Liverpool FC Forum

[Buck Rodgers]

I thought I'd just check how the Whinge Committee were doing after our latest purchases. And what do you know I was scrolling up the page and found somebody quoting our league position over the last few years. At this stage I didn't know who wrote the post but I took a calculated guess. And yes I was right. The chief fkg whingebag is still at it   :D

Eds you make Benny the Goon look quite reasonable and lets face it he really was a bit of a dick !!!

Have a beer ffs     

Just for the record Liverpool's net spend over the last five years is £33m per season and 4th highest in the Premiership against Man United who are top with a net spend of £57m per season over the last five. You talk as if £165m simply grows on trees. The more you write the more you give the impression that you are financially clueless. The problem in my opinion is not what they have spent but very largely what they have been advised to spend it on.

Oh well - back to my summer break !!

that is a quality post sir!

love it.

+2 

+3 bar one bit

[woof woof !]

+3 bar one bit

, yeah Devaney, even Benny can see that you've confused your past and present tenses   

[UvS xR4GEx]

What was the big announcement??
Even new balance had a poster saying "a storm is coming" 1st of july.

Was it the Clyne signing?

[Kash_Mountain]

What was the big announcement??
Even new balance had a poster saying "a storm is coming" 1st of july.

Was it the Clyne signing?

Can't believe you missed it:
1: BR taking advice and guidance from Bielsa again.
2: BR bringing Roy Evans back.

[eds]

Arsenal - they have spent 10 years restricting what they spend to allow them to build a new stadium - in that period they have qualified for the CL every season whilst also challenging for the title - in recent years more money has been available as the income increase - that's why they have increased the money they have spent on players - they should have done better in those years but the manager kept buying the wrong players. The Model has given them the platform to challenge for trophies. They have won two trophies in the last two seasons.

Net Spend - when discussing the current owners yes you can look at the last 4 years - because those are the years the current owners are responsible for. What City and Chelsea spent in the 3/4 years of their reign is irrelevant because they spent without any fear of FFP - our owners don't have disposable income. Is that what you want ? Oil money ? A club relying on a single person putting their money into the club.

Man Utd - they spent two decades spending what they earn off the pitch plus what money they earned from player sales - until this season their net spend was lower than ours. They spent their money on the stadium and buying players but spent what they earned.

What are these restrictions you keep going on about ? We don't have age , wage or transfer fee restrictions - if you suggest there are then please provide the proof.

FFP - the relaxation of the rules didn't effect the amount you can spend beyond your means - we were close to being fined and punished under FFP

They have improved the standing of the club , reduced the debt , starting to build the stadium and increasing the exposure and income enabling the manager to buy players.

Can you please tell us what model we should follow if you believe there model is wrong

You keep deflecting from the original point I made, prove to me that we are in a better position when it comes to our squad since FSG took over.

If you compare our players from 2010 to our current crop, the only thing you can say is that there is "potential" nothing else. It's pathetic really.

That's why you keep deflecting on the isse because you refuse to talk about the obvious; 6th, 8th, 7th, 2nd and 6th

Since when has that been improvement? 

Arsenal, no more need to debate you on the subject at hand. 2 trophies in 10 years says it all really. But according to you it is a proven model to success?!? The only thing proven is that they have continued to make money WITHOUT winning any trophies. Something which the yanks over here will be doing over the next few years.

Net Spend - you simply don't understand the point I'm making or refuse to concede that Chelsea and City pumped over 1 BILLION dollars into their respective squads when their owners took over. They have only had to improve their squads buying 2 or 3 key players each other season (to comply with FFP) yet you are trying to compare our NET spend to theirs over the last 3 or 4 years? That's what FSG is up against, that's how far BEHIND we are. Yet for some absurd reason you think we can challenge for 4th under these conditions, under these owners. 

