My point is zenny, is that FSG have not spent 100m+ on players. IMO that is just regurgitating the carp spewed by the redtop rags. Could the money have been better spent - yes it could, considering we currently lie 14th in the league.
They have spent approximately £48m net, improved revenue streams and massively reduced the wage bill.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Paisley
Lets not look at net because what you earn is seperate to what you spend
comment by zenny (U9408)
posted 1 minute ago
Paisley
Lets not look at net because what you earn is seperate to what you spend
Surely what you spend would depend on what you earn,or do you advocate the risdale leeds way of doing things
If Torres would not have been sold for £50million would fsg still allowed kenny to spend £100million
Phil
My point is just because Chelsea were wreckless in their spending on Torres, doesnt mean we had to follow suit in our pursuit of dumb, dumber and dumbest. Yes by all means spend the money you make on an assett but spending it on that tosh is criminal which is why Commolli and Kenny are no longer at LFC.
Phil my view is that FSG went in their and were prepared to spend whatever on getting us into top 4. Kenny didnt achieve that which is why he is gone. No two ways. Why was Comolli sacked. Coz he brought shiiite.
So in answer to your question, yes we probably still woudld have spent what we did even if we didnt make loads on Torress. FSG were hell bent on getting into the Top 4. They trusted Kenny and Comolli. Misplaced.
Phil my view is that FSG went in their and were prepared to spend whatever on getting us into top 4. Kenny didnt achieve that which is why he is gone
----------
By giving him £30m to spend?
Paisley. How much did we pay for Carroll, Henderson, Downing and Adam? Just give me a figure?
Do you really think just because we made money on Torres, FSG arent worried about the 25m profit.
Gents
If you brought an assett for 24m. A few years down the line that assett was worth 50m. Would you see that extra 26m as money you can blow on crap or money that could/should be invested wisely.
Basic accounting, what you spend is different to what you earn. They are on different sides of the balance sheet.
Under Kenny they spent £30M.
These are the facts.
That is a long, long way from ' being prepared to spend anything'.
comment by zenny (U9408)
Why was Rodgers told to reduce the wage bill before he could bring players in if as you say
Basic accounting, what you spend is different to what you earn. They are on different sides of the balance sheet.
I am sure Rodgers was told to get rid of players who were not worth their salaries. ie. those that departed. Any business owner would do that first as these are your biggest running costs.
Paisley who brought Carroll, Downing, Henderson, Adam?
comment by zenny (U9408)
posted 11 seconds ago
I am sure Rodgers was told to get rid of players who were not worth their salaries. ie. those that departed. Any business owner would do that first as these are your biggest running costs.
Therefore spend is directly related to income,something you have said is not the case on more than one occasion
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Phil
My point was, we spent more than 30m under Kenny. Regardless of how much we recouped, we still spent all that money (LFC MONEY) on garbage.
comment by zenny (U9408)
So let's say hypothectically Liverpool FC sold players to the value of £100million and then bought players of the value of £50million,you'd be happy as you bought/spent £50million on players regardless off the fact that sales of talent was twice the amount
Zenny, according to ESPN (see fragment below) and other sources such as the guardian, John Henry himself stipulated that he didn't care what we spent on Carroll as long as Chelsea paid 15 Mill more for Torres. Its therefore a bit of a stretch to blame Dalglish or Comolli for overpaying for him. Buying AC was not a mistake but paying 35 million for him was a catastrophic error. John Henry's error.
John W Henry has explained Liverpool's decision to spend a British record transfer fee on Andy Carroll, revealing he strictly stipulated that the Reds pay £15 million less than they received for Fernando Torres.
Read more at http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/72124.html#A6jBjwAYW6wqGgZL.99
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Regardless of how much we recouped, we still spent all that money (LFC MONEY) on garbage.
===================================================================================
Dalglish spent 30m-35m in two transfer windows. We finished 8th., and got to 2 cup finals.
Brendan's spent 20m in one transfer window.
I'm not sure how anybody's managing to imply already that Brendan's been spending the money better. We;ve got 6 points from 7 games. Borini's had 12 hours of football, scored 1 goal, and no assists, which, for a striker ("there's goals in him" could be a problem.
I think maybe we need to stop scapegoating individual players and ask ourselves whether we've been giving managers enough time. This is our fourth manager in 3 years.
I'm more than happy to give Brendan time, because unlike some others who wanted previious managers sacked, I believe in it as a matter of principle, and not just when he does things I want, or buys players I approve of. So unlike others with previous managers, I won’t be getting on Borini’s back, or Brendan’s back, because these things take time
But in the meantime, let's stop talking sheite about individual players. A couple of years ago it was Lucas, now it's anybody Kenny bought, apart from Suarez.
Brendan isn't being hampered by anything Kenny did.
He got 20m, which is pretty reasonable for his first transfer window, and the only player of Kenny's he uses every week is Suarez, who is the one player that's saving his ^rse, at the moment, by playing out of his skin.
I'm sick of the snobbery that exists whereby people determine whether a player is good or bad based entirely on the club/division he's in.
He's a striker that scores plenty of goals. We currently don't have one. It makes perfect sense.
------------------
This
to the people judging him because he plays for a Scottish team.......Just look at Jelavic. Some of you lot never learn
Hooper is too good for the dumb scousers
I saw him playing against HJK Helsinki in C.L qualifications, and remember thinking he's the worst player on the pitch..
Sign in if you want to comment
Who the *u*k is Gary Hooper
Page 3 of 3
posted on 12/10/12
My point is zenny, is that FSG have not spent 100m+ on players. IMO that is just regurgitating the carp spewed by the redtop rags. Could the money have been better spent - yes it could, considering we currently lie 14th in the league.
