Liverpool's transfer strategy.

GyansDancingBoots wrote:

Nishank wrote:So that's Newcastle's player of the year signed, Villa's Player Of the Year signed, Blackpool's Player Of the Year signed and Sunderland's Player Of the Year signed!

XD

Henderson wasnt Sunderlands player of the year

Phil Bardsley was

I believe maybe Nish confused that one with most chances created in the EPL.

Arsenal will spend big in the market as Keown himself has gotten the inside scoop from Wenger.

Board members talking means little when they don't have direct control over the transfers though.



As for the discussion of where clubs will finish: It all seems unnecessary and academic, considering we can't predict injuries, January signings, and other factors.

Iceman wrote:Board members have already said, adamantly, that all of the Cesc transfer money will be used in the market

Haven't your board members been saying that for years

its Wenger that decides not to go out and spend

Arquitecto wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:I just love how people think that ludicrous spending will take City to the top whereas Liverpool with Dalglish are miles ahead of City and will finish above them.

City are better than LFc, mate. Or are you joking?

Aside from their line-up, I have seen zilch from City that make them better then Liverpool.

We can't judge them so far, but what about the fact they finished 3rd and LFC finished 7th?

Strange comment from the only good United poster here.



This bodge ring a bell? Coached us for more then half a season with his pass and hoof.

LFC can do better than City, anything can happen in football. But I'm just saying as of now, just judging by the depth of each team and quality + last season's league position. City are currently stronger than Liverpool.

Of course, but depth+quality, City are the best in the EPL:!:

But you of all KSA should know that big transfers and large scale spending does not win trophies as look at United with their calculative spending and increasingly home-grown talent. Did everyone not insult their squad and how its not good enough to win?

Then it came to the end of the year with United with an EPL title.

As for city, once again I don't feel they justified their 3rd spot as it simply was due to the title contenders sheer stupidity and incompetence.
But... The season starts on the 13th (i'm near dying of excitement) and all we can do is see how it pans out.

See I don't agree with that logic.

that's like saying the under dog Boxer knocked out the favorite only because (insert excuse here, for example the Boxer favorited to win the fight let his gaurd down for a split second and got knocked out). In the end, how ever way it was, that under dog earned the win over the big name boxer, people can make excuses about any team's final standing any way they want to discredit other teams but in the end Chelsea and Arsenal both proved they werent good enough over the haul of the season to finish better than they did. That's not City's fault

Iceman wrote:Board members have already said, adamantly, that all of the Cesc transfer money will be used in the market

The question is....

How?

windkick wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:I just love how people think that ludicrous spending will take City to the top whereas Liverpool with Dalglish are miles ahead of City and will finish above them.

City are better than LFc, mate. Or are you joking?

Aside from their line-up, I have seen zilch from City that make them better then Liverpool.

We can't judge them so far, but what about the fact they finished 3rd and LFC finished 7th?

Strange comment from the only good United poster here.



This bodge ring a bell? Coached us for more then half a season with his pass and hoof.

LFC can do better than City, anything can happen in football. But I'm just saying as of now, just judging by the depth of each team and quality + last season's league position. City are currently stronger than Liverpool.

Of course, but depth+quality, City are the best in the EPL:!:

But you of all KSA should know that big transfers and large scale spending does not win trophies as look at United with their calculative spending and increasingly home-grown talent. Did everyone not insult their squad and how its not good enough to win?

Then it came to the end of the year with United with an EPL title.

As for city, once again I don't feel they justified their 3rd spot as it simply was due to the title contenders sheer stupidity and incompetence.
But... The season starts on the 13th (i'm near dying of excitement) and all we can do is see how it pans out.

See I don't agree with that logic.

that's like saying the under dog Boxer knocked out the favorite only because (insert excuse here, for example the Boxer favorited to win the fight let his gaurd down for a split second and got knocked out). In the end, how ever way it was, that under dog earned the win over the big name boxer, people can make excuses about any team's final standing any way they want to discredit other teams but in the end Chelsea and Arsenal both proved they werent good enough over the haul of the season to finish better than they did. That's not City's fault

OK. I'll re-explain.

There is a concept in the fight for titles that goes by the name of capitalization.

Milan with Leonardo, had the chance to win the serie A, but did not capitalize. Roma, overtook Milan not just because of Milan's incompetence, but simply cause they were in superb form and proved in the big games.

Chelsea and Arsenal's end of the season form was enough to make their fans commit suicide as it was atrocious to the point where City's draws and moderate results at the same time frame was actually enough to capitalize naturally on the all the points lost by Chelsea and Gunners.

It also has to be determined by their performances on the pitch which were nowhere near how they should be considering the hype.

