Match Thread : Atalanta v Liverpool

[JockStrap]

Robertson, Trent, Jones, Elliott, Bradley, Tsimikas, Gomez, Quansah, Danns, Clark.

That lot cost about £20m.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having a low net spend. I don't know why people have such an issue with spotting a bargin or developing world class players from the academy.

[Kev0909]

Robertson, Trent, Jones, Elliott, Bradley, Tsimikas, Gomez, Quansah, Danns, Clark.

That lot cost about £20m.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having a low net spend. I don't know why people have such an issue with spotting a bargin or developing world class players from the academy.

Because barely anyone that comes through the academy actually makes it.....

the transfer team have done great to get some amazing bargains otherwis e we'd be 7th

[Steveo]

When I've broken down the net spend, you pointed to unique Madrid. They are so unique. They could not be compared to litlle lfc. That was your excuse to exclude them. Of course lfc could be compared with anyone else, although the 3rd most CL titles, they can be compared with relative no marks. And barca, they could not be compared to real either, although their direct rival. The Spanish United to Spains LFC.
Interestingly unique Madrid also pushed for ESL to rectify the FFP failure that sees city the biggest revenue team last year. Unlike barca they've not busted themselves #shitowners

Maybe Bayer leverkusen are the unique Madrid of Germany. Maybe that's how they've succeeded with a low net spend. Just using all their unique title domination to attract the top stars to leverkusen.
Or do you have a new reason to exclude them.
Maybe Alonso is asking them to play 100 million miles an hour, like klopp as you see it, and not like Klopp when you need to shift your position.
Same as when discussing unique Madrid, you stated we couldn't be compared with them on net spend, they sooo unique, then you introduced gross spend as your winner.
Real unique no more.
I pointed out we have outspent them gross since Jwh arrived and moreso under Klopp, then your real had their uniqueness reinstated when your argument fell apart. Didn't serve you.

That's how unique and incomparable Madrid are in your opinion. Unique when it serves you and comparable when you thought it served you to compare. Then unique again.
That's your weak m.o. when it comes to discussions.

2 Things:

1. Anyone who tries to compare us - our ability to spend/operate OR win the top prizes - to Real Madrid - is either living on another planet OR simply unequipped to talk on the subject.

2. Nobody can be compared to Real Madrid on almost any metric as : ' they do not need to be financially bolstered to attract the top players or dissuade the top players from other clubs. They are consistently in the champions league and more recently all the way up to the semi-finals, and there is a huge mystique of playing for Los Blancos because the club is essentially football royalty.'

What part of this is escaping your seemingly tiny football mind? Here is a video highlightin how Arsenal dont even figure in European Semi finals - BUT CC - please take a look at the magnitude - see just how much MORE real is than ANYONE,.... Unless you have been living under a rock - or you are 15 you must SURELY know this..?



Was it a consistently low net spend that put (we only had 1 league title in our history prior to Roman) Chelsea on this list?

It is a RIDICULOUS notion to say that a low net spend is the key route to success. Klopp is the overwhelming MAJOR reason we have managed to take 2 major titles in almost 20 years...

It is stupid to look at the clubs that have spent fortunes and not made it as a way to suggest that not spending is the key. the facts are there to see.

For instance before we sold Coutinho and actually spent some money in 2018 - in the 15 years prior to that our net spend was £19million a year - £328 million net....across 15 years.. Chelsea's was £41million a year - £704 million net...across the same 15 years. Man City's was £63million a year a staggering £1073million net...across those 15 years. Want to take a look at. who won what? Really?

CC - does their (City) relatively moderate net spend recently work without what came before? Without the success and bedrock that helped them bag Pep..? Does City attract players for relatively lower fees and on (relatively) lower salaries than they would have had to pay without the success that arrived via spending SHITE LOADS??? - The same goes for Chelsea..

Now magnify it 20 times for Real Fucking Madrid.

[Steveo]

AND....for those who still don't see it.



