He's been by far the best player of this season. Involved with every goal against Stoke with his superb passing. City are destroying Stoke.
They have good players in every position but the main difference between them and us is De Bruyne and their strikers Jesus and Aguero. Klopp biggest mistake not getting a clinical striker. We create chances but can't finish them. City get goals from everywhere.
And another factor is they have Fernandinho who can shield the defence and he gets goals as well. We have Henderson.
De Bruyne
posted on 14/10/17
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 7 seconds ago
Henderson was better than Kante last season statistically. Don’t know why LFC fans don’t rate him higher ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you keep on saying this?
You should be concentrating on why you just got beaten by Hodgson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/10/17
comment by Goofy One (U16087)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Can Solo (U6997)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
City should be bloody good. They have spent an extra ordinary amount of money in the transfer market. Give Klopp the same and I would back him to come out on top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Klopp has money to spend too. It's just that top players either don't want to play for Liverpool or you failed to land your target.
Stop this money rubbish. Liverpool spent more than £140m this Summer. You make it look like your club is skint.
-----/
Where on earth do you get 140m from?
I wish.
It's that what Man City spent on their defence this summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ox £40m, Salah £35m, Keita £70m.
If you had succeeded with VVD, it would have taken your outlay to more than £200m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re counting a player who won’t join until next year? With no knowledge of the fee (won’t be as high as 70m with a release clause in place for 50m next summer).
Shall we also count some is City’s next summer signings and add them to this year? Or are we prepared to be sensible and say that Keita is a summer 18 purchase?
Look we’ve spent money, no doubt, but it’s not in the same ball-park as city. No bitter, it’s just the way it is. Every club other than City, Utd and Chelsea have to continually punch above their weight or find bargain (relatively speaking) if they want to compete. Not even win, compete. And again, that’s not bitter it’s just the way it is. Denying it is daft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said. Dint get me wrong if we could spend that dough I won't complain. But come on surely you can see that pep needed newly god knows how much cash this summer to transform the team. And let's not forget last year either. In fact I think pep has spent more than double than Klopp has even though Klopp been a season longer. The only other teams in the planet that could compete like thst is united PSG and Madrid.
And ps 70 mil.for keita lol where u get that figure from
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I still give Pep credit. Spending is one thing, getting your target and them being the right players in a super competitive market is tough. Getting these players to come into a highly competitive team like City is tough because you can make no guarantees.
And then there’s the surprising successes like Jesus and Sane. He’s not exactly buying the Messi’s, Ronaldo’s, Neymar’s etc. Most are players for the future as well as the present.
As I said, I give Pep plenty of credit irrespective of the money spent.
posted on 15/10/17
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 8 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
City should be bloody good. They have spent an extra ordinary amount of money in the transfer market. Give Klopp the same and I would back him to come out on top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Klopp has money to spend too. It's just that top players either don't want to play for Liverpool or you failed to land your target.
Stop this money rubbish. Liverpool spent more than £140m this Summer. You make it look like your club is skint.
-----/
Where on earth do you get 140m from?
I wish.
It's that what Man City spent on their defence this summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ox £40m, Salah £35m, Keita £70m.
If you had succeeded with VVD, it would have taken your outlay to more than £200m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure you did not do the financial reporting for a well known supermarket chain given your inflated reported figures, it's that or you are drunk !
Based on the last 7 years the net spend of the top clubs is around:
Man City - £718.05m
Man United - £540.05m
Chelsea - £351.8m
Arsenal - £179.8m
Spurs - A remarkable £20.5m profit
Liverpool - £163.985m
I think I'll go off respected football journalists for figures below rather than suggestions more suitable for reporting Capital expenditure for Enron
Sources below if anyone interested.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/premier-league-net-spend-how-11091823
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/revealed-how-much-liverpools-fsg-11318226
posted on 15/10/17
Wasnt Spurs net spend way more than Arsenal 15 years ago despite being an awful team.
The net spend trophy is bull sheit especially if you are unlikely to win anything like Spurs. Lets wait till you move to the new stadium and you spend some facking money.
You cant even win the domestic cups for facks sakes
posted on 15/10/17
comment by downwithwhiskeynose (U14492)
posted 2 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 8 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
City should be bloody good. They have spent an extra ordinary amount of money in the transfer market. Give Klopp the same and I would back him to come out on top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Klopp has money to spend too. It's just that top players either don't want to play for Liverpool or you failed to land your target.
Stop this money rubbish. Liverpool spent more than £140m this Summer. You make it look like your club is skint.
-----/
Where on earth do you get 140m from?
I wish.
It's that what Man City spent on their defence this summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ox £40m, Salah £35m, Keita £70m.
If you had succeeded with VVD, it would have taken your outlay to more than £200m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure you did not do the financial reporting for a well known supermarket chain given your inflated reported figures, it's that or you are drunk !
Based on the last 7 years the net spend of the top clubs is around:
Man City - £718.05m
Man United - £540.05m
Chelsea - £351.8m
Arsenal - £179.8m
Spurs - A remarkable £20.5m profit
Liverpool - £163.985m
I think I'll go off respected football journalists for figures below rather than suggestions more suitable for reporting Capital expenditure for Enron
Sources below if anyone interested.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/premier-league-net-spend-how-11091823
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/revealed-how-much-liverpools-fsg-11318226
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs are doing remarkably well considering how much less they spend on players and wages than the other big hitters. Consistently around the top two or three for the past few years, and again this season. They are the real success story of the Prem, even without actually winning it. Their team on the pitch yesterday I would wager cost less than the amount City paid for two full backs pre season. They would surely have won the Prem, if they had spent say another £500 million as City have done.
posted on 15/10/17
Real success story bet you said that about Arsenal 10 years ago. Thats nonsense Sandy. The club grows and becomes a success by winning stuff just look at how City and Chelsea before them have grown.
You then start attracting the top players e.t.c You can say what you like about spending money but if you dont you risk becoming a third rate club and if you have horrible honours you go down like Leeds.
You are no success at any level.
posted on 15/10/17
comment by taxidriver (U21039)
posted 5 hours, 44 minutes ago
Real success storybet you said that about Arsenal 10 years ago. Thats nonsense Sandy. The club grows and becomes a success by winning stuff just look at how City and Chelsea before them have grown.
You then start attracting the top players e.t.c You can say what you like about spending money but if you dont you risk becoming a third rate club and if you have horrible honours you go down like Leeds.
You are no success at any level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What nonsense. Those clubs grew because they got a rich owner who ploughed unprecedented levels of money into the club's transfer budgets.
That allowed them to attract the best players and thus win trophies. They didn't win a load of trophies on a shoestring budget and then start buying big.
Spurs (and Leicester for one season) are undoubtedly the surprise success based on their expenditure. They have outperformed the majority of teams in the last couple of seasons and have done this really cheaply.
That being said, as the figure in the above post show, Liverpool and arsenal also have no right to expect to win the league on their outlay when compared to the other 3. That is why talk of sacking managers because of not challenging for the title is nonsense
posted on 15/10/17
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by taxidriver (U21039)
posted 5 hours, 44 minutes ago
Real success storybet you said that about Arsenal 10 years ago. Thats nonsense Sandy. The club grows and becomes a success by winning stuff just look at how City and Chelsea before them have grown.
You then start attracting the top players e.t.c You can say what you like about spending money but if you dont you risk becoming a third rate club and if you have horrible honours you go down like Leeds.
You are no success at any level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What nonsense. Those clubs grew because they got a rich owner who ploughed unprecedented levels of money into the club's transfer budgets.
That allowed them to attract the best players and thus win trophies. They didn't win a load of trophies on a shoestring budget and then start buying big.
Spurs (and Leicester for one season) are undoubtedly the surprise success based on their expenditure. They have outperformed the majority of teams in the last couple of seasons and have done this really cheaply.
That being said, as the figure in the above post show, Liverpool and arsenal also have no right to expect to win the league on their outlay when compared to the other 3. That is why talk of sacking managers because of not challenging for the title is nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on WelshPoolfan. Team work and clever consistent management along with smart decisions is what will give us our best chance, trying to simply outspend the richer clubs through transfer fees or wages wont work.
posted on 15/10/17
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 11 hours, 12 minutes ago
comment by downwithwhiskeynose (U14492)
posted 2 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 8 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
City should be bloody good. They have spent an extra ordinary amount of money in the transfer market. Give Klopp the same and I would back him to come out on top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Klopp has money to spend too. It's just that top players either don't want to play for Liverpool or you failed to land your target.
Stop this money rubbish. Liverpool spent more than £140m this Summer. You make it look like your club is skint.
-----/
Where on earth do you get 140m from?
I wish.
It's that what Man City spent on their defence this summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ox £40m, Salah £35m, Keita £70m.
If you had succeeded with VVD, it would have taken your outlay to more than £200m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure you did not do the financial reporting for a well known supermarket chain given your inflated reported figures, it's that or you are drunk !
Based on the last 7 years the net spend of the top clubs is around:
Man City - £718.05m
Man United - £540.05m
Chelsea - £351.8m
Arsenal - £179.8m
Spurs - A remarkable £20.5m profit
Liverpool - £163.985m
I think I'll go off respected football journalists for figures below rather than suggestions more suitable for reporting Capital expenditure for Enron
Sources below if anyone interested.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/premier-league-net-spend-how-11091823
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/revealed-how-much-liverpools-fsg-11318226
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs are doing remarkably well considering how much less they spend on players and wages than the other big hitters. Consistently around the top two or three for the past few years, and again this season. They are the real success story of the Prem, even without actually winning it. Their team on the pitch yesterday I would wager cost less than the amount City paid for two full backs pre season. They would surely have won the Prem, if they had spent say another £500 million as City have done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah Spurs are doing very well based on financial spend compared to where they are finishing. Their biggest challenge may be keeping their best players, being able to attract the right players while paying for their new stadium.
posted on 16/10/17
comment by Can Solo (U6997)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
Personally I still give Pep credit. Spending is one thing, getting your target and them being the right players in a super competitive market is tough. Getting these players to come into a highly competitive team like City is tough because you can make no guarantees.
And then there’s the surprising successes like Jesus and Sane. He’s not exactly buying the Messi’s, Ronaldo’s, Neymar’s etc. Most are players for the future as well as the present.
As I said, I give Pep plenty of credit irrespective of the money spent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Pep didn't bring in players who were established as star players, but players who were seen as having great potential. Getting them to fulfil that potential isn't easy given that so many highly rated youngsters ended up having very average careers.