Property of Liverpool FC… If found, please return to Anfield L4
3 Likes
the question you asked was already answered by others… but let me ask you this, would Carvalho or Ramsey start for any of the top 8 teams in the league?? I dont normally do this shit @Retro_Helix,but because you are so so special ands its so fucking hot here in the Cayman’s and i could not sleep as im still adjusting to this heat… But here is a summary of what we have done in the last 6 years compared to the other top spenders… Iike i said i didnt just copy and paste the information, jus go to https://www.transfermarkt.us/ and they have transfers going all the way back. I only went to 2016/2017. I guess looking at those numbers, u decide if klopp has been adequately backed or not.
SPENDING BREAKDOWN FOR LAST SIX YEARS (HIGHEST TO LOWEST IN EUROS)
(1) MANCHESTER UNITED- 898.59
(2) MAN CITY - 648.01
(3) ARSENAL - 582.81
(4) WEST HAM - 425.48
(5) CHELSEA - 412.54
(6) ASTON VILLA - 312.79
(7) LIVERPOOL -271.05
As uncomfortable viewing as that table is (just have a Net +/- under 1 row) pretty sure that’s just a summary of what we have done fullstop thr last 6 years Jabu, where’s the comparison 
did that for @Retro_Helix , but could not post it
is that better??
50m net spend on avg per season is about right, but you’ll get the same old people who use the same old excuses like “why haven’t you factored in wages and agent fees and bonuses and this and that” like we’re the only team in the world that has these expenses.
1 Like
true story…im done arguing with folks. thought i should jus post the numbers (which speak for themselves) and let people decide if that is good enough for a top three PL and European powerhouse which has been outspent by villa and west ham
Please add in agent fees and the wages we pay, it soon massively changes what we actually spend. Our wage bill is absolutely huge.
It’s a reality not an excuse. There was a period with Fergie’s last great side where there was a common argument they were winning and doing so with a low net spend. It was a preposterous argument given that it was a team put together with extravagant spending at the front end that limited their need to add much to it over the next 2-3-4 years when they were winning stuff and people were taking the figures from. Rio’s transfer alone was far about a decade in its own stratosphere on what clubs were willing to spend on defenders, but the net spend comparisons always conveniently started right after the period he was signed.
1 Like
@Draexnael were would i even begin to find that infor…once we start adding agent fees it becomes a complex slippery slope as some of these players have 4 five agents and wages are structured differently. Our wages for example have lots of different incentives and so on. I bet its the same for other teams as well, I think jus keeping it simple and focusing on net spent is the way to go. I also doubt we pay higher wages than city, chelsea, man u anyway
and if folks think we in the shita, wait until thiago gets injured (will happen sooner rather than later). then u rolling with fab, hendo and keita… Good luck!!
Because just showing our net spend on transfers is a really poor representation of our actual commitment of our revenue on players.
We’ve spent the past 2-3 years rewarding (rightly or wrongly) the players who were a big part of our success, rather than replacing them in the market.
It’s also worth noting the following;
£120mil loss in the “covid” year
£50mil on a new training ground
£114mil on the main stand
£80mil on the ARE
For a club who is self sustainable we can’t just look at “transfer fee spend” as some sort of barometer v’s clubs, half of which are backed by countries or not invested in their infrastructure for years… Spurs are paying off a £1bil loan for example…
1 Like
The way to get that information is to go through the clubs filed accounts. Other people have done this and found that our payments to agents are traditionally very high, and our wage bill has grown to be a huge outlay.
I think given football is meant to be fun, we’re always going to focus on the transfer fees, and that’s fine, but somewhere at the back of our minds, just guarding against us taking it too seriously, should be the understanding that in real life things are a lot more complicated than the simplified version of football finance we engage with.
6 Likes
We don’t, we lie 4th behind those 3 based on the latest accounts.
A long long way off Utd. Chelsea and City pretty close together, then us, then Spurs and Arsenal who are quite a way off us tbf.
That’ll all change again next season once a lot of big hitters leave for nothing.
Ox Milner Naby (Possibly Bobby) = 30m a year
You also have to factor in that one of the biggest determinants of net spend for top sides is lack of success in previous windows.
3 Likes
good points @Mascot
2 Likes
The last time I saw any info on this, we were ahead of City and Chelsea. The wage bill is huge. Utd have been mental with wages for ages, do they were out on their own.
City, who knows? The wages they report are quite modest, but there is every reason to think that that might be telling a few porkies there.
The thing that makes our wage bill quite difficult to get a handle on is that a lot of it is in incentivised pay and bonuses, depending on individual and squad successs. This is a good thing as it somewhat mitigates us from problems that have plagued other clubs, where when the good times dry up you end up with a load of players on monstrous salaries the club can’t support. But it also means that when we win the champions league (for example) that prize money can’t be immediately lashed on transfers - it’s all been swallowed up in bonuses.it also means the overall payout is bigger than it might otherwise be. For example Mo Salah might take 500k a week, but to get him to accept 350k, his bonuses (if triggered) might end up being more like 600k.
4 Likes
I see your point @Draexnael and that is why i didnt want to include wages because of the different structures and the can of worms it would open as well. Maybe you could argue that my breakdown is too simplistic, but that is a good discussion to be had and that is why i decided to post numbers as is. Folks can make up their own minds
yes exactly this and thats why i left that one alone.