Liverpool Discussion

[RandoEFC+]

The net spend argument shouldn't be discounted. It is better and more impressive to have spent big money but also sell your best players to generate that money, than it is to have that much money to spend every summer without having to sell key players.

The net spend argument has always been a controversial one but in this case it's fair enough to bring up the fact that yes Klopp has spent big money but selling key parts of his squad which is a disadvantage has allowed him to do that until this window.

[Marc]

The net spend argument is flawed because it doesn’t take into account signing on fees and wages. It’s fag packet maths by idiots.

If you sell Coutinho for 105m and then buy 5 players with the ‘Coutinho money’ you pay signing on fees and wages for 5 players but only get one off your books. 100k/week is an extra 5m a year and probably a 4 year contract, signing on fees also? Fuck knows but probably a couple of million each player.

Also, which really annoys me but most transfers we don’t know the actual fee. The media report the highest number to make it sound more sensational. 

 

For example wasn't coutinho reported as around 146m but it was also reported as. 105m rising to 146m? We don’t know what them clauses are and if they have or will be met.

[RandoEFC+]

3 minutes ago, Marc said:

The net spend argument is flawed because it doesn’t take into account signing on fees and wages. It’s fag packet maths by idiots.

If you sell Coutinho for 105m and then buy 5 players with the ‘Coutinho money’ you pay signing on fees and wages for 5 players but only get one off your books. 100k/week is an extra 5m a year and probably a 4 year contract, signing on fees also? Fuck knows but probably a couple of million each player.

Also, which really annoys me but most transfers we don’t know the actual fee. The media report the highest number to make it sound more sensational. 

 

For example wasn't coutinho reported as around 146m but it was also reported as. 105m rising to 146m? We don’t know what them clauses are and if they have or will be met.

Exact money isn't the point though. You make good points but it's still fair to say Liverpool made a significant amount of their war chest by selling Coutinho and that the signings have had to be of a more consistent quality to maintain and improve the quality of the squad because they've sold key players unlike most of their main rivals.

[Marc]

6 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Exact money isn't the point though. You make good points but it's still fair to say Liverpool made a significant amount of their war chest by selling Coutinho and that the signings have had to be of a more consistent quality to maintain and improve the quality of the squad because they've sold key players unlike most of their main rivals.

But exact money is the point because when a Liverpool fan says they are still spending he coutinho money they are talking about 145m.

if coutinho was 105m and VVD was 75m then they only made 30m profit in that transfer window.

[Rick]

13 minutes ago, Marc said:

But exact money is the point because when a Liverpool fan says they still spending he coutinho money they are talking about 145m.

if coutinho was 105m and VVD was 75m then they only made 30m profit in that transfer window.

But Coutinho was 145m wasn't he. So we were in the black by 70m, plus the VVD fee was also made up by transfer fees from other players we had sold, him signing wasn't reliant on us selling Coutinho. 

This is such a ridiculous argument anyways, I don't get the point being made? We as a club are not bankrolled by our owners, unlike City & Chelsea in the past. We spend our revenue, and even then the net spend per season under Klopp has been very low compared to our competitors. We have made progression under Klopp, whether you lot like to see that or not, and we've done it by being smart.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Rick

[RandoEFC+]

13 minutes ago, Marc said:

But exact money is the point because when a Liverpool fan says they are still spending he coutinho money they are talking about 145m.

if coutinho was 105m and VVD was 75m then they only made 30m profit in that transfer window.

I don't think any Liverpool fan in this thread is still saying they're spending the Coutinho money this window.

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Marc said:

The net spend argument is flawed because it doesn’t take into account signing on fees and wages. It’s fag packet maths by idiots.

If you sell Coutinho for 105m and then buy 5 players with the ‘Coutinho money’ you pay signing on fees and wages for 5 players but only get one off your books. 100k/week is an extra 5m a year and probably a 4 year contract, signing on fees also? Fuck knows but probably a couple of million each player.

Also, which really annoys me but most transfers we don’t know the actual fee. The media report the highest number to make it sound more sensational. 

 

For example wasn't coutinho reported as around 146m but it was also reported as. 105m rising to 146m? We don’t know what them clauses are and if they have or will be met.

The other thing that gets me is alternating between quoting the fees in pounds,  euro and dollars just to make it all the more confusing. 

