Ofc chelsea got where they were without being bankrolled by an oligarch
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Here’s Robbing, who’s read a report and is now qualified to dismiss everyone else’s opinion.
Our resident expert on just about everything.
There’s a difference between not being able to behave like Chelsea and not being able to spend as much as them this summer.
That part seems to have escaped you.
Perhaps someone can tell us what specifically about Chelsea’s ‘behaviour’ it is that Liverpool can’t replicate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not dismissed anyones opinion. You really do a have a problem with the truth.
As for you at last line I just did you idiot. We literally can't go an spend £200m in one window, pay those wages or reach those fees.
If you stopped and thought a bit more you wouldn't end up looking so silly all the time.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
Ofc chelsea got where they were without being bankrolled by an oligarch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they did, but we’re talking about now, not decades ago.
Out come the insults from Robbing - textbook from a man who simply cannot alternative opinion.
I suggest you do a little research as to how Chelsea have financed their transfers this summer - there’s nothing within that that couldn’t be done by Liverpool.
It’s off the back of some fluctuations, as I said, but their financing is no different to the way Liverpool finance their transfers.
Or just bury your head in the sand and tell everyone else they’re wrong, with a few insults for good measure. That usually works.
Klopps been around running clubs long enough n is intelligent enough to know why his clubs cant compete with certain other clubs. He knows more than anyone on bere thats for sure. If you think otherwise so be it.
This climate spending 200m and even more on wages n contracts n agent fees in a global pandemic where clubs are losing and predicting to lose hundreds of mullions is not funded by 140m hazard n half a season transfer ban ffs its funded by an oligarch who wont even blink at losing millions at a club he was prepared to and did sink billions into without so much as a penny back.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
Klopps been around running clubs long enough n is intelligent enough to know why his clubs cant compete with certain other clubs. He knows more than anyone on bere thats for sure. If you think otherwise so be it.
This climate spending 200m and even more on wages n contracts n agent fees in a global pandemic where clubs are losing and predicting to lose hundreds of mullions is not funded by 140m hazard n half a season transfer ban ffs its funded by an oligarch who wont even blink at losing millions at a club he was prepared to and did sink billions into without so much as a penny back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no I don’t think otherwise, I literally said so to you!
But I think he’s wrong. And that’s why I wonder if there’s something else behind the comments.
I don’t think Liverpool are far off much, if at all, from Chelsea’s ability to spend and I think Chelsea’s big outlay is more to do with circumstance and fluctuation.
Will see if I can post up some stuff that you might find interesting tomorrow, if I get the chance.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
Klopps been around running clubs long enough n is intelligent enough to know why his clubs cant compete with certain other clubs. He knows more than anyone on bere thats for sure. If you think otherwise so be it.
This climate spending 200m and even more on wages n contracts n agent fees in a global pandemic where clubs are losing and predicting to lose hundreds of mullions is not funded by 140m hazard n half a season transfer ban ffs its funded by an oligarch who wont even blink at losing millions at a club he was prepared to and did sink billions into without so much as a penny back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman effectively writing off £1.17bn in loans doesn't hinder things.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 4 hours, 11 minutes ago
Why are you doing this to yourself is a more pertinent question imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doing what? Writing an article about a footy manager on a footy forum?
He's whinging about chelsea doing exactly what liverpool did. Last time he spoke about money he said he'd wanted to things differently (not spending money) and went out and spent bucket loads.
He is always acting as if Liverpool got no bean in their pocket, pointing at other clubs spending, which is just weird.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 26 minutes ago
He answered a question about liverpools transfer business and mentioned an example of a club thats different to how we operate and all of a sudden city n chelsea fans are upset by it. Thats whats happened theres no motive behind other than explaining his and the club he manages situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset by it
It seems Liverpool fans are more upset by it than anything.
As already said, he was asked a question about Liverpools spending, instead he prefers to divert attention from himself and Liverpool by talking about another clubs and overlook the fact that in the two previous summers he spent in excess of £350m putting together his team!
