Jurgen Norbert Klopp

[Vincent Vega]

[Vincent Vega]

 

[Aventus]

3 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

Im pretty sure he knew that when he signed up. If he was that bothered about having bucketfuls of money to spend, he could have gone to united when approached, gone to Bayern or even PSG.

Surely there's a limit to his patience though. 

 

He came here because we're a big club, and we had the potential to achieve great things, obviously we'll never compete financially with Chelsea and City, we know that, he knows that, it was part of the deal. 

The issue isn't Chelsea and City, it's that we're being outspent by half of the league, while constantly releasing reports about record profits, new sponsorships and being something like the 6th richest club in the world.

 

He might like a challenge and prefer to be the underdog, but he also wants to win trophies, otherwise he'd still be at Mainz. He needs a reasonable amount of backing to make that happen though. If City are throwing 64m on a defender surely we can push to 20m and still remain competitive.

 

But we aren't doing that, and thats why I think Jurgen will get fed up eventually. 

[3 Stacks]

If he didn't like the circumstances at Liverpool, he wouldn't have extended his contract twice. 

[3 Stacks]

The truth is it's kind of a complicated situation. He's very much in agreement and fine with the club's business model, he's said that multiple times. He's also entitled to feel anger about the centre back situation this winter. But at a certain point, as long as he's not being jerked around and being denied players all the time, we have to stop feeling sorry for the guy. He's made the choice to be here and stay here. Now he needs to figure it out and keep winning.

[ManéMan]

I think he's become too obsessed with moaning about the schedule and fatigue that he's setting the team to be too pragmatic in its approach to compensate for it. The injuries have played a part in reinforcing that no doubt, but clearly it doesn't suit the players to play that way an never has under Klopp. 

[Brownie]

Love the guy, always will, no matter what happens.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Love him. Big ears and the title and for a period sublime football. It's a bad season, city had one last year. Injuries and fatigue with the effect its had mentally alongside owners who don't like to invest and throw in a pandemic with lockdowns its a shit storm. 

 

I'd like changes tactically batten down the hatches.

[Bad Red Bull]

He will be the one most frustrated with our current situation and let's not forget that he might be Jurgen Klopp but he's also human so he will definitely make mistakes. But I am not gonna hold him against it. For 3 seasons, I absolutely loved seeing us play. This season is an anamoly, top 4 or not, I'll always respect and support him.

[Denny Crane]

Klopp isn't losing because he is "moaning" Klopp is "moaning" because he is losing. The man don't like losing nothing wrong with that. Don't fall for the narrative that is being set that Klopp is rattled or his comments in the media or impacting on the players. He's done too much at the club to be thrown under the bus.

[Stickman]

Rival fans and certain elements of the media have been waiting a few years to put the boot in on one of the greatest teams this country has seen and at the minute they’re revelling in it 

It doesn’t need us to do the same ...

Sometimes in sport great teams and individuals go off the boil or other factors conspire against them but coming back and proving them all wrong makes it so much more special...

[Aventus]

9 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

If he didn't like the circumstances at Liverpool, he wouldn't have extended his contract twice. 

I want him to like the circumstances enough to extend his contract again. 

[dockers_strike]

10 hours ago, Aventus said:

Surely there's a limit to his patience though. 

 

He came here because we're a big club, and we had the potential to achieve great things, obviously we'll never compete financially with Chelsea and City, we know that, he knows that, it was part of the deal. 

The issue isn't Chelsea and City, it's that we're being outspent by half of the league, while constantly releasing reports about record profits, new sponsorships and being something like the 6th richest club in the world.

 

He might like a challenge and prefer to be the underdog, but he also wants to win trophies, otherwise he'd still be at Mainz. He needs a reasonable amount of backing to make that happen though. If City are throwing 64m on a defender surely we can push to 20m and still remain competitive.

 

But we aren't doing that, and thats why I think Jurgen will get fed up eventually. 

We're going to end up spending £40m+ for Jota. The club had been tracking Kabak who Schalke wanted over £20m for. If Kabak shows promise to the end of the season that's clocking on for £60m accounted for on 2 players. How much did Thiago cost, £20m? So that's getting on for £80m spent.

 

I think this 'we're getting outspent'  by virtually all the other teams doesnt stand up to scrutiny if Im honest.

[KevieG]

10 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

We're going to end up spending £40m+ for Jota. The club had been tracking Kabak who Schalke wanted over £20m for. If Kabak shows promise to the end of the season that's clocking on for £60m accounted for on 2 players. How much did Thiago cost, £20m? So that's getting on for £80m spent.

 

I think this 'we're getting outspent'  by virtually all the other teams doesnt stand up to scrutiny if Im honest.

Without getting into a tit for tat, we sold Lovren and Brewster to make up a large chunk of those signings, as well as shifting Lallana off the books.

 

The season before we made 30 million profit in the transfer window by offloading Ings. Kent and Mingolet.

 

Wages are obviously a different matter but its fairly clear to see that we are being outspent on transfers, but due to clever wheeling and dealing we've been more than fine. Unfortunately thats now catching up with us.

