Liverpool FC Forum

I would be interested to know because we have to see this from a business perspective, with City's track record highlighted above, what was their income over that period versus their costs. ie for the glory of winning the league, have they at least broken even over the period or are they down 300 million? Pep is now saying he wants to start a major clear out and replacement so that'll probably cost an additional net 200 million?

You can't disconnect the two when trying to understand non-sugar daddy financed transfer policies.

devaney » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:28 am wrote:Why have City failed so badly in Europe?

Err because unlike winning the EPL twice in that time it's much, much harder to win the CL when pitted against teams like Barcelona, Real and Bayern who have also been spending stupid money on their players 

devaney » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:28 am wrote: Why have they failed with all the money in the world to buy a decent defence?

I assume you are talking about this season because they have been very solid defensively the last four seasons in the league. You have been reading a few too many articles on them as it seems to be the flavour of the month on most soccer websites / blogs from what I have been seeing. It simply boils down to the fact that Guardiola has struggled with his transition into the EPL, Stones may not be the defender everyone thought he was going to be and Bravo seems to be all over the shop because he can't command his back line the same way he can for the Chilean national team (where he is captain) and shows none of the trepidation he shows for City. The language barrier would play a large part in this.

devaney » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:28 am wrote: And is winning the league twice (and one of them with literally the last kick of the seasons he to my delight) in 5 years with the money they have spent really that impressive.

Are you really playing down the fact that they have won the league twice in the last five years     

devaney » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:28 am wrote:If simply buying success is what you are about then we will never agree on anything.

I guess the massive giant statement in my post before clearly suggesting that I don't, has passed over your head. You are a special kind of special aren't you?

devaney » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:28 am wrote:You witter on endlessly about FSG's transfer policy but just where is your evidence that they simply buy younger players so that they can make a profit.

I have never said they buy players to purely just make a profit. I have said that they choose to buy players under 25yo because they avoid having to pay spectacular transfer fees and salaries (as compared to a player in his prime, who will demand both). This way if the player doesn't work out they can recoup most of their money because they are still relatively young, do you want examples for this? Sure here you go:

Benteke                          Purchased for 32m                        Sold for 27m
Jordan Ibe                      Purchased for 0.5m                       Sold for 15m
Joe Allen                        Purchased for 15m                         Sold for 13m
Borini                             Purchase for 12m                           Sold for 10m
Luis Alberto                    Purchased for 7m                          Sold for 4m
Tiago Ilori                       Purchased for 7m                          Sold for 4m
Oussama Assaidi              Purchased for 2.3m                       Sold for 5m 
Sergi Canos                     Under age signing                         Sold for 2.5m (could raise to 4.5m)

I don't know why you simply seem to think that a player like Sterling and Suarez are the only types of transfers I'm referring to. If you look at the players we have moved on the only real one we have taken a hit on over the last five seasons in Andy Carroll. Most other players we have either recouped a fair amount back from them or made a profit. We are even starting to make money off our academy players now (Brad Smith 6m and Jerome Sinclair 4m). The next lot to be moved on including; Markovic, Moreno, Sakho and (possibly) Can will also recoup most of original sale price if not make a profit. You may seem to think these are all great things, they aren't because it simply keeps feeding the revolving doors at our club, which as I said over time will just make FSG richer and richer, while we keep waiting to challenge for trophies. I have seen through their farce and allowed to call them whatever name I wish to under the sun

Clubs start off with maybe 50 names of players in a certain position and by their own process if elimination to perhaps a top 3 and this is probably where Klopp engages with recruitment.

The issue we have is that FSG put a big emphasis on age, price including wages, and potential sell on value, other clubs may have those as secondary values but that could be seen as a luxury most clubs dont have but I believe should be softened at Anfield.

I appreciate statistical analysis is important and wont go away but sometimes a player just feels right or wrong for your team or club, we as fans saw that with Carroll and particularly Benteke, but these programmes dont have room for gut feeling or touch on the personality of a player, ie Balotelli and Sakho.

parchpea » Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:20 pm wrote:Clubs start off with maybe 50 names of players in a certain position and by their own process if elimination to perhaps a top 3 and this is probably where Klopp engages with recruitment.

The issue we have is that FSG put a big emphasis on age, price including wages, and potential sell on value, other clubs may have those as secondary values but that could be seen as a luxury most clubs dont have but I believe should be softened at Anfield.

I appreciate statistical analysis is important and wont go away but sometimes a player just feels right or wrong for your team or club, we as fans saw that with Carroll and particularly Benteke, but these programmes dont have room for gut feeling or touch on the personality of a player, ie Balotelli and Sakho.

Benteke was a "gut feeling" signing driven by Rodgers. FSG agreed to back the manager and it just didn't work.

There is no exact formula for signings, whether its a process driving strong by statistics or by the gut feeling of the manager.

But what you need is a group of people who work well together on transfers. It seemed to work quite well in the summer even though we did miss out on a couple of players that were realistic targets. If we can have another window or two like last summer we'll be well on our way.

I think it's quite clear this summers transfers were driven by Klopp and I'm not too sure how much of an input others had. Recently saw a clip of Klopp where he says he was keen on bringing Wijnaldum to Dortmund when he was at PSV and has previously said the same for Mane. Then obviously the likes of Matip,Karius and Klavan are players he is knows from Germany.

Klopp holds all the cards when it comes to transfers. He has a record of success and the knows if he wasn't at LFC, he would be at another top club. The board are probably well aware of this and they can rock up with all the statistics they want but if Klopp doesn't want the player and prefers someone else, he will get what he wants because I'm convinced he wouldn't tolerate players being pushed on him and would walk and find another top job.

