Liverpool 1-4 Manchester City - Sunday 7th February 2021

[LFCMike]

20 minutes ago, Stan said:

Goes back to the point about buying sensibly then - I don't think any person here has said you need to spend obscenely like City do . Just to spend so you have yourself covered in various positions (like how you bought Thiago and Jota) and not leave yourself short. 

I'm not disagreeing with you that it's difficult to achieve, but it's not impossible.

Not every player that interests Liverpool would have been available on the kind of deals that Liverpool managed to get done for Jota and Thiago in the summer. They're examples of sensible transfers. With clubs, including Liverpool, getting a bit more desperate midway through the season they've managed to get Kabak on loan. I've already said that Kabak wouldn't have been able to be done in the summer due to the price quoted.

[LFCMike]

8 minutes ago, Danny said:

I’m not denying City have the advantage of not needing to sell to buy, I’m not denying that you’ve been great in the transfer market either, there are just a lot of Liverpool fans who do not understand that regardless of net spend you have gone out and spent £500m+ on players throughout Klopp’s tenure.

It's not £500m+ so let's just stop repeating that. Five clubs have a higher gross spend than Liverpool since Klopp took over

[Scouse_Mouse]

2 minutes ago, Danny said:

Can you remember your own posts lol? You very clearly stated Liverpool have found a way to win a title without spending obscene amounts, spending £500m is an “obscene” amount

Not sure if this is another windup on here or if you are being deliberately obtuse?

Spending 20M might mean the team should be stronger to you, clearly it doesn't if it's accompanied by the sale of a 200M world class player.

If you can't understand that any clubs success is based on players bought and players sold I honestly don't know how to make things simpler to understand?

 

[Burning Gold]

14 minutes ago, Danny said:

I’m not denying City have the advantage of not needing to sell to buy, I’m not denying that you’ve been great in the transfer market either, there are just a lot of Liverpool fans who do not understand that regardless of net spend you have gone out and spent £500m+ on players throughout Klopp’s tenure.

Yeah, that's fine, obviously we've paid a lot of money in transfer fees, but there's a world of difference between doing that and investing £500m in the playing squad, which we absolutely have not done

[LFCMike]

The one signing Liverpool do probably regret in the summer is Tsimikas. It was sensible to sign a LB as cover but he's not been available at all (his sub appearance yesterday was his first in the league i think?)

[Scouse_Mouse]

4 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

It's not £500m+ so let's just stop repeating that. Five clubs have a higher gross spend than Liverpool since Klopp took over

I just checked 13 clubs have a higher net spend since Klopp took over, 

 

[Cicero]

24 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Yes it obviously does though. If the money comes from selling players then that a) means you're taking quality out of the squad in order to add to it and b) in the context of demands to spend more, it's obviously a finite resource. We had to loan out Minamino and prey on desperate clubs to get two centre halves in on deadline day (seriously reducing the overall quality available and the pool of players to pick from). Who should we have sold to get more cover elsewhere?

We sold our second or third best player to fund those two record transfers ffs  come back when City have to sell Sterling or Bernardo (or whoever, idc) to compete

So did or did you not spend obscene amounts of money to get where you are? 

You sold players to fund record signings. City's owner pumps money into the club to fund record signings. 

Different actions, same premise. 

[Burning Gold]

14 minutes ago, Cicero said:

So did or did you not spend obscene amounts of money to get where you are? 

You sold players to fund record signings. City's owner pumps money into the club to fund record signings. 

Different actions, same premise. 

 

25 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Yeah, that's fine, obviously we've paid a lot of money in transfer fees, but there's a world of difference between doing that and investing £500m in the playing squad, which we absolutely have not done

 

[Danny]

12 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Not sure if this is another windup on here or if you are being deliberately obtuse?

Spending 20M might mean the team should be stronger to you, clearly it doesn't if it's accompanied by the sale of a 200M world class player.

If you can't understand that any clubs success is based on players bought and players sold I honestly don't know how to make things simpler to understand?

 

I understand that, not sure how it relates to £500m not somehow being an obscene amount of money to spend

[Scouse_Mouse]

53 minutes ago, Danny said:

I understand that, not sure how it relates to £500m not somehow being an obscene amount of money to spend

You are like a dog with a bone ffs.

