Diego Costa

[piscinin]

Not saying we should saddle ourselves with debt Ridsdale style, but i'm not having it that the owners have their sights set on the top 4 and if they do they're trying to chance it on the cheap.

 

Their ambitions are not sporting. They've never tried to hide that. Sporting success, if it comes, will be a by product.

[The Golden Eel]

Babb'sburstwotsit had this right a few weeks ago when explaining the owners putting their own money in. I will try and find the post. He was bang on

 

It's "nad". Like his ballsack, ballbag, scrotum, etc

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

There aren't two options. We could spend more without it being a "sudden burst of mad big spending".

 

It's almost as if the amount doesn't matter. If they name the amount, some would want 'a bit more'. If they'd named that amount first time, they want a bit more than that. Actually looking at what we need seems secondary. If not, what's the figure? How much should they borrow or how much of their own personal wealth, which they said wasn't part of the equation, should they give to the club? I mean, it was only the other day you were making arguments for not brining in too many players at once, so is it just a few top-level players you want? If so, how do we attract them?

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

They've spent the best part of £200m, £90m net, in the three years they've been here. It's your right to disagree with me saying that's a lot of money, but considering we've been out of the CL since before they got here, I'd say that level is remarkable. I'd be surprised if any club outside the CL or multi-billionaire owners have spent more. I'm almost certain we're the highest spending non-CL club other than multi-billionaire play things. Actually, I doubt there are many more than a handful of CL clubs who have spent more than us over that time. I personally think that's quite a lot.

66 million difference in there ins and outs. Though that dosent tell all the story when you add on the wage savings.

Then you have all the crap like tv money etc etc so I would be pretty surprised to find they have spent a awful lot mate.

If Suarez goes and they don't buy anyone then there well up.

[Pureblood]

They've spent the best part of £200m, £90m net, in the three years they've been here. It's your right to disagree with me saying that's a lot of money, but considering we've been out of the CL since before they got here, I'd say that level is remarkable. I'd be surprised if any club outside the CL or multi-billionaire owners have spent more. I'm almost certain we're the highest spending non-CL club other than multi-billionaire play things. Actually, I doubt there are many more than a handful of CL clubs who have spent more than us over that time. I personally think that's quite a lot.

 

As is often the case with you this is a very imbalanced point of view. "They've spent the best part of £200m", I mean does anyone fall for this? Almost all of it has come from player sales, slashing the wage bill and "generating more revenue" (i.e. ripping off fans). You make them look like they're trying to help us out of the goodness of their hearts. Mind blowing.

They got caught tapping him up, had to apologise and then naturally Fulham bumped the price up.

 

Just another little clusterfuck but it's better to gloss over these things and join the cult.

 

*tweets John Henry

 

Even so, we weren't talking about a vast inflation in the value of a relatively modestly priced player. The manager shouldn't have had his plans scuppered because of clumsy negotiating skills. Particularly a new and young manager under massive pressure. They fucked his ass big time.

 

There aren't two options. We could spend more without it being a "sudden burst of mad big spending".

 

Precisely.

 

Their ambitions are not sporting. They've never tried to hide that. Sporting success, if it comes, will be a by product.

 

I'm not sure I go along with that.

 

"We can compete with anyone. Come and pay more money for your tickets to see our wonderful team which can compete with anyone".

 

They're absolutely full of it.

[ngogswilly]

It's almost as if the amounts doesn't matter. If they name the amount, some would want 'a bit more'. If they'd named that amount first time, they want a bit more than that. Actually looking at what we need seems secondary. If not, what's the figure? How much should they borrow or how much of their own personal wealth, which they said wasn't part of the equation, should they give to the club? I mean, it was only the other day you were making arguments for not brining in too many players at once, so is it just a few top-level players you want? If so, how do we attract them?

 

I reckon if you asked most people they'd say we need 2 good players brought in. A good attacking midfielder/forward and a good centre half if Skrtel is definitely being shown the door which seems likely.

 

The cost is obviously the difficult part. How much would 2 such player's cost is hard to know. We could sign 2 world beaters for a few million if our scouts know what they're doing. Or we could sign 2 absolute fucking duds for 50 million.

 

At this point I don't know the answers. I just think I can see a clear repeat of last summer in that we need reinforcing.

Especially if we ship out the 3/4 players that seem rumored to be on their way.

 

And we may yet end up doing that and if we do then I think you'll find people won't be demanding too much more. At this point if money is put on the table and Rodger's and his scouts balls it up. It's on them. I think lessons have been learnt in terms of us fans looking at it now and realizing the money has to be spent better.

[Mathewbet1]

Hearing we are after Murial if this ones a no-goer. I'm a bit suspicious of these comments coming from him and Athletico. I think they want to be seen to be playing hard ball having lost a shed load of world class strikers in the last 4 years or so. We have offered to triple his wages by all accounts.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Hearing we are after Murial if this ones a no-goer. I'm a bit suspicious of these comments coming from him and Athletico. I think they want to be seen to be playing hard ball having lost a shed load of world class strikers in the last 4 years or so. We have offered to triple his wages by all accounts.