No one was impressed by City achieving that rank as the focus was pre-dominantly on how Chelsea and Arsenal managed to screw up so much.

windkick wrote:

Iceman wrote:Board members have already said, adamantly, that all of the Cesc transfer money will be used in the market

The question is....

How?

Exactly. We don't know, and how we spend this money is going to make-or-break our season.
The difference between this year and past years is that the squad has been weakened by too many key departures and so, I'm expecting Wenger to spend and spend wisely.

There is already talk about Jadson coming, and it seems to be an imminent move. The Mata talk has been going around non-stop throughout the whole day but I'm not sure how credible it is. Scott Dann seems to be an imminent move as well.

Fabregas>>>>Jadson
Mata>>Nasri
Scott Dann >>>>>>>>>>>>>Squillashit.

And there will still be plenty of money left on other signings if deemed necessary. Mind you, if the rest of the money (after spending on fixing the squad) goes to removing the debt then I won't have much of a problem because it will mean that we will become completely debt free in ~1-2 years max.

BeautifulGame wrote:So much nonsense about our spending by those who are just clueless.

We have so far spent:

Carroll - 35 mil
Suarez - 23 mil
Downing - 18.5 mil
Henderson- 16 mil
Adam - 6.5 mil
Enrique - 6 mil
Doni - Free
Total spent : 105 mil

Players sold :

Torres - 50 mil
Babel - 7 mil
PFK - 1.5 mil

Total worth : 58.5 mil

Net spent : 46.5 mil .Less than what Chelsea have spent on Torres and City spent this season.

Those who say Liverpool have spent similar to City are just stupid.

Are Liverpool fans still going on about net spend? ffs

Gil wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:So much nonsense about our spending by those who are just clueless.

We have so far spent:

Carroll - 35 mil
Suarez - 23 mil
Downing - 18.5 mil
Henderson- 16 mil
Adam - 6.5 mil
Enrique - 6 mil
Doni - Free
Total spent : 105 mil

Players sold :

Torres - 50 mil
Babel - 7 mil
PFK - 1.5 mil

Total worth : 58.5 mil

Net spent : 46.5 mil .Less than what Chelsea have spent on Torres and City spent this season.

Those who say Liverpool have spent similar to City are just stupid.

Are Liverpool fans still going on about net spend? ffs

Anyone with a bit of common sense will talk about net spend rather than total spend.What exactly is ur point?

Many people also said Man Utd would win the title.

BeautifulGame wrote:

Gil wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:So much nonsense about our spending by those who are just clueless.

We have so far spent:

Carroll - 35 mil
Suarez - 23 mil
Downing - 18.5 mil
Henderson- 16 mil
Adam - 6.5 mil
Enrique - 6 mil
Doni - Free
Total spent : 105 mil

Players sold :

Torres - 50 mil
Babel - 7 mil
PFK - 1.5 mil

Total worth : 58.5 mil

Net spent : 46.5 mil .Less than what Chelsea have spent on Torres and City spent this season.

Those who say Liverpool have spent similar to City are just stupid.

Are Liverpool fans still going on about net spend? ffs

Anyone with a bit of common sense will talk about net spend rather than total spend.What exactly is ur point?

Your using it to favour your argument because IT IS'NT stupid to compare Liverpool to City you have outspent them in the last 2 windows ffs.

Stop being delusional.

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Gil wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:So much nonsense about our spending by those who are just clueless.

We have so far spent:

Carroll - 35 mil
Suarez - 23 mil
Downing - 18.5 mil
Henderson- 16 mil
Adam - 6.5 mil
Enrique - 6 mil
Doni - Free
Total spent : 105 mil

Players sold :

Torres - 50 mil
Babel - 7 mil
PFK - 1.5 mil

Total worth : 58.5 mil

Net spent : 46.5 mil .Less than what Chelsea have spent on Torres and City spent this season.

Those who say Liverpool have spent similar to City are just stupid.

Are Liverpool fans still going on about net spend? ffs

Anyone with a bit of common sense will talk about net spend rather than total spend.What exactly is ur point?

Your using it to favour your argument because IT IS'NT stupid to compare Liverpool to City you have outspent them in the last 2 windows ffs.

Stop being delusional.

Really how?

Our net spend in last 2 windows is 47mil.City have spent 67 mil on Dzeko and Aguero alone in the last 2 windows and havent sold anyone worth apart from Given.

Its those who claim we claim we have spent like City are delusional and u certainly seem one of those.

Who give's a crap about net spend the only reason you are able to bring it up is because of the Torres sale.

Take Torres and Carroll out of the occasion you have spent 70 million and sold 8.5.

So yes in the last 2 windows you have spent like City.

Arquitecto wrote:

OK. I'll re-explain.

There is a concept in the fight for titles that goes by the name of capitalization.