THIS - is the type of monster game that it took for us to win the Champions league & the title.

IMO this is why the side suffered a record home defeat tally 6 months after winning the league. Nobody can keep this level of intensity up week in week out season in season out - without breaking down - injured OR a total loss of form. To play like this you need at least 2 first 11's.. to even contemplate it being sustainable. That means spending a shyte fook more

[CCTV]

Let's just recap a few things.

1) You posited real Madrid, as unique and incomparable when their net spend was lower than ours
You then posited real for comparison as their gross spend since 2000 was so much more than ours, not so unique and incomparable all of a sudden
I then pointed our our gross spend under FSG and moreso under the Klopp years exceeded real Madrids. You then returned to they are unique and comparable.
If you can't acknowledge this reality and your self serving selection comparable, not comparable, I can't help you.
Real are no1 in Europe, we are no 3, I've never said they were incomparable. Nor any other big club, I did say shamrock rovers like clubs are not sensible for comparison.
You've also compared us to greater no marks in European football, than we are to Madrid.
If I'm called out on a point, I don't avoid it talking about other things.

2) well run big clubs, will have lower net spends than their rivals.
By buying & selling well, not passing money up against the wall and leaving them constrained by ffp regulations.
Barca, Manu, Arsenal and Chelsea all are under ffp constraints.
City are not under such presures but they have clearly cheated the rules.
If you cannot understand this basic business prinicple, that's your issue.
Real were a key mover as were barca for the ESL, as they can see the influence of PL money on the game and this PL money is in part to Chelsea & Cities insane spending and fucking around with the rules.
It seems Real are acutely aware of the risk to their traditional and current spot if finances are not robust and sound.
The ESL was a top club move to combat the failure of football authorities, FFP & CAS.

3) yes cities cheating and spending has put them in a good position.
As has the Klopp tenure.
I'm not the only poster whose called you out on rubbishing the squad Klopps built, and the quality of player here today.
Any new manager, can see a largely young squad full of fresh faces and can add to that and build on it.
Remember last summer when you were crying about chelseas spend,
You asked me directly if we would finish above them in the league.
I said yes, we will, you were crouched in fear of poch's Chelsea and their big net spend.
I answered your direct question on this topic.
We are 24 points ahead of them and we have 6 games left to play.
They have a maximum of 21 points to win.
We will finish above Chelsea for sure by at least 3 points if we lose all our games.
In contrast to real a well run club, barca have been badly run and you can see a greater net spend at Barca. Both enjoy an allure as the top2 destinations in world football throughout the era.

4) I've offered up a thread on here using objective and public measures to analyse the net spending, purchases & sales, and gross spending against the market value of players at the point of purchase as assessed by transfermarkt.
Under this analysis, detailed above anything presented in the press, you can see much more of the various impacts from spend.
I have not tracked it over time which would really supplement the analysis as it takes a fair bit of effort.
For Salah for example, you'd see we paid x when he was valued at y, he rose to a highpoint of z, then this was reduced by a market correction during covid to a, and will have declined to b as he's aged, if he's sold for c. This would really supplement the basic net/gross spend analysis. By and large you could see us doing even better int he transfermarket and united or Chelsea doing even worse.
Throughout the analysis I did present, you can look at our spending under JHW and largely Klopp now, as being roughly equivalent to your prime example of a good owner Roman, whose much closer to us than Toddy and his much bigger net spending.
You can see reals gross advantage essentially is from the pre-JWH era post 2000s.

5) you've recently highlight me in particular as having a view equivalent to 19s tippy tippy v 100 million miles an hour mantra.
Something I've never said or to that effect. When pressed for direct answers, you crumbled and have offered up Klopp as
A) playing 100 million miles an hour football causing injury
B) not playing 100 million miles an hour football which underpins the failure of English managers.
It is this eratic and contradictory positions that define your form of argument.