Last thing I seen said they arnt selling him and also him saying he dosent want to leave.

Although it might of been marca I seen it in.

[Coro]

so is it just a few top-level players you want? If so, how do we attract them?

 

sudden flashback to the summer of 2011

[Coro]

 

 

Even so, we weren't talking about a vast inflation in the value of a relatively modestly priced player. The manager shouldn't have had his plans scuppered because of clumsy negotiating skills. Particularly a new and young manager under massive pressure. They fucked his ass big time.

 

 

Agree with everything you've said in the post apart from calling Rodgers a manager. We've had a 'Head Coach' pretty much since H&G took over.

 

IMO

[Jairzinho]

It's almost as if the amount doesn't matter. If they name the amount, some would want 'a bit more'. If they'd named that amount first time, they want a bit more than that. Actually looking at what we need seems secondary. If not, what's the figure? How much should they borrow or how much of their own personal wealth, which they said wasn't part of the equation, should they give to the club? I mean, it was only the other day you were making arguments for not brining in too many players at once, so is it just a few top-level players you want? If so, how do we attract them?

 

By giving them lots of money, probably.

 

To be honest, I haven't really got a strong opinion either way on FSG. When the window ends that'll likely change.

 

My point was a more general one. If anyone criticises FSG then two things usually get pointed out. One, they saved the club. No doubt out of the goodness of their heart. Two, the notion that anyone who does have a problem with anything they do wants 47 sheikhs to bukkake billions everywhere. I think both points are wrong, and tedious.

 

Its not healthy either, as its quite divisive.

 

We're all on the same team, like.

[bossy]

I can see all the other points of view but I'm ok with us being patient. I'm quite optimistic with Rodgers actually and although I'd rather Suarez stayed, if he doesn't I'm too old in the tooth to get too annoyed. Sorry for the sanguine approach particularly to whoever thinks if you're not slagging the owners off your worshipping them. Our club will be here, providing we don't end up in massive debt, long after the modern game eats itself and foreign owners have fucked off.

[Jairzinho]

Indeed.

[dennis tooth]

You've heard the saying 'once bitten twice shy' ? Well that's me from last summer when people said the same thing, what followed was a fucking catastrophe that could and should have been avoided and condemned our season to failure before it started.

 

Forgive me for having zero faith in our owners.

 

So wait until its too late to comment before you comment?

[Innova]

When you lose over 20m within a year, you want to keep your wallet closed. That's what happened to Carroll and I don't blame the fsg. At least we are spending with some strategy in mind now rather than just buying all the English players by throwing ridiculous money at their clubs.

 

Moneyball definitely works out better than 'buy all the brits'.

 

Ill rather we end this window with Suarez in our team and maybe just another ~15m addition, then we try to pick a player from the bench like how we did with continho and sturridge. We can't afford to make any comical fuckups especially when we don't have the money to do so.

 

Slow progress but ill rather us screaming at fsg for barely spending than us screaming at them spending $40m on someone that turns out to be nothing more than another Carroll.

[dennis tooth]

They've spent the best part of £200m, £90m net, in the three years they've been here. It's your right to disagree with me saying that's a lot of money, but considering we've been out of the CL since before they got here, I'd say that level is remarkable. I'd be surprised if any club outside the CL or multi-billionaire owners have spent more. I'm almost certain we're the highest spending non-CL club other than multi-billionaire play things. Actually, I doubt there are many more than a handful of CL clubs who have spent more than us over that time. I personally think that's quite a lot.

 

Haha where? Show me.

[Tyler Durden]

When you lose over 20m within a year, you want to keep your wallet closed. That's what happened to Carroll and I don't blame the fsg. At least we are spending with some strategy in mind now rather than just buying all the English players by throwing ridiculous money at their clubs.

 

Moneyball definitely works out better than 'buy all the brits'.

 

Ill rather we end this window with Suarez in our team and maybe just another ~15m addition, then we try to pick a player from the bench like how we did with continho and sturridge. We can't afford to make any comical fuckups especially when we don't have the money to do so.

 

Slow progress but ill rather us screaming at fsg for barely spending than us screaming at them spending $40m on someone that turns out to be nothing more than another Carroll.

 

So don't ever buy anyone expensive incase it doesn't work out?

 

I'd rather us invest the money we supposedly have available seens we are supposedly making these £20+ million bids for players (even though everyone involved denies any bids).

 

At the end of the day there are far better things to invest your money in then a football club if your only concerned with the profit, they must have some at least remote ambition to make the club successful so stop fucking about and get our alleged targets in and sorted before the season begins and not have all that bollocks from last summer where we leave it until last minute squabbling over relative buttons then end up leaving ourselves short.

