Liverpool FC Team Talk, Gossip, Rumours 2024/25

Like I said, you can believe he's been lying, fair enough, but there is nothing to suggest that is the case, not even a rumour of a slight rift between Klopp and FSG.

There is zero evidence to suggest FSG prevented us getting a midfielder. Anybody laying blame at FSG are frankly clutching, they set the budget and leave it to the experts, including Klopp. Those experts decided not to get a midfielder for whatever reason.

Like I said, if you want to believe Klopp is lying fine. I don't believe he was.

The fact we didn't sign a midfielder is entirely on the transfer committee. If the budget was 85m, and we spent it all on one player, that's the committee's fault, not FSG. You can argue that budget is not enough, but let's not since we don't know the actual budget 😅 But ultimately, the committee had a budget and they opted not to spend any on a midfielder for whatever reason (they really want Bellingham, they didn't have enough money with Salah's contract and Nunez etc). So FSG, in my opinion, cannot be blamed for not signing a midfielder this summer.

If Klopp didn't think Ox and Keita were up for it, then why go a whole season relying on them? If you are not gonna take his words at face value (where he said he was happy with his options), then what about his actions where he opted not to sign a midfielder?

As for your last paragraph. We all know there are constraints, Klopp knew that when he took the job and that will always be the case under FSG. If it's such an issue, maybe don't spend 85m of it on one player when you have another key area to fill?

As for the lack of transfer 2 seasons ago, let's add some context to that. We were in the middle of a pandemic and revenues had taken a huge hit. Living within our means meant so did our transfer budget. In addition, I also feel the club, and Klopp, were taking a long term view. They had no desire to replace Gomez, Matip or VVD, so rather than signing a player they wouldn't need in 6 months, they waited to get a player they did want. Just like with VVD. But they panicked in the end, just like they did with Melo this window. Whether you agree with that policy or not is another thing, but I think there is more to it than just FSG penny pinching.

Fundamentally, FSG set the budget, Klopp and the team decide what to do with it. They opted not to get a midfielder.

Yes I think it has been established and accepted that FSG set the budget. It absolves them of the responsibility in how it is spent again that was accepted in my previous post. The question in relation to them and their part in the state of the squad is whether they have made enough available, not just in the window gone by, but since Klopp took over.

You gloss over the lack of spending 2 seasons ago firstly by absolving FSG by making out they had no choice because of Covid while at the same time implying the money could have been there but Klopp is unlikely to have spent it. They weren't replacing VVd, Matip or Gomez you say. I know, it's that they didn't replace Lovren. It wasn't just the City's and Chelsea's spending money during Covid either, Liverpool were outspent by quite a few clubs during that period which kind of weakens the whole can't spend due to Covid argument. I mean we were the then PL champions and had been hugely successful in Europe which was proving to be a great source of revenue, our outlook for the future was far better than many of the other clubs yet they still found money to spend, more than us. As you have said frequently FSG set the budget so by default they should take some responsibility for lack of squad investment during that period.

Anyway this debate is going around in circles. I haven't read anything you posted that changes my mind and I have posted nothing to change yours. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.

The point most people are making is that we didn't strengthen when we were on top, that's what the best run clubs do, it's also easier to attract the top players when at the top, delaying investment in the squad when required is a false economy as there's a very good chance we now miss out on CL football next season, makes it harder to attract the top players and keep our own top players, plus less revenue makes it more difficult to qualify for the CL in subsequent seasons, it's a vicious circle, plus our rivals who have CL continue to get stronger, Arsenal are a good example, they were consistently making CL under Wenger, missed one season and haven't qualified since although they look like they might this season; but they have spent heavily in the last few seasons to try to make top 4. If we miss out this season we will be in a very similar position to Arsenal post Wenger.

It's difficult to know who is at fault, FSG set the budget so that determines a lot of the transfer strategy, from the outside looking in, our nett spend is more like a mid table team than an elite club, so it may well be the case that the budget available is too small for a club like Liverpool expecting to challenge for the title and in Europe. Klopp and the transfer committee also have to take some of the responsibility, they should be looking to move on players that aren't contributing much and some transfers in don't make sense, not strengthening midfield and then getting a player on loan ( Arthur)who wasn't fit to start straight away and had a very poor injury record just doesn't make sense, why bring in an injury prone player especially in an area we already have injury prone players? It's like driving around knowing your spare tyre is flat, then getting a slow puncture, but instead of repairing it, you continue to pump it when it goes soft and then also get the loan of another flat tyre, it defies logic.

