The Football Thread - Season 2012/2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll agree to differ on this one, Joe.

but that would make liverpool a one man team and make suarez bigger than the club surely?

maybe losing suarez would not help in the short term, but long term 40 mil is a lot of investment for the long term. Man U let ronaldo go for 80mil and it helped them massively
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with that, is there?

I would happily take back RVP or Henry and be a one man team again.

yes there is a lot wrong with that. It means that said player can hold the team to ransom and the team cannot progress without them. A team like that is not a team at all - i.e thats what happened to arsenal.
 
but that would make liverpool a one man team and make suarez bigger than the club surely?

maybe losing suarez would not help in the short term, but long term 40 mil is a lot of investment for the long term. Man U let ronaldo go for 80mil and it helped them massively

Face facts, Suarez is the only truly world class player we have with a career ahead of him. Who would we replace him with? Where do we get someone better?
 
yes there is a lot wrong with that. It means that said player can hold the team to ransom and the team cannot progress without them. A team like that is not a team at all - i.e thats what happened to arsenal.


Yeah your right Joe, Arsenal are much better off with Giroud the team player, than one man team RVP.

Suarez is world class, Liverpool would be taking a backward step if they were to sell.
 
The Greek said:
Yeah your right Joe, Arsenal are much better off with Giroud the team player, than one man team RVP.

Suarez is world class, Liverpool would be taking a backward step if they were to sell.

We've scored more goals this season than we had at the same point last season.
 
Face facts, Suarez is the only truly world class player we have with a career ahead of him. Who would we replace him with? Where do we get someone better?

well, I don't think of it that way. We don't replace suarez with one football player better than him, instead we build a team that is better as a collective. 40 mil helps you do that.

Look at manchester united. Now before RVP came to them if you look at their team since they sold ronaldo it was a very good team rather than any one individual excellent player. Suarez is a better player than everyone at man united probably save for RVP. Look how successful they remained, even without RVP. Its because they build good teams, and deep teams, not because they seek the individuals. I bet when 80 mil came their way fergie didn't think twice and I bet when rooney was going awol if someone offered them 80 mil for him he'd have left
 
Last edited:
40mil to invest in players and in the club however they see fit will help the team more than 1 player does

I'd agree in theory that having the money to invest would be beneficial however at the moment you have a good player in Suarez. Looking at the last few years - it wouldn't stretch far and there's more than a good chance it will just get sprayed up the wall.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
well, I don't think of it that way. We don't replace suarez with one football player better than him, instead we build a team that is better as a collective. 40 mil helps you do that.

Look at manchester united. Now before RVP came to them if you look at their team since they sold ronaldo it was a very good team rather than any one individual excellent player. Suarez is a better player than everyone at man united probably save for RVP. Look how successful they remained, even without RVP. Its because they build good teams, and deep teams, not because they seek the individuals. I bet when 80 mil came their way fergie didn't think twice and I bet when rooney was going awol if someone offered them 80 mil for him he'd have left

Precisely. I'd take 3 players who can score you 10 goals a season over one 30 goal a season man. Relying on a single individual is all well and good when they can play but as soon as they are injured or over played and need a rest because of fatigue you're up the creek without them.
 
Precisely. I'd take 3 players who can score you 10 goals a season over one 30 goal a season man. Relying on a single individual is all well and good when they can play but as soon as they are injured or over played and need a rest because of fatigue you're up the creek without them.

bingo!
 
Selling Suarez would be a mistake imho. Yes, the incoming money could, in theory, be reinvested into multiple players who score goals, but you need a cutting edge, someone that can be relied upon for goals when the team is not scoring, and Suarez is becoming that. Sturridge may become that if he settles.

And like him or loathe him, he is a special player in not just the goals he scores, but also in his method of play, he does the unexpected, yet at the same time he is a team player. He also has a will to win, and never give up, that is an example to the other players, and maybe that rather than the goals, would be the biggest loss.

I think Liverpool is now being run under sensible financial principles. :) That may not be what the majority of mindless fans want to hear during transfer windows, but we came very very close to going out of business because of mismanagement, and I don't want to get anywhere close to that again. If that means we will only buy expensive when we are successful, then so be it. :shrug:

I have faith. :) (But only in Liverpool, non of that God/Religion stuff ;) ) :lol:
 
I'd agree in theory that having the money to invest would be beneficial however at the moment you have a good player in Suarez. Looking at the last few years - it wouldn't stretch far and there's more than a good chance it will just get sprayed up the wall.

This.
 
