Yes Kenny Dalglish and Liverpool are done. MOD POST #425 *ALL READ*

WTF?

Milk, Mars Bars & Penny Sweets....in a football thread?

This is all leaving me with a sour taste in my mouth!

Cyrus wrote: »

sigh

of course its the reality of the situation, if you sell £100m worth of footballers and buy £150m your team is only £50m worth of talent better off, not £150m.

How about this
If someone sold £150m worth of players and replaced that with £100m would you be castigating the manager who bought £100m worth of players yet his team had disimproved

The net spend doesn't take into account other finacial factors which will also change the figure. Finishing league position? Chapions League qualification?

If my manager sold £150m and bought £100m players to replace them, and as a result finishes two places further down the league and have your rivals finish above you, I know it wouldn't be pride I'd be feeling for the £50m saved.

Do you value good book-keeping over success?

counterlock wrote: »

You were justifying the net spend by saying that city almost blew the league and chelsea could be in the europa league next year. City now have more depth than anyone else imho and are league champions with CL football to look forward to next year, Chelsea have won the FA cup and are playing in the biggest club game in the world next saturday but you posing the question who will United or Chelsea sell for big money. Why would either of these teams sell their best players unless they wanted to leave?

My point is that these teams achievement at least show some onfield returns in their investment. So Liverpool have turned profit from sales since 08, well done - but this was due more to the ownership's policy than good management.

Wrong, I was justifying net spend and success in a bubble, in comparison to competitors. Net spend is absolutely relevant in a grand picture. Sure they have had success for the spend, City's cost them 190 mil last year alone, Chelsea have spent 140 mil in 18 months (what is the investment figure made by these clubs after sales?). Hardly anything to speak of re sales. How many times does it have to said exactly?.

Liverpool spent and sold, sold alot, what is so difficult to understand about the notion that good players have been sold while no top players have left others?. It is not comparable. Yes, City won the league, Chelsea might win a cup, they might win nothing and effectively had a worse season than LFC having spent vast sums more.

And im not wearing the profit on players circa summer 08 to jan 11 as a badge of honour, im using it to show as a period where the team was entirely neglected while others moved forward. Isolating the seasons makes no sense, if it did, all the money spent the season before it would mean nothing, thats not how a business works.

The point is, that if you invest less than your competitors over a period of time you will fall behind. LFC fell behind by a long way over 3 years where it spent nothing, not a sausage, you cant invest in a Sports team in one year and make up for 3 years of neglect. Especially when your competitors have done everything but neglected their teams for that entire period.

I dont know how to make this any simpler in explanation. Chelsea and City are reaping rewards for years of sustained investment, aggressive spending over several windows. A team who was behind them to begin with and then spend agressively (bit still less than they have) over 2 windows would need miracles to be even close to a par with them. Get it?

daithijjj wrote: »

Wrong, I was justifying net spend and success in a bubble, in comparison to competitors. Net spend is absolutely relevant in a grand picture. Sure they have had success for the spend, City's cost them 190 mil last year alone, Chelsea have spent 140 mil in 18 months (what is the investment figure made by these clubs after sales?). Hardly anything to speak of re sales. How many times does it have to said exactly?.

A team who was behind them to begin with and then spend agressively (bit still less than they have) over 2 windows would need miracles to be even close to a par with them. Get it?

1. Of the three clubs discussed, who are the only ones without the Premiership Trophy?

2. That is the first time I have heard the possibility that Liverpool were behind City to begin with. The abuse I got on here for suggesting Liverpool werent a top 4 team this year. Hypocracy is hilarious.

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

2. That is the first time I have heard the possibility that Liverpool were behind City to begin with. The abuse I got on here for suggesting Liverpool werent a top 4 team this year. Hypocracy is hilarious.

To begin with...at the beginning

City finished last season 3rd, liverpool were 6th

therefore behind them

Cyrus wrote: »

To begin with...at the beginning

City finished last season 3rd, liverpool were 6th

therefore behind them

Ah! But as I was educated on here, you take the 3 places difference, multiply it by History and you get City are so far behind Liverpool, Liverpool are just a dot to them.

I'm sure given 12 months, we will all be able to discuss the Dalglish thing sensibly, but as for now forget it. The net spend issue will also be resolved as City will bring they're net spend back and therefore it won't be applicable anymore.

All you have to do is look over the replacements that are being touted. Rodgers, Lambert, Martinez, Rafa...

After Rafa was sacked you were expecting, Mourinho, Hiddink, Ancelloti etc. Wether or not they were realistic wasn't the point. That was who you expected. A top class manager. You have now gone from that to Promotion winning managers? Is that hinting at things to come?

How the mighty have fallen.

Cyrus wrote: »

Unless i havent noticed liverpool havent appointed a new manager yet

I was talking of course in terms of fans expectation. Unless I hadn't noticed, you appointed Hodgson over the aforementioned candidates too.

