Yes Kenny Dalglish and Liverpool are done. MOD POST #425 *ALL READ*

Cyrus

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

And also, what happens next, when you have to sell the 1.50 milk for 10 cent? 1.0 - 1.50 = (+.50). 1.50 - .10 = (-1.40)

The cost of the milk you are holding is 50 cent, therefore if you sell it for 10c the net loss is 40c.

Or going back to the start, selling 1 litre for 1 euro, buying another for 1.50 and then selling it for 10c, you have received 1.10 and paid out 1.50

daithijjj

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Well with facts like this how can I argue? As for sour, you made my input in a debate personal, of course I will get a little miffed with this approach, especially when you don't have anything logical to argue against. You haven't made a valid point against the last couple of posts you have replied to. I understand you are a fan, and I understand you support Dalglish and will stand by him. Attacking other posters who are simply stating obvious points is just a little silly. I don't go into the LFC thread and post negative comments, but I take part in general topics such as this.

The facts are Dalglish has spent (net or otherwise) alot of money. He has gone backwards in the league and taken a huge step back from the top 4. He is further away from the CL than ever, which despite yours and his idea that the Carling Cup is more imortant, is a big deal, financially for your 'Net Spend' and for attracting top players.

I did nothing of the sort, i 'attacked' your assumption that Downing was played out of position by Dalglish as 'gash' because it is 'gash'. How do you explain Capello playing Downing right wing? revolutionary thinking?. I attacked your post, not you, im sure you are a great person. *hugs*

The 2nd highlighted point there is another dream you made up all on your own, if you can be arsed to trawl though my posts i repeat the opposite for a long time.

Ormus

The price of milk is shocking these days.

daithijjj

counterlock wrote: »

No, its because he used the term 'gash' and 'can't be bothered' defending any of the points put to him
:rolleyes:

Not in reply to you i didnt. I already made the points he was looking for, what does he want? a copy and paste?.

Your post made no sense at all.

Your implied that I (or any football fan) would prefer to see my team sell good players in order to have a better figure in net spend, that's insane talk, what is anyone supposed to say to that?.

counterlock

daithijjj wrote: »

Not in reply to you i didnt. I already made the points he was looking for, what does he want? a copy and paste?.

Your post made no sense at all.

Your implied that I (or any football fan) would prefer to see my team sell good players in order to have a better figure in net spend, that's insane talk, what is anyone supposed to say to that?.

You were justifying the net spend by saying that city almost blew the league and chelsea could be in the europa league next year. City now have more depth than anyone else imho and are league champions with CL football to look forward to next year, Chelsea have won the FA cup and are playing in the biggest club game in the world next saturday but you posing the question who will United or Chelsea sell for big money. Why would either of these teams sell their best players unless they wanted to leave?

My point is that these teams achievement at least show some onfield returns in their investment. So Liverpool have turned profit from sales since 08, well done - but this was due more to the ownership's policy than good management.

Helix

Cyrus wrote: »

Try this, if you sell 1 litre of milk for 1 euro and buy another for 1.50, what is the cost to you of having 1 litre of milk?

1.50 or 50 cent

ok that's nothing but semantics and does nothing to reflect the reality of the situation

let's say you sell, on i dunno, a ladyman figurine for £50m and buy a giant ponytail for £35m - the overall cost of the ponytail may have been -£15m, but there's absolutely no disguising the fact that you've gone out and wasted £35m on a ponytail

kenny spent a lot of money. it doesnt matter that a plenty of that money came from selling other players. that doesnt excuse the poor quality of the purchases. the gross figure is still the gross figure

if you spend £100m on footballers, you don't excuse the fact that they're mediocre or under-performing by saying "well £60m of that came from incoming sales, so it's really only £40m" - you bloody well expect to get £100m worth of talent

Will I Amnt

Helix wrote: »

Cyrus wrote: »

Try this, if you sell 1 litre of milk for 1 euro and buy another for 1.50, what is the cost to you of having 1 litre of milk?

