Jump to content
manwiththestick

Summer 2021 transfer thread.

Recommended Posts

Just now, Mook said:

The great Liverpool sides of the 70s & 80s always bought one or two first team players to add competition & in order to keep on winning. That's what people are referring to.

 

We didn't do that after we won the European Cup/league and last season the wheels came off to an extent. This is why people brought it up in 2019, 2020 & are bringing it up again now.

Fair enough. By that definition, I think we bought two starting quality players last summer, so that should qualify. The 2019 summer was indeed annoying in how inactive it was given our status at that time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Fair enough. By that definition, I think we bought two starting quality players last summer, so that should qualify. The 2019 summer was indeed annoying in how inactive it was given our status at that time.

 

 

We have one of the greatest managers in modern history but since he arrived his budget has been mid table. Its not acceptable, teams like Brighton, Villa, Leicester and even Spurs have outspent us

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Daisy said:

We have one of the greatest managers in modern history but since he arrived his budget has been mid table. Its not acceptable, teams like Brighton, Villa, Leicester and even Spurs have outspent us

Our budget, as measured by our wage bill (which is a FAR more important figure than the FM-driven obsession with transfer fees), was £326m last season..

 

Brighton - £103m

Villa - £109m

Leicester - £157m

Spurs - £181m

 

So no, I think it's pretty clear that "his budget has been mid-table" is not correct.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Our budget, as measured by our wage bill (which is a FAR more important figure than the FM-driven obsession with transfer fees), was £326m last season..

 

Brighton - £103m

Villa - £109m

Leicester - £157m

Spurs - £181m

 

So no, I think it's pretty clear that "his budget has been mid-table" is not correct.

 

Shouldn't that be displayed as percentage of income for fair comparison? 

 

If all the teams have similar wages to turnover then it's fair to judge based on transfer budget alone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Wahey!!!

 

 

My dads got mates from Newcastle and amongst random Lindisfarne tapes we had a video of Newcastles season when they won the old division 2 in 92/93. Lee Clark was boss for them that season. 

Until they brought in Batty and Asprilla in February, Clark played midfield alongside Rob Lee in most of their games in the 95/96 season. Until he was dropped for Batty Newcastle had 57points from 24 games. They only won 21 points in the final 14 games. 

Batty was a better player but Clark probably suited ther fast pace front-foot football 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Daisy said:

 

Shouldn't that be displayed as percentage of income for fair comparison? 

 

If all the teams have similar wages to turnover then it's fair to judge based on transfer budget alone 

I mean, you could, I guess? But then you can't say "it's a mid-table budget" or whatever.

If Brighton spend 70% of their turnover on wages, and Liverpool do the same, that doesn't meant that Klopp is having to operate on "a mid-table budget." It means he's operating on the budget of the 2nd- or 3rd-largest turnover in the league, which is what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Daisy said:

 

Shouldn't that be displayed as percentage of income for fair comparison? 

 

If all the teams have similar wages to turnover then it's fair to judge based on transfer budget alone 

This is from 2019/20 so slightly out of date, but you could argue a bit fairer as less money was loss from Covid so probably a more accurate reflection

 

ahvcphxzd4doykq1jari.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the majority of people moan about is not spending £150m every summer but looking 3 or 4 years in advance to sustain your success. Do it gradually rather than letting all your first team get old at once then you need a massive rebuild that then takes two or three years to sort or all the new players to settle. I'm fully on board with the club wanting to clear about all the players who contribute fuck all to the team. If that £60m for 4 nomarks buys us a player who is a first team regular then there's no issue.

 

If you've rebuilding the squad and introduced one or two new signings every window whilst phasing out the players you don't want or the ones on the decline you don't have to endure a couple of seasons of transition or rebuilding. 

 

Say for instance Liverpool had bought four or five players over the last six transfer windows barely anyone would kick off. I'm not even talking about buying Harry Kane or Sancho. Signings the level and price of Malen, Sanches, Botman, Doku, Aouar and  Gravenberch are what the club normally targets.

 

Lots of fans are worried or annoyed that the owners seem to be relaxed about everything and seem to have no urgency in maintaining the level we've worked do hard to achieve or moving up a notch.

 

People seem to believe that if you want the club to spend some money you are a spoilt twat who wants big £150m spending sprees every year. 

  • Upvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Doctor Troy said:

What the majority of people moan about is not spending £150m every summer but looking 3 or 4 years in advance to sustain your success. Do it gradually rather than letting all your first team get old at once then you need a massive rebuild that then takes two or three years to sort or all the new players to settle. I'm fully on board with the club wanting to clear about all the players who contribute fuck all to the team. If that £60m for 4 nomarks buys us a player who is a first team regular then there's no issue.