[LFCMadLad]

Let's not also forget that we lost Emre Can on a free transfer and he needed replacing, which obviously costs money. Another factor is losing Ox for the whole of this season, again, he's another player that needed covering. 

I don't think Klopp going out and spending the most amount he's ever spent was just Willy nilly spending. 

[Marc]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

But Coutinho was 145m wasn't he. So we were in the black by 70m, plus the VVD fee was also made up by transfer fees from other players we had sold, him signing wasn't reliant on us selling Coutinho. 

This is such a ridiculous argument anyways, I don't get the point being made? We as a club are not bankrolled by our owners, unlike City & Chelsea in the past. We spend our revenue, and even then the net spend per season under Klopp has been very low compared to our competitors. We have made progression under Klopp, whether you lot like to see that or not, and we've done it by being smart.

How was it 145m? What currency? Who confirmed this? Where’s the source?

 

it was widely reported as 105m plus add ins up to 146m

[LFCMadLad]

1 minute ago, Marc said:

How was it 145m? What currency? Who confirmed this? Where’s the source?

 

it was widely reported as 105m plus add ins up to 146m

The add ons were very achievable ones such as CL qualification and a certain number of appearances. 

The first offer Barcelona put in the add ons were far from achievable such as Coutinho winning the golden boot and him being the first footballer to land on the moon, that sort of thing. Needless to say the first offer was rejected. 

[Marc]

3 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

The add ons were very achievable ones such as CL qualification and a certain number of appearances. 

The first offer Barcelona put in the add ons were far from achievable such as Coutinho winning the golden boot and him being the first footballer to land on the moon, that sort of thing. Needless to say the first offer was rejected. 

And this has been confirmed by who? I highly doubt they’d put in an add on such as champions league qualification when they’ve qualified for every CL since it was created. 

 

[Danny]

1 hour ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I'm not sure what the point of this post is, apart from backing up what Liverpool fans are saying.

Liverpool are not a sugar daddy club being doped by an oil baron like Chelsea and Manchester City, so there is a difference between how the spending is perceived and rightly so. Of course Klopp will be judged on his signings but they have had to sacrifice to make them.

Jurgen Klopp has still spent money and spending that money is exactly the same as everyone else spending money. Who cares if Guardiola is spending oil money, the Premier League is full of oil money, television money is no different. Imagine if Liverpool sold Coutinho, then bought a load of deadwood with the money made available and flopped. Nobody would be saying "well technically he's not spent anything because of net spend, great bloke is our Jurgen".

So far Klopp has spent big and spent wisely, but to say he's not spent anything or it doesn't matter because of net spend wrong.

Evidently I've been watching far too much Suits because I really couldn't care less about this shit 

[LFCMike]

What a tedious debate

[LFCMadLad]

9 minutes ago, Marc said:

And this has been confirmed by who? I highly doubt they’d put in an add on such as champions league qualification when they’ve qualified for every CL since it was created. 

 

We made sure the add ons were easily achievable to get the full fee of £146m which suited Barcelona because it buys them more time to pay the fee... 100 appearances etc for example. 

Anyway fuck it, as Mike says this is a tedious debate. 

[Danny]

2 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

We made sure the add ons were easily achievable to get the full fee of £146m which suited Barcelona because it buys them more time to pay the fee... 100 appearances etc for example. 

Anyway fuck it, as Mike says this is a tedious debate. 

Barce wouldn't have paid £146m upfront anyway, they were desperate for Coutinho after the Neymar fuck up. Daylight robbery there.

[LFCMadLad]

7 minutes ago, Danny said:

Barce wouldn't have paid £146m upfront anyway, they were desperate for Coutinho after the Neymar fuck up. Daylight robbery there.

Oh we definitely made the most of the market/situation at the time without doubt. 

[Danny]

2 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Oh we definitely made the most of the market/situation at the time without doubt. 

I feel like you lot losing him was a blessing in disguise, not to say he was shit because he's not but his general play of cutting in from the left and shooting is repetitive and seems to break up the fluidity of attacks. Definitely noticed that at times during his time at Barce so far anyway, not sure if @SirBalon would agree there.

But your attack is so fluid now and Salah means Coutinho is almost a forgotten man...if not for the ridiculous price tag anyway.

[LFCMadLad]

6 minutes ago, Danny said:

I feel like you lot losing him was a blessing in disguise, not to say he was shit because he's not but his general play of cutting in from the left and shooting is repetitive and seems to break up the fluidity of attacks. Definitely noticed that at times during his time at Barce so far anyway, not sure if @SirBalon would agree there.

