comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 59 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the ban Chelsea have sold £152m and spent £201m. Even if Rice and Mendy were purchased how is that anywhere near £200m net spend. Chelsea are also due payments Hazard and make money on loaning out players that isn't counted in net spend for some reason. They've bought players cheaper than normal prices due to climate as someone's stated Werner Chilwell Havertz all for a lot less than originally quoted.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? Lol where you getting those figures
I’m suprised this topic is still brought up on here let alone by managers. It’s not hard to do the research. On top of sales we also have loan fees. Sometimes up to 5 million a time, but let’s say 2.5 million. Say the last 3 years we’ve loaned out 50 players. That’s over 100 million alone. Then there’s cl qualification too.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
I was talking £200m net spend in one summer, it's currently at £134m and that doesn't even include the £40m for Kovacic as tranfermarkt classes it as last year.
But why we talking about one summer? Doesn’t paint a whole picture. We have money to spend due to previous incomings. This much is clear.
These are exceptional circumstances. Chelsea are playing catch up and have transfer surplus to boot.
Yeah I don’t get why it’s a topic Bov. It’s all pretty straight forward. We’re doing what liverpool done about 2/3 years ago. Just we’re doing more in one window
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue is pretty plain:
Viewed from the other side, it can easily be portrayed as a virtue-signalling, snide dig at what may presumably be a direct rival; also a reminder of why he chose Liverpool and his contempt of 'money bags' clubs.
Viewed from a Liverpool fan's point of view, it's understandable that you should feel impelled to defend him and argue that rival fans are merely spinning the story as above.
Far as I see it, there are probably some elements of both. Even though his lack of appreciation for money-bag clubs is well-known, he naturally views things from his own perspective. Personally, I would give him the benefit of the doubt as to the use of the word "behaviour", because even though it has a clear nuance in English, it's close enough in meaning to concepts such as conduct or actions for it to potentially overlap in his native tongue with a word that might indicate current action rather than general behaviour.
The whole issue is pretty much football controversy 101: find something at which one might potentially be able to take offence, willfully ignore or refuse to accept as potentially valid points the arguments posed by the other side, then descend into throwing stereotyped accusations at one another.
The other issue is that transfermarket and other sites don't take into account how transfers are accounted for.
The accounts won't show transfer fees at £200 million + this summer.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool answer. I was kind of hoping you would provide me the parts where Klopp was clearly moaning, but you can’t, can you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its in the article, are you blind?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s not moaning, he’s just saying what he thinks the situation is as he sees it. It’s pretty obvious really, I guess you’re just too angry to grasp it....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did the same, yet you call me angry and that I am moaning
Yup. Instalments and add ons also not taken into account. We supposedly got a fair bit more from the hazard transfer this summer from Madrid winning the league but this is not taken into account.
Lol it’s really not worth debating with terminator btw. A known wum
comment by Bov (U6696)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 59 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the ban Chelsea have sold £152m and spent £201m. Even if Rice and Mendy were purchased how is that anywhere near £200m net spend. Chelsea are also due payments Hazard and make money on loaning out players that isn't counted in net spend for some reason. They've bought players cheaper than normal prices due to climate as someone's stated Werner Chilwell Havertz all for a lot less than originally quoted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is a stupid measure of a club's finances anyway.
Madrid's net spend has been almost negligible (if not actually negative) for about half a decade, but the insane wages and bonuses we've had to fork out in recent years, added to stadium redevelopment costs and reduced income means we're absolutely hamstrung and apparently unable to make a single signing (unless we can by some miracle shift Bale).
If you looked solely at net spend you'd ask yourself what the facking problem is.
I'm only using it because we wouldn't be able to match that much spending. The season before you sold Hazard you also had a net spend of something like £120m and there's simply no way we could do that.
Not knocking you for it, but it proves Klopp's point that in comparison we can't spend as much.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 minute ago
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!
