Notices
Closed Thread
Page 69 of 99 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,070 of 2966

Thread: The "You asked for it" Nicky Tanner Twitter thread. No chit chat, fake tweets or unsubstantiated news.

  1. #2041  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    25,227
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyMc9 View Post
    whats this about van dihjk being injured? someone said on the match forum he's a doubt but i can't see a thing
    Klopp said in the presser he may not play even if fit/
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #2042  
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,449
    Quote Originally Posted by GrottonRed View Post
    Klopp said in the presser he may not play even if fit/
    that would be bizarre
    Eagle Face Moron
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #2043  
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,449
    van dijk out! brilliant. confidence isn't exactly sky high for this now
    Eagle Face Moron
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #2044  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Machtig Maus View Post
    No it isn't it just means they have recouped monies from other areas.

    Example, two clubs spend £100m on new players. One club deosn't sell any players the other gets a ridiculous fee for a player that isn't in the squad.

    Is their good fortune for getting this good price an indicator of commitment? No of course not. It just means they sold a player for a good fee!

    It's not rocket science but people like you will never see it because it doesn't suit your narrative against FSG.
    I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse about this or you are simply failing to understand what I am saying.

    One given season net spend can or can’t be relevant, over several years it is of course the best way to measure the investement in a club and the clubs with the highest spent in their respective leagues have been (for the most part) the most successful.

    That’s the size of it really, so I am not sure what are you arguing about or why are you are making a point about one particular player when nobody is talking about one given deal.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #2045  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    692
    Passion killer Pearce strikes again

    https://twitter.com/jamespearceecho/...96283624853504
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #2046  
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,827
    Quote Originally Posted by GrottonRed View Post
    That depends.

    If you managed to get 3 or 4 top quality players on Bosmans...or on their last year of contract...then paid them £250k a year, you could have a negative net spend...but no one could accuse you of not investing.

    Transfer fees are only part of the equation...wages are were the real "investment" is made.

    The best net spend figure is the one that is closest to the zero coupled with the highest gross expenditure. If you spend £300m on new players whatever your net figure is you have still spent £300m on new players it doesn't diminish that investment if you recoup monies from sales of 'dead wood' for example.

    Some people will just never see it.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #2047  
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse about this or you are simply failing to understand what I am saying.

    One given season net spend can or can’t be relevant, over several years it is of course the best way to measure the investement in a club and the clubs with the highest spent in their respective leagues have been (for the most part) the most successful.

    That’s the size of it really, so I am not sure what are you arguing about or why are you are making a point about one particular player when nobody is talking about one given deal.

    So if the club invest £300m in players every year and recoup that outlay in other areas resulting in a net spend of diddly squat that's bad business is it?

    You just can't see it can you? Blinded by your agenda!
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #2048  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Machtig Maus View Post
    So if the club invest £300m in players every year and recoup that outlay in other areas resulting in a net spend of diddly squat that's bad business is it?

    You just can't see it can you? Blinded by your agenda!
    No, because no club in the world would be successful at doing that every season,
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #2049  
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    No, because no club in the world would be successful at doing that every season,
    some actually end up quite successful doing it. seville for a club their size have done it for 15 years and been very successful
    Eagle Face Moron
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #2050  
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    No, because no club in the world would be successful at doing that every season,
    It's hypothetical to demonstrate the mechanics. Use whatever figure you like, it matters not. Would you have been happier not selling Benteke, or Brad Smith, or Jordan Ibe, or Joe Allen for a combined total of £64m approx just so the balance sheet shows a higher negative net spend?

    Or is the money from those players better off in the bank (and wages of course!) so it can be used for further investments?

    As I said it's not rocket science, if you are constantly spending and improving but your balance sheet shows a low net spend to achieve it, that is excellent work!
    Last edited by Machtig Maus; 14-1-18 at 12:24.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #2051  
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    No, because no club in the world would be successful at doing that every season,
    In fact that is precisely how a top team operates. As team players get older they are sold and replaced by younger ones. That's why if you look at the average cost price of a match day squad reflects that. If top teams didn't replace players their match day cost of players would get lower and lower. Instead the cost of the..........actually can't be arsed explaining this in detail. People like you don't want to hear it, or understand it.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #2052  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,163
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyMc9 View Post
    some actually end up quite successful doing it. seville for a club their size have done it for 15 years and been very successful
    Oh yeah for what they do they are very successful compared to some others that spent much more, Can they actually compete against Real Madrid, Barcelona or Atletico? Well,no they can’t.

    Bortmund is another example, can they compete against Bayern? No, because in the long run no matter how good you are replacing players if you are competing against a club that constantly spend more than you then it would be almost impossible you would be able to compete against them over a certain period of time.

    Porto, has been buying cheap and selling expensive, for a long time. Then again they still spend more than their domestic competitors so hence they remain successful.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #2053  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    927
    With VVD in the team I was very confident today, it's almost as if some manc had a voodoo doll. All the optimism crushed in one foul swoop.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #2054  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Edinburgher View Post
    In fact that is precisely how a top team operates. As team players get older they are sold and replaced by younger ones. That's why if you look at the average cost price of a match day squad reflects that. If top teams didn't replace players their match day cost of players would get lower and lower. Instead the cost of the..........actually can't be arsed explaining this in detail. People like you don't want to hear it, or understand it.
    Sorry, I have literally no idea what are you on about.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #2055  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Machtig Maus View Post
    It's hypothetical to demonstrate the mechanics. Use whatever figure you like, it matters not. Would you have been happier not selling Benteke, or Brad Smith, or Jordan Ibe, or Joe Allen for a combined total of £64m approx just so the balance sheet shows a higher negative net spend?

