I would take issue with a lot of this, but for now I'll concentrate on the last sentence.Of course it does not prove that LFC bought costly players. But are we saying that during a long period we bought 2000 players at less than 1 million pounds instead of 50 players at around 40 million? That our shopping habits were closer to Swindon Town than to the Top 4 or 6 in terms of the price of our players? Of course some of those players we bought were costly.
We chose to spend the money in the way we did. No one forced us to spend on more cheaper players instead on fewer expensive ones. That was the club’s strategy. How many of us decried the likes of Chelsea and City of ‘buying’ the title by spending huge amounts on few players when in the overall analysis we spent as much as them. The difference is that with the money they spent they transformed their teams and squads. LFC didn’t until now.
It is not that we didn’t match the City’s and the Chelseas. We did in volume but not in quality. We are now, in buying the most expensive GK and CB in the world (at one time).
And that is why to expect us to win the title against the likes of City and Chelsea and Man U is not in the realm of fantasy.
If we spent a lot in the past and didn't win the PL, why does spending so much now mean we must compete?
It's about who you buy and how you use them, not simply how much they cost. That table is misleading in so many ways.