----------------------------------------------------------------
I’m more questioning why the op is so wound up with what Klopp has said. Klopp isn’t even moaning....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Must be hard for you living life in total exaggeration all the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not exaggerating though. You’re an aggressive, angry poster, ergo a classic keyboard warrior. Calm down dear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only one upset here seems to be you and the rest of the Liverpool lot. Incapable of seeing the truth about Klopp, he's always moaning about other team's spending. WHen that gets pointed out you all come crying saying its not true
Ioag also doesn’t take into account income from prize winnings such as cl qualification, sponsors, kit manufacturers etc.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm only using it because we wouldn't be able to match that much spending. The season before you sold Hazard you also had a net spend of something like £120m and there's simply no way we could do that.
Not knocking you for it, but it proves Klopp's point that in comparison we can't spend as much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sold costa , courtois and multiple others and loans. Also got cl and won Europa.
Liverpool have done similar in the past.
Fact is Liverpool have bought we they could due to high sales of players (sterling coutinho etc) and prize money. Chelsea are now doing the same.
Of course, Nick. The thing about prize money is that it generally vanishes because the players at the top clubs are on huge performances bonuses. That means that even though winning stuff is definitely a plus in the long term due to added exposure and because success obviously breeds fans, all of which increase brand value for sponsors, a club that has overcommitted funds to potential bonuses might actually have to make financial adjustments. I reckon this is probably the case with Real Madrid and the 3 consecutive Champions League trophies. If Ronaldo's, Bale's or even Ramos' salaries were already huge, then you can imagine that the performances bonuses were mammoth too.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lol it’s really not worth debating with terminator btw. A known wum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, just showing what a mönǧ he is with his stupid comments
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue is pretty plain:
Viewed from the other side, it can easily be portrayed as a virtue-signalling, snide dig at what may presumably be a direct rival; also a reminder of why he chose Liverpool and his contempt of 'money bags' clubs.
Viewed from a Liverpool fan's point of view, it's understandable that you should feel impelled to defend him and argue that rival fans are merely spinning the story as above.
Far as I see it, there are probably some elements of both. Even though his lack of appreciation for money-bag clubs is well-known, he naturally views things from his own perspective. Personally, I would give him the benefit of the doubt as to the use of the word "behaviour", because even though it has a clear nuance in English, it's close enough in meaning to concepts such as conduct or actions for it to potentially overlap in his native tongue with a word that might indicate current action rather than general behaviour.
The whole issue is pretty much football controversy 101: find something at which one might potentially be able to take offence, willfully ignore or refuse to accept as potentially valid points the arguments posed by the other side, then descend into throwing stereotyped accusations at one another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may have been a dig but it's likely he's saying it to a section of our own fans who keep complaining we're not spending, and are pointing to other clubs spending as proof that the money's there. Klopp probably shouldn't have worded it in the way that he did, but he's right that we don't currently have the same spending power.
To be honest it doesn't really bother me anymore that City or Chelsea can spend what they spend because it's been going on for so long that it's just normal now. I'm actually quite interested to see how Chelsea do this season because it's not always easy to wack 4/5 new starters in the team at once.
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool answer. I was kind of hoping you would provide me the parts where Klopp was clearly moaning, but you can’t, can you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its in the article, are you blind?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s not moaning, he’s just saying what he thinks the situation is as he sees it. It’s pretty obvious really, I guess you’re just too angry to grasp it....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did the same, yet you call me angry and that I am moaning
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you feck
Tbh the OP does come across as angry and a bit odd imo hence my first post.