Stepping up from Swansea, Rodgers knew he had it really good when he came to us and realistically I don't see him getting a bigger job than he had with us. I think knowing that, he was a bit more inclined to have ideas/players shoved onto him.

devaney » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:28 am wrote:Ffs Eds are you a politician. Instead of a collection of drivel that I'm well aware of answer the questions. Why have City failed so badly in Europe? Why have they failed with all the money in the world to buy a decent defence? And is winning the league twice (and one of them with literally the last kick of the seasons he to my delight) in 5 years with the money they have spent really that impressive.If simply buying success is what you are about then we will never agree on anything.

You witter on endlessly about FSG's transfer policy but just where is your evidence that they simply buy younger players so that they can make a profit. And please do not use Suarez as an example or Sterling. Whether you like it or not when Clubs with considerably more money make offers then just how do you manage to keep a player that wants to leave. Chelsea have got shed loads of the stuff but it doesn't stop a Chinese club with even more money trying to buy Costa.

And stop upsetting Leeroy   :laugh:

Geez Devaney, I don't usually side with Eds... but here you are asking for evidence when the evidence so obviously in front of us, everyone could see. The requirement may not be to make a profit, but there is definitely emphasis on re-sale value. Not only that as Doeboy and I have highlighted there is definitely penny pinching involved from the way we lost out our transfer targets to feckin Tottenham Hotspur. How many titles have they won that players go to them rather than us?

Mags can't really be bothered continuing this. This is my last word on the matter. Suffice it to say I found Eds list of FSG transfer examples fascinating. No transfer policy is perfect. Yes with hindsight Dele Alli was a mistake. And yes again with hindsight Salah wasn't a mistake - http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/footbal ... 17701.html

We have to accept where we are as a club. Satisfying the wage demands and egos of experienced high profile players in their prime and over the age of 27/28 is perhaps something we will struggle with. We are not on are own. These players generally want ridiculous wages and that is just a starting point. CL football is a criteria. Geography also comes into the equation. A lot of these players are mercenaries who don't understand the meaning of the word loyalty. Look what is currently happening with Costa at Chelsea for example. Do we want players that will give us their best years or mercenaries looking for the best pay day as they reach the later stages of their career? Do we want players that can make a long term or very short term difference to the club? The Milner's and Gary Mac's of the football world don't come along that often. And in all honesty was anybody particularly impressed when we signed them. Once again hindsight is an exact science.

Some fans suggest that we have become a feeder club which is naive. Any club other than the very richest will struggle to keep their very best players. Spurs are no different. Bale and Modrić are good examples. Even the very wealthy Manchester United lost Ronaldo to Real Madrid.

I'm not sure that FSG have a transfer policy that is written in stone. I certainly don't blame them for not wanting to buy depreciating relatively short term quick fix assets.

Really?
FSG have no transfer policy set...
Worst horse **** I've read on this board for quite awhile.

It just happens that they never buy players in their prime 28/29. Pure coincidence, not the fact that their resale value is low and that they want higher wages...

I said SET IN STONE you dopey fkg muppet

Well, when it practically NEVER actually happen it might as well be set in stone, MUPPET!

Ok Penguins if it is that easy tell me five 28/29 year old players in their prime that would have realistically signed for Liverpool in the last few years and made a title winning difference or even a top four finish. I challenge anybody else to have a go as well and just remember that generally that type of player will want CL football. Eds I'm sure you'll find this a bit too easy !!

Even when we finished 2nd and had Suarez, Sterling, what did we do?
Cl footie or not, we still didn't buy anyone.

I know the question was a bit tricky. Forget about whinging that we didn't buy anybody. Just answer the question. Surely you should find the answer a little easier seeing as we qualified for CL football in the 14/15 season. Come on name me five 28/29 year old footballers in their prime that would have REALISTICALLY joined Liverpool.

It's not a tricky question, it's a redudant one.

I fully agree why would a 28/29 yo come here in his prime, with no CL and to play with a team of kids?

This is basically FSG's doing, with the way they have set up our transfer policy even bringing a single player in his prime (let alone the transfer fee and his wages) would be extremely difficult.

But that doesn't mean we should at least attempt to go for players out there that were on the market (at one point) over the last five years;  Vidal when he moved from Juventus, Rakitic when he moved from Sevilla, Benzema when Real wanted to sell him 2-3 seasons ago, Reus or Aubameyang - how haven't tried harder to sign one of them while having Klopp at the club, is beyond me? There is always very talented players out there but we will never even attempt to go for them because we are restricted with our transfer policies anyway.

Believe it or not I actually think the FSG model isn't that far off from being successful. I know you think it's impossible that we kept Suarez, Sterling and eventually Coutinho (when he decides to go) but that's the problem right there. Selling them (irrespective of how much money we get) just keeps feeding this vicious circle we are in. Isn't that the point of penny pinching? So we can then have leftover money to keep players like these at the club? Which will eventually mean consistent CL footie and other players in their prime wanting to come here? Otherwise what's the alternative, playing kids year in year out........ 

I think the thing that hurts the most in retrospect is the whole Sanchez debarcle. With Suarez "apparently making his mind up to go" I will never get over the fact that we sold him without holding him hostage to bring Alexis here, it's one of the most stupidest decisions we have ever made and Sanchez setting the EPL on fire for those no-hoper gonners makes me feel sick half the time seeing him score.