|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,552
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,552 |
if we go british then fletcher form wolves, jarvis and given please
otherwise lets keep it foreign Given isn't British, he's Irish. Haha my fingers were ready to type in outrage too :P On those players. I truly hope we don't sign any of them. They would take a club forward currently. We need first team players right now. Haha  No offence caused, heggy mate, just clearing it up 
*RODGERS *SKRTEL *JONJO
'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'
'If there is hope, it lies in the proles'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,955
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,955 |
I will listen, only if your answer contains wisdom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 590
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 590 |
Im thinking about strengthening the squad, if you want players to strengthen the first team, then we might as well go for adam johnson, defoe and de jong. I don't understand why people on here keep mentioning Defoe. If we're going to overtake Spurs, signing their rejects and cast-offs is probably not the best way to go about it. Johnson, I can understand. The only reason he doesn't get more game time at City is because they don't really play with wingers. But there are still better options out there for the wings that don't have the "English premium" 50% mark-up.
YNWA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,955
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,955 |
I said defoe and was being lazy, we could sign negrado from sevilla.
I will listen, only if your answer contains wisdom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365 |
They 'spent' over £100m no matter how you want to disguise the fact. If I sold my TV for £100 and bought a new one for £600, I still spent £600!! In fact, I spent £600 PLUS the loss made on my previous purchase as I still only have 1 TV, but how far back do you want to go to try and paper over the mistakes in order to some way try and justify p!ss poor business decisions?
Let's not try and hide the humungous management errors - let's just accept that we fvcked up big time and that it needs to be put right. utter nonsense. what the hell have tv's got to do with it? these are human beings with no guarantee of what performance you would get. The squad in numerical terms has had 37mil spent on it, in comparison to other spenders in the Top 4 this is significantly lower, thats the point maybe also we did not need to spend so much as the players we already have are already good enough? but the general consensus is that this was not the case. The point being 37mil to improve an average team seems low. i could use your analogy though: we sold 14 tvs and replaced them with 8 tv's - using your calculations we should be better off although we are minus 6 tvs!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
THe two posts above went over my head however the signings by Kenny / Commoli / both were simply dreadful and have not improved the team which is unforgivable for that kind of money. (The Highest Transfer budget Liverpool FC has ever had). However you dress it up you cannot get over that. I feel any success with these players is seized on and people go completely overboard. For example Carroll he scored the winner against everton great but its a tiny step forward against the overriding position of a very average player where we payed out probably 4 times his value. Its complete madness and if I was FSG I would want some very good answers to how we got in that position and what Kenny (last remainding member of the Bonnie and Cylde team) will do about it.
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
They 'spent' over £100m no matter how you want to disguise the fact. If I sold my TV for £100 and bought a new one for £600, I still spent £600!! In fact, I spent £600 PLUS the loss made on my previous purchase as I still only have 1 TV, but how far back do you want to go to try and paper over the mistakes in order to some way try and justify p!ss poor business decisions?
Let's not try and hide the humungous management errors - let's just accept that we fvcked up big time and that it needs to be put right. utter nonsense. what the hell have tv's got to do with it? these are human beings with no guarantee of what performance you would get. The squad in numerical terms has had 37mil spent on it, in comparison to other spenders in the Top 4 this is significantly lower, thats the point maybe also we did not need to spend so much as the players we already have are already good enough? but the general consensus is that this was not the case. The point being 37mil to improve an average team seems low. i could use your analogy though: we sold 14 tvs and replaced them with 8 tv's - using your calculations we should be better off although we are minus 6 tvs!!!! A couple of things I personally disagree with here. 1, the team didn't have 37 mill spent on it, it had 115 million spent on it, this is the definition of SPENT, it had 37 million invested. These are two different things. Both are important figures for different reasons. i.e. when looking at effective use of funds, you look at the SPEND figure, 115 mill for the return of hendo Carroll etc etc. when looking at how much the squad has improved year on year, you are more likely to use the investment figure although still here, sometimes total spend needs to be looked at in this context too, as sometimes you get a ridiculous amount of money for a player, 50 mill for torres, and it whacks out the investment figure. On the analogy of -6 tvs, that is far far too simplistic a representation. If I sell those 14 TVs for more than what they are really worth (Chelsea were desperate for Torres, of course you can say a player is worth what someone paid for him, but in the context of this it's largely irrelevant) because he's rich and desperately wants those particular TVs, I then have more money than I did before, replacing those TVs with 8 new ones with the cost of more than the 14 should have been worth, I should get 8 much better TVs and so the -6 is worse argument is heavily flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365 |
They 'spent' over £100m no matter how you want to disguise the fact. If I sold my TV for £100 and bought a new one for £600, I still spent £600!! In fact, I spent £600 PLUS the loss made on my previous purchase as I still only have 1 TV, but how far back do you want to go to try and paper over the mistakes in order to some way try and justify p!ss poor business decisions?
Let's not try and hide the humungous management errors - let's just accept that we fvcked up big time and that it needs to be put right. utter nonsense. what the hell have tv's got to do with it? these are human beings with no guarantee of what performance you would get. The squad in numerical terms has had 37mil spent on it, in comparison to other spenders in the Top 4 this is significantly lower, thats the point maybe also we did not need to spend so much as the players we already have are already good enough? but the general consensus is that this was not the case. The point being 37mil to improve an average team seems low. i could use your analogy though: we sold 14 tvs and replaced them with 8 tv's - using your calculations we should be better off although we are minus 6 tvs!!!! A couple of things I personally disagree with here. 1, the team didn't have 37 mill spent on it, it had 115 million spent on it, this is the definition of SPENT, it had 37 million invested. These are two different things. Both are important figures for different reasons. i.e. when looking at effective use of funds, you look at the SPEND figure, 115 mill for the return of hendo Carroll etc etc. when looking at how much the squad has improved year on year, you are more likely to use the investment figure although still here, sometimes total spend needs to be looked at in this context too, as sometimes you get a ridiculous amount of money for a player, 50 mill for torres, and it whacks out the investment figure. On the analogy of -6 tvs, that is far far too simplistic a representation. If I sell those 14 TVs for more than what they are really worth (Chelsea were desperate for Torres, of course you can say a player is worth what someone paid for him, but in the context of this it's largely irrelevant) because he's rich and desperately wants those particular TVs, I then have more money than I did before, replacing those TVs with 8 new ones with the cost of more than the 14 should have been worth, I should get 8 much better TVs and so the -6 is worse argument is heavily flawed. BRK- If you reduce the value of the squad by 77mil(sales) and then spend 115mil on increasing the value you have only increased the value by 37mil - thats the point. This is all before the argument of quality of sales or purchases. Our competative set(in recent years) net spend is in the 100's of millions, so my point is relative to our competition our spend is quite low. the tv thing was utter nonsense and was just a reply back to Carheex.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
CP1972 its been done to death but I cannpot agree with your logic. Whenever you spend money you always seekin value (if you know what you are doing) the money you have previously realised is irrelevant to seeking of value on money you spend. If I waste £10k the fact that I have foung granny's hierloom in the attic also worth £10k does not change the fact I have wasted £10k.
Last edited by Stanley Park; 18/04/12 05:11 PM.
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163 |
They 'spent' over £100m no matter how you want to disguise the fact. If I sold my TV for £100 and bought a new one for £600, I still spent £600!! In fact, I spent £600 PLUS the loss made on my previous purchase as I still only have 1 TV, but how far back do you want to go to try and paper over the mistakes in order to some way try and justify p!ss poor business decisions?
Let's not try and hide the humungous management errors - let's just accept that we fvcked up big time and that it needs to be put right. utter nonsense. what the hell have tv's got to do with it? these are human beings with no guarantee of what performance you would get. The squad in numerical terms has had 37mil spent on it, in comparison to other spenders in the Top 4 this is significantly lower, thats the point maybe also we did not need to spend so much as the players we already have are already good enough? but the general consensus is that this was not the case. The point being 37mil to improve an average team seems low. i could use your analogy though: we sold 14 tvs and replaced them with 8 tv's - using your calculations we should be better off although we are minus 6 tvs!!!! You've missed the point completely (possibly my fault, probably not...). When you add the fees of all of kenny's signings it comes to £110m+. That is how much money he forked out to give us our worst season in the league for longer than most people can rememebr. Regardless of who he sold, that IS how much money he 'spent'. From an accounting point of view, the net figure would be relevant on an annual basis but so would lots of other figures uncluding wages, expenses, agent fees, club overheads etc etc Back to the point of the topic though, if kenny is given £30m to spend I'd imagine we'll finish more or less where we are at the moment. Due to ageing, fitness, injuries, decline of skill etc we'll probably get less from bellamy, gerrard, kuyt and carragher as each year now passes. Downing isn't getting any younger so is unlikely to improve(!). Maxi & Kuyt are no spring chickens either. £30m won't get us very far at all when you conisder what we need to replace just to keep us where we are. We will need to spend as much as the clubs above us and more than the clubs below us just to avoid falling further behind.
|
|
|
|
|
