Ok. So would you argue Arsenal have seen a far greater investment in their playing staff than LFC have in that time frame?Originally Posted by Steveo
|
|
|
Rowdy Yates
Rodgers or Klopp - the club was looking at Salah years before we got him. I am simply saying many clubs are in for many players they don’t actually get or are unwilling to pay a high price for.
On Phil - you have got your timeline mixed up.
Rumours of Barcelona’s interest in Phil date back to Summer 2016. They came to a head in January 2017 a full Year before he departed -
6 Jan 2017: Jurgen Klopp issues statement telling Barcelona to forget about signing Coutinho.
“We never had any ideas or plans or any talks about him leaving, because he is our player – there are no other ideas, nothing has changed,” Klopp said.
We all know Neymar pushed the prices up though - so Virgil would have cost about 35/40 and Phil would have gone for more like 80...
As for a lack of investment - that NET spend table is a key component when discussing it.
First Team
Ok. So would you argue Arsenal have seen a far greater investment in their playing staff than LFC have in that time frame?
Rowdy Yates
I wouldn't really know that as I can't see all the contracts - bonuses/actual salaries with any reliable transparency. Not sure they are obliged to publish them all?
Looking at the NET spend table via Transfermarkt - they seem to have spent considerably more. Shockingly more so even than Chelsea!
First Team
Exactly. So you are prepared to look at factors other than that chart for them. Why not for us?
Clearly their squad has not been invested in to the degree that ours has. In my opinion, ours is second only to Man City. Maybe Chelsea, but theirs could be a case of a massive waste of investment, which is not the same thing.
If I'm correct, then the chart is misleading and not the 'key component' as you put it.
Squad N0 1
Chelsea have done very well at recruiting young talent developing them, loaning them out and selling them for very good money.
If you look at their incoming money for transfer dealings over the last 5 years it’s pretty good on that basis alone, never mind what the brought in for the sale of Eden Hazard to Real and even Courtois.
Arsenal’s dealings in the transfer market have been shocking, over paying for average players and allowing too many contracts to run down for players to leave for nothing.
Rowdy Yates
If you are correct... maybe.
We shall have to agree to disagree - it is surely a key component in my eyes - probably the single biggest indicator - what you sell and what you buy. The fact that on Klopp's watch we have managed to do so well is not something to pat the owners on the back for.. Just my opinion though - well aware that many think they are AMAZING!
Rowdy Yates
Ozil...
If ever there was a sad demise thread - That holding onto Wenger when it was clearly counter productive - while good on the loyalty front - it has set them back years.
Imagine if they had got Klopp in 2015... and not us.. AAAGGHHH... Perish the thought.
Koala tea
Thats true. It was said we were interested in Van Dijk when he was at/leaving Celtic.
Think it's fair to say there wasn't any real credible offers till Neymar left, as we saw how he acted when a credible interest emerged.
Similarly think it's fair to say we were signing virgil before that concrete interest emerged.
Imo we probably went to the transfer fee for virgil in part due to the neymar transfer and the apology issued.
Still think wed have paid more than 35/40, that's close to the rio Ferdinand transfer many years prior and virgil arrived with a similar reputation. The excitement was palpable and the competition stiff. The market for defenders had already been inflated naturally and by pep at city with his plethora of expensive defenders too.
Klopp gross spend is a little over half of peps, where peps spend has been pretty ridiculous.
Klopp £480 mill
Pep €925 mill
Klopp net spend is around a fifth of peps.
Half the gross spend at a fifth of the cost.
Think we agree pep inherited a better squad, yet for all their spending gross and net, there is little difference in the squad evaluations. Presently on transfermarkt our squad is valued higher than theirs, largely due to our first team having more highly valued players.
We've managed to match them for 2 league campaigns, though they won 2 titles to our 1 (probably 3), and in Europe we've left them in our wake.
Not sure if you have followed the market value flow of additions. This shows in each window the difference transfers make to the squad valuation.
Whether you bought for less or more than the valuation, or over time track the impact of signings in this regard our 2 fullbacks costing €9mill versus their current valuations.
Or in robbos case they reckon we paid 2mill more for him than his market but he's now worth about 10 times more than his market value back then. Or with thiago we bought him for about half of his market value.
(At a guess we'll hit a dip in their next update or over the coming months and city will overtake us)
So I'd suggest looking at the gross spend, player sales, net spend, market value of squads or individual players, we've absolutely smashed it in the transfer market.
Now net spend itself is low and I've corrected noods before in his overestimation of our net spend per season.
It is undeniable that our net spend has been very low. But that's not all bad as it does reflect excellence in the market when you look at the (more) complete set of metrics.
Now I've posted that had we not sold coutinho and not bought naby, wed have not spent about £90 mill more and that would bring us upto spurs in the net spend table.
Which is a reasonable expectation to match in terms of net spend and looking at our accounts something we most certainly could have afforded given profits.
Spurs in contrast to us are an exemplary club for keeping wages as a percentage of turnover very low. Though that trick can only be held up for so long and I'd imagine it will have risen and will do so under Jose.
So my position with regard to net spend is that it is evidently the case we could have had a greater net spend.
The difference perhaps between us, might be that I see that as money in the bank for future investments. Whereas more skeptical than me people might believe that the owners are not likely to want to see that money banked spent on transfers.
But I'd suggest that Fsg will want to continue to rise up the financial league and to do so will perhaps need a commercial cash cow. These players dont come cheap but they do add significant commercial value to the brand as well as their footballing contributions.
Guess we'll have to wait and see how that pans out.
Last edited by CCTV; 8th February 2021 at 12:52 PM.
First Team
@CCTV
How exactly have you 'corrected me' in regards to our net spend?
Koala tea
At the time of correction, I would have given you a number less than the one you had given.
Something like you were saying our net spend was 20 mill a season under whereas it was lower at 16 mill iirc.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks