HolteExile Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 The comparison was as I understood it, that Everton are always in Liverpools shadow. Like the urchins down the road and us. History would indicate otherwise. Unless you gloss over that and start from 98/99, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Historically Everton are not even close to Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolteExile Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Historically Everton have eclispsed Liverpool on numerous occasions. Unlike the B-lose and us. Care to go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 On numerous occasions? What they finished above them, won a cup wen Liverpool didnt? Liverpool are the most sucsesful english side are they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 they are VB but only since Shankly before then Everton were far bigger, Blooz have NEVER been bigger than us at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I never said they had Ian, all im saying is Everton are in the shadow of Liverpool. as SHA are with us. Everton are 5th I think in the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I agree they are i the shadow but nowhere near to the extent that blooz are to us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 No, but in a similar vein. same with Man city /Man U Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolteExile Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 While I understand the economic reason's for Everton seeking to leave Goodison I really hope that they don't and it has nothing to do with them being our rivals. I simply feel like a lot of the soul and history of football has been lost in recent years in our game with the demolition of many of the old homes of the game. Grounds like Roker Park and The Baseball Ground while old and decrepid were symbolic of the history of our game and the communities in which the clubs grew up and Goodison is too me the same. The new grounds made of plastic with their transiant names that will change whenever a sponser moves on built on city outskirts and industrial parks simply have no soul, no history, no character and no link to the original bedrock of the clubs. I wouldn't care if they knocked down every stand at Villa Park and started again we long since demolished the bricks and mortar of our history but I would be devestated if we were to leave the ground itself. As a kid trips to Goodison were among the first I looked for when the fixtures were realised and its remained a favourite all these years later, Goodison may be old it may not be in the best of states or even areas but its a real football ground. These days real football grounds in the top flight are a rare thing and will I understand why Everton want/need to move I can't help being selfish and hoping they stay put. Agree with this, particularly in light of the loss of Highbury and Maine Road. I often wonder why the bigger clubs don't take the approach of their European counterparts and build below ground level. That way, if space is tight around the ground, they could still get an extra couple of thousand in. Real Madrid, Barca and Porto all have grounds set below ground level, there are prob more too. Would be a far better option than the souless identikit bowls that are all the rage nowadays. If the Toffees did this, and maybe bulldozed that stand that houses the away support (Gladwys?) that would give them close to 50,000. That stand might have been acceptable 20 years ago, but cramped viewing, wooden seats and obstructive pillars are no longer on. It means that any new stand wouldn't have to go to higher than the original buildings, so the residents couldn't complain, they'd have extra seats overall + they wouldn't have to move. Job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 less than those two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 less than those two Same prinicplethough isnt it. Ive not once said Liverpool have ALWAYS been ahead of Everton, just that are and always will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolteExile Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 On numerous occasions? What they finished above them, won a cup wen Liverpool didnt? Liverpool are the most sucsesful english side are they not? Ah, but thats not what you said originally. Who's the more succesful side overall? Easy one, that. Everton always in Liverpools shadow though? 'Fraid not. BTW, Everton won the FA Cup in 1995 when Liverpool won nowt, pipped them to the league title in 1985 and 1987. And historically Everton were the far bigger of the two, before Shankley/Paisley. Dig me out the comparitive history when SHA could ever claim similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 My original post. Everton need a new ground as much as Blues do. Both the crappist teams in their city and both will always be in the shadow of their rivals. A 50k stadium will not change that. Where did I say always have been? Where did I compare Evertons honours to SHA's honours? If you'd care to read the posts maybe you would understand what it is Im saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolteExile Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Tiresome. You made a comparison with one of the countries biggest clubs and our piss-poor local rivals. There is no comparison. Always in the shadow of their rivals. Where did you say from now on originally? You've merely revised a wholly inaccurate statement with a new element of guesswork. If you had actually said the above initially, I fail to see how you could possibly know. Unless you have a crystal ball in your possession. It's just as likely that Laurel and Hardy could run the redscouse into the ground, and Everton could revert to being the biggest club in the city. It was the case before, could easily happen again. On balance, since the formation of both clubs Everton have had a far longer period of being the 'biggest.' Even if they aren't at present. I'm no closet Evertonian, but it pisses me right off when I see ill-informed opinions about football from the post Sky generation being offered as fact. Nothing personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sled Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Liverpool ruffle council feathers with attempt to trademark city symbol • Liver bird 'belongs to people of Liverpool' says councillor • Measure taken to prevent loss of revenue due to counterfeiting Andy Hunter guardian.co.uk, Wednesday November 19 2008 00.01 GMT The Guardian, Wednesday November 19 2008 link It may be a mythical creature but the Liver bird has flown into a genuine storm in its native city after Liverpool Football Club applied to register the iconic image as a trademark. Liverpool have taken the measure to protect money otherwise lost to counterfeit merchandise. A furious council, however, has accused the club's American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, of riding roughshod over the city's heritage. Caught in the middle, the Liver bird anxiously awaits its fate. The row erupted after Liverpool made a £450 application to trademark the image that adorns its crest with the UK Intellectual Property Office. The club already has trademarks on "This is Anfield" and the words "You'll Never Walk Alone" on its official emblem and is seeking the hat-trick to safeguard "the substantial amount of money" it loses each year to counterfeiters. The club will not, it claims, prevent other legitimate organisations from using the Liver bird logo. Liverpool city council is unconvinced. The Anfield club has not been popular with the local authority since Hicks and Gillett bought Liverpool from David Moores last year and reneged on promises to commence work on a new stadium immediately and not to burden their investment with debt. The city council is taking legal advice over the trademark application and is expected to lodge an objection with the property office before Saturday's deadline. "This is outrageous. The Liver bird belongs to all the people of Liverpool and not one company or organisation. It cannot be bought and sold for private profit," said the deputy council leader, Councillor Flo Clucas. "This is a symbol of the city and is used not only by the council but also by hundreds of organisations, charities, voluntary groups and sports clubs." Liverpool's application includes a range of Liver bird usage, including on clothing, stationery and even kitchen utensils. "The Liver bird is part and parcel of the city, we are not remotely going anywhere near that," insisted a club spokesman. "What we are asking to do is to register our version of the Liver bird." An expert in intellectual property rights, David Worrall, of Shipley Solicitors, believes the club may struggle if an objection is submitted. "People feel [the Liver bird] belongs to the public and not a company, no matter who they are," he said.Like small heath, sorry Birmingham City, Liverpool FC bear the name of a great city in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artetasgirl Posted November 19, 2008 Visiting Supporter Share Posted November 19, 2008 We were here before them, yet they get the name of the city great isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 19, 2008 Moderator Share Posted November 19, 2008 We were here before them, yet they get the name of the city great isn't it? Exactly the same for us with small heath but in our instance smal heath actually broke an agreement that neither club should take the name of the city Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Aston Villa and Everton are far more unique as names Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Aston Villa and Everton are far more unique as names Agree, a bit more 'classier' IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissmith921 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Kiddeminster Harriers is a unique name, as is Manchester United, as is Arsenal, as is Bolton Wanderers, as is Middlesbrough..... etc etc. How can something be 'more' unique? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts