|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 531
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 531 |
Cant see the papers knowing anything yet, the owners are still not 100% who will come in.
Strange how papers know who is coming in straight away, eventhough they didnt have a clue that Comolli was on his way out.
The press are just playing guessing games
|
|
|
|
|
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. 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. Yes completely true, but net spend or investment is not the same as just simply, how much was spent. Net spend like I said is absolutely the important figure in terms of 'adding value to the squad', but still is perhaps quite simplistic as it doesn't take into account where we get 'over the odds' for a player like torres or even 30 mill for alonso. The total spend, of 115 mill or whatever it is is still an important figure, particularly with regards to effective use of funds and value for money though. And haha yes as I was continuing the tv analogy it was becoming very convoluted in my mind and even more so in my text! :P
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365 |
correct also but to keep regurgitating that we have spent '120mil etc' is sort of missing the point. If we had retained Torres,Meireles,Babel,Ngogo then spent 115mil on new players then it's fair to say that we would be a better team . But we didn't so lets not say that we have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
correct also but to keep regurgitating that we have spent '120mil etc' is sort of missing the point. If we had retained Torres,Meireles,Babel,Ngogo then spent 115mil on new players then it's fair to say that we would be a better team . But we didn't so lets not say that we have. Perhaps to some extent. Particularly in relation to Kenny has spent 115 mill to take us down two places in the league. Then I'd agree with you it is the investment figure that is important. In terms of kenny has spent 115 million to bring Carroll, Downing, henderson, adam et al to the club, then I think its okay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365 |
correct also but to keep regurgitating that we have spent '120mil etc' is sort of missing the point. If we had retained Torres,Meireles,Babel,Ngogo then spent 115mil on new players then it's fair to say that we would be a better team . But we didn't so lets not say that we have. Perhaps to some extent. Particularly in relation to Kenny has spent 115 mill to take us down two places in the league. Then I'd agree with you it is the investment figure that is important. In terms of kenny has spent 115 million to bring Carroll, Downing, henderson, adam et al to the club, then I think its okay. why not say we have invested 37mil in a new team only to drop down 2 places. Whilst I don't agree in the sentiment of it that is very much a fact. That alone is dramatic enough without exagerating. hopefully by may 6th we can say we have invested 37mil to win two cups! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 204
Under 16 Player
|
|
Under 16 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 204 |
Haha. I wonder how many TV had Rafa sold and brought??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 204
Under 16 Player
|
|
Under 16 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 204 |
When Kenny spent, all his supporters finds ways to defend him but when Rafa spent we complained that he wasted our resources even though he sold first players first to fund his purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,650
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,650 |
When Kenny spent, all his supporters finds ways to defend him but when Rafa spent we complained that he wasted our resources even though he sold first players first to fund his purchases. not true i don't defend kenny's transfers yet still want him to continue. i didn't defend rafa's and didn't want him to continue. the reasons are I think kenny knows what he wants and the traditions of lfc and rafa was a bit erratic and tactically defensive, never felt he could build anything and lost people , kenny is building and is gelling people
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,955
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,955 |
your opinion and it must be respected but I fully disagree with it.
I will listen, only if your answer contains wisdom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 12,422
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 12,422 |
When Kenny spent, all his supporters finds ways to defend him but when Rafa spent we complained that he wasted our resources even though he sold first players first to fund his purchases. not true i don't defend kenny's transfers yet still want him to continue. i didn't defend rafa's and didn't want him to continue. the reasons are I think kenny knows what he wants and the traditions of lfc and rafa was a bit erratic and tactically defensive, never felt he could build anything and lost people , kenny is building and is gelling people thats all well and good but mean F all if he cant finish above a newcastle team that has spent less then pretty much any other team.
|
|
|
|
|
