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

[Scouse_Mouse]

29 minutes ago, Danny said:

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.

I brought up other clubs in an attempt to inject a bit of perspective.

If you think just about every club spends obscene amounts of money then I'd agree, transfer fees are obscene as are players wages.

Anyway this is getting boring. I have never denied Klopp's gross spending was 472M, all I have constantly said is that gross spending is very misleading and if you are really serious about comparing spending you need to look at net figures. Not just parrot "yeah but yeah but yeah but Klopp spent 500M".

[Stan]

Just now, Scouse_Mouse said:

I brought up other clubs in an attempt to inject a bit of perspective.

If you think just about every club spends obscene amounts of money then I'd agree, transfer fees are obscene as are players wages.

Anyway this is getting boring. I have never denied Klopp's gross spending was 472M, all I have constantly said is that gross spending is very misleading and if you are really serious about comparing spending you need to look at net figures. Not just parrot "yeah but yeah but yeah but Klopp spent 500M".

Other clubs spending obscene amounts of money doesn't mean you haven't spent obscene amounts either. Simple fact, that. 

[Cicero]

Boy 1 sells a lot of his toys to buy an obscurely expensive bike. 

Boy 2 is given money from his parents to buy an obscurely expensive bike. 

Both boys bought an obscurely expensive bike...

[Happy Blue]

7 hours ago, Inverted said:

Having rewatched it, I don’t quite understand the Dias penalty decision, or the rule about double jeopardy more generally. I don’t really care about it’s impact on the result but it’s interesting after the Luiz and Bednarek decisions. 

We've seen players getting sent off for any contact, when not challenging for the ball. The foul on Salah given was a pull on the arm, which is by definition not a challenge on the ball. 

By a strict reading of the law, shouldn’t it be a red and a pen? It seems like to me Oliver has felt that it’s a soft pen, and decided not to go the whole way. 

Which, though reasonable from a common sense perspective, doesn’t seem to line up with the letter of the law. Are they just changing it as they go?

It was hardly a pull, more of a linking of arms and he wasn't the last man as Stones was just out of camera shot  ..if anyone should of been booked it should of been Salad for simulation!

[Inverted]

48 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

It was hardly a pull, more of a linking of arms and he wasn't the last man as Stones was just out of camera shot  ..if anyone should of been booked it should of been Salad for simulation!

I wasn’t saying it necessarily should have been a pen, just that under the rules, Oliver either should’ve went all the way and give a red too, or not called it a foul at all. 

The problem I had was him seemingly making a compromise on the fly that the rules don’t make any justification for. 

[LFCMike]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

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. 

No one is saying they've been perfect. We all know by now though how Liverpool operate so it's pointless moaning about it in every thread. Liverpool won't spend a lot (net) for 2-3 years then will invest reasonably well one summer. That may have been last summer or next summer but unfortunately people running football clubs can't predict when a global pandemic will hit. Unfortunately it'll be another summer of seeing what you can get for squad players and if they can do anything like the Jota or Thiago deals. The issue will be finding buyers for some of the players we're looking to let go

[LFCMadLad]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

Boy 1 sells a lot of his toys to buy an obscurely expensive bike. 

Boy 2 is given money from his parents to buy an obscurely expensive bike. 

Both boys bought an obscurely expensive bike...

What a shit perspective 

More accurate would be:

Team 1 sells its best players for £200m and buys new players for £200m

Team 2 keeps all its best players and spends £200m on new players

Both teams spent £200m but BUT......

Think about it boys, it's not fucking spinal surgery.

[LFCMadLad]

5 hours ago, Cicero said:

But you still broke the record for a CB and a GK at the time. You spent loads. 

We had this same argument with @LFCMadLad and he made it out to be we think this is a criticism of Klopp. Its not. 

 

No I didn't, I said exactly what Mike etc are saying now, that we can't just go out and spend obscene amounts on players like some clubs without selling to fund it.

Fuck me... all this because we went into a season with 3 senior CB's and Fabinho, instead of 4 senior CB's like some people think  Pathetic!

Losing 3 senior CB's to season ending injuries could hardly be planned for ffs. We won the league and improved the squad with Jota and Thiago... guess what? We lost both to major injuries! Again, it can hardly be planned for.

Fucking moan moan moan some people without actually thinking.

What Rick and his crew are basically pissing their pants about is being ONE CB short. Fuck me. 

[Cicero]

24 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

What a shit perspective 

More accurate would be:

Team 1 sells its best players for £200m and buys new players for £200m

Team 2 keeps all its best players and spends £200m on new players

Both teams spent £200m but BUT......

Think about it boys, it's not fucking spinal surgery.