Whoever is in charge of the transfer strategy needs to rethink their approach as it's clearly not working. Who's to blame, it's probably a combination of FSG, the transfer committee and Klopp, but, to what level each are to blame is difficult to determine. Fans probably let Klopp off the hook because he is the main reason for our recent success, the team has outperformed expectations under him, the others are just faceless entities we don't really know, so easier to attribute the blame to them.

We don't know who is ultimately to blame, you are saying FSG are unfairly blamed, but, they may well be the main reason, they set the budget, which goes along way to dictating the transfer strategy. Also if money is available to Klopp and he doesn't spend it, then he can't really complain about other clubs spending. I find it hard to believe Klopp didn't want a defender in during our defensive crisis a few years back or a midfielder over the last year or so, if he couldn't see what everyone else could see then how did he ever get to where he is, so that suggests funds were not made available. Also mid table teams with less revenue are consistently outspending us, that doesn't add up. I do also think even the funds we had could have been spent better, that not FSGs fault.

Whatever way you look at it I think most people can agree that the transfer strategy since winning the league hasn't been great , obvious weaknesses within the squad haven't been addressed and it's coming home to roost now.

This is how I believe it operates as well, it would surprise me if they are more involved than that.

But that is the issue, the budget is small.

Saying "we spent 85 million on a striker" is a very reductive statement, the kind of rubbish that gets trotted out by the media when Klopp criticises City's limitless spending.

We are a club massively reliant on sales in order to buy, don't look at the 67 million spent on Nunez (with potential add ons that may see us pay 85 million), look at the net spend figure.

Then factor in our increasingly tougher transfer strategy, player must be young, have lots of data available, must not be demanding big wages, must only want Liverpool (as we won't do bidding wars), and must be good value compared with how we value them in terms of price. Players who exist within that Venn diagram are like gold dust.

Klopp has mentioned a few times now how he doesn't set the budget, but how he'd like us to take a little more risk in the market.

That's not a correct summation of the discussion I had with you. It was me that said responsibility should be shared and it was you who was trying to diminish any role FSG might have in it, implying it was pretty much entirely the fault of Klopp and the transfer committee fornthe state of the squad.

There is certainly enough info out there that suggests that FSG have not made enough money available for transfers since we became champions to keep the squad ticking over, there is enough to suggest the transfer committee have failed to move on players that are not good enough or injury prone and perhaps have not prioritised getting players in the right areas, and there is info to suggest Klopp has been too loyal to some of the longer servants in the squad.

That's not what is being discussed though. If we are being outspent by half the league despite setting new revenue records, and there is obvious holes in the squad which money which isn't being made available might fix, then yeah FSG are partly to blame, just like Klopp and the transfer committee take responsibility for managing the squad and transfers within that budget.

Because if the owners decide to run the club a certain way, and as a result of that the transfer budget does not meet what is required to refresh a title winning squad then by default the owners take responsibilty for that aspect of it. It is not a criticism of how they are running it, many would see it as admirable. But in a sport in which money has become an ever increasingly decisive factor, if you can't somewhat keep up you get left behind.

On the topic of how they run the club, a big test of that and how the fans really feel will be when Klopp leaves. I can't think of a manager that will come in to a club which has unique enough principles of only spending what we earn in a league awash with money and make us competitive at the very top, given we have the net spend of a mid table team. It will get worse when we start failing to make the CL which will greatly impact revenue. How will the fans feel then, do you expect them to stay quiet and console themselves with the idea that 'well atleast we do things the right way'.

FSG's operating model is admirable, but it is primarily suited to ring fenced sports like they have in the U.S. such as NFL and NBA, where there is no relegation and budgets are similar. It is my belief that they know this and why initially they seem to have been one of the chief drivers of a ring fenced European Super League because they know it would be perfect with how they operate Liverpool.

But we can't keep up anyway, City and now Newcastle will always be able to outspend us, as will Utd most likely, unless we get a state owner ourselves.

You make it sound like Liverpool is such a difficult place to work for compared to everybody else. There would be managers lining up to coach for us, knowing they will get the time and backing to be a success. It'll probably Pep anyway to step up when Klopp leaves.