I never said we had wage or transfer restrictions? We obviously have an age restriction or some sort of age strategy based on the following facts:

Player                               Age we purchased tham at

Roberto Firmino                Age 23
Joe Gomez                        Age 18
Ádám Bogdán                    Age 27
Danny Ings                         Age 22
James Milner                     Age 29
Emre Can                          Age 20
Rickie Lambert                 Age 32 
Adam Lallana                    Age 26
Lazar Marković                 Age 20
Dejan Lovren                     Age 24
Divock Origi                      Age 19
Alberto Moreno                  Age 21
Mario Balotelli                   Age 23
Lawrence Vigouroux          Age 21
Kevin Stewart                    Age 20 
Luis Alberto                       Age 22
Iago Aspas                         Age 25
Kolo Toure                        Age 32
Simon Mignolet                  Age 25        
Tiago Ilori                         Age 20
Mamadou Sakho                 Age 23
Fabio Borini                       Age 21
Joe Allen                           Age 22
Oussama Assaidi                Age 23
Samed Yesil                       Age 18
Daniel Sturridge                 Age 22
Phillipe Coutinho               Age 20
Jordan Ibe                         Age 16

There you have it the last 4 seasons worth of transfers. Let's have a look shall we. 27 players bought. 21 players bought at the age of 23 or younger (77%) and the rest older. In fact out of that we have only bought 5 players over the age of 25. A simply alarming stat, as that is when most footballers hit their peak. Also based on this fact you can assume that our total player's salary spend will decrease as you normally wouldn't offer young players expensive contracts as compared to players that are are over the age of 25 and about to hit their peak. Hence the rigid salary structure I alluded to. Don't know what more evidence you require, it's plain as day mate.

United simply don't follow the same guidelines, we have since FSG have been around. To compare to them is just down right silly.

And lastly, I'm not asking for a sugar daddy. I'm simply asking for a balanced approach. When you look at the players we have brought in, their ages and what they can contribute to the club, you will see that it is completely unbalanced, because the owners have been dicating this since day 1. Not Rodgers, not the committee, no one else. They have bought into this strategy and simply are doing what they think is best under it. And the results of 6th, 8th, 7th, 2nd and 6th are a testement to this flawed model. 

[eds]

I thought I'd just check how the Whinge Committee were doing after our latest purchases. And what do you know I was scrolling up the page and found somebody quoting our league position over the last few years. At this stage I didn't know who wrote the post but I took a calculated guess. And yes I was right. The chief fkg whingebag is still at it   :D

Eds you make Benny the Goon look quite reasonable and lets face it he really was a bit of a dick !!!

Have a beer ffs     

Just for the record Liverpool's net spend over the last five years is £33m per season and 4th highest in the Premiership against Man United who are top with a net spend of £57m per season over the last five. You talk as if £165m simply grows on trees. The more you write the more you give the impression that you are financially clueless. The problem in my opinion is not what they have spent but very largely what they have been advised to spend it on.

Oh well - back to my summer break !!

Ah the king of whinging about whingers is back.     

Thanks for that comprehensive break down of what we are doing right there Dev. That's some sound logic..........       

It's hilarious how our league standings over the last 5 years under FSG seems to count little these days for the rose tinted, living in gaga land, unicorns and fairy floss brigade. But then again, you wouldn't expect any better.

Pass me the happe pipe mate, we all want a bit of the s**t you deluded f**kers are on.

[Buck Rodgers]

Arsenal - they have spent 10 years restricting what they spend to allow them to build a new stadium - in that period they have qualified for the CL every season whilst also challenging for the title - in recent years more money has been available as the income increase - that's why they have increased the money they have spent on players - they should have done better in those years but the manager kept buying the wrong players. The Model has given them the platform to challenge for trophies. They have won two trophies in the last two seasons.

Net Spend - when discussing the current owners yes you can look at the last 4 years - because those are the years the current owners are responsible for. What City and Chelsea spent in the 3/4 years of their reign is irrelevant because they spent without any fear of FFP - our owners don't have disposable income. Is that what you want ? Oil money ? A club relying on a single person putting their money into the club.

Man Utd - they spent two decades spending what they earn off the pitch plus what money they earned from player sales - until this season their net spend was lower than ours. They spent their money on the stadium and buying players but spent what they earned.

