Everton 1-3 Man City - Saturday 28th September, 2019

[Happy Blue]

Just now, LFCMadLad said:

What's Manchester Utd got to do with it? 

As much as i hate them United don't chuck bricks at toddlers

[LFCMadLad]

7 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

As much as i hate them United don't chuck bricks at toddlers

Everton fans? When did this happen?

[Happy Blue]

10 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Everton fans? When did this happen?

Few years back at our place, they bricked a family with 2 toddlers and hit one of them on the head cutting his head open, think he was about 3 or 4yrs old   ...didnt one of there fans also attack a Lyon player while he had a toddler in his arms?

[LFCMadLad]

7 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

Few years back at our place, they bricked a family with 2 toddlers and hit one of them on the head cutting his head open, think he was about 3 or 4yrs old   ...didnt one of there fans also attack a Lyon player while he had a toddler in his arms?

One of their fans actually had a fight with his kid in his arms 

[The Artful Dodger]

Every club always goes for the 'they attack kids' line. Manchester City fans have more than their fair share of reprehensible twats.

[LFCMike]

Man City fans are the biggest bunch of whining cunts in the league. And it wouldn't surprise me if that story about that Everton incident is either extremely exaggerated or completely made up

[Stan]

Enjoyed the game yesterday. At times it was end to end and quite open. 

Mahrez was different class. 

[RandoEFC+]

2 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

Few years back at our place, they bricked a family with 2 toddlers and hit one of them on the head cutting his head open, think he was about 3 or 4yrs old   ...didnt one of there fans also attack a Lyon player while he had a toddler in his arms?

I don't have any recollection of this bricks incident at all.

[The Artful Dodger]

8 hours ago, Danny said:

Of course there net spend is different between the two clubs and no ones saying Liverpool have spent as much as City...or have an oil baron backer....but the myth that Klopp doesn’t spend is gash. Liverpool are the second biggest spenders in the league by now?

The idea that Liverpool and Manchester City are somehow competing on an even playing field is also, as you put it, 'gash'. Liverpool spend what they make, they don't have the luxury of financial doping. They have had to sell some of their best players to buy in other top players. That is a major difference between them and Manchester City who have broken FFP rules in the past and faced barely any punishment.

It's like the kid with rich parents who goes out and buys a nice car with his parents money and the kid who worked every weekend to get the money. Sure, they both 'spent' but to make out it's on some equal plain is ridiculous.

This isn't a judgement on who is the better manager. I don't know how anyone can seriously tell me how they work this sort of thing out at the very top end of football. Just that Liverpool's position is far harder earned than Manchester City's who have had the benefit that only really Chelsea and PSG can claim to have had too.

[Danny]

7 hours ago, Cicero said:

They are. Except they have to sell to buy, City don’t. So again, false equivalency. 

 

I’m not comparing Pep and Klopp’s spending, I’m just saying that Klopp has spent a lot of money compared to nearly every manager in this league and in the world. They’ve not done it on a budget regardless of if they’ve sold to spend

[Danny]

30 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

The idea that Liverpool and Manchester City are somehow competing on an even playing field is also, as you put it, 'gash'.

Literally haven’t suggested or insinuated that they are on a level playing field.

[LFCMadLad]

14 minutes ago, Danny said:

I’m not comparing Pep and Klopp’s spending, I’m just saying that Klopp has spent a lot of money compared to nearly every manager in this league and in the world. They’ve not done it on a budget regardless of if they’ve sold to spend

Yes we have. Klopp said a few weeks ago that he would have brought Coutinho back (he wanted to) but the club simply couldn't afford it. 

We also spent absolutely nothing this summer. Why? Because we spent heavy last summer, albeit with the Coutinho fee (£146m). Its like we do great business. We sold Benteke for £33m and bought Mane for £30m for example. We sold Ibe for £18m, Solanke for £18m and brought in players like Robertson £8m. Klopp also introduced TAA and gave Gomez a more prominent place in the squad. Matip on a free. The list goes on.

Klopp has one of the lowest net spends in the league. How you can totally dismiss that and just say "huh liverpool spend loads" is beyond me. 

Everton  Leicester, Villa etc have all outspent us recently. 

[The Artful Dodger]

49 minutes ago, Danny said:

I’m not comparing Pep and Klopp’s spending, I’m just saying that Klopp has spent a lot of money compared to nearly every manager in this league and in the world. They’ve not done it on a budget regardless of if they’ve sold to spend

Of course it's a budget, a budget literally means you have to keep your spending within a certain limit because of the resources you have. Manchester City do not have this issue. You are trying to infer that Liverpool are some massive spending club, it just isn't true. Spending what you make cannot be compared with those clubs who can spend whatever they like.

[Danny]

40 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Yes we have. Klopp said a few weeks ago that he would have brought Coutinho back (he wanted to) but the club simply couldn't afford it. 

We also spent absolutely nothing this summer. Why? Because we spent heavy last summer, albeit with the Coutinho fee (£146m). Its like we do great business. We sold Benteke for £33m and bought Mane for £30m for example. We sold Ibe for £18m, Solanke for £18m and brought in players like Robertson £8m. Klopp also introduced TAA and gave Gomez a more prominent place in the squad. Matip on a free. The list goes on.