I'm not shy in offering up my opinions, and presenting analysis across multiple hot topics, from football to off-topic. I will take questions and answer them to the best of my ability when pressed directly.

[Steveo]

Good lord you need help..

[Steveo]

Real's Net spend dwarfs our since 2000 too. So what's your point..?

And who crumbled..? You like trying to claim a victory when someone aint even playing or bothered to turn up to the game? Low self asteem?

I am sorry and don't really want to spell it out but more often than not I simply bypass your musings on the game because I genuinely think you are clueless in that respect. Seems obvious to me that that you don't get to see games (TV doesn't count) at or close to the highest level.

21st century net spend table top 10

10) Liverpool (England)
Expenditure:*€1.96bn
Income:*€1.17bn
Net spend:*€-789.24m

*9) AC Milan (Italy)
Expenditure:*€1.65bn
Income:*€859.13m
Net spend:*€-793.78m

8) Tottenham (England)
Expenditure:*€1.86bn
Income:*€1.06bn
Net spend:*€-800.07m

7) Barcelona (Spain)
Expenditure:*€2.40bn
Income:*€1.44bn
Net spend:*€-951.50m

*6) Arsenal (England)
Expenditure:*€1.81bn
Income:*€814.89m
Ne t spend:*€-997.17m

*5) Real Madrid (Spain)
Expenditure:*€2.41bn
Income:*€1.41bn
Net spend:*€-1,006.35m

*4) Paris Saint-Germain (France)
Expenditure:*€2.19bn
Income:*€841.04m
Net spend:*€-1,345.40m

*3) Manchester United (England)
Expenditure:*€2.48bn
Income:*€833.01m
Ne t spend:*€-1,644.11m

*2) Manchester City (England)
Expenditure:*€2.75bn
Income:*€1.04bn
Net spend:*€-1,713.21m


1) Chelsea (England) Expenditure:*€3.51bn Income:*€1.70bn Net spend:*€-1,810.32m


You seem to be extremely keen to highlight every time I have made a mistake - like posting a gross spend chart instead of a net spend one (I was actually trying to stick to our domestic league but nevermind) - Or citing my opinion at the start of the season after we missed out on key players on who would finish higher us or Chelsea. BUT loathed to admit that my opinion on a crazy high intensity game allied to the size/profile of our squad was a huge injury fatigue risk waiting to happen - was sound.

[Nineteenx]

Yawn

[CCTV]

It is very simple Steveo, you said real were incomparable, then made a case why they are comparable and only returned to incomparable when the metric of gross spend you introduced was shown to be higher at LFC under FSG than at Real Madrid over the same period.

And per football opinions, just remember you pressed me for an answer....
would we finish above Chelsea,
I said yes,
whilst you were a doubting Thomas and why because of their big net spend

Here was my analysis posted a while back of their window and ours for comparison.

https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631/saison_id/2023

This shows Chelseas summer 23 window:

Here Chelsea
● Earnt €269.4 mill from player sales valued at €482.6 mill.
Recouping 55.8% of their value
● Spent €467.8 mill on €517.75 mill of players.
For €1 spent, they signed €1.11 euros of player.
● for their net spend of €198.4 mill - their net gain in MV was €35.15 m
17.7% effective by MV

For our net spend of €111.3 mill, our net gain in MV was €44.7 mill.
40.2% effective

We added more value to our squad than Chelsea did, and with less net spending.

[Steveo]

I didn’t at all and you are continuing to pedal a lie.

YOU brought overseas clubs into a convo I was having about OUR net spend relative to our domestic rivals. You even brought in Bayern,

I remember. You are simply clinging to a detail - where I posted a gross spend rather than a net one - simply to show you that Real ( who you wanted to use as proof of low net spend advantage) had outspent us net since the millennium DESPITE being a totally unique case and a club operating on a different plain entirely to us - to anyone.

You can’t accept it and won’t accept it.

That’s fine - but you must accept that I - and I imagine most cannot take it seriously