What are these restrictions you keep going on about ? We don't have age , wage or transfer fee restrictions - if you suggest there are then please provide the proof.

FFP - the relaxation of the rules didn't effect the amount you can spend beyond your means - we were close to being fined and punished under FFP

They have improved the standing of the club , reduced the debt , starting to build the stadium and increasing the exposure and income enabling the manager to buy players.

Can you please tell us what model we should follow if you believe there model is wrong

You keep deflecting from the original point I made, prove to me that we are in a better position when it comes to our squad since FSG took over.

If you compare our players from 2010 to our current crop, the only thing you can say is that there is "potential" nothing else. It's pathetic really.

That's why you keep deflecting on the isse because you refuse to talk about the obvious; 6th, 8th, 7th, 2nd and 6th

Since when has that been improvement? 

I said they are improving us as a club - quite a clear difference as the club also involves off the pitch and have highlighted the improvements they have made

Arsenal, no more need to debate you on the subject at hand. 2 trophies in 10 years says it all really. But according to you it is a proven model to success?!? The only thing proven is that they have continued to make money WITHOUT winning any trophies. Something which the yanks over here will be doing over the next few years.

The Arsenal model was always going to take time to bear fruit - as will ours - because they had to build the stadium and funds went into that stadium - you can ignore it but it doesn change the fact theat they are now in a fantastic position to move forward - every single season whilst restricted to the money they can spend they have made it into the top 4 and challenged for the title a number of times in those years.

Net Spend - you simply don't understand the point I'm making or refuse to concede that Chelsea and City pumped over 1 BILLION dollars into their respective squads when their owners took over. They have only had to improve their squads buying 2 or 3 key players each other season (to comply with FFP) yet you are trying to compare our NET spend to theirs over the last 3 or 4 years? That's what FSG is up against, that's how far BEHIND we are. Yet for some absurd reason you think we can challenge for 4th under these conditions, under these owners. 

I know exactly how much Chelsea and City pumped into their squad - our Net spend isnt pennies FFS - its over £140 mil - £350 mil of players we have purchased in a period of 5 years - thats a lot of money for a club to spend on players. Our owners do not and will not pump in money like City and Chelsea did .

And as for challenging for top 4 - well just look at Arsenal - every single season using the same model our owners are using.

I never said we had wage or transfer restrictions? We obviously have an age restriction or some sort of age strategy based on the following facts:

Player                               Age we purchased tham at

Roberto Firmino                Age 23
Joe Gomez                        Age 18
Ádám Bogdán                    Age 27
Danny Ings                         Age 22
James Milner                     Age 29
Emre Can                          Age 20
Rickie Lambert                 Age 32 
Adam Lallana                    Age 26
Lazar Marković                 Age 20
Dejan Lovren                     Age 24
Divock Origi                      Age 19
Alberto Moreno                  Age 21
Mario Balotelli                   Age 23
Lawrence Vigouroux          Age 21
Kevin Stewart                    Age 20 
Luis Alberto                       Age 22
Iago Aspas                         Age 25
Kolo Toure                        Age 32
Simon Mignolet                  Age 25        
Tiago Ilori                         Age 20
Mamadou Sakho                 Age 23
Fabio Borini                       Age 21
Joe Allen                           Age 22
Oussama Assaidi                Age 23
Samed Yesil                       Age 18
Daniel Sturridge                 Age 22
Phillipe Coutinho               Age 20
Jordan Ibe                         Age 16

There you have it the last 4 seasons worth of transfers. Let's have a look shall we. 27 players bought. 21 players bought at the age of 23 or younger (77%) and the rest older. In fact out of that we have only bought 5 players over the age of 25. A simply alarming stat, as that is when most footballers hit their peak. Also based on this fact you can assume that our total player's salary spend will decrease as you normally wouldn't offer young players expensive contracts as compared to players that are are over the age of 25 and about to hit their peak. Hence the rigid salary structure I alluded to. Don't know what more evidence you require, it's plain as day mate.

Why have oyu only gone for the years since BR arrived - what about the years before that when they were in charge ?

