No I don't think you, it's genuinely how it comes across. Perhaps change your writing style? Drink less maybe?
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 9 minutes ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe try therapy?
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 20 minutes ago
Lol it’s really not worth debating with terminator btw. A known wum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I? I may be argumentative against actual wums, but I don’t do it myself.
No need to make things up 👍
Just speaking from what i've seen mate over other topics. Cant say I pay too much mind though so apologies if not true.
Chelsea do quite a good job of selling players on ok money that youve never heard of.
Last season - Aina £8m, Palmer £3.5m, Kalas £8m, Angban £5.5m , Redan £2.5m.
No one outside of the club/fans will know whi these kids are bit they made £28m from them.
in 2018/19 they posted a £96m loss having spent £145m net in the summer.
This indicates in very broad terms that they have about £50m in the transfer kitty before they then drop in to losses.
So for this years, you could imagine £50m rolled over from their transfer ban, plus sales of £195m. Take kovacic £40m out of that and the £200m that they have spent is under what might be available - although they will need to offset those losses over time
They had UCL money last season as well so revenue will have gone up, although they'd lose out from the shutdown. You can expect their 2019/20 figures to be full of big profit, which they are spending now.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 19 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.
------------------------------------------------------
Yep. This exactly
I get Klopp's "truth" from his prospective completely. Managing teams in the perceived financial shadow of direct rivals has been his life for over 10 years now. His comments taken as a whitewash statement slighting Chelsea & City are incorrect but him being a biased observer is an understandable POV for him to take even if he wasn't contracted to Liverpool.
This is about Liverpool more than Chelsea or City, the reason Liverpool haven't spent any money isn't because they're not financed by an oligarch or country, that's BS and even Klopp knows that - he can't be that stupid. Think Sideshow had it earlier in the thread personally, looks from the outside like the ownership is riding Klopp & don't see the need to spend the money that's there, he's proving to be a victim of his success, assuming he wants money that is.
If Chelsea are so we'll run, and they are to an extent of course, why did Roman put in another £69m in 2018?
As said I don't think it'll be any surprise to see Roman has put some in this year when the accounts come out in the future.
Overall though I'm genuinely not bothered, I think it's great for the league.
Also Liverpool don't have cash reserves. Our operating profit in 2019 was £54m. We make £3m a home game and haven't had a home game since Feb.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
If Chelsea are so we'll run, and they are to an extent of course, why did Roman put in another £69m in 2018?
As said I don't think it'll be any surprise to see Roman has put some in this year when the accounts come out in the future.
Overall though I'm genuinely not bothered, I think it's great for the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
did he?
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
If Chelsea are so we'll run, and they are to an extent of course, why did Roman put in another £69m in 2018?
As said I don't think it'll be any surprise to see Roman has put some in this year when the accounts come out in the future.
Overall though I'm genuinely not bothered, I think it's great for the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
did he?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently yeah.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chelsea-wages-up-to-244m-as-chelsea-s-debt-to-abramovich-grows-to-1-13bn-v365wf8zb
Who said Chelsea are so well run out of interest?
From these comments Klopp sounds very frustrated at the lack of spending at Anfield this summer. Cracks begining to appear me thinks.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 2 minutes ago
From these comments Klopp sounds very frustrated at the lack of spending at Anfield this summer. Cracks begining to appear me thinks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it but you never know. I'm sure other clubs are keeping an eye on it.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 hours, 28 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get those figure from - totally incorrect for the period since we've been banned from buying.
During that period we shipped out players for approx £265m, so even with signing a GK we're still in positive figures!
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 16 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
He’s not quite right to say that Liverpool can’t do it. Look at the difference in asset value of Liverpool as a whole compared to when FSG bought it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to invest more given the obscene return on investment they’ve had.
It’s a choice on behalf of their owners, there’s no “can’t” there as they’ve easily got enough in their p&l for ffp purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently without player sales we break even and that's to do with an 87% increase in wages since 2015. Some clubs have taken out loans, we havent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. My point was your owners could inject it as equity. I’m not a fan of owners who leverage loans on clubs and still cash in on the exponential growth of the asset itself. I think they should be taking more risk themselves given the obscene rewards they get nowadays.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 16 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
He’s not quite right to say that Liverpool can’t do it. Look at the difference in asset value of Liverpool as a whole compared to when FSG bought it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to invest more given the obscene return on investment they’ve had.