Yet again the bizarre defense mechanism you Liverpool lot have on Klopp and spending. Instead of actually comprehending the point 90% of this forum is making, you continue to divert the argument into something the 90% of this forum never made. 

17 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Fucking moan moan moan some people without actually thinking.

What Rick and his crew are basically pissing their pants about is being ONE CB short. Fuck me. 

[Burning Gold]

My thing on the net vs gross spend issue is... why even mention gross spend? What's the relevance? Obviously I know in this case @Scouse_Mouse literally said we haven't spent obscene amounts, so fine, but on the wider debate net spend is (for me) obviously the relevant metric because it reflects the amount of investment that's been put into your team, and obviously only a very select group of clubs can sustain a high net spend and add star quality year on year. Predictably, they're the clubs who dominate the standings at the end of the season. Unless someone can explain otherwise, gross spend really does just come across as a point scoring thing so people can pretend Liverpool haven't been winning a game rigged against them.

[DeadLinesman]

5 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

My thing on the net vs gross spend issue is... why even mention gross spend? What's the relevance? Obviously I know in this case @Scouse_Mouse literally said we haven't spent obscene amounts, so fine, but on the wider debate net spend is (for me) obviously the relevant metric because it reflects the amount of investment that's been put into your team, and obviously only a very select group of clubs can sustain a high net spend and add star quality year on year; predictably, the clubs who dominate the standings at the end of the year. Unless someone can explain otherwise, gross spend really does just come across as a point scoring thing so people can pretend Liverpool haven't been winning a game rigged against them.

I see your point, but how’s it rigged against you? People would laugh if you told them United although spending a fortune have had their hands tied. But it’s the absolute truth. Over £1billion taken out of the club. 

[Burning Gold]

1 hour ago, Inverted said:

I wasn’t saying it necessarily should have been a pen, just that under the rules, Oliver either should’ve went all the way and give a red too, or not called it a foul at all. 

The problem I had was him seemingly making a compromise on the fly that the rules don’t make any justification for. 

Exactly the same as the two in midweek for me. Very soft, but once you've given it you have to fully apply the law. That's what happened in both games (Arsenal and Man U) and the authorities backed the referees up afterwards, so it's not as if he wasn't (or shouldn't have been) fully aware of both the law and the precedent

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Exactly the same as the two in midweek for me. Very soft, but once you've given it you have to fully apply the law. That's what happened in both games (Arsenal and Man U) and the authorities backed the referees up afterwards, so it's not as if he wasn't (or shouldn't have been) fully aware of both the law and the precedent

Bednarek had his red overturned?

[Scouse_Mouse]

22 minutes ago, Cazza said:

I was actually being rhetorical.

I think there's an ointment for that

[Burning Gold]

8 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

I see your point, but how’s it rigged against you? People would laugh if you told them United although spending a fortune have had their hands tied. But it’s the absolute truth. Over £1billion taken out of the club. 

13th in net spend since Klopp came to the club. That's just the Premier League as well; all of the other European elite will be significantly higher than us as well. It honestly is astonishing

If that is true about Man U, then yeah anyone would be daft to argue with the idea your hands are being tied... but you're tying them yourselves, and I don't think you can say it's rigged against you in the same way because you still have spent a shitload of money (net!). For me, mistakes have been made at Old Trafford that mean you've wasted huge sums of money so it'd be a bit hollow to say "yeah, but we'd be successful if we'd spent even more money"

[Burning Gold]

6 minutes ago, Stan said:

Bednarek had his red overturned?

Isn't that because it was a dive rather than the red card itself being wrong? i.e. shouldn't have been a foul, not should've been a foul but not a red

[Scouse_Mouse]

16 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

 People would laugh if you told them United although spending a fortune have had their hands tied. 

It's all we ever hear since the Glaziers arrived.

[DeadLinesman]

1 minute ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

It's all we ever hear since the Glaziers arrived.

Yeah, I remember how quiet your lot were about Hicks and Gillet........

[Burning Gold]

23 minutes ago, Cazza said:

I would very much be in favour of a salary cap but also include all European teams and any foreign teams who can compete financially. 

I don't disagree, but I think it'd be too complicated to implement across a continent with varying exchange rates, tax rates, and costs of living. Obviously there's the Euro, but it's not everywhere

Of course, the biggest barrier is that the incentive simply isn't there for anyone to implement it

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

Yeah, I remember how quiet your lot were about Hicks and Gillet........

Tbf the Glazers actually keep United profitable and you never were told to just accept being shit and maybe be happy to not be relegated.

Gillett and Hicks had us in such financially bad shape we were facing administration & we had Hodgson and the media telling us we aren't too big for a relegation battle, which is probably true of any side, but it's an incredibly self-defeating attitude for a side that was facing financial dire straights.

