The usual journalists told us a while back that it was VVD or nobody for Klopp.I think it was a mistake but I heard a good way of explaining his thinking the other day.There's exceptions of course,but in the main Klopp doesn't want to buy players for incremental gains.He believes its his job to coach incremental gains from players and his squad and he only wants to buy potential or players who he believes will definitely be a big improvement on what he has.We can all try and name available CB's that would make that difference for us but I genuinely can't with any certainty.
This would have done me. Surely our scouting network (if we have one) must be able to find one or two centre backs in the whole world who have a chance of becoming good players. At the very least they are numbers, they could play the cups and hopefully one of them mightturn into a good player. Another problem we have is when Southampton go to buy a player from lets say Lazio he will cost them 8 million, if we go after the same player it's 16+. They will try to squeeze us for more but that's life.
As i said mate,I think he's left himself short in that position but I think its a given that our scouts/committee (whatever we're calling them these days) would have presented him with options.From the outside looking in,signing potential for that position doesn't seem like an option to me though.He rates Matip and Lovren (gave him a new contract a few months back) and I dont think he's given up on VVD.So if he signs potential for that position now and then signs Van Dijk next summer or even January,its going to be tough to give that player games to develop and thats without adding Gomez to the mix who's also potential and Klavan who he seems to trust(for the record,so do I).I can definitely see the sense in Klopp not signing a CB now but it doesn't stop me thinking we could easily be caught out.
Intresting read on net spend Since FSG took over, they’ve done some undeniably great things… They saved us from going out of business after the debt Hicks & Gillett put us in; they expanded the Main Stand, with plans to also extend the Annie Road End too; have got further plans in place to build a huge new training complex and appointed Jurgen Klopp as manager. But throughout their tenure, Liverpool have won just one piece of proper silverware: the League Cup in 2012. We’ve lost finals in the FA Cup, League Cup and Europa League, of course, as well as missing out on the title narrowly in 2013/14 – but the fact remains the same: we’ve won just one League Cup under their reign. Many believe that’s because of our inability to compete with our rivals properly in the transfer market, and this report by the Echo perhaps suggests they have a point. Since 2010, when FSG took over, here is the total net spend of Liverpool compared to our rivals: Man City – £718.05m Man United – £540.05m Chelsea – £351.8m Arsenal – £179.8m Liverpool – £164m Spurs – £20.5m profit In that time, Manchester City have won two titles, Manchester United have won two and Chelsea have won two – with the only other available going to anomaly Leicester City in what’s undoubtedly the greatest shock in football history. But the figures are not difficult to interpret: the three clubs who spend the most money have the greatest chance of winning the league. Tottenham have earned huge praise for developing a young, impressive team on a shoestring, but they haven’t won anything since 2008. Liverpool’s £164m translates as £23m per year, which is a pretty shoddy return, in truth. This summer just gone, fans were continually told there was cash to burn, but we ended up not signing a central defender or a centre-forward. How much of this was down to Jurgen Klopp and how much the owners is up for debate, of course. But it’s definitely reasonable to assume we’re at a disadvantage every season when our rivals consistently purchase more expensive, and usually better, players.
The idea that they saved the club is a bit of myth I think. If they hadn’t have done the deal someone else would have as it was a no brained given the world wide fan base. FSG saw the opportunity and their investment is a solid as you could get. The Silverware thing is a stick to beat them with, however did get to another 3 Cup finals. 1 where Carroll goal was over the line, another on penalties and another were the defence imploded. Hardly their fault.
There was documents released a while back that would say the opposite mate.After a hugely exhaustive process only 2 viable bids materialised and the bank was definitely going to call in the loan at the stated deadline,putting us into administration.When that shit article came out from The Echo yesterday, @lovefutbol linked back to the documents in a thread on twitter that offered a detailed explanation of the process.He's extremely competent on football finance and consistently adds context to the tabloid discussions on the business side of football.He debunks many of the arguments being used against the owners by using the more militant FSG out brigades kryptonite....facts.He's well worth checking out for anybody with a genuine interest in these matters.
Had a quick look there on twitter couldnt find him, is it just @lovefutbol? Mostly South American pages coming up
I am not saying the club would not have went into Administration, it definately was heading that way. Someone else would have come in and saved the day though. Look at Southampton (2009) and Leicester (2002) who both went into Adminstration and it was a reset for both clubs and they have gone from strength to strength. Some clubs like Leeds, Coventry and Portsmouth have not recovered really, however in my view LFC would not have went under in speculator style. There could have been an uncomfortable season or 2 and a firesale of players but the club would have still come out of it. I have seen views expressed before that they may have been a better course of action that what happened. Don’t believe it myself though
Seen Jay McKenna's tweets on this but not read the article, he said Hogan has claimed basically one in ten people in the world follow the club, that's a mad claim I really doubt it's right now. Anyway I suppose I should read the article
Indeed, however the only time you hear from the chiefs these days is when they are selling their brand. Good pod on The Anfield Wrap this week reviewing their 7 years. Basically saying that since the fans protest about ticket prices, the only time you have heard any senior FSG folks talk about stadium or squad issues was unveiling of main stand. Pod was a fair summation of this tenure. A lot of positives however it’s gone well beyond any fans treating them as some sort of saviours of the club. They could probably get four times their investment at this stage. Peter Moore is very active and personable on Twitter however don’t think he has commented on anything that supporters are genuniely interested in about the future of the club.
That's a nothing article. No surprise to me, I am not a fan of Forbes. It is the tabloid of the business world.
£23m a year is not competing with the top teams in the league and goes against FSG saying money was available to compete for transfers for us to be successful. One league cup win and 2 CL campaigns in 7 years shows that unfortunately.
It's a figure that is not really a perfect indicator of anything. The club received serious money from the sales of Torres, Suarez and Sterling under FSG's ownership and it is worth remembering that there was no way they could have held onto any of those players. Tottenham's net spend is tiny as well because of the selling of certain players like Bale. Some clubs like United have a massive net spend but they have bought many players with zero sell on value at high prices. More important to me is that the club now look able to compete on wages in relation to contracts for top players. Funds look to be in place for Jurgen Klopp but, Klopp seems very dogmatic in his thinking about only spending money to secure his top targets. BTW I am not defending FSG, certain factions of the fan base would call me a FSG apologist. I am not in the slightest way pro-FSG, I am very pro-LFC. They as owners have made some massive mistakes since they took over but I don't think the net spend tells you everything which is my original point.
I'm not convinced that is actually true Lionel. Sure, we've got one or two lads on £150k pw, which is up a reasonable amount from what our highest earners may have been getting a few years back (excl. the exception made or Suarez), but in the next breath I'd remind everyone that the overall money has increased in football over that period, so transfer fees and no doubt wages have also increased. I really don't think £150k pw is considered to be competitive for top players these days but see it more as the figure that probably helps them hang onto a couple of lads a bit longer than the might otherwise do.
That article linked above about the US sponsors has got me thinking, how come we've still not managed to get a sponsor for the new stand ... really surprised by that tbh as I'd have been fairly confident that they would have done a deal by now.
Garrett just go back to the day of the publication of the last set of accounts, on that day when figures were published you doubted that the club were playing high wages to their playing staff. So I am not surprised you still doubt the figures. I welcome an explanation of how you justify your doubt in figures published in black and white.