I'm not disputing the fact that Jurgen spent money, I'm just trying to explain that parroting over and over that Klopp spent 500M is irrelevant and misleading.

Its not rocket science, every business is based on buying and selling, if your business was flipping houses after 10 houses bought and sold worth 500k each  you don't end up with a house worth 5M ffs.

It the basic fundamentals of business.

 

 

[Danny]

6 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

You are like a dog with a bone ffs.

I'm not disputing the fact that Jurgen spent money, I'm just trying to explain that parroting over and over that Klopp spent 500M is irrelevant and misleading.

Its not rocket science, every business is based on buying and selling, if your business was flipping houses after 10 houses bought and sold worth 500k each  you don't end up with a house worth 5M ffs.

It the basic fundamentals of business.

 

 

It's not misleading, nobody is stating that you didn't get a lot of that money through player sales, it's stating a fact. That you have spent £500m, which is a massive sum, which most people would consider an obscene amount of money to spend on a football team, much like what City have spent is considered an obscene. A sum you have spent. Yet you claimed not to have spent an obscene amount of money, even though you have literally spent half a billion quid to win the league.

You can appreciate that Liverpool have worked hard and smart to spend an obscene amount of money whilst also accepting that you have spent it, and that the sum is fucking massive.

[Scouse_Mouse]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

It's not misleading, nobody is stating that you didn't get a lot of that money through player sales, it's stating a fact. That you have spent £500m, which is a massive sum, which most people would consider an obscene amount of money to spend on a football team, much like what City have spent is considered an obscene. A sum you have spent. Yet you claimed not to have spent an obscene amount of money, even though you have literally spent half a billion quid to win the league.

You can appreciate that Liverpool have worked hard and smart to spend an obscene amount of money whilst also accepting that you have spent it, and that the sum is fucking massive.

 Of course it's misleading ffs. You are saying that Klopp spent obscene amounts when anyone (without an agenda) can see our nett outlay wasn't anywhere close to that.

Forget the perennial big spenders like City, Manu or Chelsea  (and not wanting to upset Rando again)  but even Everton's gross spending is 536M over the same period of time.

[Stan]

You need to stop saying that anyone you have a discussion with, who doesn't follow the same trail of thought, has an agenda against Liverpool . You make it sound so petty.

 

[Danny]

Just now, Scouse_Mouse said:

 Of course it's misleading ffs. You are saying that Klopp spent obscene amounts when anyone (without an agenda) can see our nett outlay wasn't anywhere close to that.

Forget the perennial big spenders like City, Manu or Chelsea  (and not wanting to upset Rando again)  but even Everton's gross spending is 536M over the same period of time.

Sorry what agenda do I have? You are literally lying. Having a plus net spend does not mean that you spending £500m is not a very, very, very large amount of money to spend. You physically spent the money, I don’t know what more to say.

If your argument is that you have you had to sell players to spend an obscene amount of money then state that, no one will argue with that. If your argument is that you haven’t spent a large sum (which is what you said, though used the word obscene) then you are literally lying, because you have watched multiple players for big fees come in.

[LFCMike]

I wonder what the bar is that classifies it as an 'obscene' amount of money?

[Dr. Gonzo]

Why does this discussion feel very fucking familiar?

[Danny]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Why does this discussion feel very fucking familiar?

Cos apparently a lot of Liverpool fans failed Business Studies at school? 

[Scouse_Mouse]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

Sorry what agenda do I have? You are literally lying. Having a plus net spend does not mean that you spending £500m is not a very, very, very large amount of money to spend. You physically spent the money, I don’t know what more to say.

If your argument is that you have you had to sell players to spend an obscene amount of money then state that, no one will argue with that. If your argument is that you haven’t spent a large sum (which is what you said, though used the word obscene) then you are literally lying, because you have watched multiple players for big fees come in.

Show me one lie ffs?

Even a pedant surely can see that gross spend and nett spend are mutually exclusive. 

We spent 472M gross or more importantly 14th on the nett spending table.

If that is obscene spending where does that put City, manu, chelsea ffs or even Everton's 536M?

Anyway waste of time I suppose, you want to put our success down to us having obscene amounts of money to spend I just find it a bit daft to not take other clubs spending into consideration. 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Danny said:

Cos apparently a lot of Liverpool fans failed Business Studies at school? 

