Re: LOSING THE FAITH
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:49 am
Eds:
1. There is no Suarez player, there are players that are similar to Suarez, so a like to like meaning a similar type of player with enough quality that would fit our system, we didn't buy one like that, instead we spent 16m on Balotelli who is completely a different type of striker, that's not FSG's domain, questions should be asked to the committee. Sanchez would have been a perfect replacement, but he opted for Arsenal.
2. Don't be silly, Its harder to detect sarcasm on a football forum than in real life, you don't know me and I don't know you so don't personally assume that I can't detect sarcasm.
3. No they wouldn't, they want to make the club as attractive as possible, they can't do that if they don't see Liverpool winning trophies. John Henry didn't make his 1billion USD net worth just because he accepts a tidy or small profit. With the Red Sox they've made them a winning team and it will be the same issue with Liverpool, it needs more time because its football not baseball. The only financial implications we would have if FSG decides to take too many loans and we would go on doing what you're telling them to do spend 400m on players, which is IMPOSSIBLE with the resources at our disposal. If they are stabilizing us for a midtable club then the evidence of our revenues that you would see a constant revenue stream every season and the wages would be constant as well, but this evidence contradicts your assumption because each year there is a growth in revenues and the wages are increasing, it's not rocket science that they are not ''stabilizing'' the club in one position, they are GROWING this club, how can you deny the facts?
4. Ok, fair enough let's keep it at that.
5. Again, Coutinho, Sturridge, Suarez, Sakho, are all good players, so doesn't this point out that the policy is fine but the recruitment isn't?! Coutinho signed at 19 and he showed his class! Can't the recruitment team base their research on finding more players like Coutinho so we can all be happy??! It's the recruitment team's JOB to be competent and sign the RIGHT players, not the wrong ones like Balotelli. Rodgers wanted a leader in defense, he signed Lovren, it's his player not FSG's.
6. Ok
7. I also had my reservations about finishing in the top 4 this season but its not because of the owners, its because of the management who the owners hired. We all know Rodgers is still inexperienced to deal with this kind of season (having Champions League) but that's not our problem, it's the problem of the management and they are the ones who need to fix their mistakes and rally for next season. We might have finished 2nd last season because of Suarez and Sturridge but that also shows the commitment of the owners that they want the team to challenge for major honors.
8. Don't insult me, we are having a debate not a personal slagging match accusing each other's lack of comprehension skills or intelligence. Where is your evidence that I'm cherry picking the facts? I brought up LAST summer because we ended up above Chelsea yet they had a net spend of -0.8 and they are first while we are 5th. What does that tell you about our recruitment team? http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/9/11/6101855/premier-league-transfer-spend-over-3-5-and-7-years , there is a table that shows our gross and net spend compared to other teams, Arsenal have spent the least and have the best net spend OVERALL, and they are always in top 4 every season, what does that mean? is it because their recruitment team is outperforming ours? The table that I've got is here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2739255/Transfer-deadline-day-numbers-All-stats-facts-figures-need-know.html. Actually, Arsenal's net spend was 46m and ours was 36m. Yet, Arsenal spent the least amount of money compared to our 116m spent on players, it is relevant because once we had the money and we spent it on dosh, what corporate strategists like to call it inefficiency to use resources when it matters. Unlike you, I'm not someone who insults others on a football forum but if you compare our revenue streams with other clubs you can clearly understand WHY it is impossible to spend 50m on one player and give them higher wages, it's just like what Reg said, you need ENOUGH revenues in order to grow and cover your operating expenses and have enough to be able to flex your wage budget and sanction more deals for 50m on a player, it's that simple!
9. ok
10. We will see, and once we make more and more money and change our recruitment team with more competent scouts or install a competent DOF, we will have better chance of getting quality players and improve our on field performance.
1. There is no Suarez player, there are players that are similar to Suarez, so a like to like meaning a similar type of player with enough quality that would fit our system, we didn't buy one like that, instead we spent 16m on Balotelli who is completely a different type of striker, that's not FSG's domain, questions should be asked to the committee. Sanchez would have been a perfect replacement, but he opted for Arsenal.
2. Don't be silly, Its harder to detect sarcasm on a football forum than in real life, you don't know me and I don't know you so don't personally assume that I can't detect sarcasm.
3. No they wouldn't, they want to make the club as attractive as possible, they can't do that if they don't see Liverpool winning trophies. John Henry didn't make his 1billion USD net worth just because he accepts a tidy or small profit. With the Red Sox they've made them a winning team and it will be the same issue with Liverpool, it needs more time because its football not baseball. The only financial implications we would have if FSG decides to take too many loans and we would go on doing what you're telling them to do spend 400m on players, which is IMPOSSIBLE with the resources at our disposal. If they are stabilizing us for a midtable club then the evidence of our revenues that you would see a constant revenue stream every season and the wages would be constant as well, but this evidence contradicts your assumption because each year there is a growth in revenues and the wages are increasing, it's not rocket science that they are not ''stabilizing'' the club in one position, they are GROWING this club, how can you deny the facts?
4. Ok, fair enough let's keep it at that.
5. Again, Coutinho, Sturridge, Suarez, Sakho, are all good players, so doesn't this point out that the policy is fine but the recruitment isn't?! Coutinho signed at 19 and he showed his class! Can't the recruitment team base their research on finding more players like Coutinho so we can all be happy??! It's the recruitment team's JOB to be competent and sign the RIGHT players, not the wrong ones like Balotelli. Rodgers wanted a leader in defense, he signed Lovren, it's his player not FSG's.
6. Ok
7. I also had my reservations about finishing in the top 4 this season but its not because of the owners, its because of the management who the owners hired. We all know Rodgers is still inexperienced to deal with this kind of season (having Champions League) but that's not our problem, it's the problem of the management and they are the ones who need to fix their mistakes and rally for next season. We might have finished 2nd last season because of Suarez and Sturridge but that also shows the commitment of the owners that they want the team to challenge for major honors.
8. Don't insult me, we are having a debate not a personal slagging match accusing each other's lack of comprehension skills or intelligence. Where is your evidence that I'm cherry picking the facts? I brought up LAST summer because we ended up above Chelsea yet they had a net spend of -0.8 and they are first while we are 5th. What does that tell you about our recruitment team? http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/9/11/6101855/premier-league-transfer-spend-over-3-5-and-7-years , there is a table that shows our gross and net spend compared to other teams, Arsenal have spent the least and have the best net spend OVERALL, and they are always in top 4 every season, what does that mean? is it because their recruitment team is outperforming ours? The table that I've got is here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2739255/Transfer-deadline-day-numbers-All-stats-facts-figures-need-know.html. Actually, Arsenal's net spend was 46m and ours was 36m. Yet, Arsenal spent the least amount of money compared to our 116m spent on players, it is relevant because once we had the money and we spent it on dosh, what corporate strategists like to call it inefficiency to use resources when it matters. Unlike you, I'm not someone who insults others on a football forum but if you compare our revenue streams with other clubs you can clearly understand WHY it is impossible to spend 50m on one player and give them higher wages, it's just like what Reg said, you need ENOUGH revenues in order to grow and cover your operating expenses and have enough to be able to flex your wage budget and sanction more deals for 50m on a player, it's that simple!
9. ok
10. We will see, and once we make more and more money and change our recruitment team with more competent scouts or install a competent DOF, we will have better chance of getting quality players and improve our on field performance.