 

It's not prudent or savvy business sense to leave your manager and players under pressure because you won't/can't close the deals.

[Barrington Womble]

 

Haha where? Show me.

 

That number goes up every time he posts. I assume he counts all the near misses that we forgot to bid on.

 

Anyway, has he signed yet? It was done and dusted on Thursday wasn't it because James Pearce said so, even though athleti have since confirmed we've not bid? Just wait till a bid comes in for Suarez, they'll slap that bid in for costa and pretend they wanted him all along. No different to how they signed Suarez.

[Brownie]

Atletico Madrid.

 

Athletic Bilbao.

 

Grrrrrr.

[James Dean]

SUPPORTers eh?

[Dr. J]

Not very promising:

 

Speaking to AS at Madrid Barajas airport as the team returned from their pre-season tour of South America, Costa said: "As I've been in Argentina and Uruguay I've not heard anything about this.

 

"I'm happy here, if the club want me to be here, I'm going to be here.

 

"I think that the coach (Diego Simeone) counts on all of us, not just me. He knows how important it is to maintain the squad, the fans know it as well."

 

Price just went up 10 million with that.

[MLB]

I think we'll get him within a week.

 

As for the spending, I don't really see that we need to spend that much. We need maybe three players, and I'm quite happy for high-earning under-performing players to be shipped out. I'm not going to start giving the owners any stick until the window closes, and obviously only then if we haven't strengthened further.

[Major Tom]

Price just went up 10 million with that.

 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

As is often the case with you this is a very imbalanced point of view.

 

I gave the total spend - which is entirely relevant to the level of player we're getting for our money - and I gave net spend. That's not an unbalanced point of view. If anything, I should have gone even further and mentioned the losses year-on-year, the pay-offs of managers, the releases for new managers, and signing fees and bonuses.

 

What I don't appreciate is you having a little pop at me rather than actually discussing the subject. I'm making a concerted effort to engage with people over the subject and not dish out too much personal abuse (other than to utter mental cases). I gave it a go here.

 

"They've spent the best part of £200m", I mean does anyone fall for this?

 

What do you mean 'fall for it'? I gave a gross and a net for transfer spending. It's not propaganda, it's figures based on what reliable sources say we've paid. I laid it all out for Dennis, all sources with links to the Liverpool Echo. The reason I mention it is because it's what actually happened. I'm not having to ignore things to make my argument.

 

Almost all of it has come from player sales

 

No it doesn't. I've given the net figure, which is very likely to be much lower than it will be in a few weeks.

 

slashing the wage bill

 

You see, you want to have a pop at me but you can't even get the basics right. They've been here three years, and in that time the wage bill has gone from £121m, rose to £135m and then went to £119m (not including big payoffs for all the dross Comolli disposed of), so over there time, using the latest available data, the wage bill has dropped £2m. That £2m needs to accrue. To say it covers the net spend is ridiculous enough, let alone when we're talking about a club which lost £40m last year and they had to lend almost £50m, interest free.

 

We've gone from wages being 65% of turnover, to 73%, down to 70%. United are at just over 50% and they're in the CL. We need to get it down to a sensible level so we actually can accrue some money to spend. Even then, it'll have to happen when we're making a profit and not losing money, otherwise cutting the wage bill provides no funds at all. It certainly hasn't provided any funds to spend yet. That's just how numbers work, it's nothing to do with me painting the owners - who I don't care about, btw - as some sort of charity givers. It's just what has happened, whether your or me or Coro or Dennis like it or not.

 

and "generating more revenue" (i.e. ripping off fans). You make them look like they're trying to help us out of the goodness of their hearts. Mind blowing.

 

Nah, sorry. That's just you adding your own, totally incorrect narrative. I've never made out that they're here as some fluffy, benevolent benefactor. Actually, I've recently said the exact opposite. What I'm not going to do is wilfully ignore how much has been spend just so I can paint them in a certain light. I don't care about them at all, I care about getting an accurate view of what's going on.

 

Haha where? Show me.

 

Dennis, for goodness sake. I gave you a list, then linked you to the list later the same day. Of course, you didn't respond to any of the points because you

 

That number goes up every time he posts. I assume he counts all the near misses that we forgot to bid on.

 

Have you actually got anything to say at all? I mean, anything of worth at all. The numbers I've given are backed up by the Echo. They're all there, in the FSG are cunts thread. They're not my numbers. We'd spent around 86.5m net before this window, and so far we've spent about 3 or 4m over all.

[Barrington Womble]

Have you actually got anything to say at all? I mean' date=' anything of worth at all. The numbers I've given are backed up by the Echo. They're all there, in the FSG are cunts thread. They're not my numbers. We'd spent around 86.5m net before this window, and so far we've spent about 3 or 4m over all.[/quote']

 

Hahaha, you're a funny guy, you're like a walking advert for the echo, that paper has been a pile if shit for years and you treat it like the encyclopaedia Britannica.