1.50 or 50 cent

ok that's nothing but semantics and does nothing to reflect the reality of the situation

let's say you sell, on i dunno, a ladyman figurine for £50m and buy a giant ponytail for £35m - the overall cost of the ponytail may have been -£15m, but there's absolutely no disguising the fact that you've gone out and wasted £35m on a ponytail

kenny spent a lot of money. it doesnt matter that a plenty of that money came from selling other players. that doesnt excuse the poor quality of the purchases. the gross figure is still the gross figure

if you spend £100m on footballers, you don't excuse the fact that they're mediocre or under-performing by saying "well £60m of that came from incoming sales, so it's really only £40m" - you bloody well expect to get £100m worth of talent

Congratulations.You are the 1,000,000th poster to make an analogy for Liverpools net spend.
Click below to claim your prize.

whatawaster

Helix wrote: »

ok that's nothing but semantics and does nothing to reflect the reality of the situation

let's say you sell, on i dunno, a ladyman figurine for £50m and buy a giant ponytail for £35m - the overall cost of the ponytail may have been -£15m, but there's absolutely no disguising the fact that you've gone out and wasted £35m on a ponytail

kenny spent a lot of money. it doesnt matter that a plenty of that money came from selling other players. that doesnt excuse the poor quality of the purchases. the gross figure is still the gross figure

if you spend £100m on footballers, you don't excuse the fact that they're mediocre or under-performing by saying "well £60m of that came from incoming sales, so it's really only £40m" - you bloody well expect to get £100m worth of talent

Exactly right

Helix

perhaps this one better reflects it (i do love an analogy)...

you've got a mars bar, and i want it. so i offer you €1.75 for it, because the shop is all out of mars bars and i have to pay a premium for yours.

you take the €1.75 you've just gotten for the mars bar and decide you want to add the change in your pocket (conveniently 25c) to it and buy 200 penny sweets. you go into the shop, and say "shopkeep good sir, i would like to purchase €2.00 worth of penny sweets please"

so the shopkeep takes your money and goes about his business

alas, disaster!

you check the bag when you've left the shop and you realise he's only given you one hundred penny sweets. do you say "ah it's ok, sure the mars bar only cost me 75c to begin with, and i added another 25c, so even though i paid €2 and only got €1 worth of penny sweets, it's alright because my net expenditure was €0 after selling the mars bar"?

do you fcuk

Will I Amnt

Helix wrote: »

perhaps this one better reflects it (i do love an analogy)...

you've got a mars bar, and i want it. so i offer you €1.75 for it, because the shop is all out of mars bars and i have to pay a premium for yours.

you take the €1.75 you've just gotten for the mars bar and decide you want to add the change in your pocket (conveniently 25c) to it and buy 200 penny sweets. you go into the shop, and say "shopkeep good sir, i would like to purchase €2.00 worth of penny sweets please"

so the shopkeep takes your money and goes about his business

alas, disaster!

you check the bag when you've left the shop and you realise he's only given you one hundred penny sweets. do you say "ah it's ok, sure the mars bar only cost me 75c to begin with, and i added another 25c, so even though i paid €2 and only got €1 worth of penny sweets, it's alright because my net expenditure was €0 after selling the mars bar"?

do you fcuk

I agree with both your analogys,I've made some of my own before.
It doesn't matter what way you dress it up,it will never sway the opinions of those who argue against it.

murpho999

WTF?

Milk, Mars Bars & Penny Sweets....in a football thread?

This is all leaving me with a sour taste in my mouth!

Cyrus

Helix wrote: »

ok that's nothing but semantics and does nothing to reflect the reality of the situation

let's say you sell, on i dunno, a ladyman figurine for £50m and buy a giant ponytail for £35m - the overall cost of the ponytail may have been -£15m, but there's absolutely no disguising the fact that you've gone out and wasted £35m on a ponytail

kenny spent a lot of money. it doesnt matter that a plenty of that money came from selling other players. that doesnt excuse the poor quality of the purchases. the gross figure is still the gross figure

if you spend £100m on footballers, you don't excuse the fact that they're mediocre or under-performing by saying "well £60m of that came from incoming sales, so it's really only £40m" - you bloody well expect to get £100m worth of talent

sigh

of course its the reality of the situation, if you sell £100m worth of footballers and buy £150m your team is only £50m worth of talent better off, not £150m.

