dull, dare I say) intro which is repeated near word for word on the Manchester United FC article.

It can be no coincidence that the same 'wiki editors' have a hand in both articles so its fair to question NPOV especially when England's own website promoting its 2018 World Cup Bid, hosted in 12 languages plainly and clearly states the opposite to this article - quote "Liverpool FC is England’s most successful football club, winning more major trophies than any other team – including not one but five European Cup’s lifted by all-time greats from Kevin Keegan and Kenny Dalglish to Steven Gerrard." source: http://www.england2018bid.com/hostcity/liverpool.aspx

I have no axe to grind on this issue except to question how a position of falsehood has now become acceptable on wiki? imho wiki has become a discredited source on the issue and reason why I have not seen wiki's alter-reality intro quoted by others as source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prijs (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ownership and finances

{editsemiprotected} Change "On 16 April 2010 Martin Broughton was appointed Chairman of the Club in order to oversee the sale of the club by the owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett.[75] In May, accounts were released showing the club to be £350 million in debt with losses of £55m, causing auditor KPMG to qualify its audit opinion.[76] The club's creditors, including Royal Bank of Scotland, took Gillet and Hicks to court to allow for the resale of the club. A Liverpool High Court[clarification needed] Judge, Justice Floyd, eventually ruled in favour of the creditors and paved the way for a sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures, although Gillet and Hicks still had the option to appeal the verdict.[77] However Gillet and Hicks got an 11th hour reprieve from a Texas district court just before the interim bank-appointed board were about to consider the $477.2 million sale. The Texas court issues a restraining order after the the two owners said the board were responsible for an "epic swindle" by selling the club for less than its supposed value. The club then issued a statement saying: "The independent directors consider the restraining order to be unwarranted and damaging and will move as swiftly as possible to seek to have it removed." The Financial Times said the board may ask a British court to decide whether the Texas court had jurisdiction in the case. Pending the decision, however, Liverpool's debt is due on 15 October 2010; if not paid in time it is possible that the club go into administration and consequently be docked 9 points by the league.[78] Another bid was also received by the club from Singaporean Peter Lim, who increased his initial offer[clarification needed] to $507 million.[79]" to

"On 16 April 2010 Martin Broughton was appointed Chairman of the Club in order to oversee the sale of the club by the owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett.[75] In May, accounts were released showing the club to be £350 million in debt with losses of £55m, causing auditor KPMG to qualify its audit opinion.[76] The club's creditors, including Royal Bank of Scotland, took Gillet and Hicks to court to allow for the resale of the club. A High Court Judge at the Court of Appeal (The Old Bailey, London), Mr. Justice Floyd, eventually ruled in favour of the creditors and paved the way for a sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures, although Gillet and Hicks still had the option to appeal the verdict . However Gillet and Hicks got an 11th hour reprieve from a Texas district court just before the interim bank-appointed board were about to consider the $477.2 million sale. The Texas court issues a restraining order after the the two owners said the board were responsible for an "epic swindle" by selling the club for less than its supposed value. The club then issued a statement saying: "The independent directors consider the restraining order to be unwarranted and damaging and will move as swiftly as possible to seek to have it removed." The Financial Times said the board may ask a British court to decide whether the Texas court had jurisdiction in the case. Pending the decision, however, Liverpool's debt is due on 15 October 2010; if not paid in time it is possible that the club go into administration and consequently be docked 9 points by the league.[78] On the 14 October 2010, Mr. Justice Floyd again ruled in fravour of Liverpool FC and declaering Hicks and Gillett's petition as "unconscionable".. He (Mr. Justice Floyd) also set a deadline of 1600 GMT for Hicks and Gillett to withdrew thier petition to the US courts or be found in contemp of the British Courts. Another bid was also received by the club from Singaporean Peter Lim, offer of £320 million. However, this was later withdrew, Lim stated: "The [Liverpool] board is intent on selling the club to NESV to the exclu>sion of all other parties, regardless of the merits of their bids."

