FSG let down Klopp?

comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 14 hours, 34 minutes ago
You're annoyed you can't buy the league?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ManC did.

if you are looking at net spend under klopps period i think you'll find its nowhere near 4th/5th highest. More like 15th/16th in the prem. 145m net spend in 7 years 20m a season net is very low.

i dont think it was the owners, i think it was Klopps decision not to strengthen more this time. They settled early on the 3 signings they got in then slowly realised but had left it too late no targets available ended up with arrthur on loan.

I think he decided to give mo vvd hendo new big contracts and tbh theyve all been pathetic in repaying that too theyve been some of the worse performers for a while now.

I also think the system/style needed shaking up a while ago especially with the addition and integration of players like nunez carvalho elliott, and the fact we've been sussed out appear to struggle and easy to play vs now etc. Which he hasnt done.

Last season must have taken a lot out of us because most teams so far have outfought us with ease meaning we've had to come back into games far too often.

Not read the replies but Klopp has spent well over half a billion and has been allowed to double the wage bill so no.

comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 4 hours, 13 minutes ago
Not read the replies but Klopp has spent well over half a billion and has been allowed to double the wage bill so no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He has a net spend of about 25 million a year. Noting the insane prices Liverpool have fleeced out of clubs for frindge/youth players and the success Klopp has earned, there's no way teams like West ham should be spending more.

Levy is a tight bstard but even he's spent more. It's like the Potch effect. Win without a big net spend and the owners just assume that's the norm. Maybe $ has gone into the stadium too but that could easily be financed and not effect ffp. Klopp and his team have done miracles imo

NET spend really isn't that relevant. Selling players like Benteke and Sakho is a good thing.

Yes losing Mane and Coutinho is a blow but who else over the past seven years? It's a nonsense.

He gets to spend £150m a year on wages and fvcking oodles in agent fees so where's that in the NET spend trophy cabinet? On top of that he is the third highest paid manager in world football and people want to act like he is being let down?

Daft talk.

comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 18 minutes ago
NET spend really isn't that relevant. Selling players like Benteke and Sakho is a good thing.

Yes losing Mane and Coutinho is a blow but who else over the past seven years? It's a nonsense.

He gets to spend £150m a year on wages and fvcking oodles in agent fees so where's that in the NET spend trophy cabinet? On top of that he is the third highest paid manager in world football and people want to act like he is being let down?

Daft talk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say it's daft to have a manager getting to CL finals and earning stacks of $ then allow teams like west ham etc to spend more.

Of the top 6 klopp has spent a fraction of some rivals and less than all of them. Investing in the playing staff is essential for longivity. Wage bill may be high but that's because you have players competing for the CL and PL in recent years. That's def offset by revenue.

Farteta has spent bucket loads with no CL, so it'd be nice for FSG to at least let klopp spend what he generates on the pitch. There was reason why Liverpool shouldn't have had a big transfer budget this year.

What confuses me is that Liverpool were happy to pay 90m for the kid that went to real. Maybe it's just certain players, at a set age/level they will sign off big money for.

West Ham do not spend more than us.

If you want to go down the NET spend carp then only do it with players who Klopp has bought.

He has had well over half a billion to spend and it's not even up for debate.

The only real measure is how much the squad cost in total and West Ham are nowhere near us.

All the NET spend stuff is an utter nonsense. Oh no we had to sell Rhian Brewster for £21m, how will we cope.

Our squad cost £150m more than Arsenals and £200m more than Spurs.

So what about our sell to buy policy? We built up Rhian Brewster so we could sell him for 21m and use the funds to help buy big to players, helps to balance the books. You can't balance the books without factoring net spend.

I get your point, but you go too far by saying net spend is utter nonsense. It just isn't. It's arguably the core of football finance. Even FFP and club accounts are based on net spend.

I'm not sure if our squad costs more than Spurs and Arsenal, and they don't have the same strategy as us. Liverpool are far better at generating income from sales IMO.

forget net spend. thinks CASH FLOW.

where do people think our record revenues last season (will be published in feb) are going?

theres a building out the back of the small shed we call anfield road thats sucking it up.

zero support from FSG. all they've done over covid is protect their asset. made club take out loans and refund them, suspended main stand repayments (no forgiveness of any loans) and they've made us pay for kirkby and anfield road out of club cash.

Simple as that.