How about this
If someone sold £150m worth of players and replaced that with £100m would you be castigating the manager who bought £100m worth of players yet his team had disimproved

DoctorGonzo08

Cyrus wrote: »

sigh

of course its the reality of the situation, if you sell £100m worth of footballers and buy £150m your team is only £50m worth of talent better off, not £150m.

How about this
If someone sold £150m worth of players and replaced that with £100m would you be castigating the manager who bought £100m worth of players yet his team had disimproved

The net spend doesn't take into account other finacial factors which will also change the figure. Finishing league position? Chapions League qualification?

If my manager sold £150m and bought £100m players to replace them, and as a result finishes two places further down the league and have your rivals finish above you, I know it wouldn't be pride I'd be feeling for the £50m saved.

Do you value good book-keeping over success?

Cyrus

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

The net spend doesn't take into account other finacial factors which will also change the figure. Finishing league position? Chapions League qualification?

If my manager sold £150m and bought £100m players to replace them, and as a result finishes two places further down the league and have your rivals finish above you, I know it wouldn't be pride I'd be feeling for the £50m saved.

Do you value good book-keeping over success?

Well i am an accountant :P

But no one is saying that there is a pride in 50m saved, but he may not have had any more to spend

daithijjj

counterlock wrote: »

You were justifying the net spend by saying that city almost blew the league and chelsea could be in the europa league next year. City now have more depth than anyone else imho and are league champions with CL football to look forward to next year, Chelsea have won the FA cup and are playing in the biggest club game in the world next saturday but you posing the question who will United or Chelsea sell for big money. Why would either of these teams sell their best players unless they wanted to leave?

My point is that these teams achievement at least show some onfield returns in their investment. So Liverpool have turned profit from sales since 08, well done - but this was due more to the ownership's policy than good management.

Wrong, I was justifying net spend and success in a bubble, in comparison to competitors. Net spend is absolutely relevant in a grand picture. Sure they have had success for the spend, City's cost them 190 mil last year alone, Chelsea have spent 140 mil in 18 months (what is the investment figure made by these clubs after sales?). Hardly anything to speak of re sales. How many times does it have to said exactly?.

Liverpool spent and sold, sold alot, what is so difficult to understand about the notion that good players have been sold while no top players have left others?. It is not comparable. Yes, City won the league, Chelsea might win a cup, they might win nothing and effectively had a worse season than LFC having spent vast sums more.

And im not wearing the profit on players circa summer 08 to jan 11 as a badge of honour, im using it to show as a period where the team was entirely neglected while others moved forward. Isolating the seasons makes no sense, if it did, all the money spent the season before it would mean nothing, thats not how a business works.

The point is, that if you invest less than your competitors over a period of time you will fall behind. LFC fell behind by a long way over 3 years where it spent nothing, not a sausage, you cant invest in a Sports team in one year and make up for 3 years of neglect. Especially when your competitors have done everything but neglected their teams for that entire period.

I dont know how to make this any simpler in explanation. Chelsea and City are reaping rewards for years of sustained investment, aggressive spending over several windows. A team who was behind them to begin with and then spend agressively (bit still less than they have) over 2 windows would need miracles to be even close to a par with them. Get it?

DoctorGonzo08

Cyrus wrote: »

Well i am an accountant :P

But no one is saying that there is a pride in 50m saved, but he may not have had any more to spend

How much more did he want to spend? Apart from Chelsea, he spent more than any other English club last season.

DoctorGonzo08

daithijjj wrote: »

Wrong, I was justifying net spend and success in a bubble, in comparison to competitors. Net spend is absolutely relevant in a grand picture. Sure they have had success for the spend, City's cost them 190 mil last year alone, Chelsea have spent 140 mil in 18 months (what is the investment figure made by these clubs after sales?). Hardly anything to speak of re sales. How many times does it have to said exactly?.

A team who was behind them to begin with and then spend agressively (bit still less than they have) over 2 windows would need miracles to be even close to a par with them. Get it?

1. Of the three clubs discussed, who are the only ones without the Premiership Trophy?

2. That is the first time I have heard the possibility that Liverpool were behind City to begin with. The abuse I got on here for suggesting Liverpool werent a top 4 team this year. Hypocracy is hilarious.