You lot need to buy a dictionary and read it a few times over
We cannot behave like Chelsea does
Sign in if you want to comment
Klopp
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 11/9/20
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 59 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the ban Chelsea have sold £152m and spent £201m. Even if Rice and Mendy were purchased how is that anywhere near £200m net spend. Chelsea are also due payments Hazard and make money on loaning out players that isn't counted in net spend for some reason. They've bought players cheaper than normal prices due to climate as someone's stated Werner Chilwell Havertz all for a lot less than originally quoted.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? Lol where you getting those figures
posted on 11/9/20
I’m suprised this topic is still brought up on here let alone by managers. It’s not hard to do the research. On top of sales we also have loan fees. Sometimes up to 5 million a time, but let’s say 2.5 million. Say the last 3 years we’ve loaned out 50 players. That’s over 100 million alone. Then there’s cl qualification too.
posted on 11/9/20
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
I was talking £200m net spend in one summer, it's currently at £134m and that doesn't even include the £40m for Kovacic as tranfermarkt classes it as last year.
posted on 11/9/20
But why we talking about one summer? Doesn’t paint a whole picture. We have money to spend due to previous incomings. This much is clear.
posted on 11/9/20
These are exceptional circumstances. Chelsea are playing catch up and have transfer surplus to boot.
posted on 11/9/20
Yeah I don’t get why it’s a topic Bov. It’s all pretty straight forward. We’re doing what liverpool done about 2/3 years ago. Just we’re doing more in one window
posted on 11/9/20
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue is pretty plain:
Viewed from the other side, it can easily be portrayed as a virtue-signalling, snide dig at what may presumably be a direct rival; also a reminder of why he chose Liverpool and his contempt of 'money bags' clubs.
Viewed from a Liverpool fan's point of view, it's understandable that you should feel impelled to defend him and argue that rival fans are merely spinning the story as above.
Far as I see it, there are probably some elements of both. Even though his lack of appreciation for money-bag clubs is well-known, he naturally views things from his own perspective. Personally, I would give him the benefit of the doubt as to the use of the word "behaviour", because even though it has a clear nuance in English, it's close enough in meaning to concepts such as conduct or actions for it to potentially overlap in his native tongue with a word that might indicate current action rather than general behaviour.
The whole issue is pretty much football controversy 101: find something at which one might potentially be able to take offence, willfully ignore or refuse to accept as potentially valid points the arguments posed by the other side, then descend into throwing stereotyped accusations at one another.
posted on 11/9/20
The other issue is that transfermarket and other sites don't take into account how transfers are accounted for.
The accounts won't show transfer fees at £200 million + this summer.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool answer. I was kind of hoping you would provide me the parts where Klopp was clearly moaning, but you can’t, can you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its in the article, are you blind?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s not moaning, he’s just saying what he thinks the situation is as he sees it. It’s pretty obvious really, I guess you’re just too angry to grasp it....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did the same, yet you call me angry and that I am moaning
posted on 11/9/20
Yup. Instalments and add ons also not taken into account. We supposedly got a fair bit more from the hazard transfer this summer from Madrid winning the league but this is not taken into account.
posted on 11/9/20
Lol it’s really not worth debating with terminator btw. A known wum
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Bov (U6696)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 59 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the ban Chelsea have sold £152m and spent £201m. Even if Rice and Mendy were purchased how is that anywhere near £200m net spend. Chelsea are also due payments Hazard and make money on loaning out players that isn't counted in net spend for some reason. They've bought players cheaper than normal prices due to climate as someone's stated Werner Chilwell Havertz all for a lot less than originally quoted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is a stupid measure of a club's finances anyway.
Madrid's net spend has been almost negligible (if not actually negative) for about half a decade, but the insane wages and bonuses we've had to fork out in recent years, added to stadium redevelopment costs and reduced income means we're absolutely hamstrung and apparently unable to make a single signing (unless we can by some miracle shift Bale).
If you looked solely at net spend you'd ask yourself what the facking problem is.
posted on 11/9/20
I'm only using it because we wouldn't be able to match that much spending. The season before you sold Hazard you also had a net spend of something like £120m and there's simply no way we could do that.
Not knocking you for it, but it proves Klopp's point that in comparison we can't spend as much.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 minute ago
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!