[El Rojo]

Another factor that doesn’t get mentioned too much in terms of our quick decline is the emotional hangover from breaking the 30 year wait. This was always going to create a few mentality issues, ranging from complacency to mental exhaustion to not being fully tuned into the job.

 

Not out of the realms of possibility that we’ll show up much better in Europe - it’s always been relatively effortless to Klopp. 
 

We need a top four spot and a few players moved on in the summer. Maybe this will be our likely Sancho or Haaland window. 

[Aventus]

12 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

We're going to end up spending £40m+ for Jota. The club had been tracking Kabak who Schalke wanted over £20m for. If Kabak shows promise to the end of the season that's clocking on for £60m accounted for on 2 players. How much did Thiago cost, £20m? So that's getting on for £80m spent.

 

I think this 'we're getting outspent'  by virtually all the other teams doesnt stand up to scrutiny if Im honest.

Jota is getting paid off in installments, by the time he's fully paid for, all of the other teams will have continued spending too, and the initial payment was waived by having Hoever going the other way. 

 

Thiago was paid for by selling brewster. 

 

Kabak is on loan and hasn't kicked a ball for us yet, we shouldn't be adding his potential transfer fee to FSGs spending. 

 

So FSG have spent fuck all so far. 

 

Plenty to scrutinise there. 

[dockers_strike]

59 minutes ago, Aventus said:

Jota is getting paid off in installments, by the time he's fully paid for, all of the other teams will have continued spending too, and the initial payment was waived by having Hoever going the other way. 

 

Thiago was paid for by selling brewster. 

 

Kabak is on loan and hasn't kicked a ball for us yet, we shouldn't be adding his potential transfer fee to FSGs spending. 

 

So FSG have spent fuck all so far. 

 

Plenty to scrutinise there. 

It doesnt matter whether Jota is paid by installments. The transfer is £40m! So you trying to say because we've been clever enough to negotiate a small up front payment and spread the rest while others have paid £20m- £30m, whatever, is them outspending us here?

 

I keep reading this shit, player x was sold to buy player y. Player y was surplus to requirements and was miles off the first team yet the club is pilloried, again, for getting £25m for him and spending that on another.

 

It's just lunacy the way some people go on about transfers.

[Aventus]

3 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

It doesnt matter whether Jota is paid by installments. The transfer is £40m! So you trying to say because we've been clever enough to negotiate a small up front payment and spread the rest while others have paid £20m- £30m, whatever, is them outspending us here?

 

I keep reading this shit, player x was sold to buy player y. Player y was surplus to requirements and was miles off the first team yet the club is pilloried, again, for getting £25m for him and spending that on another.

 

It's just lunacy the way some people go on about transfers.

Of course it makes a difference, If we are spreading it over something like 5 years, so 8m a year it doesn't sound like we're exactly breaking the bank, what good is it being clever with the Jota deal, but then not using the money they've saved on another player we sorely need? 

 

And the point being made is that FSG don't want to invest their own money, and seemingly don't even invest the money we are making through TV and sponsors. They are only spending the money we are making through transfers. That's a reasonable criticism, how can you think that is lunacy? 

[VladimirIlyich]

9 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

It doesnt matter whether Jota is paid by installments. The transfer is £40m! So you trying to say because we've been clever enough to negotiate a small up front payment and spread the rest while others have paid £20m- £30m, whatever, is them outspending us here?

 

I keep reading this shit, player x was sold to buy player y. Player y was surplus to requirements and was miles off the first team yet the club is pilloried, again, for getting £25m for him and spending that on another.

 

It's just lunacy the way some people go on about transfers.

I think you are trying to defend the indefensible here. I've defended the owners myself and under their ownership we have done some absolutely stonking deals,especially under Klopp. It comes to a bit of a head when the likes of Sheffield United have a higher netspend than the current English and World Club Champions. There is being frugal and there is also just being tight. FSG have been really tight when they needed to strengthen considerably to maintain being owners of the English champions. They've made a massive mistake and they may never recover any good will from some of the fans. 

[Mark M]

9 hours ago, Aventus said:

Of course it makes a difference, If we are spreading it over something like 5 years, so 8m a year it doesn't sound like we're exactly breaking the bank, what good is it being clever with the Jota deal, but then not using the money they've saved on another player we sorely need? 

 

And the point being made is that FSG don't want to invest their own money, and seemingly don't even invest the money we are making through TV and sponsors. They are only spending the money we are making through transfers. That's a reasonable criticism, how can you think that is lunacy? 

Most clubs as far as I’m aware with larger transfer fees don’t ever pay upfront there’s always an element of spreading it over the player’s contract. 
We’ve still not been paid in full for Coutinho as far as I know.

 

[dockers_strike]

1 minute ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I think you are trying to defend the indefensible here. I've defended the owners myself and under their ownership we have done some absolutely stonking deals,especially under Klopp. It comes to a bit of a head when the likes of Sheffield United have a higher netspend than the current English and World Club Champions. There is being frugal and there is also just being tight. FSG have been really tight when they needed to strengthen considerably to maintain being owners of the English champions. They've made a massive mistake and they may never recover any good will from some of the fans. 