I mean I think if you asked Pep or Klopp which situation they’d rather be in they’d rather be in the spend billions without thinking about where the money comes from.

Because there is a difference between just having a ton of oil cash, like Chelsea and City, than having to operate like a normal business like United and Liverpool and almost every other side in the league.

And I think that’s all their point is, even if they’re not wording it right and some people just want to dust off old arguments that have been had here for fun or something.

A good example is Ings - a player Klopp wanted to keep but the offers coming in for him from Southampton were good... and kept getting better after negotiation. And sure maybe last season we didn’t miss Ings - but I mean this season he’d clearly be useful.

I do think it’s sometimes understated the remarkable advantage the oil clubs have in building a side, and I think that’s the big point of the net spend brigade.

Can seem like a pedantic argument to be made for fans of clubs that don’t spend anywhere near as much as big clubs though.

[Danny]

1 minute ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Show me one lie ffs?

Even a pedant surely can see that gross spend and nett spend are mutually exclusive. 

We spent 472M gross or more importantly 14th on the nett spending table.

If that is obscene spending where does that put City, manu, chelsea ffs or even Everton's 536M?

Anyway waste of time I suppose, you want to put our success down to us having obscene amounts of money to spend I just find it a bit daft to not take other clubs spending into consideration. 

 

 

We already know City spend an obscene amount, you were using their total to make it look like you have not spent a lot when in fact you spent half a billion quid which is a lot of money. Why you're bringing other clubs into this I don't know seeing as you brought the discussion up about Liverpool in the first place.

[Scouse_Mouse]

 

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Why does this discussion feel very fucking familiar?

It's nothing new mate, we had the same pedants droning on about Rafa's spending, when in actual fact much of what he spent was to replace players he'd lost.

A copy of "Business Fundamentals for Dummies" might be an idea for some on here.

[Danny]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I mean I think if you asked Pep or Klopp which situation they’d rather be in they’d rather be in the spend billions without thinking about where the money comes from.

Because there is a difference between just having a ton of oil cash, like Chelsea and City, than having to operate like a normal business like United and Liverpool and almost every other side in the league.

And I think that’s all their point is, even if they’re not wording it right and some people just want to dust off old arguments that have been had here for fun or something.

A good example is Ings - a player Klopp wanted to keep but the offers coming in for him from Southampton were good... and kept getting better after negotiation. And sure maybe last season we didn’t miss Ings - but I mean this season he’d clearly be useful.

I do think it’s sometimes understated the remarkable advantage the oil clubs have in building a side, and I think that’s the big point of the net spend brigade.

Can seem like a pedantic argument to be made for fans of clubs that don’t spend anywhere near as much as big clubs though.

If the issue is net spend then talk about net spend, it's two easy words to write out that nobody will argue with because we all agree. If the issue is City get topped up by an owner and you get topped up by player sales then say that because again, we all agree.

Scouse Mouse for example is now an expert in using the words net spend but originally struggled to do so when pretending Liverpool hadn't spent half a billion quid on players.

But it is a very pedantic argument and highlights how little I'm doing at work atm lol

[Scouse_Mouse]

21 minutes ago, Stan said:

You need to stop saying that anyone you have a discussion with, who doesn't follow the same trail of thought, has an agenda against Liverpool . You make it sound so petty.

 

I don't say it about everyone who I disagree with Stan.Maybe Danny doesn't have an agenda? Maybe he calls out the 13 clubs who have spent more than us over the last 5 years as obscene too. 

 

[Scouse_Mouse]

6 minutes ago, Danny said:

If the issue is net spend then talk about net spend, it's two easy words to write out that nobody will argue with because we all agree. 

Good. Let's all agree then while parroting gross figures is technically true it's also very misleading. 

 

 

[Rick]

The thing that annoys me most about this debate is the immediate “throw money at it” “we aren’t run by oil money” lines that get thrown back as soon as you suggest we should have done more in the last four years to strengthen the squad. It’s an easy way to disregard a very valid point. 
 

Literally nobody has said we need to have 100m windows every summer. Me, and some others just think that the situation we are in now is partly down to our own doing. Yet, when you even slightly suggest the club have been anything other than perfect, you get hounded.