They have spent approximately £48m net, improved revenue streams and massively reduced the wage bill.
posted on 12/10/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/10/12
Paisley
Lets not look at net because what you earn is seperate to what you spend
posted on 12/10/12
comment by zenny (U9408)
posted 1 minute ago
Paisley
Lets not look at net because what you earn is seperate to what you spend
Surely what you spend would depend on what you earn,or do you advocate the risdale leeds way of doing things
posted on 12/10/12
If Torres would not have been sold for £50million would fsg still allowed kenny to spend £100million
posted on 12/10/12
Phil
My point is just because Chelsea were wreckless in their spending on Torres, doesnt mean we had to follow suit in our pursuit of dumb, dumber and dumbest. Yes by all means spend the money you make on an assett but spending it on that tosh is criminal which is why Commolli and Kenny are no longer at LFC.
posted on 12/10/12
Phil my view is that FSG went in their and were prepared to spend whatever on getting us into top 4. Kenny didnt achieve that which is why he is gone. No two ways. Why was Comolli sacked. Coz he brought shiiite.
So in answer to your question, yes we probably still woudld have spent what we did even if we didnt make loads on Torress. FSG were hell bent on getting into the Top 4. They trusted Kenny and Comolli. Misplaced.
posted on 12/10/12
Phil my view is that FSG went in their and were prepared to spend whatever on getting us into top 4. Kenny didnt achieve that which is why he is gone
----------
By giving him £30m to spend?
posted on 12/10/12
Paisley. How much did we pay for Carroll, Henderson, Downing and Adam? Just give me a figure?
Do you really think just because we made money on Torres, FSG arent worried about the 25m profit.
posted on 12/10/12
Gents
If you brought an assett for 24m. A few years down the line that assett was worth 50m. Would you see that extra 26m as money you can blow on crap or money that could/should be invested wisely.
Basic accounting, what you spend is different to what you earn. They are on different sides of the balance sheet.
posted on 12/10/12
Under Kenny they spent £30M.
These are the facts.
That is a long, long way from ' being prepared to spend anything'.
posted on 12/10/12
comment by zenny (U9408)
Why was Rodgers told to reduce the wage bill before he could bring players in if as you say
Basic accounting, what you spend is different to what you earn. They are on different sides of the balance sheet.
posted on 12/10/12
I am sure Rodgers was told to get rid of players who were not worth their salaries. ie. those that departed. Any business owner would do that first as these are your biggest running costs.
Paisley who brought Carroll, Downing, Henderson, Adam?
posted on 12/10/12
comment by zenny (U9408)
posted 11 seconds ago
I am sure Rodgers was told to get rid of players who were not worth their salaries. ie. those that departed. Any business owner would do that first as these are your biggest running costs.
Therefore spend is directly related to income,something you have said is not the case on more than one occasion
posted on 12/10/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/10/12
Phil
My point was, we spent more than 30m under Kenny. Regardless of how much we recouped, we still spent all that money (LFC MONEY) on garbage.
posted on 12/10/12
comment by zenny (U9408)
So let's say hypothectically Liverpool FC sold players to the value of £100million and then bought players of the value of £50million,you'd be happy as you bought/spent £50million on players regardless off the fact that sales of talent was twice the amount
posted on 12/10/12
Zenny, according to ESPN (see fragment below) and other sources such as the guardian, John Henry himself stipulated that he didn't care what we spent on Carroll as long as Chelsea paid 15 Mill more for Torres. Its therefore a bit of a stretch to blame Dalglish or Comolli for overpaying for him. Buying AC was not a mistake but paying 35 million for him was a catastrophic error. John Henry's error.
John W Henry has explained Liverpool's decision to spend a British record transfer fee on Andy Carroll, revealing he strictly stipulated that the Reds pay £15 million less than they received for Fernando Torres.
Read more at http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/72124.html#A6jBjwAYW6wqGgZL.99
posted on 12/10/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/10/12
Regardless of how much we recouped, we still spent all that money (LFC MONEY) on garbage.
===================================================================================
Dalglish spent 30m-35m in two transfer windows. We finished 8th., and got to 2 cup finals.
Brendan's spent 20m in one transfer window.
I'm not sure how anybody's managing to imply already that Brendan's been spending the money better. We;ve got 6 points from 7 games. Borini's had 12 hours of football, scored 1 goal, and no assists, which, for a striker ("there's goals in him" could be a problem.
I think maybe we need to stop scapegoating individual players and ask ourselves whether we've been giving managers enough time. This is our fourth manager in 3 years.
I'm more than happy to give Brendan time, because unlike some others who wanted previious managers sacked, I believe in it as a matter of principle, and not just when he does things I want, or buys players I approve of. So unlike others with previous managers, I won’t be getting on Borini’s back, or Brendan’s back, because these things take time
But in the meantime, let's stop talking sheite about individual players. A couple of years ago it was Lucas, now it's anybody Kenny bought, apart from Suarez.
Brendan isn't being hampered by anything Kenny did.
He got 20m, which is pretty reasonable for his first transfer window, and the only player of Kenny's he uses every week is Suarez, who is the one player that's saving his ^rse, at the moment, by playing out of his skin.
posted on 12/10/12
I'm sick of the snobbery that exists whereby people determine whether a player is good or bad based entirely on the club/division he's in.
He's a striker that scores plenty of goals. We currently don't have one. It makes perfect sense.
------------------
This
to the people judging him because he plays for a Scottish team.......Just look at Jelavic. Some of you lot never learn
posted on 12/10/12
Hooper is too good for the dumb scousers
posted on 12/10/12
Jog on sweaty
posted on 12/10/12
Reggie are you a dwarf
posted on 14/10/12
I saw him playing against HJK Helsinki in C.L qualifications, and remember thinking he's the worst player on the pitch..
Page 3 of 3