Klopp v Pep

[Burning Gold]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

Where did the money for the Coutinho come from?

I get what you're doing, but I generally think people don't give Klopp anywhere near enough credit for turning Coutinho into the player Barcelona wanted to throw the kitchen sink at

Of course, we were lucky PSG in turn wanted to throw the kitchen sink at Neymar and Bartomeu wasn't able to get over the affront to his ego

[Burning Gold]

3 minutes ago, Cicero said:

The argument of net spend is only relevant if the discussion is on which club actually operated the best. Managers can't control how funding is available for the club so its a silly argument to bring up if the argument at hand is which manager is the best. 

Personally, Klopp for me is the superior manager at this point in time. But I'm not going to beat around the bush and pretend he made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Both managers had a substantial amount of wealth at their disposal. Klopp spent a ton and broke a couple transfer records on the way to get where Liverpool are at. This argument is always humorous to me because it makes Klopp look like an absolute hypocrite given his previous comments back in 2017. 

I don't agree. There's a substantial difference between reinvesting money raised from selling your players, and spending fresh money provided by the owners

[LFCMadLad]

6 minutes ago, Rick said:

Allison - 60m

Van Dijk - 75m

Salah - 40m

Keita - 50m

Fabinho - 40m

Ox - 35m

 

We've spend a shit ton. Klopp has had money to build this team, lets not pretend we are fucking Burnley. Michael Edwards has done an excellent job of offsetting a lot of that with the sale of players but Klopp has had investment. He's done amazing and I think he's better than Guardiola, but lets be honest with the facts. 

Guardiola is a massive cunt, albeit a supremely talented one.

Im not saying we havent had investment, but we havent had half the investment that City have had.

We wouldnt have been able to purchase the players you listed without the sales of Suarez, Coutinho etc. City can purchase whoever they want without losing anyone. That is my point.

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

I don't agree. There's a substantial difference between reinvesting money raised from selling your players, and spending fresh money provided by the owners

But what academy players did Liverpool sell?

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Im not saying we havent had investment, but we havent had half the investment that City have had.

We wouldnt have been able to purchase the players you listed without the sales of Suarez, Coutinho etc. City can purchase whoever they want without losing anyone. That is my point.

But Liverpool had investment to buy Suarez and Coutinho to begin with

[Danny]

21 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

So Liverpool didnt have big expectations?

No, it took Norbert 4 seasons to win a major trophy, 5 to win a league title. Pep would have been out at City after the second.

The hope was that Klopp wins big silverware eventually, there was no pressure and expectation that exists at a club that is consistently fighting for league titles

[Cicero]

5 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

I don't agree. There's a substantial difference between reinvesting money raised from selling your players, and spending fresh money provided by the owners

I see no difference in a managers ability to spend money. Something both Pep and Klopp did very well. 

[LFCMadLad]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

No, it took Norbert 4 seasons to win a major trophy, 5 to win a league title. Pep would have been out at City after the second.

The hope was that Klopp wins big silverware eventually, there was no pressure and expectation that exists at a club that is consistently fighting for league titles

LOL

[LFCMadLad]

Which manager would you rather have at your club... given the choice?

[Burning Gold]

10 minutes ago, Spike said:

But what academy players did Liverpool sell?

I'm not claiming there hasn't been any investment ever, but Liverpool have a very small net spend since Klopp took over; i.e. the vast majority of the money that's been spent adding quality to the squad has been raised or replaced by subtracting from the squad. As opposed to Pep Guardiola, whose funding has come from... let's say "outside of football" and leave it at that for now

[Burning Gold]

6 minutes ago, Cicero said:

I see no difference in a managers ability to spend money. Something both Pep and Klopp did very well. 

Seriously?

[Danny]

6 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

LOL

....if you can go as long as Klopp did without winning a major trophy it means expectations aren’t that high. Clearly expectations are higher at clubs like City and Chelsea, or Bayern and Barce. They’re not that high at Mainz, or Dortmund and they weren’t that high at Liverpool when he took over

[LFCMadLad]

3 minutes ago, Danny said:

....if you can go as long as Klopp did without winning a major trophy it means expectations aren’t that high. Clearly expectations are higher at clubs like City and Chelsea, or Bayern and Barce. They’re not that high at Mainz, or Dortmund and they weren’t that high at Liverpool when he took over

Not even going to answer that. If you think there is more expectations at an oil club with absolutely no history over the most successful English club then theres no hope for you. 

[LFCMike]

9 minutes ago, Cicero said:

I see no difference in a managers ability to spend money. Something both Pep and Klopp did very well. 

