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

[The Artful Dodger]

3 minutes ago, Danny said:

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.

I insult when I've tired of reasonable debate, you substitute one for the other.

To say Liverpool spend is a tautology, it's like me saying Liverpool wear Red Shirts when they play at home. Just completely meaningless without context, the only reason you would mention it in such a fashion is to try and use it was a way to infer Liverpool are spending their way to success. Well, I suppose you could say that about any club that buys anyone, we are all trying to find the best player. Yes, Liverpool are a relatively wealthy club but the money they've spent on transfers is money they have made. I don't see why that would ever be a negative thing.

You're now creating straw man arguments about why I'm arguing anything at all. I enjoy it, it's fun. I have no axe to grind, in the next thread I could be arguing about why Liverpool are such an awful club who have helped destroy the area they play in. All I care about is truth and have no loyalty to any club over truth.

[RandoEFC+]

2 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Wow 

I'm not even bothering. 

If you disagree with my argument then fair enough but if you think it's so outrageous that I'm calling you out for saying Villa have spent more than Liverpool "recently" that it's not even worth responding then I genuinely worry for your mental wellbeing.

"Aston Villa have spent more than Liverpool recently"

Staggering.

[Danny]

1 minute ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I insult when I've tired of reasonable debate, you substitute one for the other.

To say Liverpool spend is a tautology, it's like me saying Liverpool wear Red Shirts when they play at home. Just completely meaningless without context, the only reason you would mention it in such a fashion is to try and use it was a way to infer Liverpool are spending their way to success. Well, I suppose you could say that about any club that buys anyone, we are all trying to find the best player. Yes, Liverpool are a relatively wealthy club but the money they've spent on transfers is money they have made. I don't see why that would ever be a negative thing.

You're now creating straw man arguments about why I'm arguing anything at all. I enjoy it, it's fun. I have no axe to grind, in the next thread I could be arguing about why Liverpool are such an awful club who have helped destroy the area they play in. All I care about is truth and have no loyalty to any club over truth.

You are a tiring person, hence the insult

No the reason I brought it up as I’ve said a million times now is that I was observing Klopp’s mentality on spending has changed, that is  not undermining the work he has done at Anfield.

But again you’re attaching a negative emotion to spending on my behalf. The vast majority of clubs buy success, Liverpool would not have won their last Champions League had they not have bought big players. Man Utd would not have been so dominant had they not of bought big players. It is not a negative statement to make. There are exceptions, Leicester City for example, or Rafa’s Liverpool in Istanbul. But generally the vast majority of clubs buy success and Liverpool done that last season. To suggest they haven’t simply because Man City have done it to a much higher extent from a bottomless pit that nobody else seemingly has is wrong

You can say it’s a strawman argument but your posting history would suggest otherwise, either way I don’t really care that much I’m just killing time until Barnsley/Brentford. The main point made was that as stated above Klopp’s attitude to spending has changed, but you and madlad have read specific words, attached your own connotations to them and started wildly different debates

[The Artful Dodger]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

You are a tiring person, hence the insult

No the reason I brought it up as I’ve said a million times now is that I was observing Klopp’s mentality on spending has changed, that is  not undermining the work he has done at Anfield.

But again you’re attaching a negative emotion to spending on my behalf. The vast majority of clubs buy success, Liverpool would not have won their last Champions League had they not have bought big players. Man Utd would not have been so dominant had they not of bought big players. It is not a negative statement to make. There are exceptions, Leicester City for example, or Rafa’s Liverpool in Istanbul. But generally the vast majority of clubs buy success and Liverpool done that last season. To suggest they haven’t simply because Man City have done it to a much higher extent from a bottomless pit that nobody else seemingly has is wrong 

You can say it’s a strawman argument but your posting history would suggest otherwise, either way I don’t really care that much I’m just killing time until Barnsley/Brentford. The main point made was that as stated above Klopp’s attitude to spending has changed, but you and madlad have read specific words, attached your own connotations to them and started wildly different debates 

They bought players too, how is that any different? The only team I can think of ever that can't be accused, by your logic, is Celtic's Lisbon Lions, entirely homegrown. The fact you admit everyone spends makes your point clearly defunct, why even mention it then? Unless, which is what I believe, you were trying to pin some sort of negative connotation on what Liverpool are doing, when it is entirely normal and healthy in line with what nearly every club tries to do.

There is a very clear distinction between what Liverpool are doing and what Manchester City are doing. Pointing that out to you was justified and having to deal with your pitiful attempts to justify your awry point has helped while away a miserable Sunday morning.

[Danny]

3 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

They bought players too, how is that any different? The only team I can think of ever that can't be accused, by your logic, is Celtic's Lisbon Lions, entirely homegrown. The fact you admit everyone spends makes your point clearly defunct, why even mention it then? Unless, which is what I believe, you were trying to pin some sort of negative connotation on what Liverpool are doing, when it is entirely normal and healthy in line with what nearly every club tries to do.

There is a very clear distinction between what Liverpool are doing and what Manchester City are doing. Pointing that out to you was justified and having to deal with your pitiful attempts to justify your awry point has helped while away a miserable Sunday morning.

