Premier League 2019-20 Part III

Gecklund

Registered User
Jul 17, 2012
25,139
11,713
California
lol imagine taking this chart seriously eh?Or claiming that LFC/Kloppo didn't need to spend to win. The narratives are that trying to be pushed here are too much at times. lol
I mean I agree that they had to spend but they spent smartly and also the sale of Coutinho really helped. I think Firmino was bought soon after Suarez left too. So in a way Liverpool should be thanking Barça for them winning the title :laugh: no but really the only way that chart is accurate is if it meant summer before which even then I think Minamino was winter so I don’t know what that chart is even saying.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,495
10,479
I mean if it’s net it’s possible but I can guarantee you that’s not accurate with VVD and Allison purchases.
I think that might be what we spent this summer & winter. Minamino + van den Berg & Adrian on a free.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,495
10,479
lol imagine taking this chart seriously eh?Or claiming that LFC/Kloppo didn't need to spend to win. The narratives are that trying to be pushed here are too much at times. lol
LFC needed to spend to win, but they needed to sell their own players before spending. They would probably still be at the bottom on a Net Spend chart.

It’s still crazy that Coutinho paid for Virgil and Alisson essentially. Not really sure if there is an equivalent kind of swing out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cassano

Gecklund

Registered User
Jul 17, 2012
25,139
11,713
California
I think Minamino was 7.25m
Ah yeah you’re right. It was close to 10M in US dollars. Still doesn’t make sense why they’d only count those guys when only one of them had really anything to do with them winning the title (Adrian).
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,495
10,479
Ah yeah you’re right. It was close to 10M in US dollars. Still doesn’t make sense why they’d only count those guys when only one of them had really anything to do with them winning the title (Adrian).
So the number should be zero then. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gecklund

Cassano

Registered User
Aug 31, 2013
25,610
3,818
GTA
Liverpool sold flawed players for copious amounts of money. Solanke, Benteke, Sakho, Joe Allen and Ings come to mind. That’s probably like a 100mil there alone.

Coutinho was the other big sell and was their best performing player at that point. He went for 100m+

Alisson, VvD and Keita cost 200mil I think.

Salah and Mane were extremely cheap relative to production. Their cost was less than guys like Cuadrado, Morata and Lacazette.

They haven’t spent an obscene amount of net transfer like the previous sugardaddy clubs, which makes their title even more impressive. It is a valid point that should be praised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YNWA14

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,495
10,479
Liverpool got about 130m for Ibe, Allen, Benteke, Sakho, Ward, Solanke and Ings
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cassano

Duchene2MacKinnon

In the hands of Genius
Aug 8, 2006
45,300
9,465
I mean I agree that they had to spend but they spent smartly and also the sale of Coutinho really helped. I think Firmino was bought soon after Suarez left too. So in a way Liverpool should be thanking Barça for them winning the title :laugh: no but really the only way that chart is accurate is if it meant summer before which even then I think Minamino was winter so I don’t know what that chart is even saying.

I agree ... I wasn't calling you out or anything. Just commenting on what I see here at times.

LFC needed to spend to win, but they needed to sell their own players before spending. They would probably still be at the bottom on a Net Spend chart.

It’s still crazy that Coutinho paid for Virgil and Alisson essentially. Not really sure if there is an equivalent kind of swing out there.

They still spent money (big) to get elite players which is what I meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gecklund

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Spurs and Liverpool have an almost identical net spend over the last 5 years. Liverpool has spent more on players in total, but they have also brought way more in with sales. Spurs asset management has been really poor the last few years, they failed to get big money for some of their biggest sales like Eriksen, while some of their big purchases have not worked out very well.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,495
10,479
They still spent money (big) to get elite players which is what I meant.
Sure, but who else of the top teams have to sell first before buying elite? Especially to the extent that Liverpool does? Who depends on outgoings for that kind of funding?
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,495
10,479
And City is who Liverpool have had to compete with over the last 2 years at the top of the table. Chelsea was the same until their transfer ban. They are better now but still are able to flex their financial muscle.

Even the other European leagues; Paris, Barca, Madrid, Bayern, Juve; they aren’t selling to buy.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
And City is who Liverpool have had to compete with over the last 2 years at the top of the table. Chelsea was the same until their transfer ban. They are better now but still are able to flex their financial muscle.

Even the other European leagues; Paris, Barca, Madrid, Bayern, Juve; they aren’t selling to buy.
Outside of 18/19 where they had to drop £72m on Kepa (shudder), Chelsea's net spend has not been very high in years. They have mostly financed their transfer activity through sales and loan fees. They built what they have today by Roman constantly pouring money into the club, but that level of investment ended a while ago.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
And City is who Liverpool have had to compete with over the last 2 years at the top of the table. Chelsea was the same until their transfer ban. They are better now but still are able to flex their financial muscle.

Even the other European leagues; Paris, Barca, Madrid, Bayern, Juve; they aren’t selling to buy.
Not true.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,495
10,479
Not true.
Cmon man. Except for last summer when they did a bunch of loans because they were under the microscope, how do their net spends look? When has PSG had to sacrifice a player to add similar level players? They just sell their wash outs and their kids that see their path to the first team being blocked.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,495
10,479
Outside of 18/19 where they had to drop £72m on Kepa (shudder), Chelsea's net spend has not been very high in years. They have mostly financed their transfer activity through sales and loan fees. They built what they have today by Roman constantly pouring money into the club, but that level of investment ended a while ago.
Sure. And they have gotten better, but we also aren’t too far removed from like January 2014 where Chelsea bought Salah just so Liverpool couldn’t (although admittedly Ian Ayre botched that transfer); there’s not many teams that can drop 8 figures on a transfer just for a block.

it’s great what Chelsea are doing now though.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
Cmon man. Except for last summer when they did a bunch of loans because they were under the microscope, how do their net spends look? When has PSG had to sacrifice a player to add similar level players? They just sell their wash outs and their kids that see their path to the first team being blocked.
It's just not true. They've been under ffp pressure for years now and have sold every year, including bench players that would be useful.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,495
10,479
It's just not true. They've been under ffp pressure for years now and have sold every year, including bench players that would be useful.
Yes. That’s correct. That’s not what I am saying. I’m saying that PSG doesn’t do transfers based on Net Spend, and that they didn’t have to sell a (relative) Coutinho level player to finance any of their major moves. When LFC sold Coutinho, he was a lot more to them than a useful bench player
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Sure. And they have gotten better, but we also aren’t too far removed from like January 2014 where Chelsea bought Salah just so Liverpool couldn’t (although admittedly Ian Ayre botched that transfer); there’s not many teams that can drop 8 figures on a transfer just for a block.

it’s great what Chelsea are doing now though.
I wasn't debating that Chelsea doesn't have money to spend and can't flex that in the market, they absolutely can. Even in your 2013-2014 example thought they bought £117m worth of players and sold £70m worth. A £40-50m net spend isn't that unusual in the Premier League with the massive TV contract money they have, but it's certainly easier for Chelsea with their resources.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,759
14,664
Sure. And they have gotten better, but we also aren’t too far removed from like January 2014 where Chelsea bought Salah just so Liverpool couldn’t (although admittedly Ian Ayre botched that transfer); there’s not many teams that can drop 8 figures on a transfer just for a block.

it’s great what Chelsea are doing now though.
We didn't buy Salah just so Liverpool wouldn't, we had first-hand exposure to him when we played Basel in Champions League. We played them 4 times between Europa in 12/13 and Champions in 13/14.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blender

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->