Liverpool

[hippo]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Nah, not at all.  Proper old traditional club, run well who spend wisely.

 

You may dislike their success and their fans etc etc, but they're pretty much exactly how I'd want Villa to be.

Andy Carroll conveniently forgotten.  £50m write off.  

[bobzy]

12 minutes ago, hippo said:

Andy Carroll conveniently forgotten.  £50m write off.  

Thought the fee was £35m?  In any case, you can't get every single transfer right.

 

Plus you're going back over a decade to pull that one up.

[hippo]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Thought the fee was £35m?  In any case, you can't get every single transfer right.

 

Plus you're going back over a decade to pull that one up.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1813334-20-biggest-flops-in-liverpool-history

"There are often a myriad reasons why footballers don't flourish in their new environment in the manner that everyone hopes and in some cases expects they will, and Liverpool are no exception to the "flop."

That would be enough to bankrupt most clubs .

[bobzy]

16 minutes ago, hippo said:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1813334-20-biggest-flops-in-liverpool-history

"There are often a myriad reasons why footballers don't flourish in their new environment in the manner that everyone hopes and in some cases expects they will, and Liverpool are no exception to the "flop."

That would be enough to bankrupt most clubs .

Again, not from the last decade.  I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.

 

Do Liverpool sometimes make transfers that don't work out?  Yes.  Does every single other football club?  Yes.  Have Liverpool been getting it right more often than not?  Yes.

[hippo]

Just now, bobzy said:

Again, not from the last decade.  I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.

 

Do Liverpool sometimes make transfers that don't work out?  Yes.  Does every single other football club?  Yes.  Have Liverpool been getting it right more often than not?  Yes.

Yes but the point was that they aren't big spenders - when they quite clearly ago.

Clubs with that level of failed transfers - tend to run out of money which sets them back years (us and Leeds for example).

Liverpool just got new owners - and were bankrolled over and over - that's why they are good now. 

Check the transfer fees of their starting 11 if you don't believe me.

[bobzy]

23 minutes ago, hippo said:

Yes but the point was that they aren't big spenders - when they quite clearly ago.

Clubs with that level of failed transfers - tend to run out of money which sets them back years (us and Leeds for example).

Liverpool just got new owners - and were bankrolled over and over - that's why they are good now. 

Check the transfer fees of their starting 11 if you don't believe me.

That level of failed transfer (over a decade ago) isn't that much money.  The game has moved on massively.  I imagine most Premier League clubs top 5 or so transfer fees have been incurred in the last 3 or 4 seasons (Van Djik maybe 4 seasons ago?).  Liverpool haven't really been bankrolled - they get exceptional fees for their players.  Coutinho was, what, £110m?  Suarez about £75m?  Sterling £50m?  Even Torres went to Chelsea for £50m a decade ago (covering the Carroll flop, really).  They get great fees for players and - largely - invest it wisely in their squad, which is why they've improved season on season despite their net spend not being at the top end of the league.

In fact, looking at Liverpool's top 5 transfer fees ever - Van Djik (£75m), Alisson (£66.8m), Keita (£45m), Jota (£41m), Fabinho (£39m).  That's 5 successes right there.
For Villa - Buendia (£33-38m), Watkins (£28-33m), Bailey (£30m), Ings (£25-30m) and also Digne (£25m), Wesley (£22m).  5 (well, 6) successes there?  Probably not yet.

And they get a lot more money than we do through worldwide sales, prize money, CL money, sponsorship etc. etc.

If anything, we're bankrolled to a far greater extent than they are.

[hippo]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

That level of failed transfer (over a decade ago) isn't that much money.  The game has moved on massively.  I imagine most Premier League clubs top 5 or so transfer fees have been incurred in the last 3 or 4 seasons (Van Djik maybe 4 seasons ago?).  Liverpool haven't really been bankrolled - they get exceptional fees for their players.  Coutinho was, what, £110m?  Suarez about £75m?  Sterling £50m?  Even Torres went to Chelsea for £50m a decade ago (covering the Carroll flop, really).  They get great fees for players and - largely - invest it wisely in their squad, which is why they've improved season on season despite their net spend not being at the top end of the league.

In fact, looking at Liverpool's top 5 transfer fees ever - Van Djik (£75m), Alisson (£66.8m), Keita (£45m), Jota (£41m), Fabinho (£39m).  That's 5 successes right there.
For Villa - Buendia (£33-38m), Watkins (£28-33m), Bailey (£30m), Ings (£25-30m) and also Digne (£25m), Wesley (£22m).  5 (well, 6) successes there?  Probably not yet.

And they get a lot more money than we do through worldwide sales, prize money, CL money, sponsorship etc. etc.

If anything, we're bankrolled to a far greater extent than they are.

The players highlighted cost £267m  - Luiz Daz sneaked in unnoticed  for £39M  in Jan  (More than our record signing) 

They also I believe have the 2nd highest wage bill in the prem 

But yeah there the low budget underdogs 

 

 

[bobzy]

5 minutes ago, hippo said:

The players highlighted cost £267m  - Luiz Daz sneaked in unnoticed  for £39M  in Jan  (More than our record signing) 

They also I believe have the 2nd highest wage bill in the prem 

But yeah there the low budget underdogs

No-one is saying they're low budget or that they don't spend money.  They quite obviously do.  However, their net spend isn't that high considering, as you rightly put, an outlay of £260m+ on their 4 most expensive signings ever.

