Attacking output in 23/24

[Steveo]

For a kick off no club is forced to do anything. The American leeches are feasting off these clubs. That’s the entire point. Not putting in a single penny.

And BTW - United were accused of buying the league for decades.

5 times Ferguson broke the British Transfer record.

Romans net spend at Chelsea was phenomenally good - IN THE END - and only BECAUSE he bought the manager and the players again and again to be serial winners - then fleeced anyone who wanted to buy. Best ownership in the history of the league. And who forced him out? And for whom?

Can’t have it every way. Our net Spend is puny from a nowhere position. You keep comparing to Real - who do what I suggested Roman was able to do on an entirely different plane. An industrial level - totally unique case. You will have to accept that - it’s a fact

Not only can they buy players at half or less than half what other clubs need to pay - they can sell for double. That’s the privilege of being the greatest club in history.

The second their lustre wanes - they will go Galactico again.. That’s Real.

Compare our spend with our rivals on Klopp’s watch. It’s made life far harder than it ever needed to and is directly responsible for us looking up at Arsenal from a near unassailable position with the best manager on the planet IN SITU.

[CCTV]

Romans net spend & JWHs net spend are largely equivalent per season. Neither close to Toddy. I've given the figures before.

Same as I've given our net/gross spend under fsg and, post-2000 prior to fsgs arrival.

Your argument on real under fsg is they don't need to spend more than us net, because of their draw.
You've never explained why they spent so much in the era post-2000 prior to fsg arrival.

Why did the galactic spend so much then ?

You seem to think they don't need to outspend fsg, but prior to that they outspent Parry/Moore & G&H massively.

In little more than a decade they've added significantly to Anfield, built a new training complex, spent significantly, won 19 & 6, nearly won 4 PL titles & 3 CL titles.

In general a well run club has a low net spend, and a poorly run club has high net spend on transfers.

The anomaly to this appraisal, are those clubs who've spent massively above their income, and often against the rules.
Both Chelsea & City to date suffering very little for cheating. As said the PL fairplay ethos sees parachute payments needed unlike la liga, whilst facilitating cheating by clubs who benefit financially from the appeal of LFC & Manu globally.

The EU&Nato got Roman kicked out.

[Steveo]

Romans net spend & JWHs net spend are largely equivalent per season. Neither close to Toddy. I've given the figures before.

Same as I've given our net/gross spend under fsg and, post-2000 prior to fsgs arrival.

Your argument on real under fsg is they don't need to spend more than us net, because of their draw.
You've never explained why they spent so much in the era post-2000 prior to fsg arrival.

Why did the galactic spend so much then ?

You seem to think they don't need to outspend fsg, but prior to that they outspent Parry/Moore & G&H massively.

In little more than a decade they've added significantly to Anfield, built a new training complex, spent significantly, won 19 & 6, nearly won 4 PL titles & 3 CL titles.

In general a well run club has a low net spend, and a poorly run club has high net spend on transfers.

The anomaly to this appraisal, are those clubs who've spent massively above their income, and often against the rules.
Both Chelsea & City to date suffering very little for cheating. As said the PL fairplay ethos sees parachute payments needed unlike la liga, whilst facilitating cheating by clubs who benefit financially from the appeal of LFC & Manu globally.

The EU&Nato got Roman kicked out.

So CC - IF Romans net spend and JWH net spent are similar - how did Chelsea a club that had 1 (count it) title to its name in its entire history - go on to eclipse United and become the dominant side taking 5 League titles and 2 European cups - that's 7 major title out the clubs 7 in it's history. What was it that allowed this to happen. Were United suddenly shite? Did Chelsea have the best managers on the planet? OR did they not spend a shite load up front to get them into the top teir and put a top manager in place - then buy and buy and buy - and win and win and win - until they could fleece other teams and make their net spend look great...?

The talk about Real is another convo which goes in circles because you will not accept the facts.

Real ARE operating on a completely different playing field. One built through being the most successful club in Europe for decades. The most coveted club to play for - for many players, But also one more recently built on the glamour template that followed the Galactico era.. And era which wasn't - relatively speaking - the most successful on the pitch but which awoken the sleeping giant.

https://theterraceapparel.com/the-edit/sporting-icons-the-real-madrid-galacticos-that-revolutionised-football-in-the-early-2000s/#:~:text=The%20Gal%C3%A1cticos%20were%20not%20just ,UEFA%20Champions%20League%20in%202002.

In general the clubs that had huge net spends were the clubs that got to the top. See Chesl;ea - City - Real. A low net spend is rarely getting anyone to the top from a lowly position - and IF it does and it continues that club will very soon be lowly again.


@CC come on fella - if you don’t know that the EU & NATO are both completely controlled from Washington - you really do need a few lessons in geopolitics.

[CCTV]

1. Chelsea haven’t been found to be cheating - nor have City as yet. In the case of Chelsea the owner spent the money necessary to overhaul United. What they are doing now does seem hugely suspicious but they are US fronted so I expect very little to emerge.

2. 5 times Ferguson broke the British Transfer record but nobody mentions that. It’s more convenient for those defending our owners to point to City and Chelsea and make the cheat claim BUT they are just claims at this time. Money talks - especially when you have the right man in the dugout.

3 For the shil-bot…. I think seeing as this thread is Exclusively for discussing “attacking output” 😜.

4. I suggest that the link back is easy - when discussing what Rafa said about the “new owners” being lucky with the money captured - as it begins and ends with those 3 wonderful attacking players and the funds they generated.