It’s a choice on behalf of their owners, there’s no “can’t” there as they’ve easily got enough in their p&l for ffp purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently without player sales we break even and that's to do with an 87% increase in wages since 2015. Some clubs have taken out loans, we havent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. My point was your owners could inject it as equity. I’m not a fan of owners who leverage loans on clubs and still cash in on the exponential growth of the asset itself. I think they should be taking more risk themselves given the obscene rewards they get nowadays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah they could but they don't and imo that's what Klopp is alluding to. We could also borrow as Spurs have but we don't. Self sustainment is our model.
The big question is the covid-19 impact.
Chelsea matchday is about £75m.
Its likely that half a season + end of last season can be written off, so losing about £30m to £40m from this lack of crowd and any knock on from that - sponsors etc
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 hours, 28 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get those figure from - totally incorrect for the period since we've been banned from buying.
During that period we shipped out players for approx £265m, so even with signing a GK we're still in positive figures!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also made Kovacic loan permanent during the ban period so really youve already spent close to £245m since selling those players.
Plus the season before posted £100m loss so that needs to be balanced out over time. FFP allows for 30m Euro losses over a three year period
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 hour 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The simple maths is, if you took time to work it out for yourself, rather rely on websites like that, is that during the period we were banned from buying players (although we bought Kovacic in for £40m) is that we sold players to the value of £265m approximately.
We have to date this summer bought in players to the sum of around £60m less than that sum - it's so simple!
I doubt that many opposition fans care about the truth or the actual facts of the matter Brum. There's clearly a lot of jealousy going around at the moment towards our spending this window, Klopp included. And that's what all this is about at the end of the day.
If Klopp or anyone else thinks that we've breached FFP rules then they must report us to the relevant authorities immediately. Otherwise jog on
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 16 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
He’s not quite right to say that Liverpool can’t do it. Look at the difference in asset value of Liverpool as a whole compared to when FSG bought it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to invest more given the obscene return on investment they’ve had.
It’s a choice on behalf of their owners, there’s no “can’t” there as they’ve easily got enough in their p&l for ffp purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently without player sales we break even and that's to do with an 87% increase in wages since 2015. Some clubs have taken out loans, we havent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. My point was your owners could inject it as equity. I’m not a fan of owners who leverage loans on clubs and still cash in on the exponential growth of the asset itself. I think they should be taking more risk themselves given the obscene rewards they get nowadays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah they could but they don't and imo that's what Klopp is alluding to. We could also borrow as Spurs have but we don't. Self sustainment is our model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes which is why I said he’s not quite right to say you can’t. It’s still a choice, an injection of a considerable amount of equity is still self sustainable as the assets worth so much more.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
If Chelsea are so we'll run, and they are to an extent of course, why did Roman put in another £69m in 2018?
As said I don't think it'll be any surprise to see Roman has put some in this year when the accounts come out in the future.
Overall though I'm genuinely not bothered, I think it's great for the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
did he?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently yeah.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chelsea-wages-up-to-244m-as-chelsea-s-debt-to-abramovich-grows-to-1-13bn-v365wf8zb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Already he got a CL title for his billion, unlike a certain owner
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 31 minutes ago
I doubt that many opposition fans care about the truth or the actual facts of the matter Brum. There's clearly a lot of jealousy going around at the moment towards our spending this window, Klopp included. And that's what all this is about at the end of the day.
If Klopp or anyone else thinks that we've breached FFP rules then they must report us to the relevant authorities immediately. Otherwise jog on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just looked at a site called lfchistory, which I would assume is a pro Liverpool site and according to them, Klopps spending since he arrived at Liverpool is a whopping £465m.
So does he really believe people will be taken in by his little propaganda exercise!!
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 hours, 28 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get those figure from - totally incorrect for the period since we've been banned from buying.
During that period we shipped out players for approx £265m, so even with signing a GK we're still in positive figures!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also made Kovacic loan permanent during the ban period so really youve already spent close to £245m since selling those players.
Plus the season before posted £100m loss so that needs to be balanced out over time. FFP allows for 30m Euro losses over a three year period
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did mention Kovcic in an earlier post and added that even with his signing we were well under what we'd bought in, in sales!
Sign in if you want to comment
Klopp
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 11/9/20
No I don't think you, it's genuinely how it comes across. Perhaps change your writing style? Drink less maybe?
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 9 minutes ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe try therapy?
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 20 minutes ago
Lol it’s really not worth debating with terminator btw. A known wum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I? I may be argumentative against actual wums, but I don’t do it myself.
No need to make things up 👍
posted on 11/9/20
Just speaking from what i've seen mate over other topics. Cant say I pay too much mind though so apologies if not true.
posted on 11/9/20
Chelsea do quite a good job of selling players on ok money that youve never heard of.
Last season - Aina £8m, Palmer £3.5m, Kalas £8m, Angban £5.5m , Redan £2.5m.
No one outside of the club/fans will know whi these kids are bit they made £28m from them.
in 2018/19 they posted a £96m loss having spent £145m net in the summer.
This indicates in very broad terms that they have about £50m in the transfer kitty before they then drop in to losses.
So for this years, you could imagine £50m rolled over from their transfer ban, plus sales of £195m. Take kovacic £40m out of that and the £200m that they have spent is under what might be available - although they will need to offset those losses over time
They had UCL money last season as well so revenue will have gone up, although they'd lose out from the shutdown. You can expect their 2019/20 figures to be full of big profit, which they are spending now.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 19 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.
------------------------------------------------------
Yep. This exactly
I get Klopp's "truth" from his prospective completely. Managing teams in the perceived financial shadow of direct rivals has been his life for over 10 years now. His comments taken as a whitewash statement slighting Chelsea & City are incorrect but him being a biased observer is an understandable POV for him to take even if he wasn't contracted to Liverpool.
This is about Liverpool more than Chelsea or City, the reason Liverpool haven't spent any money isn't because they're not financed by an oligarch or country, that's BS and even Klopp knows that - he can't be that stupid. Think Sideshow had it earlier in the thread personally, looks from the outside like the ownership is riding Klopp & don't see the need to spend the money that's there, he's proving to be a victim of his success, assuming he wants money that is.
posted on 11/9/20
If Chelsea are so we'll run, and they are to an extent of course, why did Roman put in another £69m in 2018?
As said I don't think it'll be any surprise to see Roman has put some in this year when the accounts come out in the future.
Overall though I'm genuinely not bothered, I think it's great for the league.
posted on 11/9/20
Also Liverpool don't have cash reserves. Our operating profit in 2019 was £54m. We make £3m a home game and haven't had a home game since Feb.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
If Chelsea are so we'll run, and they are to an extent of course, why did Roman put in another £69m in 2018?
As said I don't think it'll be any surprise to see Roman has put some in this year when the accounts come out in the future.
Overall though I'm genuinely not bothered, I think it's great for the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
did he?
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
If Chelsea are so we'll run, and they are to an extent of course, why did Roman put in another £69m in 2018?
As said I don't think it'll be any surprise to see Roman has put some in this year when the accounts come out in the future.
Overall though I'm genuinely not bothered, I think it's great for the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
did he?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently yeah.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chelsea-wages-up-to-244m-as-chelsea-s-debt-to-abramovich-grows-to-1-13bn-v365wf8zb
posted on 11/9/20
Who said Chelsea are so well run out of interest?
posted on 11/9/20
From these comments Klopp sounds very frustrated at the lack of spending at Anfield this summer. Cracks begining to appear me thinks.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 2 minutes ago
From these comments Klopp sounds very frustrated at the lack of spending at Anfield this summer. Cracks begining to appear me thinks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it but you never know. I'm sure other clubs are keeping an eye on it.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 hours, 28 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get those figure from - totally incorrect for the period since we've been banned from buying.
During that period we shipped out players for approx £265m, so even with signing a GK we're still in positive figures!
posted on 11/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 16 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
He’s not quite right to say that Liverpool can’t do it. Look at the difference in asset value of Liverpool as a whole compared to when FSG bought it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to invest more given the obscene return on investment they’ve had.
It’s a choice on behalf of their owners, there’s no “can’t” there as they’ve easily got enough in their p&l for ffp purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently without player sales we break even and that's to do with an 87% increase in wages since 2015. Some clubs have taken out loans, we havent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. My point was your owners could inject it as equity. I’m not a fan of owners who leverage loans on clubs and still cash in on the exponential growth of the asset itself. I think they should be taking more risk themselves given the obscene rewards they get nowadays.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 16 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
He’s not quite right to say that Liverpool can’t do it. Look at the difference in asset value of Liverpool as a whole compared to when FSG bought it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to invest more given the obscene return on investment they’ve had.
It’s a choice on behalf of their owners, there’s no “can’t” there as they’ve easily got enough in their p&l for ffp purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently without player sales we break even and that's to do with an 87% increase in wages since 2015. Some clubs have taken out loans, we havent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. My point was your owners could inject it as equity. I’m not a fan of owners who leverage loans on clubs and still cash in on the exponential growth of the asset itself. I think they should be taking more risk themselves given the obscene rewards they get nowadays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah they could but they don't and imo that's what Klopp is alluding to. We could also borrow as Spurs have but we don't. Self sustainment is our model.
posted on 11/9/20
The big question is the covid-19 impact.
Chelsea matchday is about £75m.
Its likely that half a season + end of last season can be written off, so losing about £30m to £40m from this lack of crowd and any knock on from that - sponsors etc
posted on 11/9/20
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 hours, 28 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get those figure from - totally incorrect for the period since we've been banned from buying.
During that period we shipped out players for approx £265m, so even with signing a GK we're still in positive figures!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also made Kovacic loan permanent during the ban period so really youve already spent close to £245m since selling those players.
Plus the season before posted £100m loss so that needs to be balanced out over time. FFP allows for 30m Euro losses over a three year period
posted on 11/9/20
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 hour 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The simple maths is, if you took time to work it out for yourself, rather rely on websites like that, is that during the period we were banned from buying players (although we bought Kovacic in for £40m) is that we sold players to the value of £265m approximately.
We have to date this summer bought in players to the sum of around £60m less than that sum - it's so simple!
posted on 11/9/20
I doubt that many opposition fans care about the truth or the actual facts of the matter Brum. There's clearly a lot of jealousy going around at the moment towards our spending this window, Klopp included. And that's what all this is about at the end of the day.
If Klopp or anyone else thinks that we've breached FFP rules then they must report us to the relevant authorities immediately. Otherwise jog on
posted on 11/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 16 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
He’s not quite right to say that Liverpool can’t do it. Look at the difference in asset value of Liverpool as a whole compared to when FSG bought it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to invest more given the obscene return on investment they’ve had.
It’s a choice on behalf of their owners, there’s no “can’t” there as they’ve easily got enough in their p&l for ffp purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently without player sales we break even and that's to do with an 87% increase in wages since 2015. Some clubs have taken out loans, we havent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. My point was your owners could inject it as equity. I’m not a fan of owners who leverage loans on clubs and still cash in on the exponential growth of the asset itself. I think they should be taking more risk themselves given the obscene rewards they get nowadays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah they could but they don't and imo that's what Klopp is alluding to. We could also borrow as Spurs have but we don't. Self sustainment is our model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes which is why I said he’s not quite right to say you can’t. It’s still a choice, an injection of a considerable amount of equity is still self sustainable as the assets worth so much more.
posted on 11/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
If Chelsea are so we'll run, and they are to an extent of course, why did Roman put in another £69m in 2018?
As said I don't think it'll be any surprise to see Roman has put some in this year when the accounts come out in the future.
Overall though I'm genuinely not bothered, I think it's great for the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
did he?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently yeah.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chelsea-wages-up-to-244m-as-chelsea-s-debt-to-abramovich-grows-to-1-13bn-v365wf8zb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Already he got a CL title for his billion, unlike a certain owner
posted on 11/9/20
Atleast*
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 31 minutes ago
I doubt that many opposition fans care about the truth or the actual facts of the matter Brum. There's clearly a lot of jealousy going around at the moment towards our spending this window, Klopp included. And that's what all this is about at the end of the day.
If Klopp or anyone else thinks that we've breached FFP rules then they must report us to the relevant authorities immediately. Otherwise jog on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just looked at a site called lfchistory, which I would assume is a pro Liverpool site and according to them, Klopps spending since he arrived at Liverpool is a whopping £465m.
So does he really believe people will be taken in by his little propaganda exercise!!
posted on 11/9/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 hours, 28 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get those figure from - totally incorrect for the period since we've been banned from buying.
During that period we shipped out players for approx £265m, so even with signing a GK we're still in positive figures!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also made Kovacic loan permanent during the ban period so really youve already spent close to £245m since selling those players.
Plus the season before posted £100m loss so that needs to be balanced out over time. FFP allows for 30m Euro losses over a three year period
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did mention Kovcic in an earlier post and added that even with his signing we were well under what we'd bought in, in sales!
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8