|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,946
Under 23 Player
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,946 |
They were lucky to get Klopp the same way utd were lucky to get Ferguson, Chelsea to get Mourinho.... It's an unbelievably simplistic view.
All those players signed is largely down to FSG. They are the ones who put the analytics team in place to source these players. Had Klopp gone to utd he would have failed under their owners. He definitely would not have had the success he has had here. Really, how do you know that? Why is Pep not failing under the very wealthy City owners? Because their owners wasted money on players and wages. Woodward has far too much input into signings. They seem to have no real plan and seem to be pissing into the wind atm. Utd have spent very similar to city. Difference is City's owner have actually got their [oops] together. Its pretty obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
They were lucky to get Klopp the same way utd were lucky to get Ferguson, Chelsea to get Mourinho.... It's an unbelievably simplistic view.
All those players signed is largely down to FSG. They are the ones who put the analytics team in place to source these players. Had Klopp gone to utd he would have failed under their owners. He definitely would not have had the success he has had here. Really, how do you know that? Why is Pep not failing under the very wealthy City owners? Because their owners wasted money on players and wages. Woodward has far too much input into signings. They seem to have no real plan and seem to be pissing into the wind atm. Utd have spent very similar to city. Difference is City's owner have actually got their [oops] together. Its pretty obvious. Maybe you started to watch the EPL recently otherwise you would know that Fergie won a number of titles under the same owners. So I'm not sure what's so obvious. In fact United owners gave the resources to the managers, they haven't used them properly. Having the 14th net spend over the last 5 years shows the level of resources our owners have injected. Even Klopp mentioned that we did not have much to spend because we had bills to pay. The result is we have had to play Lovren more than we expected, praying not to lose VVD, Mane and Salah in a season where we have a record number of games.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394 |
They were lucky to get Klopp the same way utd were lucky to get Ferguson, Chelsea to get Mourinho.... It's an unbelievably simplistic view.
All those players signed is largely down to FSG. They are the ones who put the analytics team in place to source these players. Had Klopp gone to utd he would have failed under their owners. He definitely would not have had the success he has had here. Really, how do you know that? Why is Pep not failing under the very wealthy City owners? Because their owners wasted money on players and wages. Woodward has far too much input into signings. They seem to have no real plan and seem to be pissing into the wind atm. Utd have spent very similar to city. Difference is City's owner have actually got their [oops] together. Its pretty obvious. Agree. City have bought players to improve them. Utd have bought names much like Real did and continued to do when it wasn’t working. People can moan and bitch about our ‘miser’ owners all they like but we’ve spent good money and spent it well. Really well. We don’t have the money of Utd, city or even Chelsea yet we’re better than two of those and on a par with the other, first team wise at least. Some people will never be happy unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394 |
They were lucky to get Klopp the same way utd were lucky to get Ferguson, Chelsea to get Mourinho.... It's an unbelievably simplistic view.
All those players signed is largely down to FSG. They are the ones who put the analytics team in place to source these players. Had Klopp gone to utd he would have failed under their owners. He definitely would not have had the success he has had here. Really, how do you know that? Why is Pep not failing under the very wealthy City owners? Because their owners wasted money on players and wages. Woodward has far too much input into signings. They seem to have no real plan and seem to be pissing into the wind atm. Utd have spent very similar to city. Difference is City's owner have actually got their [oops] together. Its pretty obvious. Maybe you started to watch the EPL recently otherwise you would know that Fergie won a number of titles under the same owners. So I'm not sure what's so obvious. In fact United owners gave the resources to the managers, they haven't used them properly. Having the 14th net spend over the last 5 years shows the level of resources our owners have injected. Even Klopp mentioned that we did not have much to spend because we had bills to pay. The result is we have had to play Lovren more than we expected, praying not to lose VVD, Mane and Salah in a season where we have a record number of games. Nice first comment there. Typical of you when people don’t agree with you. Paul was talking about Woodward and his influence/power. He got his position in 2012 and bacon gave left in 2013 so was there for one year together. So Paul is right about Woodward. Maybe it’s you who hasn’t watched the premier league for long enough?
Last edited by wilkij1975; 09/11/19 09:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605 |
Let's not forget that we recently have refurbished our stadium big time aswell.
If the resources aren't endless (we are supposed to be self sufficient) then it's not that surprising that we see a drop off in spending on players for a few years while we pay down the loans.
Let's not forget that we have sold Suarez and Coutinho to Barcelona for record fees too. That helps keeping the net spend down tremendously.
Not much to moan about with our gross spend over the last 5 years either, is it - so we focus and bitch about net spend instead?
Last edited by van Gogh; 09/11/19 10:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Nice first comment there. Typical of you when people don’t agree with you.
Paul was talking about Woodward and his influence/power. He got his position in 2012 and bacon gave left in 2013 so was there for one year together. So Paul is right about Woodward.
Maybe it’s you who hasn’t watched the premier league for long enough?
I was talking about owners so I am not sure why Woodward would come in the conversation. We have had 3 under FSG anyway, so what?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Let's not forget that we recently have refurbished our stadium big time aswell.
If the resources aren't endless (we are supposed to be self sufficient) then it's not that surprising that we see a drop off in spending on players for a few years while we pay down the loans.
Let's not forget that we have sold Suarez and Coutinho to Barcelona for record fees too. That helps keeping the net spend down tremendously.
Not much to moan about with our gross spend over the last 5 years either, is it - so we focus and bitch about net spend instead? Loans to expand a stand should not be paid from players budget, but from revenues from those additional seats, that's the whole point. I could understand if it was a new stadium, but the whole point of not building a new one was not to impact our players spending. Yes we should all be happy with our performance on the field, but it's not thanks to our owners but despite them. They even tried to register the Liverpool name, people should drop their blinkers. This thread was about owners (Leeds takeover), if you are happy with our owners so be it, but for me they have been lucky after trial and error, Hodgson, Dalglish, Rodgers and now Klopp. Yes they wanted the club to be self sufficient which is fine, but they should not use money generated by the club to pay for capital expenditure well in advance (instead of loan financing) if what you are saying is true, this is equivalent to financial cheating but in a lawful manner. It's not because we are doing well on the field that we should let them get away with using the club funds. I agreed with them not building a stadium as long as money generated by the club was invested in players and having the 14th net spend says it all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 343
Under 16 Player
|
|
Under 16 Player
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 343 |
Brilliant summary of FSG policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394 |
Nice first comment there. Typical of you when people don’t agree with you.
Paul was talking about Woodward and his influence/power. He got his position in 2012 and bacon gave left in 2013 so was there for one year together. So Paul is right about Woodward.
Maybe it’s you who hasn’t watched the premier league for long enough?
I was talking about owners so I am not sure why Woodward would come in the conversation. We have had 3 under FSG anyway, so what? Well if you’d read Paul’s post which you obviously didn’t, he stated that Woodward has too much power and no plan for transfers. So you work our why he’s come into it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394 |
Let's not forget that we recently have refurbished our stadium big time aswell.
If the resources aren't endless (we are supposed to be self sufficient) then it's not that surprising that we see a drop off in spending on players for a few years while we pay down the loans.
Let's not forget that we have sold Suarez and Coutinho to Barcelona for record fees too. That helps keeping the net spend down tremendously.
Not much to moan about with our gross spend over the last 5 years either, is it - so we focus and bitch about net spend instead? Loans to expand a stand should not be paid from players budget, but from revenues from those additional seats, that's the whole point. I could understand if it was a new stadium, but the whole point of not building a new one was not to impact our players spending. Yes we should all be happy with our performance on the field, but it's not thanks to our owners but despite them. They even tried to register the Liverpool name, people should drop their blinkers. This thread was about owners (Leeds takeover), if you are happy with our owners so be it, but for me they have been lucky after trial and error, Hodgson, Dalglish, Rodgers and now Klopp. Yes they wanted the club to be self sufficient which is fine, but they should not use money generated by the club to pay for capital expenditure well in advance (instead of loan financing) if what you are saying is true, this is equivalent to financial cheating but in a lawful manner. It's not because we are doing well on the field that we should let them get away with using the club funds. I agreed with them not building a stadium as long as money generated by the club was invested in players and having the 14th net spend says it all. You are completely ignoring the fact pointed out about selling Suarez and Coutinho. That goes a long way to skewing the net spend figure. All those funds and more were spent. You just don’t like them as they’re not treating this like a game of Fifa and spending money for he sake of it. As for the getting lucky by trial and error, that’s just complete all hang. Hodgson was here just before / as they were taking over so why he is mentioned I don’t know? They’ve learned from mistakes rather than got lucky. Only a blind man can’t see that. Are they the best owners we could have? Maybe not but I’d argue they are outside of the sugar daddy oligarchs and likewise, anyone who can’t see that must be blind.
|
|
|
|
|