You can be aggrieved that the Glazers see United as a business rather than a football club... but at least they run it like a business they care about. Gillett and Hicks were moronic chancers that had no idea what it took to run a successful sports teams in the leagues they actually understood the sports sides they owned... they were running us out of business.

That's a HUGE fucking difference, no matter how you slice it.

[DeadLinesman]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Tbf the Glazers actually keep United profitable and you never were told to just accept being shit and maybe be happy to not be relegated.

Gillett and Hicks had us in such financially bad shape we were facing administration & we had Hodgson and the media telling us we aren't too big for a relegation battle, which is probably true of any side, but it's an incredibly self-defeating attitude for a side that was facing financial dire straights.

You can be aggrieved that the Glazers see United as a business rather than a football club... but at least they run it like a business they care about. Gillett and Hicks were moronic chancers that had no idea what it took to run a successful sports teams in the leagues they actually understood the sports sides they owned... they were running us out of business.

That's a HUGE fucking difference, no matter how you slice it.

Mate, United are profitable IN SPITE of the Glazers. We’re haven’t been run like a football team in some team. We are literally the cash cow for Glazers inc propping up failed US malls. It’s rinse a repeat and has been for 6 years. Spend to get into the CL, then don’t spend. Then fail to get into the CL, then spend. It suicide from football fans point of view.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, DeadLinesman said:

Mate, United are profitable IN SPITE of the Glazers. We’re haven’t been run like a football team in some team. We are literally the cash cow for Glazers inc propping up failed US malls. It’s rinse a repeat and has been for 6 years. Spend to get into the CL, then don’t spend. Then fail to get into the CL, then spend. It suicide from football fans point of view.

Maybe now that they've won a Superbowl again, they'll care more about United.

I do think the prospect of United with owners that are serious about sporting success would be a scary prospect because United is so fucking massive as a global brand. But it also makes me wonder why the Glazers don't push harder for more success on the pitch - they'd get EVEN MORE glory fans and probably would get a shitload more money.

Even so, be thankful you can at least be profitable in spite of the Glazers. As far as club owners go... it could definitely be far fucking worse.

[Happy Blue]

2 hours ago, LFCMike said:

Liverpool won't spend a lot (net) for 2-3 years then will invest reasonably well one summer. That may have been last summer or next summer 

This is how City operate too tbf

[DeadLinesman]

1 minute ago, Happy Blue said:

This is how City operate too tbf

 

 

[RandoEFC+]

I've skipped the last few pages of the thread because I've seen the other thread on net spend and just saw where this argument sparked off.

You have to find some middle ground here. Making out that Liverpool have just pulled £500m out of their back pocket and thrown it at their squad is ridiculous. However, pretending that the net spend of £50m or whatever it is is also completely misleading. It's partially down to good negotiation skills and Klopp getting the best out of players like Coutinho when they were at the club but you've also got to accept that they've been helped by the utter stupidity of other clubs in the transfer market. Bournemouth must have thrown £100m at Liverpool's reserve team alone, Barcelona clearly overpaid for Coutinho like they have done for numerous other players across Europe in recent years, and didn't Leicester pay £20m-30m for a goalkeeper from Liverpool's squad that I'd never heard of before (or since)? Your other issue is that net spend in the transfer market doesn't take into account wage budgets, bonuses, add-ons. And please don't come back with numbers from some 'reliable source' who has assured one fanbase or another that Liverpool's wage budget is less than half of this team or three times bigger than that team, I don't care because none of us actually know.

At the end of the day, any of us pretending to know the actual finances of any of these clubs in any sort of detail is folly. The transfer fees they report in the media now barely scratch the surface of these deals and that's before Covid broke even wider established rules of match day income, television deals and so much else. There are so many grey areas now in instalments, agents' fees, wages, bonuses, sell-on clauses, undisclosed fees, contract buyouts, loyalty payments, etc., that fans can basically do whatever mental gymnastics they fancy to make themselves feel like their side got the better deal and that the other party are idiots, but at the end of the day, that's what supporting a football club is like.

There isn't much we know with certainty, but there are some broad conclusions that we can clearly draw, and they are more or less thus: Man City's spending on their squad has clearly dwarfed every other team in the country for a number of years and Liverpool have had to make their money go further and improve the players they already had in order to compete with them, for this their negotiating, recruiting and coaching teams deserve enormous credit. At the same time, Liverpool's own financial firepower dwarfs most of the rest of the league so anyone going off about how their net spend averages £5m a year under Klopp as if that single figure tells the entire story and Brighton or Crystal Palace could have just as easily pulled off what they have is just as wrong as anyone pretending not to understand at least some of the intricacies of the incomings and outgoings that have taken place behind the £500m+ spent on the current squad.