Helix wrote: »

perhaps this one better reflects it (i do love an analogy)...

you've got a mars bar, and i want it. so i offer you €1.75 for it, because the shop is all out of mars bars and i have to pay a premium for yours.

you take the €1.75 you've just gotten for the mars bar and decide you want to add the change in your pocket (conveniently 25c) to it and buy 200 penny sweets. you go into the shop, and say "shopkeep good sir, i would like to purchase €2.00 worth of penny sweets please"

so the shopkeep takes your money and goes about his business

alas, disaster!

you check the bag when you've left the shop and you realise he's only given you one hundred penny sweets. do you say "ah it's ok, sure the mars bar only cost me 75c to begin with, and i added another 25c, so even though i paid €2 and only got €1 worth of penny sweets, it's alright because my net expenditure was €0 after selling the mars bar"?

do you fcuk

I'm hungry.

counterlock wrote: »

Its an irrelevant stat used by Liverpool fans to justify bad signings under Dalglish. But feel free if you can use it to make yourself feel better.

The fact remains that Chelsea's investment in the last 5 years has led them to:
1 league title
4 FA cups
1 league cup
2 x champions league finals

Do you honestly believe that they do not make any additional money out of this in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorship, tv revenue?

It wasnt Chelsea's investment over the last 5 years, it was the investment over the last 5 years plus probably the 3 or 4 or 5 years previous to that, so 8 or 9 or 10 years investment.

You will never get it, im done talking about it.

As regards overall outlay, everyone started last summer under current active FFPR so from then on, there will be rolling 3 year periods where net spend (and not gross spend) will determine whether UEFA declare whether or not you receive or do not receive sanctions. What those sanctions amount to is anyones guess right now, it they dont stick then maybe LFC might get the next sheik who wants a plaything. LFC owners bought the club on the back of it sticking and having teeth, if it doesnt they will be off.

Helix wrote: »

perhaps this one better reflects it (i do love an analogy)...

you've got a mars bar, and i want it. so i offer you €1.75 for it, because the shop is all out of mars bars and i have to pay a premium for yours.

you take the €1.75 you've just gotten for the mars bar and decide you want to add the change in your pocket (conveniently 25c) to it and buy 200 penny sweets. you go into the shop, and say "shopkeep good sir, i would like to purchase €2.00 worth of penny sweets please"

so the shopkeep takes your money and goes about his business

alas, disaster!

you check the bag when you've left the shop and you realise he's only given you one hundred penny sweets. do you say "ah it's ok, sure the mars bar only cost me 75c to begin with, and i added another 25c, so even though i paid €2 and only got €1 worth of penny sweets, it's alright because my net expenditure was €0 after selling the mars bar"?

do you fcuk

Of course your pissed off, you bought 200 sweets but you were only given 100, you were robbed, your point makes no sense though, it's like suggesting Kenny bought 3 players of we'll say spurs but only two players showed up, I doubt Kenny would have said "**** it sure, we are up money, forget about it"

counterlock wrote: »

I don't think anyone is disputing this, nor has it been ignored and the reslts for Chelsea and City are being shown over the last 10 years and this year respectively.

So your issue is with the ownership and the amount they have invested? I'd say 50 million plus whatever is sold is a damn fine amount to put together a team that already had quite a lot of talent in it. You're more familiar with Benitez's signings than I am, so I'll leave it to you imagination to work out what he could have done with that amount.

There is a massive difference between net spend on players and net investment. Net investment is only as valuable as the return you get on it - ie. if you exited the market what would the return on your assets be?
Net spend on players is entirely dictated by the market. ie. you can spend 35 million on Caroll and call him "the -15million man" as Kenny did. Alternatively you can do some scouting and sign Aguero and call him the -12million man.

If you take wages into account, I think you will find their investment has been very small indeed.

Helix wrote: »

jesus this is the worst argument ever

how much did kenny pay for footballers? were the footballers worth the money?

that's all that matters

was carroll worth 35m?
was downing worth 16m?
etc

thats one discussion,

what im talking about, as well you know, is the misguided argument that dalglish spent a fortune and failed, he also sold a fooken fortune, which in the main was our best player

Cyrus wrote: »

thats one discussion,

what im talking about, as well you know, is the misguided argument that dalglish spent a fortune and failed, he also sold a fooken fortune, which in the main was our best player

With net spend, both the following statements are true:
Dalglish spent a fortune and failed.
Dalglish amassed transfer funds by selling assets, and thus reduced the loss to the club.

They are seperate issues and are both correct. In terms of the new FFP rules the clubs spending is in line with the amounts allowed to spend. This in no way changes the fact that the amount of money he actually spent was 100m+.

cambo2008 wrote: »

So you think he was successful in the transfer market??

in the short term no,

carroll was a gamble that hasnt come good yet, but he may, he is young
Ditto Henderson
Downing seemed like a good buy but he hasnt performed, the price paid reflected the fact that villa were reluctant sellers
Adam is a decent squad player