devaney » Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:42 pm wrote:Salah is 29, 30 in June this year and 31 in 2023 - not 32 as somebody suggested. His current contract ends in 2023 so no club in its right mind is going to pay more than £50m with only a year left on his contract. Expecting over £100m is pure fantasy.
red till i die!! » Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:20 pm wrote:City have money but they can only spend according to the rules. They did break those same rules at one point but there isn't a chance they are still at it as they would have eyes all over their dealings.
Boocity wrote:red till i die!! » Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:20 pm wrote:City have money but they can only spend according to the rules. They did break those same rules at one point but there isn't a chance they are still at it as they would have eyes all over their dealings.
Well lets be honest they bend the rules. If you look at who the main sponsors are for City it is Abu Dhabi companies such as Etihad. All these companies are state owned and there is no way Etihad can for instance afford the sort money they are giving city, especially since Covid. The money is coming from the owner but channelled through these companies as a legit sponsorship.
In summary for Woof
Boocity wrote:red till i die!! » Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:20 pm wrote:City have money but they can only spend according to the rules. They did break those same rules at one point but there isn't a chance they are still at it as they would have eyes all over their dealings.
Well lets be honest they bend the rules. If you look at who the main sponsors are for City it is Abu Dhabi companies such as Etihad. All these companies are state owned and there is no way Etihad can for instance afford the sort money they are giving city, especially since Covid. The money is coming from the owner but channelled through these companies as a legit sponsorship.
Reg » Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:23 pm wrote:Blinkin 'ek Woof, I'd expect Tommy Smith to struggle with it but not you!
Transfers 2019, 20 and 21 (3 seasons) since we won the CL in Madrid:
Liverpool
Total Income £80.28
Total Expenditure £119.75
Net -£40.16
Manchester City
Total Income £217.31
Total Expenditure £413.19
Net -£196.02
Manchester United
Total Income £118.24
Total Expenditure £412.74
Net -£294.49
Chelsea
Total Income £302.96
Total Expenditure £370.98
Net -£68.02
Salaries per week of top 12 players per club:
Liverpool
Average 28.1 £160,000
Manchester City
Average 25.5 £190,000
Manchester United
Average 27.5 £270,000
Chelsea
Average 25.4 £188,000
LFC spent £15m per season more than we received in transfers which lacks ambition or fails to build on success. Lucky to make top 4 basis spending 15 million a season....
Overall, I'd be happy to follow City, with an aggressive £70 million a season over income to ensure they stay on top. CL and EPL earnings will easily offset that.
ManU's crazy salary structure demonstrates that there are no win bonuses at Old Trafford.
In summary for Woof, LFC, Chelsea and City's salaries are the same basic with the player choosing where he wants to play basis the value and likelihood of win bonuses.
Chelsea have spent £28m more than us over the last 3 seasons, most of it wasted on Lukaku. We can't complain there.
Man City have splashed out £150m over 3 seasons more than us, ie ONE good player per season - squad rotation! Getting rid of dead wood!
Man Utd have spent £250m more than us over 3 seasons showing their desperation plus pay an average £90 thousand a week more than the LFC squad. Unsustainable.
Hope all above is clear why we struggle to keep up with City on the field, they have a transfer policy that allows them to bring in one squad improvement player every season
Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 68 guests