You’re being pedantic and conflating any form of spending with buying success to try and support your own agenda that I am trying to undermine Liverpool, I have literally spelled out that I am not trying to undermine Liverpool and that I don’t think clubs individually buying success is a negative thing and yet that is your go to point again. Weirdly you want me to have an agenda against Liverpool so you can get your daily dose of whatever inferiorty complex you have going on, if you want I can round up the rest of the southerners on this forum and you can make a proper day of it?

[The Artful Dodger]

2 minutes ago, Danny said:

You’re being pedantic and conflating any form of spending with buying success to try and support your own agenda that I am trying to undermine Liverpool, I have literally spelled out that I am not trying to undermine Liverpool and that I don’t think clubs individually buying success is a negative thing and yet that is your go to point again. Weirdly you want me to have an agenda against Liverpool so you can get your daily dose of whatever inferiorty complex you have going on, if you want I can round up the rest of the southerners on this forum and you can make a proper day of it?

Stop being a baby, you were called out on something which was clearly wrong. That's the end to it, I hold no grudge or personal animosity.

[Danny]

1 minute ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Stop being a baby, you were called out on something which was clearly wrong. That's the end to it, I hold no grudge or personal animosity.

If you want it to be clearly wrong it can be clearly wrong 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Interesting turn this thread took

[Cicero]

I blame myself

[Teso dos Bichos]

ATG type of thread. Keep up the great work Danny and I will DM Stanley boy to change my vote for member of the year. 

[Stan]

@Danny I've tried this argument before mate. You won't get anywhere

 

[LFCMadLad]

If I sold my car for £10k and bought another for £8k... would that make me a big spender? Of course not because I'm reinvesting.

If my mummy bought me a car for £10k ..... 

[Teso dos Bichos]

You are still spending AGAIN regardless of how you came up with the money..... is it really that complicated to understand?

[LFCMadLad]

5 minutes ago, Teso dos Bichos said:

You are still spending AGAIN regardless of how you came up with the money..... is it really that complicated to understand?

So what then... sell good players and fuck it?

Players need replacing.

You cant really say anything anyway. Man Utd outspend most clubs in world football and end up with fucking Fred, captained by Young 

[RandoEFC+]

19 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

If I sold my car for £10k and bought another for £8k... would that make me a big spender? Of course not because I'm reinvesting.

If my mummy bought me a car for £10k ..... 

What if you (a manager) inherited a car from your older brother (the previous manager) and decided to sell it for £10k and buy a new one for £8k? Is that so much different than mummy (the Sheikhs) buying you the new car for £8k?

And if you bought a car for £50k, then a few months later your mates all buy cars for £5k, would you say "you've all spent more on cars than me recently"?

[LFCMadLad]

4 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

What if you (a manager) inherited a car from your older brother (the previous manager) and decided to sell it for £10k and buy a new one for £8k? Is that so much different than mummy (the Sheikhs) buying you the new car for £8k?

And if you bought a car for £50k, then a few months later your mates all buy cars for £5k, would you say "you've all spent more on cars than me recently"?

Ok no worries...  we are massive spenders 

Everyone can clearly see the facts though 

[Cicero]

In modern football, you need to spend to compete. That is undeniably true. 

But when you generalise the spending among two clubs who have vastly different means of funding, in an attempt to make them comparable, creates a fallacy given one has a pretty blatant advantage over the other. 

Liverpool can't buy Mahrez, Bernardo, or Rodri without having to let someone else go in order to fund it. This in itself creates a higher net spend for City which reflects the massive amount of depth they have. 

 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

55 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

What if you (a manager) inherited a car from your older brother (the previous manager) and decided to sell it for £10k and buy a new one for £8k? Is that so much different than mummy (the Sheikhs) buying you the new car for £8k?

And if you bought a car for £50k, then a few months later your mates all buy cars for £5k, would you say "you've all spent more on cars than me recently"?

So if you inherit something and then sell it, that’s the same as having a rich mummy to fund you buying things without selling them?

Not sure I agree with that.

Yeah we spend big, but we have to fund it with sales. And basically we’re pretty lucky Barca freaked out after Neymar left and panic bought Coutinho without a plan for him. But that’s different to clubs like City that can spend without a worry about letting players go. Which gives them a lot more depth than literally any other side in the league, and probably in Europe tbh.

I think it’s pretty impressive we kept up with them in the league all of last season. They’re basically playing on an FM save where you’ve given yourself a ridiculous amount of cash

[Danny]

2 hours ago, Stan said:

@Danny I've tried this argument before mate. You won't get anywhere

 

Honestly thought I was going crazy for a second

[Guest]

6 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Stop being a baby, you were called out on something which was clearly wrong. That's the end to it, I hold no grudge or personal animosity.

He's usually wrong to be honest 

[Stan]

1 hour ago, Grizzly21 said:

He's usually wrong to be honest 

Why do you have some kind of vendetta against @Danny? It's a bit weird. 

[Danny]

23 minutes ago, Stan said:

Why do you have some kind of vendetta against @Danny? It's a bit weird. 

He wants a pair of my old boxers

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Stan said:

Why do you have some kind of vendetta against @Danny? It's a bit weird. 

I don't have anything against him, I just find him odd, so I like to pick on him, but he's an alright bloke I suppose. Not harming anyone and probably never will.

[Stan]

3 hours ago, Grizzly21 said:

so I like to pick on him,

Interesting.