Football banter thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
30,829
Ummm no. What matters is how many goals you concede.

Yes and no. If your defence is useless, you are going to have more shots at your goal. And on average, concede more goals.

I think there are metrics out there these days that take this kind of thing into account?
 

The Voice

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
15,694
That looks better than the actual strip....
Yeah, I wasn't impressed with adidas because of our 3rd kit with the marble/blood splatter design, but seeing the kind of kak they could've given us instead, I'm pretty happy at the moment!
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
30,829
Probably close down Anfield, move across the road and support the toffees. Or, buy Killian Mbappe.

Apparently he is way out of their price range. Which makes me wonder.

Liverpool are consistently in the top 10 richest clubs in the world rankings. Granted, they don't have countries or oligarchs backing them (like City and Chelsea), but they also don't have the Glazers sucking money from them like a bloated leech (i.e. Man United). They have also sold players like Coutinho and Saurez for huge bucks over the years.

So why are they always claiming poverty?
 

Hamish McPanji

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
42,084
Apparently he is way out of their price range. Which makes me wonder.

Liverpool are consistently in the top 10 richest clubs in the world rankings. Granted, they don't have countries or oligarchs backing them (like City and Chelsea), but they also don't have the Glazers sucking money from them like a bloated leech (i.e. Man United). They have also sold players like Coutinho and Saurez for huge bucks over the years.

So why are they always claiming poverty?

They have had 2/3 the value of the richest clubs consistently over a number of years. In the premier League , they have Man United, Man City, Arsenal and Chelsea above them in the money stakes. That's year on year, every year.

The fact that Liverpool have sold players for huge money is a testament to that. To buy a player, you have to sell a player.

It's weird seeing Man United supporters bitching about the Glazers leeching them, when their net spend on players over the last 5 years has been half a billion pounds, second only to Man City. In comparison, Liverpool's net spend has been just over 100mill over the same period (yes, that's less than 1/4 of the amount), they're about 14th or 15th in the league in that regard.

If you have less money, you tend to be a little more careful with where your money goes. C'est la vie.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
30,829
They have had 2/3 the value of the richest clubs consistently over a number of years. In the premier League , they have Man United, Man City, Arsenal and Chelsea above them in the money stakes. That's year on year, every year.

The fact that Liverpool have sold players for huge money is a testament to that. To buy a player, you have to sell a player.

It's weird seeing Man United supporters bitching about the Glazers leeching them, when their net spend on players over the last 5 years has been half a billion pounds, second only to Man City. In comparison, Liverpool's net spend has been just over 100mill over the same period, they're about 14th or 15th in the league in that regard.

If you have less money, you tend to be a little more careful with where your money goes. C'est la vie.

"Net spend"? Great politician talk.

Like I said - you sold players at a huge profit.
 

Hamish McPanji

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
42,084
"Net spend"? Great politician talk.

Like I said - you sold players at a huge profit.
Yes, net spend. That's the measure used. You didn't know? To buy a player, you have to sell a player. I said that already. That's how clubs usually run, last I heard.

Even without net spend, who do you think is sitting at the top? Man City and Man United. Probably spend 50%+ more than Liverpool each. We're somewhere about 7th in that table. Chelsea up there as well, for this season's purchases.....but they've sold as well, hence the net spend.

Have you heard of Google, dude. It's not hard to find the figures
 

AfricanTech

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
40,360
Apparently he is way out of their price range. Which makes me wonder.

Liverpool are consistently in the top 10 richest clubs in the world rankings. Granted, they don't have countries or oligarchs backing them (like City and Chelsea), but they also don't have the Glazers sucking money from them like a bloated leech (i.e. Man United). They have also sold players like Coutinho and Saurez for huge bucks over the years.

So why are they always claiming poverty?

Claiming poverty?

Who?

Where?

When?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
30,829
Yes, net spend. That's the measure used. You didn't know? To buy a player, you have to sell a player. I said that already. That's how clubs usually run, last I heard.

Even without net spend, who do you think is sitting at the top? Man City and Man United. Probably spend 50%+ more than Liverpool each. We're somewhere about 7th in that table. Chelsea up there as well, for this season's purchases.....but they've sold as well, hence the net spend.

Have you heard of Google, dude. It's not hard to find the figures

Umm, which is my point - Liverpool should have the funds then :)

Have you heard about common sense? Apparently its quite hard to find.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
30,829
Claiming poverty?

Who?

Where?

When?

Well, Kopite posted before something that Liverpool cant compete with the other clubs (or something to that effect). Don't sue me for not getting the exact wording wrong. And I've seen bit n pieces over the years where its the same sort of refrain. Klopp just had a go at the spending of of Chelsea a couple of days ago as well. You missed that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top