Cyrus

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

How much more did he want to spend? Apart from Chelsea, he spent more than any other English club last season.

in net terms?

Cyrus

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

2. That is the first time I have heard the possibility that Liverpool were behind City to begin with. The abuse I got on here for suggesting Liverpool werent a top 4 team this year. Hypocracy is hilarious.

To begin with...at the beginning

City finished last season 3rd, liverpool were 6th

therefore behind them

Redzer7

Tommy has 6 apples
Jessica has 8 apples
How many oranges does Graham have?

I don't fcuking know?

DoctorGonzo08

Cyrus wrote: »

To begin with...at the beginning

City finished last season 3rd, liverpool were 6th

therefore behind them

Ah! But as I was educated on here, you take the 3 places difference, multiply it by History and you get City are so far behind Liverpool, Liverpool are just a dot to them.

I'm sure given 12 months, we will all be able to discuss the Dalglish thing sensibly, but as for now forget it. The net spend issue will also be resolved as City will bring they're net spend back and therefore it won't be applicable anymore.

All you have to do is look over the replacements that are being touted. Rodgers, Lambert, Martinez, Rafa...

After Rafa was sacked you were expecting, Mourinho, Hiddink, Ancelloti etc. Wether or not they were realistic wasn't the point. That was who you expected. A top class manager. You have now gone from that to Promotion winning managers? Is that hinting at things to come?

How the mighty have fallen.

Cyrus

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

AYou have now gone from that to Promotion winning managers? Is that hinting at things to come?

How the mighty have fallen.

Unless i havent noticed liverpool havent appointed a new manager yet

DoctorGonzo08

Cyrus wrote: »

Unless i havent noticed liverpool havent appointed a new manager yet

I was talking of course in terms of fans expectation. Unless I hadn't noticed, you appointed Hodgson over the aforementioned candidates too.

daithijjj

Helix wrote: »

ok that's nothing but semantics and does nothing to reflect the reality of the situation

let's say you sell, on i dunno, a ladyman figurine for £50m and buy a giant ponytail for £35m - the overall cost of the ponytail may have been -£15m, but there's absolutely no disguising the fact that you've gone out and wasted £35m on a ponytail

kenny spent a lot of money. it doesnt matter that a plenty of that money came from selling other players. that doesnt excuse the poor quality of the purchases. the gross figure is still the gross figure

if you spend £100m on footballers, you don't excuse the fact that they're mediocre or under-performing by saying "well £60m of that came from incoming sales, so it's really only £40m" - you bloody well expect to get £100m worth of talent

Your analogy does not work, it is incomplete.

It does not work because it does not include what figurines and giant ponytails your 'neighbours' have back at their gaff from previous trips to the market. They have been mostly buying and not selling.

Your gaff, (while quaint and admittedly a nice change since you got the bonus from work you didnt get for 3 years), is partially furnished and nice. But it doesnt have that 'bling' or 'swag'. Still, a couple of figurines and the odd ponytail is ok for now, your neighbours down the road cant even afford that, you will still want to make more visits to the market, you are expecting more bonuses. Alas, the boss fked you off with a p45.

Your neighbours didnt need to sell their figurines to finance the giant ponytails. Their whole gaff is totally furnished, they have figurines and ponytails. Fking bling and swag everywhere, you have to wear sunglasses when you visit. There is literally no space for more, however if they tire of some they can just chuck em off to China or somewhere.

*you made me do this*

tibor

Helix wrote: »

perhaps this one better reflects it (i do love an analogy)...

you've got a mars bar, and i want it. so i offer you €1.75 for it, because the shop is all out of mars bars and i have to pay a premium for yours.

you take the €1.75 you've just gotten for the mars bar and decide you want to add the change in your pocket (conveniently 25c) to it and buy 200 penny sweets. you go into the shop, and say "shopkeep good sir, i would like to purchase €2.00 worth of penny sweets please"

so the shopkeep takes your money and goes about his business

alas, disaster!

you check the bag when you've left the shop and you realise he's only given you one hundred penny sweets. do you say "ah it's ok, sure the mars bar only cost me 75c to begin with, and i added another 25c, so even though i paid €2 and only got €1 worth of penny sweets, it's alright because my net expenditure was €0 after selling the mars bar"?

do you fcuk

I'm hungry.

counterlock

daithijjj wrote: »

Wrong, I was justifying net spend and success in a bubble, in comparison to competitors. Net spend is absolutely relevant in a grand picture. Sure they have had success for the spend, City's cost them 190 mil last year alone, Chelsea have spent 140 mil in 18 months (what is the investment figure made by these clubs after sales?). Hardly anything to speak of re sales. How many times does it have to said exactly?

