Match Day Thread 2017/18 Premier League, Cups & Euro Watch

And two others used the extra funds to establish themselves. It's what you do with it that matters

PS...Blackburn didn't have a unsustainable financial regime. Inflation happened. The chicken farmers came later

 

hmmm... seems you've rightly told him there.

 

What you do with it when you manage to get it.

That has been the problem for Wenger.

All that extra revenue accrued over the years from the
CL that he squandered, coupled with his arrogance that
the Goons would never be forced from that virtuous
circle (even though the alarm bells were ringing loud
in 2012 and 2013) .

 

Well aparently we have tight owners so the wums tell us when it suits them and next have had plenty of money to spend.

So who knows what today's bullshit argument is.

So you could have built on the back of the bale money but didn't? Tight owner?

 

The Poool are the only PL club IMHO who warrant
being in the CL on performance alone.

The rest of the Sky 4 have left a lot to be desired
(more so considering that three of them have been
PL champions for nearly all of those seasons) .

 

Do you though ??

The FSG bods seem to have backed you reasonably well.
Not to Sugga Daddy FC silliness levels, but then do you want
that for your club even if they could ??


"So you could have built on the back of the bale money but didn't?"

We did.
Just it didn't happen the season after the sale (sadly) .

 

Stoke have a higher net spend over Klopp's time at LFC than LFC does.

think about that.

LFC spend -28 mil in 2017/18 windows (summer and jan) (genius work)
-6.4 in 2016/17 (genius)
+28mil in 2015/16 (firmino only good buy)
+38mil in 2014/15 (most wasted)
+20.3 mil in 2013/14 (most wasted)

so over the period of 5 years of the most profitable prem revenues ever. we spend 51.9million net... not including agents fees etc etc

Now... watford, brighton, cheslea, everton, utd and city all spent more in ONE year.. plus of course city spent nearly 4 times more.

So lets just think about that for a while.

this side sold off all of the bad buys for 5 or 6 years under the transfer committee debacle and bought well, had seriously low net spend or actually profit and yet somehow are in CL places and CL final.

It is a minor miracle frankly.

 

We sold suarez, sterling and coutinho but also benteke, sahko, allen, ibe, smith, skertl, ilori, stewart, lucas and made profits plus many more we took losses on.

The big money going out has been on firmino, mane, salah, ox, VVD windy, robertson.... We bascially bought well each time and filled our first 11 up.

 

This is where I don't like the net spend argument; it gets skewed when you get big money for players. Those three were sold for a combined £260m(ish)!

 

But it also should highlight we lost 3 very important first team players.

Who would walk into most clubs.

 

I tend to look at the gross spend and judge whether it's enough to warrant having a good side.

Net spend was important under H&G because they screwed us from every angle possible

 

Those clubs are being forced to spend to try and get talent in,
because the stakes of exiting the PL are so high for them.
No luxury in nurturing academy talent etc.

And of course, being PL clubs means they are taking a hit
on transfer/wage costs because the players/sellers know
the money is there.


"LFC spend -28 mil in 2017/18 windows (summer and jan) (genius work)
-6.4 in 2016/17 (genius)
+28mil in 2015/16 (firmino only good buy)
+38mil in 2014/15 (most wasted)
+20.3 mil in 2013/14 (most wasted)

so over the period of 5 years of the most profitable prem revenues ever. we spend 51.9million net... not including agents fees etc etc"

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/pre...tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons

Note the club that is 18th in that table ...

 

But doesn't it also show if we wanted to replace the quality lost with similar it would show on net spend which it doesn't.

 

But in each case they wanted to leave and the club pretty much did all it could to keep them. Players do move. At least this
time we have spent the money much better.

 

You can only play eleven at once. If you buy a player, inevitably someone else is forced out. It's not always about replacing a player you've lost.

 

Supporters get this so badly wrong.

Gross spend is the measure of what you think a players'
ability warrants (ignoring things like the PL inflation etc) .

Nett spend is the measure of a club balancing its books.

If you buy a player for X, and they do not deliver
performance worthy of X, then a nett spend of zero means
it hasn't cost the club in one column, but it may have in
the other (qualifying for the CL etc) .

 

No but it does obviously weaken the quality of what you had.

Rafa had that problem. He was forced to sell to buy.

If you sell a first team player and buy 2 or 3 average players it will obviously have an impact on performance and results.

 

That's why I said it was different under H&G. We sold for ****s fees and overpaid for replacements.

FSG weren't much better in the transfer market when they first arrived (Carroll, Downing, Adam, etc) but fortunately they've learnt to negotiate better deals nowadays.

I'm not saying net spend is pointless, just find it irritating how much focus is put I it nowadays

 

Rooney off to DC Utd from the club he loves with all of his heart, once a blue always a yank.

 

Makes sense. Not good enough for Prem now so one last big pay day