Looking at that list we have bought a mix

Young kids with potential

Younger players with expeirence

Older mid 20's player

and a couple of OAP's

How many of the younger players were actually bought for the first team - also have a look at how many kids we bought when Rafa was manager and GH before him - a lot more than right now

United simply don't follow the same guidelines, we have since FSG have been around. To compare to them is just down right silly.

What are these mythical guidelines you keep mentioning - can you show me a report or something that mentions them ?

And lastly, I'm not asking for a sugar daddy. I'm simply asking for a balanced approach. When you look at the players we have brought in, their ages and what they can contribute to the club, you will see that it is completely unbalanced, because the owners have been dicating this since day 1. Not Rodgers, not the committee, no one else. They have bought into this strategy and simply are doing what they think is best under it. And the results of 6th, 8th, 7th, 2nd and 6th are a testement to this flawed model. 

So are oyu saying its the owners buying the players ?

Im unsure what you believe their strategy is as so far under their ownership we have spent £350 mil

On Prem and foriegn players aged 17 - 31 , price from free to £35mil ? So doesnt seem any specific set parameters so unsure what you believe this strategy is from the owners - you can always point to an article or something

[eds]

Yeah they are improving us as a club financially off the pitch, as they should be 

The problem is that their strategy off the pitch works to our detriment on it.

The Arsenal model HASN'T won any major trophies, you are basing their strategy as being "successful" on speculation and conjecture. It's an absurd proposition, "oh after 10 years they are in a position to challenge" so that must be the right way forward. Let's see them win a few more trophies than 2 FA Cups......for them to be judged as successful and something to model any entire transfer strategy around.

Finally some acknowledgement on the money that Chelsea and City have pumped into their squads. Still can't understand how you think 140m NET or 350m GROSS comes anywhere near the 1.5 billion that each of these clubs has spent on players since their takeovers. I am fully aware that our owners can not and will not go toe-to-toe with the other two, my whole point is that with the current limitations we have why the f**k would you spend 77% of you player transfers on f**king kids. Completely destroying any balance in our squad and creating a perfect "feeder" club culture for richer clubs to cherry pick our better players from?   

In regards to going back to player transfers, I'm purely going back 4 out of the 5 years FSG have been in charge. Is that not enough for you? It's a bit silly to include their first year, as a number of those deals potentially were wrapped up before they bought us in mid 2010. I really don't know what point you are making as it's clearly not a balanced mix. More of a youth set-up with a sprinkle of free transfers (Toure, Lambert, Milner) etc here and there. All of these players have been bought to play some sort of role at the club, (bar Sturridge and Coutinho) a large portion of them have been not good enough from Day 1 the rest simply have a question mark next to them. All because they are f**king too young and HAVE no leadership or experienced players to help them along. A problem we have made worse with this strategy.

Rafa or GH NEVER spent 15m or 20m or 30m on any unproven kids like we have seen under FSG. First Rafa wasn't given that kind of money to spend and if he was, he would have spent it on a key position player. Sometimes it worked like Torres, sometimes it didn't like Aqualini. But he would never have agreed to spend it on kids. Most of the kids he brought in were fairly cheap or cost us a few million each. That's why I believe FSG never wanted to interview him, because he is at polar opposites to this ridiculous strategy.

That brings me to your next point, what mythical guidelines are you blabbering on about? My point is have United HAVE NOT spent close to 80% of their transfer budget on 23yo or younger players in the last 4 years? They haven't because the Glazers don't involve themselves in dictating these ridiculous terms. Only a idiot will think it's Rodgers or the committee or the tea lady that is obsessed in bring in youth, rather than putting 2 and 2 together and seeing the bloody obvious. IT's DICTATED by the owners. What more proof do you want?

No they aren't buying the players, they are giving a clear mandate down to buy youth though.

It's obvious you can't differentiate these two very different points.   

[Buck Rodgers]

Yeah they are improving us as a club financially off the pitch, as they should be 

The problem is that their strategy off the pitch works to our detriment on it.