Selling Suarez would be a mistake imho. Yes, the incoming money could, in theory, be reinvested into multiple players who score goals, but you need a cutting edge, someone that can be relied upon for goals when the team is not scoring, and Suarez is becoming that. Sturridge may become that if he settles.

And like him or loathe him, he is a special player in not just the goals he scores, but also in his method of play, he does the unexpected, yet at the same time he is a team player. He also has a will to win, and never give up, that is an example to the other players, and maybe that rather than the goals, would be the biggest loss.

I think Liverpool is now being run under sensible financial principles. :) That may not be what the majority of mindless fans want to hear during transfer windows, but we came very very close to going out of business because of mismanagement, and I don't want to get anywhere close to that again. If that means we will only buy expensive when we are successful, then so be it. :shrug:

I have faith. :) (But only in Liverpool, non of that God/Religion stuff ;) ) :lol:

This too.
 
Also if you have aspirations to climb the league you only sell your best players if they ask to leave.
 
small club mentality that is, off loading your best player at the first decent offer get. You should be looking to off load the dead wood and re-invest in better players to compliment each other.
 
small club mentality that is, off loading your best player at the first decent offer get. You should be looking to off load the dead wood and re-invest in better players to compliment each other.

under that rationale man u has a small club mentality for selling ronaldo :shrug:
 
under that rationale man u has a small club mentality for selling ronaldo :shrug:

difference is, we still carried on winning without him and still carried on building the team with players that compliment each other :shrug:
 
difference is, we still carried on winning without him and still carried on building the team with players that compliment each other :shrug:

doesn't matter, according to your definition thats what you were. Ultimately it means your definition is wrong.

Its only a small team mentality if you don't properly invest the money to continue to be successful. Thats exactly what I was saying - use the money to make the club more successful.
 
Oh, Tommy. H&G put millions in debt on the club and still didn't back Rafa. FSG removed the debt and have adopted a more sensible book balancing plan this season.

Still didn't back Rafa......From a 2009 article "Rafa Benitez's £229m spending spree: The 76 players signed during the Liverpool manager's reign"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...d-Liverpool-managers-reign.html#ixzz2IpNdQtHH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

If giving your manager £229m isn't backing him, then what is?

And with regards to FSG, all I've heard from Kopites is that the board aren't backing Brenton with cash and were up in arms at not getting Dempsey when they couldn't 'scrape together' another £2m.

From a list of the top spenders in Premier League since the start of the transfer window in 2003:

1 – Chelsea – Total spend: £861,498,000

2 – Manchester City - £662,521,200

3 – Liverpool, £533,683,040

Biggest spend: £85,822,000 (2010/11)

Most expensive deal: Andy Carroll, £35 million (2010/11)

Worst deal: Andy Carroll, £35 million (2010/11)

Average yearly spend: £48,516,640

Liverpool spent fairly consistently across the first part of the last decade as Rafa Benitez moulded a squad capable of winning the Champions League – that’s not to say he didn’t sign a few turkeys in his time - however after the Spaniard’s departure the club’s spending became unstable, leading to a few embarrassing gaffes.

The most obvious coming in 2011 as Andy Carroll, Jordan Henderson and Stewart Downing joined the club as part of the moneyball philosophy with Damien Comolli and Kenny Dalglish overseeing everything. That fact that all three have failed despite costing a combined £73 million tells its own story.
 
Last edited:
I bet Suarez wants to leave too but his Engleeesh is none too clever and doesn't know how to ask for a transfer.

I'm going to ignore.

Still didn't back Rafa......From a 2009 article "Rafa Benitez's £229m spending spree: The 76 players signed during the Liverpool manager's reign"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...d-Liverpool-managers-reign.html#ixzz2IpNdQtHH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

If giving your manager £229m isn't backing him, then what is?

And with regards to FSG, all I've heard from Kopites is that the board aren't backing Brenton with cash and were up in arms at not getting Dempsey when they couldn't 'scrape together' another £2m.

From a list of the top spenders in Premier League since the start of the transfer window in 2003:

1 – Chelsea – Total spend: £861,498,000

2 – Manchester City - £662,521,200

3 – Liverpool, £533,683,040

Biggest spend: £85,822,000 (2010/11)

Most expensive deal: Andy Carroll, £35 million (2010/11)

Worst deal: Andy Carroll, £35 million (2010/11)

Average yearly spend: £48,516,640

Liverpool spent fairly consistently across the first part of the last decade as Rafa Benitez moulded a squad capable of winning the Champions League – that’s not to say he didn’t sign a few turkeys in his time - however after the Spaniard’s departure the club’s spending became unstable, leading to a few embarrassing gaffes.

