You still spent 200 million no matter how much you got back selling players. You know players you got in the first place with money you didn't earn
Even by taking off the money spent on players sold, we have still made more and spent significantly less than you since 2013. We are also currently head and shoulders above any side in the league bar maybe City, while you will probably spend even more money without selling in Jan. f**ing yawn at the last bit btw. Try something more original.
I agree, I really don't care about all the financial crap which is why I've been taking the piss on here.
I haven't spent a penny net today. I almost bought a Pork Chop biscuit (not really a biscuit, don't worry) from Bojangles on the way into work, but I resisted. What everyone always fails to note on these "Net Spend" is the salary. Chelsea, Man City, and Man Utd all have much higher salaries than Liverpool and that is part of net spend too! Don't just look at purchase prices. The three of you would dwarf our spending since 1992 if you included that too!
City are a massive 3 points ahead of us just now. Still unsure what they have done so far for them to be guaranteed in the top two. They probably will be but so far, theyve been no more impressive than the next team.
And even worse, people tend to forget about looking at what each clubs actually brings in. So the real cost of these transfers and wages* is often forgotten. * wages might surprise everyone. In real terms liverpool spend much more than united on wages. As do tottenham. Chelsea and city are obvious.
That is LVG's opinion anyway! In reality it's very important in football. It is the place you want to stick the ball if you are to win.
Only if you consider football to have been invented in 1992 and ending in 2012. In reality football only existed from the mid 60s until 1991- but briefly existed in 2005 as well.