The Arsenal model HASN'T won any major trophies, you are basing their strategy as being "successful" on speculation and conjecture. It's an absurd proposition, "oh after 10 years they are in a position to challenge" so that must be the right way forward. Let's see them win a few more trophies than 2 FA Cups......for them to be judged as successful and something to model any entire transfer strategy around.

Finally some acknowledgement on the money that Chelsea and City have pumped into their squads. Still can't understand how you think 140m NET or 350m GROSS comes anywhere near the 1.5 billion that each of these clubs has spent on players since their takeovers. I am fully aware that our owners can not and will not go toe-to-toe with the other two, my whole point is that with the current limitations we have why the f**k would you spend 77% of you player transfers on f**king kids. Completely destroying any balance in our squad and creating a perfect "feeder" club culture for richer clubs to cherry pick our better players from?   

In regards to going back to player transfers, I'm purely going back 4 out of the 5 years FSG have been in charge. Is that not enough for you? It's a bit silly to include their first year, as a number of those deals potentially were wrapped up before they bought us in mid 2010. I really don't know what point you are making as it's clearly not a balanced mix. More of a youth set-up with a sprinkle of free transfers (Toure, Lambert, Milner) etc here and there. All of these players have been bought to play some sort of role at the club, (bar Sturridge and Coutinho) a large portion of them have been not good enough from Day 1 the rest simply have a question mark next to them. All because they are f**king too young and HAVE no leadership or experienced players to help them along. A problem we have made worse with this strategy.

Rafa or GH NEVER spent 15m or 20m or 30m on any unproven kids like we have seen under FSG. First Rafa wasn't given that kind of money to spend and if he was, he would have spent it on a key position player. Sometimes it worked like Torres, sometimes it didn't like Aqualini. But he would never have agreed to spend it on kids. Most of the kids he brought in were fairly cheap or cost us a few million each. That's why I believe FSG never wanted to interview him, because he is at polar opposites to this ridiculous strategy.

That brings me to your next point, what mythical guidelines are you blabbering on about? My point is have United HAVE NOT spent close to 80% of their transfer budget on 23yo or younger players in the last 4 years? They haven't because the Glazers don't involve themselves in dictating these ridiculous terms. Only a idiot will think it's Rodgers or the committee or the tea lady that is obsessed in bring in youth, rather than putting 2 and 2 together and seeing the bloody obvious. IT's DICTATED by the owners. What more proof do you want?

No they aren't buying the players, they are giving a clear mandate down to buy youth though.

It's obvious you can't differentiate these two very different points.   :laugh:

Sorry but you keep changing the goal posts


You cant slag the owners off for the money spent and on who they spent it on then ignore a whole 18 months of spending on players like

Suarez, Carroll , Henderson , Downing , Adam

Subjective guessing based on players brought in isnt "proof" - its speculation thats fits in with your opinion.

You have zero proof that the owners dictate guidelines on who is purchased. Players over the age of 20 arent kids - simple as that - a great deal number of them have internation and european league experience. And 77% of budget on kids ?

Or Most expensive signings

Carrol - 35m
Firmino -29m
Lallana -25 m
Suarez - 23m
Lovern - 20m
Downing - 20m
Markovic - 20m
Sahko - 18m
Henderson - 18M
Balotelli - 16m
Allen 15m
Sturridge 12 m
Origi - 10m
Mignolet 10m


Thats 270mil spend on full current international - are you really suggesting they are kids ??

I think Origi is the youngest player there and even he was a full international who played up front for his country in a World Cup

Which every you want to keep on blabbering the owners have spent £350mil out of out totla spend since 1991 of £800mil and they are still spending

They are building the stadium , they are build the club and the foundations for the future after 24 years of mismanagement - that is going to take a lot of fixing.

Arsenal have qualified for CL for the last 10 years and the only other teams to win the league are two clubs built on oil money and one who has built on 20 plus years of success.

There are no quick fixes , there is no quick ctahc up - you either have the paitence to watch the owners and manager build foundations for success or you go elsewhere because its not going to change

[devaney]

Look Buck if we won 3 out of 4 competitions in one season Eds is the sort of bloke that would moan about the one we lost. In summary mate YOU'RE WASTING YOUR FKG TIME !!!