Maybe he's ignorant of the fact that Chelsea sold players to the tune of over £265m in a period they were banned from buying players and their spending as it stands at the moment is STILL not in excess of the funds bought in, even if you factor Kovacic in to the equation.
He obviously has an agenda to deflect the pressure on his team to emulate last seasons success. His observations are either based on ill thought out assumptions or a bit of mischief on his part!
Either way it doesn't bother me and shouldn't be of any concern to any other Chelsea supporter!
Klopps off the cuff, he openly stated he doesnt enjoy doing conferences n interviews and his English is not perfect, he says things how he sees at the time as best he can to explain or answer questions. I highly doubt he meant anything by them was prob just the first club popped to mind when thinking of an example.
I think in terms of FFP sure we shouldnt be far off Chelsea, but lets be honest with City proving its a bit of a farce and with the pandemic its unlikely to do anything for last year or this since everyones making losses.
difference atm at THIS time is clubs like Chelsea and City clearly have owners who wont blink at continued spending in a climate where clubs are going to lose millions. Our owners wont do that even if they could.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
Klopps off the cuff, he openly stated he doesnt enjoy doing conferences n interviews and his English is not perfect, he says things how he sees at the time as best he can to explain or answer questions. I highly doubt he meant anything by them was prob just the first club popped to mind when thinking of an example.
I think in terms of FFP sure we shouldnt be far off Chelsea, but lets be honest with City proving its a bit of a farce and with the pandemic its unlikely to do anything for last year or this since everyones making losses.
difference atm at THIS time is clubs like Chelsea and City clearly have owners who wont blink at continued spending in a climate where clubs are going to lose millions. Our owners wont do that even if they could.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but that simply isn’t what has happened at Chelsea this summer.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 26 minutes ago
He answered a question about liverpools transfer business and mentioned an example of a club thats different to how we operate and all of a sudden city n chelsea fans are upset by it. Thats whats happened theres no motive behind other than explaining his and the club he manages situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset by it
It seems Liverpool fans are more upset by it than anything.
As already said, he was asked a question about Liverpools spending, instead he prefers to divert attention from himself and Liverpool by talking about another clubs and overlook the fact that in the two previous summers he spent in excess of £350m putting together his team!
Maybe he's ignorant of the fact that Chelsea sold players to the tune of over £265m in a period they were banned from buying players and their spending as it stands at the moment is STILL not in excess of the funds bought in, even if you factor Kovacic in to the equation.
He obviously has an agenda to deflect the pressure on his team to emulate last seasons success. His observations are either based on ill thought out assumptions or a bit of mischief on his part!
Either way it doesn't bother me and shouldn't be of any concern to any other Chelsea supporter!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolute bollox ur figures are well off for a start.
Liverpool FC £2.61m £28.08m £-126.79m £18.56m £4.93m
Chelsea FC £-134.28m £101.04m £-122.90m £-53.91m £-21.51m
u made 100m in a season where u sold hazard n had a transfer ban, in the middle of this one and a 122m net spend the season prior
liverpools 70m net spend in 5 years (14m per season klopps been here) to Chelseas 230m (46m per)
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends which report you read I guess. I've seen as high as €92m and as low as £72m but yeah the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Either way we could not spend that this window of our accounts are to be believed unless we borrowed heavily.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends which report you read I guess. I've seen as high as €92m and as low as £72m but yeah the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Either way we could not spend that this window of our accounts are to be believed unless we borrowed heavily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you did a couple of windows ago, Chelsea is doing it now. Saying Liverpool cannot behave like Chelsea is bollox. Thats the whole point.