I really dont think I am. Ive said time after time Im ok with LFC being self sufficient. I know Im on my own but I abhor the city \ chelsea \ PSG model.

 

I mean come on, my reply you quoted was to another posted who said Jota's transfer is paid in installments so the club wasnt spending £40m.

 

There's a couple of points here. Are we now saying no other club who 'out spends us' is ponying all their transfer fees upfront and it's a black mark against FSG or rather Edwards, for negotiating installment payments and this isnt good?

 

What difference does it make if £40m+ for Jota is paid in one hit or spread out? If it's paid in one hit, that was, effectively the £42m profit the club made before the pandemic.

 

Brewster was surplus and we got £25m for him. So what that that money paid for Thiago? It's basic budget management.

 

Werner fell through because chelsea offered him loads more than we did. Oh and Fwank promised him a title challenge.

 

People pull out the likes of Sheffield United and Villa as outspending us. Well yeah, they are spending from a lower base. Both clubs spent to try and make sure they stayed in the PL after promotion. Villa would have been sanctioned by the EFL if they hadnt got promotion that season. But it seems that's missed by many because they out spent us.

 

It's like swapping your car. If you are fortunate to change it every year, you only have to spend an extra 40 quid or so a month to make the change. If you go from a banger to a newer model, you end up spending 3 of 4 hundred a month extra.

[s(k)aturation]

21 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

I really dont think I am. Ive said time after time Im ok with LFC being self sufficient. I know Im on my own but I abhor the city \ chelsea \ PSG model.

 

I mean come on, my reply you quoted was to another posted who said Jota's transfer is paid in installments so the club wasnt spending £40m.

 

There's a couple of points here. Are we now saying no other club who 'out spends us' is ponying all their transfer fees upfront and it's a black mark against FSG or rather Edwards, for negotiating installment payments and this isnt good?

 

What difference does it make if £40m+ for Jota is paid in one hit or spread out? If it's paid in one hit, that was, effectively the £42m profit the club made before the pandemic.

 

Brewster was surplus and we got £25m for him. So what that that money paid for Thiago? It's basic budget management.

 

Werner fell through because chelsea offered him loads more than we did. Oh and Fwank promised him a title challenge.

 

People pull out the likes of Sheffield United and Villa as outspending us. Well yeah, they are spending from a lower base. Both clubs spent to try and make sure they stayed in the PL after promotion. Villa would have been sanctioned by the EFL if they hadnt got promotion that season. But it seems that's missed by many because they out spent us.

 

It's like swapping your car. If you are fortunate to change it every year, you only have to spend an extra 40 quid or so a month to make the change. If you go from a banger to a newer model, you end up spending 3 of 4 hundred a month extra.

 

Whatever your position, I don't think contrary ones are "shit" and "lunacy".

 

 

[dockers_strike]

10 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

Whatever your position, I don't think contrary ones are "shit" and "lunacy".

 

 

You think 'shit' and 'lunacy' are overtly strong descriptions on this forum compared to other stuff on here? Give your head a wobble.

 

Frankly, Im amazed you've made an issue out of general comments :

 

"I keep reading this shit, player x was sold to buy player y. Player y was surplus to requirements and was miles off the first team yet the club is pilloried, again, for getting £25m for him and spending that on another.

 

It's just lunacy the way some people go on about transfers."

[Aventus]

30 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

People pull out the likes of Sheffield United and Villa as outspending us. Well yeah, they are spending from a lower base. Both clubs spent to try and make sure they stayed in the PL after promotion. Villa would have been sanctioned by the EFL if they hadnt got promotion that season. But it seems that's missed by many because they out spent us.

 

It's like swapping your car. If you are fortunate to change it every year, you only have to spend an extra 40 quid or so a month to make the change. If you go from a banger to a newer model, you end up spending 3 of 4 hundred a month extra.

So Sheffield United and villa can find the funds to try to stay in the Prem, but we can't find the funds to try and win trophies? Despite having much higher revenue in pretty much every single area. 

 

I don't have an issue with us being self sufficient, I have an issue with us not spending money that the club is making as profit. If Nike/sky/BT/Amazon/Expedia/standard chartered/nivea/AXA/Quorn/Lavazza and about 20 others are all throwing money at us I would like to see some of that going back onto the pitch. 

 

Using your car analogy, we've got a flat tyre on our ferrari, and we're being too stubborn to repair it. Meanwhile we're being overtaken by scruffs in their Honda Civics. 

[dockers_strike]

Villa sold their ground to their owner to cover their excess spending for promotion. They would have been sanctioned by the EFL if they hadnt got promoted. They up front gambled their PL tv income the following season to ensure they stayed in the PL. They succeeded in avoiding relegation with virtually the last kick of last season.

 

Where are Sheffield United now, anchored to the bottom of the PL if memory serves me right? Oh and we got £25m off them for a player who wasnt going to break into our first team.