----------------------------------------------------------------
I’m more questioning why the op is so wound up with what Klopp has said. Klopp isn’t even moaning....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Must be hard for you living life in total exaggeration all the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not exaggerating though. You’re an aggressive, angry poster, ergo a classic keyboard warrior. Calm down dear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only one upset here seems to be you and the rest of the Liverpool lot. Incapable of seeing the truth about Klopp, he's always moaning about other team's spending. WHen that gets pointed out you all come crying saying its not true
posted on 11/9/20
Ioag also doesn’t take into account income from prize winnings such as cl qualification, sponsors, kit manufacturers etc.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm only using it because we wouldn't be able to match that much spending. The season before you sold Hazard you also had a net spend of something like £120m and there's simply no way we could do that.
Not knocking you for it, but it proves Klopp's point that in comparison we can't spend as much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sold costa , courtois and multiple others and loans. Also got cl and won Europa.
Liverpool have done similar in the past.
Fact is Liverpool have bought we they could due to high sales of players (sterling coutinho etc) and prize money. Chelsea are now doing the same.
posted on 11/9/20
Of course, Nick. The thing about prize money is that it generally vanishes because the players at the top clubs are on huge performances bonuses. That means that even though winning stuff is definitely a plus in the long term due to added exposure and because success obviously breeds fans, all of which increase brand value for sponsors, a club that has overcommitted funds to potential bonuses might actually have to make financial adjustments. I reckon this is probably the case with Real Madrid and the 3 consecutive Champions League trophies. If Ronaldo's, Bale's or even Ramos' salaries were already huge, then you can imagine that the performances bonuses were mammoth too.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 5 minutes ago
Lol it’s really not worth debating with terminator btw. A known wum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, just showing what a mönǧ he is with his stupid comments
posted on 11/9/20
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Don't really see the issue with Klopp's comments. The Hazard money and transfer ban has obviously meant you can go bigger than usual this summer, but you've still got a net spend of -£130m, and you're about to sign a new keeper for £20m, plus want to sign Rice who would probably cost £30-50m.
We're talking a net spend of potentially £200m here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue is pretty plain:
Viewed from the other side, it can easily be portrayed as a virtue-signalling, snide dig at what may presumably be a direct rival; also a reminder of why he chose Liverpool and his contempt of 'money bags' clubs.
Viewed from a Liverpool fan's point of view, it's understandable that you should feel impelled to defend him and argue that rival fans are merely spinning the story as above.
Far as I see it, there are probably some elements of both. Even though his lack of appreciation for money-bag clubs is well-known, he naturally views things from his own perspective. Personally, I would give him the benefit of the doubt as to the use of the word "behaviour", because even though it has a clear nuance in English, it's close enough in meaning to concepts such as conduct or actions for it to potentially overlap in his native tongue with a word that might indicate current action rather than general behaviour.
The whole issue is pretty much football controversy 101: find something at which one might potentially be able to take offence, willfully ignore or refuse to accept as potentially valid points the arguments posed by the other side, then descend into throwing stereotyped accusations at one another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may have been a dig but it's likely he's saying it to a section of our own fans who keep complaining we're not spending, and are pointing to other clubs spending as proof that the money's there. Klopp probably shouldn't have worded it in the way that he did, but he's right that we don't currently have the same spending power.
To be honest it doesn't really bother me anymore that City or Chelsea can spend what they spend because it's been going on for so long that it's just normal now. I'm actually quite interested to see how Chelsea do this season because it's not always easy to wack 4/5 new starters in the team at once.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool answer. I was kind of hoping you would provide me the parts where Klopp was clearly moaning, but you can’t, can you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its in the article, are you blind?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s not moaning, he’s just saying what he thinks the situation is as he sees it. It’s pretty obvious really, I guess you’re just too angry to grasp it....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did the same, yet you call me angry and that I am moaning
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you feck
posted on 11/9/20
Tbh the OP does come across as angry and a bit odd imo hence my first post.
posted on 11/9/20
FIGHTTTTTTTTTTT
posted on 11/9/20
You lot need to buy a dictionary and read it a few times over
posted on 11/9/20
We cannot behave like Chelsea does
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8