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends which report you read I guess. I've seen as high as €92m and as low as £72m but yeah the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Either way we could not spend that this window of our accounts are to be believed unless we borrowed heavily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you did a couple of windows ago, Chelsea is doing it now. Saying Liverpool cannot behave like Chelsea is bollox. Thats the whole point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've never once spent as much as Chelsea have this window, we never had a wage bill as high and if we do borrow money it's not from a billionnaire owner who then writes it off as equity so no, it's not bollox really is it.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 26 minutes ago
He answered a question about liverpools transfer business and mentioned an example of a club thats different to how we operate and all of a sudden city n chelsea fans are upset by it. Thats whats happened theres no motive behind other than explaining his and the club he manages situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset by it
It seems Liverpool fans are more upset by it than anything.
As already said, he was asked a question about Liverpools spending, instead he prefers to divert attention from himself and Liverpool by talking about another clubs and overlook the fact that in the two previous summers he spent in excess of £350m putting together his team!
Maybe he's ignorant of the fact that Chelsea sold players to the tune of over £265m in a period they were banned from buying players and their spending as it stands at the moment is STILL not in excess of the funds bought in, even if you factor Kovacic in to the equation.
He obviously has an agenda to deflect the pressure on his team to emulate last seasons success. His observations are either based on ill thought out assumptions or a bit of mischief on his part!
Either way it doesn't bother me and shouldn't be of any concern to any other Chelsea supporter!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolute bolloxur figures are well off for a start.
Liverpool FC £2.61m £28.08m £-126.79m £18.56m £4.93m
Chelsea FC £-134.28m £101.04m £-122.90m £-53.91m £-21.51m
u made 100m in a season where u sold hazard n had a transfer ban, in the middle of this one and a 122m net spend the season prior
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you need to go and check your facts!
When was the last time Roman wrote off loans, out of interest?
Just read the link you provided op and I don’t see any moaning from Klopp, he’s just stating the facts of the situation. Liverpool spend what we earn, Chelsea as a rule spend Romans money.
In fact, the only person moaning is you. Angry little fella, aren’t you?
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 minute ago
Just read the link you provided op and I don’t see any moaning from Klopp, he’s just stating the facts of the situation. Liverpool spend what we earn, Chelsea as a rule spend Romans money.
In fact, the only person moaning is you. Angry little fella, aren’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that's not correct in the context of what he's talking about, ie the spending this summer by Chelsea!
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 minutes ago
Just read the link you provided op and I don’t see any moaning from Klopp, he’s just stating the facts of the situation. Liverpool spend what we earn, Chelsea as a rule spend Romans money.
In fact, the only person moaning is you. Angry little fella, aren’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018 he put in another £69m.
I actually think what Chelsea are doing is great for the league and I like Lampard and a lot of their players. I'm really looking forward to watching Havertz this season in particular and the CL should be absolutely mint this coming season.
A lot of reference to history in this thread which isn’t really the part that people disagree with in terms of what Klopp said.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends which report you read I guess. I've seen as high as €92m and as low as £72m but yeah the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Either way we could not spend that this window of our accounts are to be believed unless we borrowed heavily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you did a couple of windows ago, Chelsea is doing it now. Saying Liverpool cannot behave like Chelsea is bollox. Thats the whole point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've never once spent as much as Chelsea have this window, we never had a wage bill as high and if we do borrow money it's not from a billionnaire owner who then writes it off as equity so no, it's not bollox really is it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've been moving goal posts twice now so I'll leave it at that
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 minutes ago
Just read the link you provided op and I don’t see any moaning from Klopp, he’s just stating the facts of the situation. Liverpool spend what we earn, Chelsea as a rule spend Romans money.
In fact, the only person moaning is you. Angry little fella, aren’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moron
Sign in if you want to comment
Klopp
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 10/9/20
Ofc chelsea got where they were without being bankrolled by an oligarch
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Here’s Robbing, who’s read a report and is now qualified to dismiss everyone else’s opinion.
Our resident expert on just about everything.
There’s a difference between not being able to behave like Chelsea and not being able to spend as much as them this summer.
That part seems to have escaped you.