Its an irrelevant stat used by Liverpool fans to justify bad signings under Dalglish. But feel free if you can use it to make yourself feel better.

The fact remains that Chelsea's investment in the last 5 years has led them to:
1 league title
4 FA cups
1 league cup
2 x champions league finals

Do you honestly believe that they do not make any additional money out of this in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorship, tv revenue?

daithijjj

counterlock wrote: »

Its an irrelevant stat used by Liverpool fans to justify bad signings under Dalglish. But feel free if you can use it to make yourself feel better.

The fact remains that Chelsea's investment in the last 5 years has led them to:
1 league title
4 FA cups
1 league cup
2 x champions league finals

Do you honestly believe that they do not make any additional money out of this in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorship, tv revenue?

It wasnt Chelsea's investment over the last 5 years, it was the investment over the last 5 years plus probably the 3 or 4 or 5 years previous to that, so 8 or 9 or 10 years investment.

You will never get it, im done talking about it.

As regards overall outlay, everyone started last summer under current active FFPR so from then on, there will be rolling 3 year periods where net spend (and not gross spend) will determine whether UEFA declare whether or not you receive or do not receive sanctions. What those sanctions amount to is anyones guess right now, it they dont stick then maybe LFC might get the next sheik who wants a plaything. LFC owners bought the club on the back of it sticking and having teeth, if it doesnt they will be off.

Cyrus

counterlock wrote: »

Its an irrelevant stat used by Liverpool fans to justify bad signings under Dalglish. But feel free if you can use it to make yourself feel better.

The fact remains that Chelsea's investment in the last 5 years has led them to:
1 league title
4 FA cups
1 league cup
2 x champions league finals

Do you honestly believe that they do not make any additional money out of this in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorship, tv revenue?

and i think the point that I and others have been trying to make, but it just keeps getting ignored

THEIR NET INVESTMENT OVER THE LAST DECADE IS HIGHER THAN LIVERPOOLS

Helix

Cyrus wrote: »

sigh

of course its the reality of the situation, if you sell £100m worth of footballers and buy £150m your team is only £50m worth of talent better off, not £150m.

How about this
If someone sold £150m worth of players and replaced that with £100m would you be castigating the manager who bought £100m worth of players yet his team had disimproved

jesus this is the worst argument ever

how much did kenny pay for footballers? were the footballers worth the money?

that's all that matters

was carroll worth 35m?
was downing worth 16m?
etc

SEPT 23 1989

I thought Liverpool were unlucky this year

44 times hitting the crossbar

niallo27

Helix wrote: »

perhaps this one better reflects it (i do love an analogy)...

you've got a mars bar, and i want it. so i offer you €1.75 for it, because the shop is all out of mars bars and i have to pay a premium for yours.

you take the €1.75 you've just gotten for the mars bar and decide you want to add the change in your pocket (conveniently 25c) to it and buy 200 penny sweets. you go into the shop, and say "shopkeep good sir, i would like to purchase €2.00 worth of penny sweets please"

so the shopkeep takes your money and goes about his business

alas, disaster!

you check the bag when you've left the shop and you realise he's only given you one hundred penny sweets. do you say "ah it's ok, sure the mars bar only cost me 75c to begin with, and i added another 25c, so even though i paid €2 and only got €1 worth of penny sweets, it's alright because my net expenditure was €0 after selling the mars bar"?

do you fcuk

Of course your pissed off, you bought 200 sweets but you were only given 100, you were robbed, your point makes no sense though, it's like suggesting Kenny bought 3 players of we'll say spurs but only two players showed up, I doubt Kenny would have said "**** it sure, we are up money, forget about it"

counterlock

Cyrus wrote: »

and i think the point that I and others have been trying to make, but it just keeps getting ignored

THEIR NET INVESTMENT OVER THE LAST DECADE IS HIGHER THAN LIVERPOOLS

I don't think anyone is disputing this, nor has it been ignored and the reslts for Chelsea and City are being shown over the last 10 years and this year respectively.