The difference is that Liverpool can't really afford expensive mistakes and there haven't been any as of yet under Klopp. Guardiola makes a bad signing and it's 'here have another £50m to spend on a defender'.

[Cicero]

6 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Seriously?

Yes. 

Your GK was shite. What did Klopp do? Break the transfer market on a GK and get Allison

Your defence was shite. What did Klopp do? Break the transfer market on a CB and got VVD. Add to that expensive signings in Fabinho, Keita, and the OX to bolster your squad to compete against City. 

You sold 1 player to fund 5. You're telling me Klopp should be getting credit Liverpool's board convinced Barca to spend that absurd amount on Coutinho which essentially is the reason the net spend is so low?

[Burning Gold]

5 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Yes. 

Your GK was shite. What did Klopp do? Break the transfer market on a GK and get Allison

Your defence was shite. What did Klopp do? Break the transfer market on a CB and got VVD. Add to that expensive signings in Fabinho, Keita, and the OX to bolster your squad to compete against City. 

You sold 1 player to fund 5. Should Klopp be getting credit Liverpool's board convinced Barca to spend that absurd amount on Coutinho? 

Again, not saying Klopp hasn't spent money, but if you think he and Guardiola have spent money at the same success rate, you're lying to yourself

Already said Klopp should get more credit than he does for turning Coutinho into the player Barcelona had to have at all costs, but we were very lucky Barcelona were in that situation and other people deserve the credit for extracting quite as much money as we did

[God is Haaland]

32 minutes ago, Spike said:

Where did that £7.5 come from?

[Danny]

5 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Not even going to answer that. If you think there is more expectations at an oil club with absolutely no history over the most successful English club then theres no hope for you. 

Yes there was more expectation at a club that has recently won the league and has money to spend to win the league than at a club that hasn’t won the league in decades and had far less to spend at the time...how is this hard to comprehend?

[RandoEFC+]

The obsessive attention given to transfer fees as a barometer of a club or manager's success really is just a childish pissing contest in which literally everyone supporting any club who takes part is a massive hypocrite.

Judging managers now on transfer fees just simply isn't legitimate anymore in this day and age of directors of football, interfering owners, transfer committees, agents, etc. You're not telling me you really think it works like Football Manager/FIFA career mode where the manager decides who he wants to buy and then negotiates the deal themselves. Guardiola isn't the one who decides whether or not Nathan Ake is worth £40m or not.

[Cicero]

3 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Again, not saying Klopp hasn't spent money, but if you think he and Guardiola have spent money at the same success rate, you're lying to yourself

Already said Klopp should get more credit than he does for turning Coutinho into the player Barcelona had to have at all costs, even if we were very lucky Barcelona were in that situation and other people deserve the credit for extracting quite as much money as we did

It's the myth Klopp made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Even Klopp now recognises how much of a hypocrite he sounded, so its a little funny hearing some Liverpool fans still conjure up this lie when there is a discussion on Klopp or Pep. 

Both spent money to compete. Breaking records on the way. There's nothing wrong with that given what football is today. 

[LFCMadLad]

3 minutes ago, Danny said:

Yes there was more expectation at a club that has recently won the league and has money to spend to win the league than at a club that hasn’t won the league in decades and had far less to spend at the time...how is this hard to comprehend?

So basically you are relating expectation to the amount of money spent?

I rest my case.

[Cicero]

Just now, LFCMadLad said:

So basically you are relating expectation to the amount of money spent?

I rest my case.

Is...that not accurate? The more you spend, the more expectations rise?

[LFCMadLad]

4 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

The obsessive attention given to transfer fees as a barometer of a club or manager's success really is just a childish pissing contest in which literally everyone supporting any club who takes part is a massive hypocrite.

Judging managers now on transfer fees just simply isn't legitimate anymore in this day and age of directors of football, interfering owners, transfer committees, agents, etc. You're not telling me you really think it works like Football Manager/FIFA career mode where the manager decides who he wants to buy and then negotiates the deal themselves. Guardiola isn't the one who decides whether or not Nathan Ake is worth £40m or not.

No, but its a massive advantage when one manager has unlimited funds, and the other has to sell his best players to fund a rebiuld. 

[God is Haaland]

27 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Im not saying we havent had investment, but we havent had half the investment that City have had.

And City had a far better team when Pep took over than Liverpool when Klopp took over.

[LFCMadLad]

5 minutes ago, Cicero said:

It's the myth Klopp made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Even Klopp now recognises how much of a hypocrite he sounded, so its a little funny hearing some Liverpool fans still conjure up this lie when there is a discussion on Klopp or Pep. 

Both spent money to compete. Breaking records on the way. 

Which would you rather have?