Edit request from Mattclayb, 15 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Change owners of club from Tom Hicks and George Gillett to New England Sports Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Sports_Ventures headed by John W. Henry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Henry http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9094283.stm

Mattclayb (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 Already done Celestra (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead and IFFHS

As there's a disagreement resulting in reverts on the article page around whether the IFFHS section should be included in the lead, I'm starting this thread to clarify consensus on this article. To avoid the article needing to be locked because of an edit war, can all editors avoid editing that section until consensus is clear. Please remember to be civil and avoid accusations of vandalism, as this issue appears to simply be a content dispute. Thanks. GedUK  11:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

When news broke the Red Sox owners were buying Liverpool FC, one of the first things said about them (Liverpool) was they are one of the world's most successful teams. I clicked on the team page couple days ago and then checked out edit history, where a sole editor (rival fan) was removing this content, (content of which is in other teams of this stature), while every other user put it back in. Fan bias is the #1 reason i stay out of Red Sox (or rival team) issues. As with the content of other teams of comparable success to Liverpool, global recognition must be recognized in the lede of this page, that reflects its immense stature. Liverpool = England's best club of the 20th century, and today rank 3rd in Europe and 6th worldwide with number of international titles won recognized by UEFA/FIFA. The content is factual, and sums up neatly the teams stature.Bostonian Mike (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I agree that this content should be included (Thommo's perm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommo's perm (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

First off thanks Ged for the message on this. To echo previous comments, the cited material in question appears in similar club articles, infact thats actually where its from. Domestic standing as well as global standing is standard for such clubs who have amassed significant national and international honours. The content is accepted, what does need improved is the grammar. I initially used Liverpool "were" and then Liverpool "was", so the grammar side needs cleaned up by an English expert.--AaronRodgers27 (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the above comments by Aaron and Mike, I am not against including the IFFS stuff, I just think it's too technical for the lead (and slightly repetitive after the preceding para). That's why I moved it to the Statistics and Records section where I still think it would be more appropriate. Haldraper (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything in the lead that's not in the article itself. I think the IFFS stuff should be in the lead because it's a good indictor of the long-term success of the club, but it also needs to be included (and expanded as necessary) in the article, and the most logical place would be in the stats/records section. GedUK  09:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It definitely should be in the lead, and as well as that also detailed further down the article as the above contributor has stated, ie.In Europe only Real Madrid and AC Milan are ranked higher. Best in England in 20th Century alludes to the famous history of the club, and Euro and World comparison also very notable. This is lead, and then also written in more detail in the relevant section of the article.Oz1984 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The lede looks good now, and i agree that 'third in Europe' is sufficient in lede without adding the names of R.Madrid and Milan. The Milan page for example mentions R.Madrid in its lede as only team having won more, but it aint a necessity to name other clubs.Xavier 21 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not specifies that this phrase, "[England's] best club of the 20th century", is accredited by IFFHS?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably as its clear cut, therefore without need to elongate sentence, plus its condensed, referenced and tightened.Oz1984 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Singular or plural verbs

Am I the only one confused by the verb usage here? In the first sentence "Liverpool is" but in the second they have. This alternating continues throughout the article ("Liverpool were England's best club" "Liverpool has long-standing rivalries"). DC T•C 15:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit messy, and one of those British English weird varients. Usually, a football team in British English is treated as a plural, but part of the problem I think is a lack of consistency about usage around a 'club', as opposed to a team. We certainly need to agree one or the other (if we haven't already, I'll have a look in the archives). GedUK  10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue that should be addressed in a bigger forum. Sunderland A.F.C. (an FA) has the same issue. But Man U (another FA) is written entirely with singular verbs (is/was/has etc). I'll post at WT:FOOTY DC T•C 15:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a wider spread Wikipedia issue, Australian Rules football teams don't have uniform verb usage.Oz1984 (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubles and Trebles

Note 3 concerning Trebles ("Doubles won in conjunction with the treble such as a FA Cup and League Cup double in 2001, are not included in the Doubles section.") is no longer accurate.