1 Chelsea have served transfer bans. FFP introduced due to chelseas insane spending early doors. Maybe if JwH gets as rich as Roman and has a fleet of yachts to match then perhaps JwH can become as benevolent as Roman.
City were banned by UEFA from the CL title they won.

2. Under FSG they've set 2 world records for signings. Broken numerous club records, even Carroll set a British record iirc.
Under fsg LFC has spent more gross than Bayern have since 2000.
In the era before FSG that spending gross under other lfc owners... is about a third of Bayerns gross since 2000.

3. Fascinating.

4. He's bigging up what he left to the new owners. In terms of talents. Good for Rafa.
In terms of what we've seen under FSG even Rodgers nearly won a PL title.

1. So CC - IF Romans net spend and JWH net spent are similar - how did Chelsea a club that had 1 (count it) title to its name in its entire history - go on to eclipse United and become the dominant side taking 5 League titles and 2 European cups - that's 7 major title out the clubs 7 in it's history. What was it that allowed this to happen. Were United suddenly shite? Did Chelsea have the best managers on the planet? OR did they not spend a shite load up front to get them into the top teir and put a top manager in place - then buy and buy and buy - and win and win and win - until they could fleece other teams and make their net spend look great...?

2. The talk about Real is another convo which goes in circles because you will not accept the facts.

3. Real ARE operating on a completely different playing field. One built through being the most successful club in Europe for decades. The most coveted club to play for - for many players, But also one more recently built on the glamour template that followed the Galactico era.. And era which wasn't - relatively speaking - the most successful on the pitch but which awoken the sleeping giant.

https://theterraceapparel.com/the-edit/sporting-icons-the-real-madrid-galacticos-that-revolutionised-football-in-the-early-2000s/#:~:text=The%20Gal%C3%A1cticos%20were%20not%20just ,UEFA%20Champions%20League%20in%202002.

In general the clubs that had huge net spends were the clubs that got to the top. See Chesl;ea - City - Real. A low net spend is rarely getting anyone to the top from a lowly position - and IF it does and it continues that club will very soon be lowly again.


4. @CC come on fella - if you don’t know that the EU & NATO are both completely controlled from Washington - you really do need a few lessons in geopolitics.

1. Roman spent vast amounts destabilising the level playing field. Just bought an arsenal of players, then dethroned arsenal and Jose might have seen Fergie retire early. The league divides TV revenue very 'fairly' and he upended that model. Chelsea weren't miles off at that time iirc, had appeal. The TV revenue stops LFC making mint off its own audience globally. But hey, get a sugar daddy owner and you can just take LFC money Mr PL, Mr Uefa.

2. I asked you why did Real outspend LFC massively this century prior to FSGs arrival ?

When I bring up FSG have outspent Real on both Net & Gross spend, outspending Real is not important. They don't need to yada yada.
But that doesn't hold in the era prior to FSG arriving.

Well run clubs, buy players sell them for good money and successfully recruit.
Gross spend measures a clubs size in some sense. It's net spend relative to its gross, indicates how well run they are.

3. See above. Yada yada, you like talking up real. A few more CL titles & we're second chasing them down.

4. Come on. You stood with UEFA over ESL. You were remain in EU. And you weren't to be found when I posted about Ireland & nato on here, Kohl & Fitzgerald. I'll leave it there.

[Steveo]

So you admit that Chelsea were bank rolled. So it wasn't their net spend which you want to claim is so similar to ours that got them dining at the top table consistently...? Ok great we are getting somewhere then.

On 2. Broke the club record for Carroll with a spend just over half what they received - a British transfer record at the time - for Torres - who they inherited.. Try keep a straight face and include that one.. Then comparing our spend with Bundesliga Monopolists Bayern. Do you think any Club spending what Bayern does in the Premier league can win 10 straight titles? Come on man?


AGAIN... on Real - are you being deliberately obtuse OR do you have literally zero knowledge of the sport? How can you possibly compare Real Madrid - their allure and their spending with us? They are on an entirely different level... To anyone in fact. Real spent more - than ANYONE for a looooong loooong time - despite being the most desirable club for players. They spent whatever it took back in the day - the only reason WHY their overall spend is in 5th on this table. If you added up their transfers and made the costs relative to todays values they are way way out on their own. Please stop trying to ignore the historical context. It's shallow and stupid and totally ignorant to the facts.


Even IF we only look at the market since the year 2000 that's just 24 years - we can see where they are - this is incredible when you think their spending was done YEars ago when prices were puny by comparison..

https://m.allfootballapp.com/news/EPL/5-clubs-that-have-spent-the-most-since-2000/2871596#:~:text=%235%20Real%20Madrid%20%2D%20%E2%8 2%AC2268%20million&text=Since%202000%2C%20Real%20M adrid%20have,expensive%20acquisition%20of%20all%20 time.

As for NATO - the marketing dept of the US military industrial complex - and their rampant sicking goals to destroy Russia through the same channels that Adolf used - resulting in the deaths of more than 26,000.000 people..The real fight that ended fascism in Europe... What is there to say apart from - enough is enough.

Face it mate - Ireland is a joke country - a Tax haven for crooked billionaire US interests. A corporate shill of a nation. Plastic puppet leaders and a good section of the population so ready to take the Yanky dollar - they have sold what dignity they did have long long ago. Remember WHO the EU are. It's all controlled via Washington.