Perhaps someone can tell us what specifically about Chelsea’s ‘behaviour’ it is that Liverpool can’t replicate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not dismissed anyones opinion. You really do a have a problem with the truth.
As for you at last line I just did you idiot. We literally can't go an spend £200m in one window, pay those wages or reach those fees.
If you stopped and thought a bit more you wouldn't end up looking so silly all the time.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
Ofc chelsea got where they were without being bankrolled by an oligarch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they did, but we’re talking about now, not decades ago.
posted on 10/9/20
Out come the insults from Robbing - textbook from a man who simply cannot alternative opinion.
I suggest you do a little research as to how Chelsea have financed their transfers this summer - there’s nothing within that that couldn’t be done by Liverpool.
It’s off the back of some fluctuations, as I said, but their financing is no different to the way Liverpool finance their transfers.
Or just bury your head in the sand and tell everyone else they’re wrong, with a few insults for good measure. That usually works.
posted on 10/9/20
Klopps been around running clubs long enough n is intelligent enough to know why his clubs cant compete with certain other clubs. He knows more than anyone on bere thats for sure. If you think otherwise so be it.
This climate spending 200m and even more on wages n contracts n agent fees in a global pandemic where clubs are losing and predicting to lose hundreds of mullions is not funded by 140m hazard n half a season transfer ban ffs its funded by an oligarch who wont even blink at losing millions at a club he was prepared to and did sink billions into without so much as a penny back.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
Klopps been around running clubs long enough n is intelligent enough to know why his clubs cant compete with certain other clubs. He knows more than anyone on bere thats for sure. If you think otherwise so be it.
This climate spending 200m and even more on wages n contracts n agent fees in a global pandemic where clubs are losing and predicting to lose hundreds of mullions is not funded by 140m hazard n half a season transfer ban ffs its funded by an oligarch who wont even blink at losing millions at a club he was prepared to and did sink billions into without so much as a penny back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no I don’t think otherwise, I literally said so to you!
But I think he’s wrong. And that’s why I wonder if there’s something else behind the comments.
I don’t think Liverpool are far off much, if at all, from Chelsea’s ability to spend and I think Chelsea’s big outlay is more to do with circumstance and fluctuation.
Will see if I can post up some stuff that you might find interesting tomorrow, if I get the chance.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
Klopps been around running clubs long enough n is intelligent enough to know why his clubs cant compete with certain other clubs. He knows more than anyone on bere thats for sure. If you think otherwise so be it.
This climate spending 200m and even more on wages n contracts n agent fees in a global pandemic where clubs are losing and predicting to lose hundreds of mullions is not funded by 140m hazard n half a season transfer ban ffs its funded by an oligarch who wont even blink at losing millions at a club he was prepared to and did sink billions into without so much as a penny back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman effectively writing off £1.17bn in loans doesn't hinder things.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 4 hours, 11 minutes ago
Why are you doing this to yourself is a more pertinent question imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doing what? Writing an article about a footy manager on a footy forum?
He's whinging about chelsea doing exactly what liverpool did. Last time he spoke about money he said he'd wanted to things differently (not spending money) and went out and spent bucket loads.
He is always acting as if Liverpool got no bean in their pocket, pointing at other clubs spending, which is just weird.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 26 minutes ago
He answered a question about liverpools transfer business and mentioned an example of a club thats different to how we operate and all of a sudden city n chelsea fans are upset by it. Thats whats happened theres no motive behind other than explaining his and the club he manages situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset by it
It seems Liverpool fans are more upset by it than anything.
As already said, he was asked a question about Liverpools spending, instead he prefers to divert attention from himself and Liverpool by talking about another clubs and overlook the fact that in the two previous summers he spent in excess of £350m putting together his team!
Maybe he's ignorant of the fact that Chelsea sold players to the tune of over £265m in a period they were banned from buying players and their spending as it stands at the moment is STILL not in excess of the funds bought in, even if you factor Kovacic in to the equation.