Looking back in history, doubles (associated with trebles) were removed on 20 Aug 2010, and the note was added on 22 Aug 2010. Since then, however, the three doubles of 1983-84 have crept back into the doubles section. This suggests that casual contributors don't read the notes, or wish to consider doubles without consideration of further titles.

One solution would be to relocate note 3 as a disclaimer just beneath the "Doubles and Trebles" heading, and remove the 1983-84 items from the Doubles section. This seems to be most consistent with the 20 Aug change.

However, one could equally well reinstate the parenthetical comments (present prior to 20 Aug) after the 1983-84 items in Doubles, that they were part of a treble, with appropriate adjustment to Note 3. To be fully consistent though, one might wish to restore the 3 doubles of 2000-01, which would make the Doubles section a little unwieldy, as none of those 3 combinations currently exist in that section.

I leave it to more experienced editors to choose, or to find a further alternative. --LijeBailey (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Foundation date

Today Liverpool FC have the company number: 35668.

By tracing this number in the Company House directive you can see that the club was founded on January 26 - 1892 as "Everton Football Club- and Athletic Grounds Company, Limited."

The English Football Association refused to affiliate the new club since there already were a club named Everton Football Club.

On May 30 - 1892 a letter was sent on behalf of EFCAGCL to the Company House telling them that the Board of Trade had accepted the name change from EFCAGCL to "Liverpool Football Club- and Athletic Grounds Company, Limited.". The certificate with the seal from Company House is dated June 3 - 1892. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.212.242 (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Club colours and nicknames

Liverpool played in blue and white until the conclusion of the 1895/1896 season. When the 1896/1897 season started Liverpool's new shirt colour was described as "Scarlet", and local journalists quickly gave the club a new nickname; "Scarlet runners"

Nicknames: 1892 - 1896: Blue and whites, Dicky Sams and Mudlarkers 1896 - 1897: Scarlet runners 1897 onwards: Liver, Reds

Re: Mudlarkers. For some reason the weather was very poor most of the days when the new Liverpool club played their home matches the first season (1892/1893). Because of all the rain and the heavy and muddy pitch the Liverpool team still managed to carve out victories against more famous clubs. The local newspaper Liverpool Mercury frequently used the term "Mudlarkers" when writing about the club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.212.242 (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The first Liverpool FC team

When the 1891/1892 football season came to a close on April 30 - 1892, the committee of the new Liverpool Football Club immediately started securing players for their first season as a football club.

In the first week of May 1892 LFC signed the following players: Tommy Wyllie (from Everton), John "Jock" Smith (from Sunderland), Jno. Cameron and James Kelso (from Renton). Wyllie was the first professional player signed by LFC. James Kelso was the younger brother of Bob Kelso who at the same time played for Everton FC.

In June 1892 more new players signed: Andrew Boyd Hannah and James "Jim" McBride (from Renton), John Miller (from Dumbarton), A. W. Kelvin (from Kilmarnock) and Sydney Henderson Ross (from Cambuslang). Boyd Hannah became LFC first captain.

In July 1892 more signings in terms of: Duncan McLean (from Everton) and Malcolm McVean (from Third Lanark). In late August the club signed Billy McOwen (from Darwen) and Joe McQue (from Celtic).

Also signed during the summer were reserve team players Pearson (West Derby) and Richardson (King's 1st Regiment). The latter became one of 3 trainers for the Liverpool FC team the first season.

my contact details: kjellhanssen@hotmail.com if needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.212.242 (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

List of most successful teams

It is said in the article that Liverpool are ranked third most successful in europe, however they are ranked fourth. Also it should be mentioned they are ranked joint sixth on the inter-confederation list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.77.143 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if you have a close look at both the list of the UEFA and the article, you will notice that they're joint third alongside with Juventus in the UEFA competitions with 11 trophies each and that their position in inter-confederation cups is already mentioned here. Vulpes Scabiosa (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vulpes Scabiosa, 18 December 2010

weblink edited by Zanoni on 16 December misses a "t"