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen something that had us in the top 10 highest net spends in Europe over the last 10 seasons.  Liverpool aren't in the top 10.

Edited May 18, 2022 by bobzy

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

No-one is saying they're low budget or that they don't spend money.  They quite obviously do.  However, their net spend isn't that high considering, as you rightly put, an outlay of £260m+ on their 4 most expensive signings ever.

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen something that had us in the top 10 highest net spends in Europe over the last 10 seasons.  Liverpool aren't in the top 10.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but Man City's 4 most expensive transfers ever cost £290m. Not that much different. Especially when you consider before this season it was less than £250m

[hippo]

12 minutes ago, bobzy said:

No-one is saying they're low budget or that they don't spend money.  They quite obviously do.  However, their net spend isn't that high considering, as you rightly put, an outlay of £260m+ on their 4 most expensive signings ever.

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen something that had us in the top 10 highest net spends in Europe over the last 10 seasons.  Liverpool aren't in the top 10.

I thought that was the point we were debating TBH.

There spending isn't far off Man City - but at Least Man City don't pretend otherwise. 

[Dodgyknees]

With Bournemouth getting promoted, the Liverpool net spend will look even better. 

[tinker]

Justice for the 39 , let's see a few of those banners up. 

[villa4europe]

10 minutes ago, hippo said:

I thought that was the point we were debating TBH.

There spending isn't far off Man City - but at Least Man City don't pretend otherwise. 

yep, they somehow like to think of themselves as plucky liverpool up against the spending might of man city...whilst having the at the time record signings for GK and defender in their team

in the cup final they had £380m out on the pitch and £150m on the bench - but they sold harry wilson to fulham for £12m, taiwo awoniyi to union berling for £5m and shaqiri to lyon for £5m so really that team was only worth £508m, its nonsense 

week in week out if you look at the cost of the 11 they put out on the pitch they are right up there with the rest of them

[hippo]

3 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

yep, they somehow like to think of themselves as plucky liverpool up against the spending might of man city...whilst having the at the time record signings for GK and defender in their team

in the cup final they had £380m out on the pitch and £150m on the bench - but they sold harry wilson to fulham for £12m, taiwo awoniyi to union berling for £5m and shaqiri to lyon for £5m so really that team was only worth £508m, its nonsense 

week in week out if you look at the cost of the 11 they put out on the pitch they are right up there with the rest of them

Exactly.

[hippo]

16 minutes ago, tinker said:

Justice for the 39 , let's see a few of those banners up. 

Yeah thats all hushed under the carpet isn't it.

There was once a website (Blog) put up where they tried to wriggle out that - it would have laughable if not so tragic.

[Seal]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

yep, they somehow like to think of themselves as plucky liverpool up against the spending might of man city...whilst having the at the time record signings for GK and defender in their team

in the cup final they had £380m out on the pitch and £150m on the bench - but they sold harry wilson to fulham for £12m, taiwo awoniyi to union berling for £5m and shaqiri to lyon for £5m so really that team was only worth £508m, its nonsense 

week in week out if you look at the cost of the 11 they put out on the pitch they are right up there with the rest of them

Obviously just my personal opinion from watching them, but they look like the most obviously juiced squad I have ever seen in my life as well. Robertson looks like Maradona scoring a goal at the 94 world cup every time he takes a defensive throw in.

[hippo]

3 minutes ago, Seal said:

Obviously just my personal opinion from watching them, but they look like the most obviously juiced squad I have ever seen in my life as well. Robertson looks like Maradona scoring a goal at the 94 world cup every time he takes a defensive throw in.

You can't go saying that - they are the plucky underdogs !

[hippo]

23 minutes ago, Dodgyknees said:

With Bournemouth getting promoted, the Liverpool net spend will look even better. 

Even further If Stevie G gets his way ! 

[Zatman]

10 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

yep, they somehow like to think of themselves as plucky liverpool up against the spending might of man city...whilst having the at the time record signings for GK and defender in their team

in the cup final they had £380m out on the pitch and £150m on the bench - but they sold harry wilson to fulham for £12m, taiwo awoniyi to union berling for £5m and shaqiri to lyon for £5m so really that team was only worth £508m, its nonsense 

week in week out if you look at the cost of the 11 they put out on the pitch they are right up there with the rest of them

The net spend is the worst argument in transfers and think its mainly a Liverpool thing from Rafa

Just because the club is getting money back doesn't mean you have not spent money. If we sell Trez and Davis and get 17 million it doesn't mean anything on the Coutinho deal. It doesn’t count the wages

[Zatman]

7 minutes ago, Seal said:

Obviously just my personal opinion from watching them, but they look like the most obviously juiced squad I have ever seen in my life as well. Robertson looks like Maradona scoring a goal at the 94 world cup every time he takes a defensive throw in.

They are not the only top team with this. Another English team with a high profile manager has been rumoured to have players on drugs at a previous club and he himself failed numerous tests as a player