[leeroy74]

[maguskwt]

Eds and Buck: are you guys being paid for writing long arguments on forums? Geez... I don't know how you two find the time to argue with each other in this manner!

[eds]

Sorry but you keep changing the goal posts


You cant slag the owners off for the money spent and on who they spent it on then ignore a whole 18 months of spending on players like

Suarez, Carroll , Henderson , Downing , Adam

Subjective guessing based on players brought in isnt "proof" - its speculation thats fits in with your opinion.

You have zero proof that the owners dictate guidelines on who is purchased. Players over the age of 20 arent kids - simple as that - a great deal number of them have internation and european league experience. And 77% of budget on kids ?

Or Most expensive signings

Carrol - 35m
Firmino -29m
Lallana -25 m
Suarez - 23m
Lovern - 20m
Downing - 20m
Markovic - 20m
Sahko - 18m
Henderson - 18M
Balotelli - 16m
Allen 15m
Sturridge 12 m
Origi - 10m
Mignolet 10m


Thats 270mil spend on full current international - are you really suggesting they are kids ??

I think Origi is the youngest player there and even he was a full international who played up front for his country in a World Cup

Which every you want to keep on blabbering the owners have spent £350mil out of out totla spend since 1991 of £800mil and they are still spending

They are building the stadium , they are build the club and the foundations for the future after 24 years of mismanagement - that is going to take a lot of fixing.

Arsenal have qualified for CL for the last 10 years and the only other teams to win the league are two clubs built on oil money and one who has built on 20 plus years of success.

There are no quick fixes , there is no quick ctahc up - you either have the paitence to watch the owners and manager build foundations for success or you go elsewhere because its not going to change

I'm not changing the goal posts mate.

You are simply not understanding the points I'm making hence why you think I am "changing them".

Why are you naming five players that we purchased 5 years ago under what was a different strategy? 4 of these 5 players are no longer even at the club. 

If anything that strategy was actually correct but we bought the WRONG players. 2 good ones Henderson and Suarez and the other 3 duds.

It's simply laughable that you are trying so hard to deny the obvious. Close to 80% of our player's bought in the last four years have been 23yo or under. There is a clear mandate there, I don't need to show you any more proof, I don't need to get sound bites from our owners to say that this is the case. It's right there in front of you. It's not my fault you can't understand what a trend is (calling it "subjective guessing"  ) and can't figure out the rest.....

As for you thinking that any player that is going to come in at the age of 18-23yo and start making an immediate impact as compared to an established player that is over 25yo and about to hit their peak, I'm not even going to bother. In fact throwing them in the deep end, is why Sterling failed so miserably last season. It's the reason why Markovic seemed completely out of his depth in his first season. Play a Gerrard or Suarez next to them in their prime and it will make a WORLD of difference. And that's exactly the point I'm making, we don't have anyone currently in the squad that can do this because we have been obsessed in buying young players 

You have your blind faith that things will get better under the current regime, where I have used facts and reasoning to outline why we won't. I will simply leave it there because you obviously don't want to acknowledge any of my points and choose to stick to something that is completely flawed and mark my words, in a few years from now the same discussion will be taking place on why things didn't work under FSG......

[maguskwt]

If the type of players we acquire are mandated by the owners, which I do believe so myself, then surely you should have SOME sympathy for the manager?

I don't want to go into details because clearly non of us know the details of what goes behind the player procurement discussions, but there was clearly some kind of disconnect between the manager and the owners and or the rest of the transfer committee committee? How else would one explain the acquisition of certain players which the manager never plays.

[eds]

Eds and Buck: are you guys being paid for writing long arguments on forums? Geez... I don't know how you two find the time to argue with each other in this manner!

I don't actually have time to write long winded arguments.

But the state that I see our club in now and clearly understand what we are doing wrong is what compels me to write this.

I could also write "witty" little one liners or post memes like Dev and Leeroy, but that's a bit below me.