Klopp has one of the lowest net spends in the league. How you can totally dismiss that and just say "huh liverpool spend loads" is beyond me. 

Everton  Leicester, Villa etc have all outspent us recently. 

Mate I know how net spend works No ones dismissing it, all I said was Klopp has spent a lot fucking hell

[Danny]

2 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Of course it's a budget, a budget literally means you have to keep your spending within a certain limit because of the resources you have. Manchester City do not have this issue. You are trying to infer that Liverpool are some massive spending club, it just isn't true. Spending what you make cannot be compared with those clubs who can spend whatever they like.

Liverpool have spent something like £500m since the Summer Klopp came in (I know he wasn’t there during the actual Summer)

I’m not comparing them to an oil club, not saying they have an unlimited source of funds, I am saying that they have been massive spenders, which the amount of money they spent on Salah, Keita, Allison and Van Dijk would prove is correct.

Their netspend is great, they’ve done great business as a club, but the manager isn’t the club, nor does he handle transfers and fees in this day and age. Obviously Liverpool are better than anyone in the league in regards to the business they’ve done, but Klopp has spent a lot of money. That’s all I said How hard is that to comprehend?

Also don’t be pedantic over the use of the term budget, it obviously refers to teams on a small budget

[LFCMadLad]

7 minutes ago, Danny said:

Mate I know how net spend works No ones dismissing it, all I said was Klopp has spent a lot fucking hell

He hasn't though. Hes cost the club far less than most other Premier League clubs in the transfer market. 

[Danny]

Just now, LFCMadLad said:

He hasn't though. Hes cost the club far less than most other Premier League clubs in the transfer market. 

Mate you can spend big and still make a profit/break even

[LFCMadLad]

5 minutes ago, Danny said:

Liverpool have spent something like £500m since the Summer Klopp came in

But he couldn't do that without selling players, top players as well. 

Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea etc can happily throw £500m in a few windows and not bat an eyelid... We cant/wont.

[The Artful Dodger]

7 minutes ago, Danny said:

Liverpool have spent something like £500m since the Summer Klopp came in (I know he wasn’t there during the actual Summer)

I’m not comparing them to an oil club, not saying they have an unlimited source of funds, I am saying that they have been massive spenders, which the amount of money they spent on Salah, Keita, Allison and Van Dijk would prove is correct.

Their netspend is great, they’ve done great business as a club, but the manager isn’t the club, nor does he handle transfers and fees in this day and age. Obviously Liverpool are better than anyone in the league in regards to the business they’ve done, but Klopp has spent a lot of money. That’s all I said How hard is that to comprehend? 

Also don’t be pedantic over the use of the term budget, it obviously refers to teams on a small budget

It's not hard to comprehend, it's just a facile point to make when you don't qualify it. Why mention it at all if you admit that Liverpool have had to sell to make this money? Liverpool have essentially had to swap some good players for other good players.

You were trying to undermine what Liverpool have achieved by saying they are 'massive spenders', it's a terrible argument.

[LFCMadLad]

3 minutes ago, Danny said:

Mate you can spend big and still make a profit/break even

Jesus, it's like trying to break through a 24 inch wall with a spoon 

[Danny]

Just now, LFCMadLad said:

But he couldn't do that without selling players, top players as well. 

Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea etc can happily throw £500m in a few windows and not bat an eyelid... We cant/wont.

Mate I’ve never suggested you are financially as big as those clubs. This is getting silly, the reply to Artful applies to you too

1 minute ago, The Artful Dodger said:

It's not hard to comprehend, it's just a facile and stupid point to make when you don't qualify it. Why mention it at all if you admit that Liverpool have had to sell to make this money? Liverpool have essentially had to swap some good players for other good players.

You were trying to undermine what Liverpool have achieved by saying they are 'massive spenders', it's a terrible argument.

Undermine Liverpool? I know you wish you were scouse but this is getting silly

I just said it’s ironic Klopp didnt want to move to a club that could spend big and is now spending silly money with Liverpool. Like it was ironic he mocked United for spending big on Pogba and done the same on Van Dijk (which btw I don’t care that he was being a hypocrite before anyone gets their knickers in a twist). I was observing how his values seem to have changed these last couple of years.

[The Artful Dodger]

9 minutes ago, Danny said:

 

Undermine Liverpool? I know you wish you were scouse but this is getting silly

I just said it’s ironic Klopp didnt want to move to a club that could spend big and is now spending silly money with Liverpool. Like it was ironic he mocked United for spending big on Pogba and done the same on Van Dijk (which btw I don’t care that he was being a hypocrite before anyone gets their knickers in a twist). I was observing how his values seem to have changed these last couple of years. 

Just because you're flailing around unable to present a reasonable argument, don't resort to personal insults, just makes you look lost.

Liverpool have bought what they sold, as any club reasonably financed club would do. Your risible attempt to infer they are some massive spending club has been shown up for what it is. There are many despicable things about Liverpool football club, you must do better.