He obviously has an agenda to deflect the pressure on his team to emulate last seasons success. His observations are either based on ill thought out assumptions or a bit of mischief on his part!
Either way it doesn't bother me and shouldn't be of any concern to any other Chelsea supporter!
posted on 10/9/20
Klopps off the cuff, he openly stated he doesnt enjoy doing conferences n interviews and his English is not perfect, he says things how he sees at the time as best he can to explain or answer questions. I highly doubt he meant anything by them was prob just the first club popped to mind when thinking of an example.
I think in terms of FFP sure we shouldnt be far off Chelsea, but lets be honest with City proving its a bit of a farce and with the pandemic its unlikely to do anything for last year or this since everyones making losses.
difference atm at THIS time is clubs like Chelsea and City clearly have owners who wont blink at continued spending in a climate where clubs are going to lose millions. Our owners wont do that even if they could.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
Klopps off the cuff, he openly stated he doesnt enjoy doing conferences n interviews and his English is not perfect, he says things how he sees at the time as best he can to explain or answer questions. I highly doubt he meant anything by them was prob just the first club popped to mind when thinking of an example.
I think in terms of FFP sure we shouldnt be far off Chelsea, but lets be honest with City proving its a bit of a farce and with the pandemic its unlikely to do anything for last year or this since everyones making losses.
difference atm at THIS time is clubs like Chelsea and City clearly have owners who wont blink at continued spending in a climate where clubs are going to lose millions. Our owners wont do that even if they could.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but that simply isn’t what has happened at Chelsea this summer.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 26 minutes ago
He answered a question about liverpools transfer business and mentioned an example of a club thats different to how we operate and all of a sudden city n chelsea fans are upset by it. Thats whats happened theres no motive behind other than explaining his and the club he manages situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset by it
It seems Liverpool fans are more upset by it than anything.
As already said, he was asked a question about Liverpools spending, instead he prefers to divert attention from himself and Liverpool by talking about another clubs and overlook the fact that in the two previous summers he spent in excess of £350m putting together his team!
Maybe he's ignorant of the fact that Chelsea sold players to the tune of over £265m in a period they were banned from buying players and their spending as it stands at the moment is STILL not in excess of the funds bought in, even if you factor Kovacic in to the equation.
He obviously has an agenda to deflect the pressure on his team to emulate last seasons success. His observations are either based on ill thought out assumptions or a bit of mischief on his part!
Either way it doesn't bother me and shouldn't be of any concern to any other Chelsea supporter!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolute bollox ur figures are well off for a start.
Liverpool FC £2.61m £28.08m £-126.79m £18.56m £4.93m
Chelsea FC £-134.28m £101.04m £-122.90m £-53.91m £-21.51m
u made 100m in a season where u sold hazard n had a transfer ban, in the middle of this one and a 122m net spend the season prior
posted on 10/9/20
liverpools 70m net spend in 5 years (14m per season klopps been here) to Chelseas 230m (46m per)
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends which report you read I guess. I've seen as high as €92m and as low as £72m but yeah the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Either way we could not spend that this window of our accounts are to be believed unless we borrowed heavily.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends which report you read I guess. I've seen as high as €92m and as low as £72m but yeah the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Either way we could not spend that this window of our accounts are to be believed unless we borrowed heavily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you did a couple of windows ago, Chelsea is doing it now. Saying Liverpool cannot behave like Chelsea is bollox. Thats the whole point.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends which report you read I guess. I've seen as high as €92m and as low as £72m but yeah the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Either way we could not spend that this window of our accounts are to be believed unless we borrowed heavily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you did a couple of windows ago, Chelsea is doing it now. Saying Liverpool cannot behave like Chelsea is bollox. Thats the whole point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've never once spent as much as Chelsea have this window, we never had a wage bill as high and if we do borrow money it's not from a billionnaire owner who then writes it off as equity so no, it's not bollox really is it.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 26 minutes ago
He answered a question about liverpools transfer business and mentioned an example of a club thats different to how we operate and all of a sudden city n chelsea fans are upset by it. Thats whats happened theres no motive behind other than explaining his and the club he manages situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset by it
It seems Liverpool fans are more upset by it than anything.