Is Pep really the best option when Klopp goes, he hasn't really done anything as a manager, Klopp had a great body of work first with Mainz and then Dortmund, he was the best available at the time. I'm not sure Pep would be able to step up, in fact I think it would be a big mistake giving it to him. When the time comes we should be looking at someone who has a proven track record as a manager There's a big difference between being the number 2 and being the main man

For the record I don't want us to be owned by a state and I accept that will likely mean not being able to operate in the transfer market the same way as City, Newcastle or PSG. But outside of those clubs we should be able to compare ourselves to the likes of Arsenal, Spurs and yes even Utd, to whom we have narrowed the gap in terms of the clubs ability to generate money. None of them are state funded and they are currently the clubs we have to be drawing equivalences to.

I still believe FSG's model is more suited to ring fenced sports and less suited to the Premier League where their competition is not operating in the same way.

No doubt Liverpool will still draw managers. They may well be given time by the owners but backing? Top managers don't stay at clubs they don't feel they get financial backing to implement their plans. I really think Klopp is the exception because he likes that sort of challenge and seems determined to buck the trend. FSG have thus far not shown they will back a manager beyond giving them money the club generates itself, which has fallen short of what our competition like Spurs and Arsenal are spending. Will the average fan accept that when Klopp leaves and we likely start to fall away?

We have already witnessed cracks starting to appear when everything the transfer committee touches no longer turns to gold. The insane money we got for some academy players has dried up and I really doubt we have it in us to pull another Coutinho. Without that money there would be no Vvd or Allison and likely no CL or league title. We can't be run dependant on generating money like that on a consistent basis.

Klopp has been backed, any suggestion otherwise is unfair in my opinion. As part of building our title winning squad, we had 2 summers where we spend ~£160m each. That's backing the manager. We can't do that every summer, but he has been backed. I'd be surprised if our transfer spending during Klopp's time is significantly lower than Spurs or Arsenal for example.

We also have the 4th highest wage bill, 50m more than 5th place Spurs, and 55m more than Arsenal. That needs to be accounted for when comparing those teams. Utd are a revenue machine, we have closed the gap sure, but they are still ahead of us.

And while all this has been going on, they have upgraded the training facilities and are continuing to upgrade the stadium.

If a manager can't handle that, then tough. Go manage PSG, City or Newcastle where money isn't a issue. But like most clubs, we can't hand a blank cheque to a manager every summer. If you are splashing big cash on a player, you better be sure!

On your last paragraph, isn't that not how Ajax and Dortmund operate? We can't compete with City or Newcastle, so why spend money we don't have in attempt to? That will only end up one way. We can with Arsenal and Spurs and Utd, and for most recent seasons, we have competed with them league wise.

On your first paragraph I will say 2 things. According to transfermarkt we have been significantly outspent by both Arsenal and Spurs since Klopp joined. On the overall net spend table we are 9th when calculated over the last 10 years including this year. I will give you the wages comparison when it comes to Spurs. We have had higher wages than Arsenal only in the last 2 seasons. Before that their wage bill was similar or higher.

Your 4th paragraph is irrelevant. I have not made any comparison to the state run clubs so pointless bringing them in to the discussion. Using an extreme and incorrect take on the points I am making in order to make your own point seem more balanced and reasonable...

As for the last paragraph, Dortmund and Ajax? You want to make a comparison to two selling clubs, one who plays in a league they are almost guaranteed to win every season and another that has little hope of winning but is comfortably in the top 3 every year. Ajax and Dortmund would not survive as successful clubs doing what they are doing if they were in the Premier League. They would have to fight alot harder to remain relevant and the knock on effect of that is that they would find it harder to rely on giving game time to lots of young players they hope then can improve and sell on for a healthy profit. Please stop with the City and Newcastle references, again it just looks like a cheap attempt to make the points I am making seem unreasonable when I have said we should be referencing Spurs, Arsenal and Utd. We have fared better in the league because of a combination of Klopp's management and a transfer committee that couldn't miss. As I previously stated there are signs the transfer committee can't keep unearthing gems and getting big bucks for academy players. Our success was triggered by it but it can't be sustained long term in this league.

Keita is out of contract shortly ...get nothing for him.

Mentioning City and Newcastle is not an extreme and inaccurate point, it's a comparison to the top 6 clubs (and Newcastle who will be joining them). So I won't stop.

Anyway, saying arguments are irrelevant and then going on to say how Ajax and Dortmund would perform in the PL suggests to me this conversation has run it's course.

Good night 👍

Newcastle after spending 250m over the last two windows shouldn't be troubling us as yet to be fair. Who knows how much they intend to spend but their on pitch endeavour puts our lads to shame currently.