Under-investment

[Taksin]

I think that net spend chart is probably wrong by the way. CCTV may be able to help with that. I can't be bothered because I think we have a sound policy of investing in excellent players at this club, currently.

[Steveo]

Nobody EVER said NET spend was a guarantee of anything BUT it is clearly the most likely source

[Steveo]

I find it astounding that any fan of this club is willing to sit back and stay quiet while some of the players and even the manager ( best manager in the world by a mile ) take the blame for the “bump in road” yet come out to play when anyone questions the investment from the owners.

The players and manager have been outstanding over a 3 year period. They are shattered - they need a break but they can’t take one unless they are broken.

That is the point.

[miller0863]

If Barcelona had to sell Messi to fund buying Suarez, Coutinho etc would net spend be more relevant then do you think?

If City had had to sell De Bruyne and David Silva to bring in Mahrez and Sterling would it have been relevant then?

I could go on.


I’d suggest the answer is yes, so what everyone is saying when they say net spend is irrelevant they mean only where Liverpool are concerned.

Ok.

[Taksin]

I find it astounding that any fan of this club is willing to sit back and stay quiet while some of the players and even the manager ( best manager in the world by a mile ) take the blame for the “bump in road” yet come out to play when anyone questions the investment from the owners.

The players and manager have been outstanding over a 3 year period. They are shattered - they need a break but they can’t take one unless they are broken.

That is the point.

I haven't blamed anyone.

The difference between my position and yours is that I think the owners deserve credit as much as the manager and players.

If you think we should have a B team as good as the A team you 1) are at odds with the manager's views and 2) are probably living in cloud cookoo land.

That is the implication from your last post. They are tired, they need a break. the reason is underinvestment by the owners. Not Klopp pushing them to burnout (media explanation), not injury crisis (this is not allowed as an excuse), not too many fixtures too close together (Klopp's complaint). No, we should have more players of the same calibre. Spend spend spend

Klopp himself has argued against that strategy. He doesn't want big names sitting on the bench getting depressed about not playing. He has his own ideas about what is needed to make a successful squad.

Sometimes things don't work out. Ferguson only won the title 13 times in 25 years of mostly asymmetric dominance. We have just come off the back of two seasons where we outperformed all his teams. And we are in the very strange and unknown waters of insane lockdowns, without an end in sight. The effects if this are unknown and will alter planning and investment as well as income.

Blaming the owners for the current lull, as if these things should obviously be avoided, is immature in my opinion.

[CCTV]

The debate over whether the likes of FSG should have been able to take advantage of the furlough scheme is a sperate issue. My issue with FSG and the furlough scheme is in regards to those who keep trying to use it as some kind of definitive proof that we "don't have a pot to pee in". FSG tried to use the scheme to save money, not because it was essential to safeguard the long term future of the club, which would only have been the case if we had been in an already very precarious financial position.

Spurs also tried to furlough staff and reversed the decision. They did that despite trying to furlough 450 staff vs 200 for us, and that's also despite them also having a billion pound stadium to pay for. If we can't afford players based on the above and all the other things I mentioned, then Spurs must be on the verge of having to sell their entire first team squad.

Well for me there is no reasonable debate about it. They were entitled to and obliged to draw down from the scheme.

[CCTV]

If Barcelona had to sell Messi to fund buying Suarez, Coutinho etc would net spend be more relevant then do you think?

If City had had to sell De Bruyne and David Silva to bring in Mahrez and Sterling would it have been relevant then?

I could go on.


I’d suggest the answer is yes, so what everyone is saying when they say net spend is irrelevant they mean only where Liverpool are concerned.

Ok.

So far it appears as though Klopp hasn't been forced to sell anyone.
Ings wanted football, Lovren too and lil Phil forced his way out. The rest were moved on by and large

People want to see players brought in and if we sell player for high resale figures we do well.

For me not spend is relevant as it measures your sales and purchases, which should leave you with an idea of how much money could conceivably be spent in the very near future.

For us:
We've seen Klopp backed and players brought in, a decent gross spend and not forced to keep working with what he's got.
Good.

Player sales have also been good and this has helped keep our net spend down. Selling players we permit to leave for good-great money cannot be sniffed at.

Net spend where it is, imo indicates the club has a fair bit of leeway with what it can spend.
So we should be able to see Klopp backed again in adding a top player like Alisson, VVD, Fabinho or Keita. Our 4 most expensive signings to date.

[Steveo]

I haven't blamed anyone.

The difference between my position and yours is that I think the owners deserve credit as much as the manager and players.

If you think we should have a B team as good as the A team you 1) are at odds with the manager's views and 2) are probably living in cloud cookoo land.

That is the implication from your last post. They are tired, they need a break. the reason is underinvestment by the owners. Not Klopp pushing them to burnout (media explanation), not injury crisis (this is not allowed as an excuse), not too many fixtures too close together (Klopp's complaint). No, we should have more players of the same calibre. Spend spend spend

Klopp himself has argued against that strategy. He doesn't want big names sitting on the bench getting depressed about not playing. He has his own ideas about what is needed to make a successful squad.

Sometimes things don't work out. Ferguson only won the title 13 times in 25 years of mostly asymmetric dominance. We have just come off the back of two seasons where we outperformed all his teams. And we are in the very strange and unknown waters of insane lockdowns, without an end in sight. The effects if this are unknown and will alter planning and investment as well as income.

Blaming the owners for the current lull, as if these things should obviously be avoided, is immature in my opinion.

I didn't say you did - read... I am saying that it is funny how you stayed silent while certain players or even the manager get the hairdyer treatment - YET come out to play at the mere posting of the NET spend.

And if you believe that Klopp would not have wanted to bring in more quality in 2019 or this summer OR again this January then either you know him personally OR can read very different signals from his statements than I can manage.

[ianlfc]

We'll see in the summer, as I exspect Haaland to become available and I would like to think we will complete with all the other big spending club to be in for him.
And If not then we'll be needing a new manager.

[miller0863]

Wasn’t saying that he has been forced to sell anyone, but what we all know is we have had to sell to buy. Without Coutinho going, VVD and Alisson don’t come in.