So your issue is with the ownership and the amount they have invested? I'd say 50 million plus whatever is sold is a damn fine amount to put together a team that already had quite a lot of talent in it. You're more familiar with Benitez's signings than I am, so I'll leave it to you imagination to work out what he could have done with that amount.

There is a massive difference between net spend on players and net investment. Net investment is only as valuable as the return you get on it - ie. if you exited the market what would the return on your assets be?
Net spend on players is entirely dictated by the market. ie. you can spend 35 million on Caroll and call him "the -15million man" as Kenny did. Alternatively you can do some scouting and sign Aguero and call him the -12million man.

niallo27

counterlock wrote: »

I don't think anyone is disputing this, nor has it been ignored and the reslts for Chelsea and City are being shown over the last 10 years and this year respectively.

So your issue is with the ownership and the amount they have invested? I'd say 50 million plus whatever is sold is a damn fine amount to put together a team that already had quite a lot of talent in it. You're more familiar with Benitez's signings than I am, so I'll leave it to you imagination to work out what he could have done with that amount.

There is a massive difference between net spend on players and net investment. Net investment is only as valuable as the return you get on it - ie. if you exited the market what would the return on your assets be?
Net spend on players is entirely dictated by the market. ie. you can spend 35 million on Caroll and call him "the -15million man" as Kenny did. Alternatively you can do some scouting and sign Aguero and call him the -12million man.

If you take wages into account, I think you will find their investment has been very small indeed.

Cyrus

counterlock wrote: »

Alternatively you can do some scouting and sign Aguero and call him the -12million man.

Scouting Aguero, are you for real, every man and his dog has known for the past few years that the lads was top drawer, hence he was linked to real and chelsea and teams that could:
a) afford to buy him and
b) afford to pay him 200k a week

he wasnt ever going to sign for liverpool

Cyrus

Helix wrote: »

jesus this is the worst argument ever

how much did kenny pay for footballers? were the footballers worth the money?

that's all that matters

was carroll worth 35m?
was downing worth 16m?
etc

thats one discussion,

what im talking about, as well you know, is the misguided argument that dalglish spent a fortune and failed, he also sold a fooken fortune, which in the main was our best player

counterlock

niallo27 wrote: »

If you take wages into account, I think you will find their investment has been very small indeed.

Show me your figures to back up this stat and I'll show you figures that show that Liverpool's average wage has actually increased in the last 12 months despite getting rid of massive earners.

Scouting Aguero, are you for real, every man and his dog has known for the past few years that the lads was top drawer, hence he was linked to real and chelsea and teams that could:
a) afford to buy him and
b) afford to pay him 200k a week

he wasnt ever going to sign for liverpool

Obviously someone in LFC didn't know about him.
Fair point about the wages but -afford to buy him....are you serious? 6 months prior Carroll was purchased for 3 million less.

DoctorGonzo08

Cyrus wrote: »

thats one discussion,

what im talking about, as well you know, is the misguided argument that dalglish spent a fortune and failed, he also sold a fooken fortune, which in the main was our best player

With net spend, both the following statements are true:
Dalglish spent a fortune and failed.
Dalglish amassed transfer funds by selling assets, and thus reduced the loss to the club.

They are seperate issues and are both correct. In terms of the new FFP rules the clubs spending is in line with the amounts allowed to spend. This in no way changes the fact that the amount of money he actually spent was 100m+.

Will I Amnt

Cyrus wrote: »

what im talking about, as well you know, is the misguided argument that dalglish spent a fortune and failed

So you think he was successful in the transfer market??

Cyrus

cambo2008 wrote: »

So you think he was successful in the transfer market??

in the short term no,

carroll was a gamble that hasnt come good yet, but he may, he is young
Ditto Henderson
Downing seemed like a good buy but he hasnt performed, the price paid reflected the fact that villa were reluctant sellers
Adam is a decent squad player

Cyrus

counterlock wrote: »

Show me your figures to back up this stat and I'll show you figures that show that Liverpool's average wage has actually increased in the last 12 months despite getting rid of massive earners.


Obviously someone in LFC didn't know about him.
Fair point about the wages but -afford to buy him....are you serious? 6 months prior Carroll was purchased for 3 million less.

A+B not A or B

Of course people knew about him, same way we know about hazard, however he wont be coming to liverpool either, we cant compete for those players at the moment,

Wages and no CL football

NabyLadistheman

counterlock wrote: »

Show me your figures to back up this stat and I'll show you figures that show that Liverpool's average wage has actually increased in the last 12 months despite getting rid of massive earners.


Obviously someone in LFC didn't know about him.
Fair point about the wages but -afford to buy him....are you serious? 6 months prior Carroll was purchased for 3 million less.

I's not all about transfer fees.You do realise how much you pay Aguero over a 5 year contract compared to what you pay Andy Carroll? Ten's of million's. No way LFC could afford that

Ormus

So what was the net spend in terms of milk?

DoctorGonzo08

Cyrus wrote: »

in the short term no,

carroll was a gamble that hasnt come good yet, but he may, he is young
Ditto Henderson
Downing seemed like a good buy but he hasnt performed, the price paid reflected the fact that villa were reluctant sellers
Adam is a decent squad player

I would agree with the first three points, but Adam has proved himself to be out of his depth. He looked impressive at Blackpool because he was the main playmaker and his teammates seeked him out at every oppurtuinty. At Liverpool he had to work to get on the ball and has proved on many occassion that the game passes him by too often. Adam is not good enough for Liverpool.

Busy thread this, we need to get out more!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2056593361

niallo27

counterlock wrote: »

Show me your figures to back up this stat and I'll show you figures that show that Liverpool's average wage has actually increased in the last 12 months despite getting rid of massive earners.


Obviously someone in LFC didn't know about him.
Fair point about the wages but -afford to buy him....are you serious? 6 months prior Carroll was purchased for 3 million less.

Yes I'd like to see the figures, I presume they are from the season before last.

Will I Amnt

Cyrus wrote: »

in the short term no,

carroll was a gamble that hasnt come good yet, but he may, he is young
Ditto Henderson
Downing seemed like a good buy but he hasnt performed, the price paid reflected the fact that villa were reluctant sellers
Adam is a decent squad player

Well then it's not really a misguided argument.
He got rid of first team players and brought in mostly potential and squad players.
That's poor business in anybody's book.

counterlock

Suarezistheman wrote: »

I's not all about transfer fees.You do realise how much you pay Aguero over a 5 year contract compared to what you pay Andy Carroll? Ten's of million's. No way LFC could afford that

counterlock wrote: »

Fair point about the wages

So what was the net spend in terms of milk?

I think we agreed that 75% was sour so that could be used for soda bread

G.K.

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

I would agree with the first three points, but Adam has proved himself to be out of his depth. He looked impressive at Blackpool because he was the main playmaker and his teammates seeked him out at every oppurtuinty. At Liverpool he had to work to get on the ball and has proved on many occassion that the game passes him by too often. Adam is not good enough for Liverpool.

not only that, he had 2 DM's behind him to cover for his awful defending.

Glico Man

Cyrus wrote: »

Scouting Aguero, are you for real, every man and his dog has known for the past few years that the lads was top drawer, hence he was linked to real and chelsea and teams that could:
a) afford to buy him and
b) afford to pay him 200k a week

he wasnt ever going to sign for liverpool

He was linked to us before he went to Atletico, we didn't have the funds for him at the time. Eventually went to Madrid for around £12-15 million

rossie1977

counterlock wrote: »

Show me your figures to back up this stat and I'll show you figures that show that Liverpool's average wage has actually increased in the last 12 months despite getting rid of massive earners.

of course liverpool knew about him and silva, both were constantly linked during rafas time at the club, liverpool played atletico 4 times in a year (2009-10) between champions league and europa semi final, problem was aguero was on £120k a week at atletico (which turned off a host of clubs), city are paying him 200k a week