 

If you've rebuilding the squad and introduced one or two new signings every window whilst phasing out the players you don't want or the ones on the decline you don't have to endure a couple of seasons of transition or rebuilding. 

 

Say for instance Liverpool had bought four or five players over the last six transfer windows barely anyone would kick off. I'm not even talking about buying Harry Kane or Sancho. Signings the level and price of Malen, Sanches, Botman, Doku, Aouar and  Gravenberch are what the club normally targets.

 

Lots of fans are worried or annoyed that the owners seem to be relaxed about everything and seem to have no urgency in maintaining the level we've worked do hard to achieve or moving up a notch.

I think the plan pre covid would have been to start breaking up the team this year

Really think they would have been happy to let Salah or Mane go to fund a new rebuild but without Real/Barca being fucked they have to think again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

I think the plan pre covid would have been to start breaking up the team this year

Really think they would have been happy to let Salah or Mane go to fund a new rebuild but without Real/Barca being fucked they have to think again. 

Yes, I think this is exactly it.

 

I think the long-term plan was to cash in on one of the front 3 this summer and go for a big-money signing to replace him. Jota came last summer, then it would have been Salah out and Sancho in, for example, this summer, and then you could replace Firmino next summer.

 

However, COVID has destroyed all those plans. Our finances are much tighter than we would have budgeted for 2 years ago when all the groundwork was laid for all of this, and more importantly so are Real's and Barca's (the two teams we would have been counting on to give us £120m for Salah).

 

No idea how Edwards is going to figure out a way out of this problem. It won't be easy, that's for sure. On the one hand, you have Chelsea, United and City spending huge, and instead of us being able to do the same with the Salah money, we are pinching pennies after a £40m loss last season.

 

What I don't understand is how fans think that we are supposed to solve this problem. They all say "spend some money!" as if it were that simple. Liverpool don't have much money! If FSG all dip into their pockets and give them some the way Chelsea/City's owners have, then sure, they'd have some, but they don't operate that way. They never have, and if they did, we'd be another billionaire's plaything destroying the football ecosystem in the way those clubs are and no better than them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Ugh, this argument is SO tiresome.

 

It always comes down to this: there are two types of successful owners.

 

One, those who spend ill-gotten gains (oil money, usually) on buying up all the best players in the world. We all agree that these are unfair and against the spirit of the game, but it is what it is.

 

Two, those who work to develop the club's commercial power and then spend what the club makes. Maybe invest a bit more than that as the club appreciates, but mostly just work to develop good systems to buy better than your opponents do and reap the rewards.

 

Then, of course, there's a bunch of mediocre and bad owners who are on a spectrum from Hicks & Gillett (make as much money as the club can give me, don't care about the wins/losses) to sort of OK, but we won't discuss these as no one would want an owner like them.

 

We have this argument over and over. "Why don't FSG spend more?" but at the same time, the exact people who say that are also posting "it's a shame what Dubai is doing over at City, ruining the game and FFP with their billions they've made off oppressing slaves."

 

FSG are literally probably the best owners in the second category in the world. They've hired the best manager in the world, built the best recruitment department in the world, and we're actually managing to compete with City and United despite having a much smaller budget. I would suggest that if you would prefer owners in the first category who will sugar-daddy the club to trophies galore, that you don't understand the club at all, but honestly, I'm tired of it. Anyone is welcome to their opinion, but we have what we have, and that's why a pandemic affects our ability to spend more than it does for City or Chelsea or PSG.

Who else is in that second category?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Moo said:

Who else is in that second category?

Hmm.

 

I would actually say Leicester, Brighton, Brentford, and the RB clubs off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

 

There are a bunch more who are trying to be that kind of owner, but just not doing a great job of it. Like, they start to build a recruitment department, but then they don't listen to them and end up doing whatever their manager or his agent want instead, so it never really pans out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSG is a hedge fund and the stock market has been on a massive melt-up for ages now. They have shitloads of cash they're just not spending it on us. How come other clubs are splashing it, haven't they also faced the same challenges with the shithouse virus? No excuses, we should have had signings - maybe we still will - but no one will be ultra surprised if we don't add anyone else. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Iceman said:

FSG is a hedge fund and the stock market has been on a massive melt-up for ages now. They have shitloads of cash they're just not spending it on us. How come other clubs are splashing it, haven't they also faced the same challenges with the shithouse virus? No excuses, we should have had signings - maybe we still will - but no one will be ultra surprised if we don't add anyone else. 

To be fair they aren’t as yet. Only United and Villa have spent more than us so far I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

I don't know what it means, really. It's some vague phrase that people have started saying since we've started winning things.

It means that once you have a strong squad, you make one or two marquee signings every summer to keep things fresh rather than just flogging the same group of players to death season after season and relying on kids to make up the numbers.