Milan with Leonardo, had the chance to win the serie A, but did not capitalize. Roma, overtook Milan not just because of Milan's incompetence, but simply cause they were in superb form and proved in the big games.

Chelsea and Arsenal's end of the season form was enough to make their fans commit suicide as it was atrocious to the point where City's draws and moderate results at the same time frame was actually enough to capitalize naturally on the all the points lost by Chelsea and Gunners.

It also has to be determined by their performances on the pitch which were nowhere near how they should be considering the hype.

No one was impressed by City achieving that rank as the focus was pre-dominantly on how Chelsea and Arsenal managed to screw up so much.

Why do you always say that? do you even watch the EPL lol you always mention this.

Chelsea did shit 1 win in 14 during December til about Feb

Considering net spend is what will have more influence on FFP I think it's fair to say most consider it the defining factor.

RedOranje wrote:Considering net spend is what will have more influence on FFP I think it's fair to say most consider it the defining factor.

When FFP actually comes i agree because team's like City will be forced to spend somewhat normal.

But as of now, you have spent 105 million over the last 2 windows and this one is'nt over yet hardly stupid to say City are scum when you have outspent them over the last 2 windows.

Personally i dont find City scum anyway, they are just following Barca and Madrid's lead

It's also worth noting that if the Torres fee has no bearing, neither does Carroll's considering how the two fees were intertwined (see earlier post).

RedOranje wrote:
As for the discussion of where clubs will finish: It all seems unnecessary and academic, considering we can't predict injuries, January signings, and other factors.

Well , In case of Arsenal , I think it's predictable .

Injuries - plenty
January signings - none
Other factors - **** refereeing , freak goals conceded


Still , we'll finish in the top 4 .

RedOranje wrote:It's also worth noting that if the Torres fee has no bearing, neither does Carroll's considering how the two fees were intertwined (see earlier post).

I agree did'nt i say that exactly earlier ? and that is still 62 million net ( how the hell did you manage to get 2.5 for PFK btw?)

Which is still more than what City what have spent by my calculations.

Arquitecto wrote:I just love how people think that ludicrous spending will take City to the top whereas Liverpool with Dalglish are miles ahead of City and will finish above them.

how r u miles ahead of city :S

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

RedOranje wrote:It's also worth noting that if the Torres fee has no bearing, neither does Carroll's considering how the two fees were intertwined (see earlier post).

I agree did'nt i say that exactly earlier ? and that is still 62 million net ( how the hell did you manage to get 2.5 for PFK btw?)

Which is still more than what City what have spent by my calculations.

Not when you include the fact that their wage bill is basically double their annual income while even with our signings and wage bill we're relatively near breaking even.

RedOranje wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

RedOranje wrote:It's also worth noting that if the Torres fee has no bearing, neither does Carroll's considering how the two fees were intertwined (see earlier post).

I agree did'nt i say that exactly earlier ? and that is still 62 million net ( how the hell did you manage to get 2.5 for PFK btw?)

Which is still more than what City what have spent by my calculations.

Not when you include the fact that their wage bill is basically double their annual income while even with our signings and wage bill we're relatively near breaking even.

Fair point.

bloodless wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:I just love how people think that ludicrous spending will take City to the top whereas Liverpool with Dalglish are miles ahead of City and will finish above them.

how r u miles ahead of city :S

The same way 'Hendo' is miles ahead of Wilshere (not my words there his incase ya wondering)

I must say that the way Liverpool constantly go about their business is something I find to be appalling.

They constantly rave about the apparent array of talent they have within their youth system, yet show us that it is clearly not up to the required standard of Premier League football.

It does not matter however, as I doubt they will be competing in the Champions League, or Europa League for that matter, anytime soon.

Ade wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:

OK. I'll re-explain.

There is a concept in the fight for titles that goes by the name of capitalization.

Milan with Leonardo, had the chance to win the serie A, but did not capitalize. Roma, overtook Milan not just because of Milan's incompetence, but simply cause they were in superb form and proved in the big games.

Chelsea and Arsenal's end of the season form was enough to make their fans commit suicide as it was atrocious to the point where City's draws and moderate results at the same time frame was actually enough to capitalize naturally on the all the points lost by Chelsea and Gunners.

It also has to be determined by their performances on the pitch which were nowhere near how they should be considering the hype.

No one was impressed by City achieving that rank as the focus was pre-dominantly on how Chelsea and Arsenal managed to screw up so much.

Why do you always say that? do you even watch the EPL lol you always mention this.

Chelsea did shit 1 win in 14 during December til about Feb

What do you think end of the season means? From feb onwards? Thats the beginning of the 2nd half.

End of the season for title contenders is the most crucial stage.

In their last 5 games at the end of the season, the only won 2. Which put the nail in the coffin.

And my henderson vs Wilshere comment.... Somebody must have broken your sarcasm detector.