The most obvious coming in 2011 as Andy Carroll, Jordan Henderson and Stewart Downing joined the club as part of the moneyball philosophy with Damien Comolli and Kenny Dalglish overseeing everything. That fact that all three have failed despite costing a combined £73 million tells its own story.

Good grief, that is uninformed twaddle based on a DM article?? Do you have any idea what net spend means?

Oh, and you may be missing current events a little but both Downing (to a lesser extent) and Hendo are now justifying their transfers. As for Carroll, well, of course he was over priced but, as I'm sick to the back teeth of repeating, his fee was directly linked to Torres. If Torres had cost Chelsea 30m then Carroll would have cost 15m. Yes, he was too expensive and not the correct fit, but that happens.
 
Do you have any idea what net spend means?

Here we go.....NET spend pops up when it's proven that Liverpool managers have been backed contrary to what the Cult believe..............

The figures below I posted weren't taken from a DM article, by the way.

I'm sorry I even replied as it's like :bang:
 
Last edited:
Here we go.....NET spend pops up when it's proven that Liverpool managers have been backed contrary to what the Cult believe..............

The figures below I posted weren't taken from a DM article, by the way.

I'm sorry I even replied as it's like :bang:

Bye then.
 
Even going by net spend, Liverpool are the 3rd biggest spenders after Chelsea and City (no surprise there).

1 Chelsea £524,500,000
2 Manchester City £434,820,000
3 Liverpool £168,800,000
4 Manchester United £123,400,000
5 Aston Villa £106,475,000
6 Tottenham £100,850,000
7 Stoke City £73,075,000
8 Sunderland £71,180,000
9 QPR £58,700,000
10 West Ham £35,655,000
11 West Bromwich Albion £29,495,000
12 Fulham £17,085,000
15 Newcastle £11,600,000
14 Norwich City £10,940,000
15 Everton £5,634,500
16 Swansea £2,145,000
17 Wigan -£135,000
18 Southampton -£3,185,000
19 Reading -£7,530,000
20 Arsenal -£23,570,000

2003-2012/13
 
Last edited:
Bye then.

What's the matter, don't like any reasonable discussion taking place regards your team?

And NO, it's gotta be NET NET spend........or whatever else makes them look like they are a poor relation to Chelsea, Man U, City etc etc, when the clear facts say something totally different. I see the most successful team in the Premiership is only 4th for NET spend.
 
Last edited:
Player Expenditure of current Premier League Teams. Period 1992-2013

Team - Total Purchased - Total Sold - Total Nett Spend - Nett Spend Per Season


Chelsea-£841,440,000-£248,475,000-£592,965,000-£28,236,429

Man City-£703,180,000-£204,553,000-£498,627,000-£23,744,143

Liverpool-£592,505,000-£333,970,000-£258,535,000-£12,311,190

Man United-£531,150,000-£317,740,000-£213,410,000-£10,162,381

Tottenham-£472,050,000-£306,017,500-£166,032,500-£7,906,310

Aston Villa-£328,890,000-£179,075,000-£149,815,000-£7,134,048

Newcastle-£369,145,000-£261,025,000-£108,120,000-£5,148,571

Sunderland-£230,015,000-£126,030,000-£103,985,000-£4,951,667

Fulham-£146,131,000-£74,595,000 -£71,536,000-£3,406,476

Everton-£240,245,500-£180,954,000-£59,291,500-£2,823,405

QPR-£76,547,500-£22,404,000-£54,143,500-£2,578,262

Stoke City-£79,615,000-£26,130,000-£53,485,000-£2,546,905

WBA-£108,780,000-£69,667,501-£39,112,499-£1,862,500

West Ham-£215,732,000-£192,282,000-£23,450,000-£1,116,667

Arsenal-£385,090,000-£363,174,000-£21,916,000-£1,043,619

Southampton-£106,087,500-£92,995,000-£13,092,500-£623,452

Wigan-£99,265,000-£92,142,500-£7,122,500-£339,167

Swansea City-£30,552,500-£29,860,000-£692,500-£32,976

Reading-£31,198,000-£33,770,000-£2,572,000-£122,476

Norwich City-£40,770,000-£47,395,000-£6,625,000-£315,476
 
Last edited:
Arsenal in absolutely scintillating form. 3 assists and a goal for Podolski, what a signing he is!

Potts looks to be seriously hurt, hope he's ok. If he can't continue then West Ham will be down to 10 men.
 
That ballboys hilarious
 
What a ridiculous decision
 
Kicked the ball, ballboy milked it
 
Arsenal going well - I could do with Walcott getting a few though.
 
Just goes to show how the divers etc are influencing the kids
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top