Deadline Day: Bring Out The Transfer Gimp!

Leiva wrote: »

Is that like?..

Russian mafia moula
Wenger wonga
Manc borrowed bullion
Scouser schillings (thats all we have to spend)

Correct me if I'm wrong but have Liverpool not outspent City in the last two transfer windows?

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but have Liverpool not outspent City in the last two transfer windows?

You mean the two transfer windows during the 2011/12 season? Then the answer is no.

Weird one Zachary fryers has gone to standard liege and spurs have an option to buy after 2 years which is a very strange deal!

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

I knew this argument was coming up. I'm not taking about business case, net profit, blah blah blah. I'm simply stating money spent, from wherever you get it. You said you have NO money. If you indeed had NO money you wouldn't have been able to spend any.

& £50mil on a stadium their not even going to build :pac::pac::pac:

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

2012/13: Liverpool £25.5m / City £12m
2011/12: Liverpool £34.1m / City £75m
2010/11: Liverpool £97.1m / City £77m

Apologies, 10/11 you spent more, and 12/13 so far. Over the 3 seasons City have spent just £4.7m more than Liverpool. Hence I believe the 'we've got no money' argument is a little far fetched.

Just as well I never made that arguement then or tried to say Liverpool have not spent money.


But since you are throwing up numbers......


Your figures for each season look wrong btw.

I have


2012/13 (this season and only one uninished window so far)

Liverpool £27.3m (£23.3m net when outgoing transfers are taken into account.



Man City £15m (£8.5m net)




2011/12

Liverpool £56.4m (£35.35m net)


Man City £76m (£48.25m net)





2010/11

Liverpool £80.45m ( -5.15m net)


Man City £154.75m (£117m net)




You seem to have left out about £80m worth of City spending in the figures you gave.


So in gross terms City would have outspent Liverpool by about £80m during the period you mentioned, and not by the £4.7m you came up with, and in Net terms City outspent Liverpool by roughly £110m during that time period.



Here is a link with a list of each player the clubs bought and sold during the period you mentioned. Maybe you could do the same and put up the link with the list of figures you used that showed a difference of only £4.7m.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/liverpool-transfers.html

Kess73 wrote: »

Just as well I never made that arguement then or tried to say Liverpool have not spent money.

Never said you did.

Kess73 wrote: »

So in gross terms City would have outspent Liverpool by about £80m during the period you mentioned, and not by the £4.7m you came up with, and in Net terms City outspent Liverpool by roughly £110m during that time period.

Here is a link with a list of each player the clubs bought and sold during the period you mentioned. Maybe you could do the same and put up the link with the list of figures you used that showed a difference of only £4.7m.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/liverpool-transfers.html

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=1563&teamTabs=transfers

My point wasn't to say City haven't spent big money, but the statement that Liverpool had none. It's popping up again, but I'm not talking about Net or Gross, I'm simply talking about money spent, regardless of where it came from.

There is also the obvious argument that if you go back to 09/10 City spent over £160m, so yes it is being selective to restricting it to the last 3 seasons, but my point isn't to say Liverpool have as much money as City, it is to disprove the notion that you don't have any money. I took the three year period because it shows that besides being outside the CL spots you still spent on par with those in it.

EDIT: Since Net spend was inluded in here was money obtained from CL football and winning Premiership included in City's Net Spend?

Aaaaaarrrrghhh fucking net spend. Again. :mad:

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Net spend: the measure by which no mark selling clubs justify their irrelevance.

Or a way of judging which clubs are living in the World of financial realities against those who live in fantasy football land.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Aaaaaarrrrghhh fucking net spend. Again. :mad:

Was not talking about Net, I just put it in with the gross figures in case anyone tried to muddy things with talk of gross or net.

Kess73 wrote: »

The site you used is incorrect. The likes of Yaya Toure, David Silva etc joined City during the summer window for the 2010/11 season not the 2009/10 season.

Again I never disagreed with you or anyone saying Liverpool did not spend decent money, just that your figures are skewed, especially when your original question was only about the past two transfer windows. The £4.7m gap is incorrect also as it is closer to an £80m gap based on the transfer windows for the three seasons you picked.

So yes Liverpool have spent a decent sum on players, no arguement on that at all from me, during those transfer windows but your point that the gross spending figures of the clubs were close during the timeframe you picked is totally wrong as there is a massive difference in them.

The site is technically correct in that the season change is 1st July, and both players signed just before then, so hence the inclusion in the previous year, but I get your point.

I know you didn't make the statement, hence why I thanked your post when I asked the original question. All I was trying to say is that anyone claiming Liverpool haven't spent money is simply untrue.

Cesar Azpilicueta has completed his move from Marseille to Chelsea. (Around £7m)

Opr