As already said, he was asked a question about Liverpools spending, instead he prefers to divert attention from himself and Liverpool by talking about another clubs and overlook the fact that in the two previous summers he spent in excess of £350m putting together his team!
Maybe he's ignorant of the fact that Chelsea sold players to the tune of over £265m in a period they were banned from buying players and their spending as it stands at the moment is STILL not in excess of the funds bought in, even if you factor Kovacic in to the equation.
He obviously has an agenda to deflect the pressure on his team to emulate last seasons success. His observations are either based on ill thought out assumptions or a bit of mischief on his part!
Either way it doesn't bother me and shouldn't be of any concern to any other Chelsea supporter!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolute bolloxur figures are well off for a start.
Liverpool FC £2.61m £28.08m £-126.79m £18.56m £4.93m
Chelsea FC £-134.28m £101.04m £-122.90m £-53.91m £-21.51m
u made 100m in a season where u sold hazard n had a transfer ban, in the middle of this one and a 122m net spend the season prior
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you need to go and check your facts!
posted on 10/9/20
When was the last time Roman wrote off loans, out of interest?
posted on 10/9/20
Just read the link you provided op and I don’t see any moaning from Klopp, he’s just stating the facts of the situation. Liverpool spend what we earn, Chelsea as a rule spend Romans money.
In fact, the only person moaning is you. Angry little fella, aren’t you?
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 minute ago
Just read the link you provided op and I don’t see any moaning from Klopp, he’s just stating the facts of the situation. Liverpool spend what we earn, Chelsea as a rule spend Romans money.
In fact, the only person moaning is you. Angry little fella, aren’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that's not correct in the context of what he's talking about, ie the spending this summer by Chelsea!
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 minutes ago
Just read the link you provided op and I don’t see any moaning from Klopp, he’s just stating the facts of the situation. Liverpool spend what we earn, Chelsea as a rule spend Romans money.
In fact, the only person moaning is you. Angry little fella, aren’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018 he put in another £69m.
I actually think what Chelsea are doing is great for the league and I like Lampard and a lot of their players. I'm really looking forward to watching Havertz this season in particular and the CL should be absolutely mint this coming season.
posted on 10/9/20
A lot of reference to history in this thread which isn’t really the part that people disagree with in terms of what Klopp said.
posted on 10/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 39 minutes ago
Having read a detailed explanation of our finances recently we can't behave like Chelsea just have atm unless we borrow. So yeah if we borrowed loads of money we could but we haven't so we can't.
We've never spent as much in one window as Chelsea just have, we've never spent more than £80m on a player as Chelsea just have and we don't pay anyone as much as Chelsea do Werner.
Now none of that bothers me but I'm not sure what's up for debate here. Clearly some 606 accountants know more though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea didnt spend £80m, Havertz was £75.8m, you bought van Dijk for £75.0m
Yep you are right, Chelsea spend more, a whole £800K, on a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends which report you read I guess. I've seen as high as €92m and as low as £72m but yeah the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Either way we could not spend that this window of our accounts are to be believed unless we borrowed heavily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you did a couple of windows ago, Chelsea is doing it now. Saying Liverpool cannot behave like Chelsea is bollox. Thats the whole point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've never once spent as much as Chelsea have this window, we never had a wage bill as high and if we do borrow money it's not from a billionnaire owner who then writes it off as equity so no, it's not bollox really is it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've been moving goal posts twice now so I'll leave it at that
posted on 10/9/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 minutes ago
Just read the link you provided op and I don’t see any moaning from Klopp, he’s just stating the facts of the situation. Liverpool spend what we earn, Chelsea as a rule spend Romans money.
In fact, the only person moaning is you. Angry little fella, aren’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moron
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8