But your attack is so fluid now and Salah means Coutinho is almost a forgotten man...if not for the ridiculous price tag anyway.

I'll admit when he left I was gutted, it felt like the same old story of us selling our best player just as we were about to stake our claim. To be honest though he wasn't really missed, in fact our results slightly improved, although we were lucky that none of Firmino, Mane and Salah suffered any injuries after he left. 

There are some theories that Klopp (when agreeing to Coutinhos sale) had in mind that the results wouldn't really be affected but with the funds he could really kick on and improve the squad overall. All hearsay really but that's how it's panned out in the end. 

[SirBalon]

49 minutes ago, Danny said:

I feel like you lot losing him was a blessing in disguise, not to say he was shit because he's not but his general play of cutting in from the left and shooting is repetitive and seems to break up the fluidity of attacks. Definitely noticed that at times during his time at Barce so far anyway, not sure if @SirBalon would agree there.

But your attack is so fluid now and Salah means Coutinho is almost a forgotten man...if not for the ridiculous price tag anyway.

Yeah, Liverpool's attack is more seamless without Coutinho because even though the Brazilian is a fantastic player, he is odd in the sense that he naturally wants to start and finish his own move...  That's great for epic style football but where you have a plan and you want that plan to be measured, it can stunt the mechanics of fluidity amongst the front men. Coutinho has the capabilities to combine and put in great passes but that isn't what he naturally wants to do and how he enjoys his football.

To summarise...  Coutinho is a very talented luxury to have in a squad and too god to bench and use as a revolutionary answer coming on.  A dilemma!

[LFCMadLad]

26 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Yeah, Liverpool's attack is more seamless without Coutinho because even though the Brazilian is a fantastic player, he is odd in the sense that he naturally wants to start and finish his own move...  That's great for epic style football but where you have a plan and you want that plan to be measured, it can stunt the mechanics of fluidity amongst the front men. Coutinho has the capabilities to combine and put in great passes but that isn't what he naturally wants to do and how he enjoys his football.

To summarise...  Coutinho is a very talented luxury to have in a squad and too god to bench and use as a revolutionary answer coming on.  A dilemma!

I think the things that you mentioned was why Klopp wasn't that arsed about losing Coutinho and why he'd rather use the astronomical fee on improving the squad as a whole. 

[Harry]

I always rated coutinho as really bloody good but never next level good. His passes were at times incredible but his determination to keep dribbling around until he can get a shot off is tedious to watch. 

He must shoot more than any other midfielder and have a low percentage hit rate because I'm so used to seeing him sky his shots. And did i mention his corners tendency to hit the first man? 

He was a solid free kick taker though and I'm not sure we've replaced that yet...

[The Liquidator]

Who would have thought asking the simple question of "can Liverpool be accused of trying to buy success" would create so much squirming n wriggling from their deluded army of fans?

Appreciate those other non Liverpool fans for pointing out the non acceptance of the proof I posted of Klopp already spent, the never ending transfer fee of Coutinho, by their deluded masses, but I think we are wasting our time trying to get an answer n it's time to leave this make-believe thread .

Just sowing the seed!

[LFCMadLad]

1 hour ago, Cannabis said:

Would be class if there's some sort of mental back-pass which caused Alisson and VVD to both collide and tear their ACL's.

Their fans are already their unbearable selves and it's only late July. Fingers crossed this year "isn't their year" again so we can all be sensible again.

Great debate that you fantastic debating moderator. 

[UNORTHODOX]

I think Liverpool fans are being realistic and low key about our chances this season, If we can challenge for the title so be it but I havent seen anybody saying "it's our year" yet. Infact it's fans of other clubs who are talking us up to win trophy's if anything.

[The Artful Dodger]

3 minutes ago, UNORTHODOX said:

I think Liverpool fans are being realistic and low key about our chances this season, If we can challenge for the title so be it but I havent seen anybody saying "it's our year" yet. Infact it's fans of other clubs who are talking us up to win trophy's if anything.

Never heard any Liverpool fan say 'it's our year', it's a recycled myth.

Would rather Everton do well than Liverpool but a strong Liverpool is good for the city, good to see Liverpool finally punching their weight in the transfer market. Only Manchester United are a bigger club in this country and they are one of the elite clubs in world football.