[Danny]

2 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Just because you're flailing around unable to present a reasonable argument, don't resort to personal insults, just makes you look lost.

Liverpool have bought what they sold, as any club reasonably financed club would do. You're risible attempt to infer they are some massive spending club has been shown up for what it is. There are many despicable things about Liverpool football club, you must do better.

Don’t resort to posting insults, from you? Give over The two people I’ve insulted wont lose any sleep over it and are not impartial to mugging people off over a friendly debate either, christ you’d be a nightmare down the pub...we’re not gunna rock up at each other’s houses at midnight with a hammer to defend our honour

The fact that you can’t seperate net spend and actual spending in this debate is what’s causing it to go round in circles. You’re arguing an emotive point that spending is only done by big nasty oil clubs who don’t have to worry about net spend. But spending is spending regardless of net spend, Burnley spend, Tottenham spend and Liverpool spend. Spending is as simple as giving your money away for a product or service. Net spend analyses a clubs position, it does not analyse a managers willingness to spend available monies. Again I’ve not argued at any point that Klopp has to get his money in the same way Pep does so the fact that’s constantly brought up is staggering

If Liverpool have made £300m on player sales and then spend that £300m on players they have spent big, the positive or negative connotations of that are up for debate but that debate hasn’t been had here, Liverpool spending big is not a negative or positive statement. It is just a factual statement, one that is backed up by their expenditure. The fact you are taking this personally on behalf of Liverpool FC when all I done was observed that Klopp now spends big money when he previously didn’t, which is a factual statement that does not support nor “undermine” Liverpool suggests you’re having a completely different argument in your head. Probably one with a stereotypical southerner that hates scousers.

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, LFCMadLad said:

Yes we have. Klopp said a few weeks ago that he would have brought Coutinho back (he wanted to) but the club simply couldn't afford it. 

We also spent absolutely nothing this summer. Why? Because we spent heavy last summer, albeit with the Coutinho fee (£146m). Its like we do great business. We sold Benteke for £33m and bought Mane for £30m for example. We sold Ibe for £18m, Solanke for £18m and brought in players like Robertson £8m. Klopp also introduced TAA and gave Gomez a more prominent place in the squad. Matip on a free. The list goes on.

Klopp has one of the lowest net spends in the league. How you can totally dismiss that and just say "huh liverpool spend loads" is beyond me. 

Everton  Leicester, Villa etc have all outspent us recently. 

I'm not saying it's a level playing field or that Klopp and Liverpool haven't spent well but Coutinho is one of the major reasons Liverpool's net spend is lower. I would like to know which part of Rodgers signing Coutinho and Barcelona being stupid enough to spend that much money to get him make Klopp a better manager than Pep. Another example of how, while looking at net spend gives you a bit more of the picture than simply looking at total transfer spending, it's still a very selective and arbitrary measure that only tells the part of the story that you want it to in this case.

Speaking of which, that last comment is an absolute shambles too. By "recently" you mean "this summer because that's what suits my agenda". In 2018, which I'd call pretty recent, you signed Van Dijk, Alisson, Keita and Fabinho, all players which would absolutely destroy the all time transfer records for Everton, Villa and Leicester, with the possible exception of Fabinho costing a couple of million less than Sigurdsson.

I really don't understand you lot sometimes. People already agree that Klopp has got just about everything possible out of what he's had, already agree that City are a plastic oil club, you've just won the Champions League, have the best team you've had in my lifetime, and are probably going to finally win the title soon as well, yet it's not enough, you still try and put even more of a fairytale spin on it by selecting whichever time frame suits you best even when anyone with two brain cells to rub together can call it out fairly easily.

I mean, do you in your head actually think Everton, Leicester and Villa have outspent Liverpool recently? Some serious mental gymnastics brother.

[LFCMadLad]

3 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

I'm not saying it's a level playing field or that Klopp and Liverpool haven't spent well but Coutinho is one of the major reasons Liverpool's net spend is lower. I would like to know which part of Rodgers signing Coutinho and Barcelona being stupid enough to spend that much money to get him make Klopp a better manager than Pep. Another example of how, while looking at net spend gives you a bit more of the picture than simply looking at total transfer spending, it's still a very selective and arbitrary measure that only tells the part of the story that you want it to in this case.

Speaking of which, that last comment is an absolute shambles too. By "recently" you mean "this summer because that's what suits my agenda". In 2018, which I'd call pretty recent, you signed Van Dijk, Alisson, Keita and Fabinho, all players which would absolutely destroy the all time transfer records for Everton, Villa and Leicester, with the possible exception of Fabinho costing a couple of million less than Sigurdsson.

I really don't understand you lot sometimes. People already agree that Klopp has got just about everything possible out of what he's had, already agree that City are a plastic oil club, you've just won the Champions League, have the best team you've had in my lifetime, and are probably going to finally win the title soon as well, yet it's not enough, you still try and put even more of a fairytale spin on it by selecting whichever time frame suits you best even when anyone with two brain cells to rub together can call it out fairly easily.

I mean, do you in your head actually think Everton, Leicester and Villa have outspent Liverpool recently? Some serious mental gymnastics brother.

Wow 

I'm not even bothering.