 

It's not a new idea. Utd spent the entire 90s-00s doing it. Van Nistelrooy, Stam, Veron, Barthez, Cole, Van Persie etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, General Dryness said:

It means that once you have a strong squad, you make one or two marquee signings every summer to keep things fresh rather than just flogging the same group of players to death season after season and relying on kids to make up the numbers.

 

It's not a new idea. Utd spent the entire 90s-00s doing it. Van Nistelrooy, Stam, Veron, Barthez, Cole, Van Persie etc.

 

Fresh faces, new dimensions to our play, new interactions between players and something for the supporters to get excited about. The feel good factor. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iceman said:

FSG is a hedge fund and the stock market has been on a massive melt-up for ages now. They have shitloads of cash they're just not spending it on us. How come other clubs are splashing it, haven't they also faced the same challenges with the shithouse virus? No excuses, we should have had signings - maybe we still will - but no one will be ultra surprised if we don't add anyone else. 

Yeah but FSG don’t spend anything on the club and never have, it’s all the club’s earnings. We’ve known this for years.

So anyone expecting anything different is just indulging themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

My dads got mates from Newcastle and amongst random Lindisfarne tapes we had a video of Newcastles season when they won the old division 2 in 92/93. Lee Clark was boss for them that season. 

 

Lee Clark is OK by me. When I was still in high school he lived near some mates of mine and always used to come out and play football with us if he saw us playing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

Does anyone actually invest from a position of strength? People keep saying this as if it's some genius and common concept, yet I'm pretty sure clubs tend to invest more at the beginning of a manager's time or when they're shit and falling behind. 

 

 

I think they do. In the 90s and a bit later we would spend nearly as much as united in transfer fees but we would buy 4 or 5 average players like we were trying to build a team every window or at least thats how it felt thinking back. United just saw a weak spot in the team or a player moved on and they went an bought what they believed to be the best replacement for big money. Once you've built the top side its harder to improve but when that top player comes along who would improve you,  you buy him. We have loads of quiet transfer windows for me that should mean for examples sake if say Halaand is on the market we should be able to buy him without all the fans turning into bean counters and complete panic about the financial repercussions. We are Liverpool 19 times league champions, 6 times European cup winners we should be able to act like a Billy big bollocks in the market now and then because we don't go big or even medium most windows, the books dont need to be balanced at the end of every window, we can carry debt or profit into the next ones depending on the teams needs.

 

In my opinion we need a midfielder and possibly a forward if that means this window we spend more than we've earnt so be it, the next summer window we will undoubtedly sell one of our forwards and a few of our midfielders, the most important thing is the time in-between the windows the team needs to be competing for titles, our weaknesses need to be addressed so we can remain on top, everyone has different opinions on our weaknesses mine is way too many injury prone midfielders with the likes of Kieta and Ox who when given chances the rare times they ate fit don't take them.

 

FSG said the redbird investment meant we are were we should be if there was no pandemic it reset the losses, now the deal is out of mind we hear of the devastating effect of corona. 

 

I'm not even arsed, the window is still open, if it ends and we've just signed konate and some kids I'd say they haven't done enough this window but I'll get over it as said a million times Klopp is our superstar and FSGs golden Goose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, lifetime fan said:


We’ve won the big two and the league cup. 

 

I’d have liked to see us kick on after winning the big two, invest from a position of strength.

 

I’d like to continue winning trophies rather than just finishing top 4. 
 

But our owners wanted to spend as little as possible and are now leaking that wages are ‘spiralling out of control’ because they had to pay the incentive contracts they insist on. 

 

 


Well yes, everybody wants us to win trophies. Why would we be here otherwise?

 

The only summer we haven’t strengthened is after we won the CL but then went on to get 99 points and win the league.

 

I’d have liked a signing or two after we won the CL, but we didn’t so there is no point going on about it.

 

We signed 3 players last summer - one of which has been one has been regarded as the best in his position for the past 5/6 years.

 

I made this point on wages yesterday - we have some of the best players in the world in there positions and we’re winning the big trophies, do you not think we should be paying them accordingly?

 

Also, the club has a £120m deficit to cover at the moment but still has to pay those wages.


So what do you suggest they do? 
 

It’s very, very easy to look at certain points and make sweeping conclusions, but unfortunately money doesn’t work like that and a holistic view is needed. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Razoray said:

Until they brought in Batty and Asprilla in February, Clark played midfield alongside Rob Lee in most of their games in the 95/96 season. Until he was dropped for Batty Newcastle had 57points from 24 games. They only won 21 points in the final 14 games. 

Batty was a better player but Clark probably suited ther fast pace front-foot football 

Wayay 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chairman Meow said:

 

Lee Clark is OK by me. When I was still in high school he lived near some mates of mine and always used to come out and play football with us if he saw us playing. 

I liked him wearing a sad mackem bastards t-shirt when he played for Sunderland 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×