well... it all depends what you think we had last year and this jan. did we have a real bid for lemar. did we spend it on oxlade. did we have 75 for vvd. did we need to sell coutinho etc etc. what we know is 2015/16 total 28 mil net spend 2016 summer = net spend of -6.5mil ignoring agents fees etc. 2017 summer net spend of about 29mil. 2018 january net spend - 25 if barca paid all up front... if half comes next summer who cares its the same thing. so.... just by simple maths if lfc should have 30mil available per season into transfers account frim revenue then logic says. a) klopp saved the 30mil in 2016. plus whatever 6mil b) in january hes taken in another 35-40 odd not including add ons on coutinho that might not occur. c) next summer he should get another 30 mil our if revenues d) he will have to fund keita to tune of 48 mil. by this simple logic he should have a bit of cash to spend to the tune of one big signing on top of kieta. worst case. if you believe lfc have had more to spend and have not spent it fine no bother.... if we had the 75 for vvd just sat there last season and waited til jan great. until we see the 120 odd mil from coutinho plus another 40-50 spent we cant kniw can we?
net spend etc is irrelevant the only thing that matters is the (real) profit / loss account and unless the next set of accounts show significant profits we cannot afford a huge transfer budget plus the wage increase it brings.
err no apparently Liverpool County Council can to enable the regeneration of the Docks area but not sure how that will play with the council tax payers.
the wage increase yes. thats the difference between most teams including us chelsea even and spurs and utd and city. utd just paid who i would consider a failed barca player the same as messi is getting. the wages are huge. lfc or spurs or others can build a good side but holding it togther when these guys are able to just throw 3 times the value at a guy its crazy. we have the wages but only at a certain. level.
people seem to forget wages & focus on transfers but these days that is only part of the story plus we don't make a profit though you would need to see the real accounts rather than summary to see the full position.
It's a great deal for the taxpayer. They break even after just 40 years. After that it's pure profit (minus inflation and administration costs).
loan wathc: cardiff played bristol city is a full blooded affair this weekend with a 1-0 to cardiff the result. Grujic wasn't risked by warnock so he sat on the bench watching a bunch of cloggers hack each other to bits #education.
that ignores the fact the investment should help regenerate an area and the financial & social benefits that would bring to the city as a whole. The difficulty lies in determining the value of the expected benefits.
I hope I'm wrong but I think the regeneration on the back of this stadium will be minimal. It will basically be used about 22 times a year. That's not driving any significant new business.
If it's used for concerts and stuff it could be very good. It really depends what is in the direct area with it to make it useful.