    Or is the money from those players better off in the bank (and wages of course!) so it can be used for further investments?

    As I said it's not rocket science, if you are constantly spending and improving but your balance sheet shows a low net spend to achieve it, that is excellent work!
    Could you give me an example of a club that is successful doing that?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #2056  
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    Oh yeah for what they do they are very successful compared to some others that spent much more, Can they actually compete against Real Madrid, Barcelona or Atletico? Well,no they can’t.

    Bortmund is another example, can they compete against Bayern? No, because in the long run no matter how good you are replacing players if you are competing against a club that constantly spend more than you then it would be almost impossible you would be able to compete against them over a certain period of time.

    Porto, has been buying cheap and selling expensive, for a long time. Then again they still spend more than their domestic competitors so hence they remain successful.

    So they are shrewd operators but LFC are lacking investment?

    Ok then

    You have just contradicted your own argument.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #2057  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    25,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Machtig Maus View Post
    The best net spend figure is the one that is closest to the zero coupled with the highest gross expenditure. If you spend £300m on new players whatever your net figure is you have still spent £300m on new players it doesn't diminish that investment if you recoup monies from sales of 'dead wood' for example.

    Some people will just never see it.
    There is lots to take into consideration.

    Transfer fees, how those fees are paid, increased wages etc.

    Plus, what profit the club generate before transfers (operating profit).

    For example, If Utd make £200m operating profit and have a perceived net spend of £150m...then they have in effect a negative spend.

    It just depends how you choose to interpret the figures.

    In the end, all that matters is that your squad and first XI get stronger.
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #2058  
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,827
    Quote Originally Posted by GrottonRed View Post
    There is lots to take into consideration.

    Transfer fees, how those fees are paid, increased wages etc.

    Plus, what profit the club generate before transfers (operating profit).

    For example, If Utd make £200m operating profit and have a perceived net spend of £150m...then they have in effect a negative spend.

    It just depends how you choose to interpret the figures.

    In the end, all that matters is that your squad and first XI get stronger.

    Exactly, so by selling Benteke, Allen, Smith and Ibe but strengthening with Mané and Wijnaldum resulting in a low net spend is good business.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #2059  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    25,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Machtig Maus View Post
    Exactly, so by selling Benteke, Allen, Smith and Ibe but strengthening with Mané and Wijnaldum resulting in a low net spend is good business.
    I'd agree.

    Last summer we had a positive net spend...yet in some ways it was a poor window, as we didn't sort the glaring need for a CB and Keeper.
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #2060  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,740
    Quote Originally Posted by GrottonRed View Post
    Klopp said in the presser he may not play even if fit/
    Yep read that. Really concerns me if Klopp is being serious
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #2061  
    aylesbyred is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    53,008
    Quote Originally Posted by GrottonRed View Post
    I'd agree.

    Last summer we had a positive net spend...yet in some ways it was a poor window, as we didn't sort the glaring need for a CB and Keeper.
    Also depends when the company financial year is
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #2062  
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,973
    Quote Originally Posted by HitTheWoodwork View Post
    Yep read that. Really concerns me if Klopp is being serious
    Busy period is over now and VVD has had a pretty quiet 3-4 months. He needs games to get match fit.

    I hope JK doesn't get into this whole rotation for the sake of it game that rafa used to play. It drove me spare!
    “Do. Or do not. There is no try.”
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #2063  
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,449
    Quote Originally Posted by AussieT View Post
    Busy period is over now and VVD has had a pretty quiet 3-4 months. He needs games to get match fit.

    I hope JK doesn't get into this whole rotation for the sake of it game that rafa used to play. It drove me spare!
    he's injured anyway
    Eagle Face Moron
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #2064  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    25,227
    Quote Originally Posted by aylesbyred View Post
    Also depends when the company financial year is
    Ours is July 1st now...which is why we had an odd set of accounts a few years back when we changed it to that.
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #2065  
    Larissa Karius is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    37,860
    Quote Originally Posted by -SP7- View Post
    From the Guardian just now.

    “Alexis Sánchez will not play for Arsenal at Bournemouth on Sunday – the forward has not travelled to the south coast – and the latest indication is that he has come to favour a move to Manchester United over Manchester City.”

    **** Arsenal if they let him go to united.
    Sounds like he is chasing the money.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #2066  
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,973
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyMc9 View Post
    he's injured anyway
    Can you link me this fact?
    “Do. Or do not. There is no try.”
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #2067  
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,449
    Quote Originally Posted by AussieT View Post
    Can you link me this fact?
    james pearce said it , if you read back a bit you will see it
    Eagle Face Moron
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #2068  
    lonewolf kal is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    72,061
    Quote Originally Posted by MeanMrMustard View Post
    Cue the outcry today:

    - We lose to City and its because we sold Coutinho....the club & Klopp have no plan & Top 4 is gone
    - Draw with City and we would have won if we had Coutinho...Klopp better get a replacement in fast or we won't make Top 4
    - Beat City and we are a better balanced team without Coutinho...Klopp knows exactly what he's doing and we will be stronger in the long run

    Of course none of the above scenarios are true or make any sense but you can expect the hysteria & fickleness to go into overdrive!
    think that sums up virtually any match day on here to a T.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #2069  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    25,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Larissa Karius View Post
    Sounds like he is chasing the money.
    It shouldn't be down to him though.

    Arsenal selling him to a top 6 club (who isn't City) is squeezing their chances of making the top 4.

    However, selling to Utd for £35m means they cover off the majority of the loss they'd suffer if they missed top 4 and he left for nothing.
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #2070  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    927
    United are getting Sanchez, we all now know that he's a money grabbing git
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •