There's a hell of a lot of blowing going on on this thread
I put the figures there. Liverpool spent 280+ million in one year (before they won the CL) compared to City spending a little over 100 million and United spending around 70 million I think it was. It was obscene how much money Liverpool spent that year.
Why mention the total value of City's squad? They've built that squad over 8-10 years now, so the money is spread out over that period. Liverpool spent in one calendar year over 280 million. Can you not see how obscene that amount is?
Sounds like a smart move from Joel in the current climate. There is a recession, people are losing their jobs and United have had losses due to the pandemic.
Spending £108m on a kid from a weak Bundesliga, no matter his stats, is incredibly risky. I saw his goals and assists from last season and you can ignore the assists stats as they were mostly simple passes that others finished off well. For his goals, the goalkeeping and defending was attrocious.
Not saying he won't succeed here but I've never been impressed watching him. He clearly has talent but the premier league is unforgiving.
The usual glazers/ed out cult who play fifa all day thinking transfers are simple will be disappointed. But well, they can always go support City.
We're on the up and the club should rightly be cautious.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 36 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with inheriting wealth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing per se about inheriting wealth. But:
1) We should be aware that the majority of very wealthy people inherited rather than created that wealth, because there's a narrative that goes around suggesting we shouldn't tax the super-rich as they are the entrepreneurs who drive the economy, create jobs, etc. The truth is that most of the super-rich maintain their wealth through rentiership, which creates monopolistic, anti-innovative, anti-productive pressures in the economy.
2) You seemed quite outraged by the things we saw at the height of the pandemic, including the inequality of outcomes as the poorest sections of the population, often those who delivered the most essential services (medical care, sanitation, provision of food) fell ill and died in disproportionate numbers. This is a reflection of inequality - of the UK's status as one of the most unequal societies in the developed world.
No one is saying we should confiscate the wealth of the super-rich. But a tax system could be designed both to a little bit more redistributive (so that those people doing key jobs can afford to live a less precarious existence, with better workplace safety) and to incentivise innovative exploitation of property rather than rentier capitalism would have us in a much healthier place.
Remember, we had substantially higher economic growth during the post-war years when the political consensus supported relatively higher marginal tax rates and the gap between the rich and poor was very big rather than different galaxies. That's not to argue that the slower average growth since Thatcher's economic revolution is directly caused by the relatively laissez-faire economics we've had since then, but it's hard to argue that relatively higher taxes for the richest automatically = strangling the economy when you look at historical growth vs tax rates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government are in the pockets of the wealthy, so there won't be any changes.
Nothing wrong with inheriting wealth.
++
Apart from keeping rich families rich and poor families poor, over many generations.
On the whole.
If you are inclined to see that a problem, of course.
I’m amazed that people still fall into the inheritance tax trap. There are so many ways around it and in the age of Google I’m in disbelief that the government is still able to make money from this particular cash cow.
...but frankly if you pass on financial astuteness to your kids the there’s no reason whatsoever they shouldn’t at least have the option to retire/semi-retire by the age of 40 regardless of any inheritance coming their way.
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
comment by Dr Tobias Fünke - 🏆 CHAMP19NS 🏆 (U1217)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Wahl Icht ^ (U22443)
posted 29 minutes ago
In 2018:
Liverpool
Fabinho 40m
Keita 53m
Shaqiri 13m
Alisson 67m
Oxlade Chamberlain 35m
Van Dijk 75m
TOTAL 283m
Man City
Mahrez 60m
Laporte 57m
TOTAL 117m
Man Utd
Dalot 19m
Fred 52m
TOTAL 71m
But Liverpool have never blown anyone out of the water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep after selling one of our best players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
did you sell Coutinho for 283m
my understanding it was 105m + about 37 if certain achievements were met (which clearly haven't been). so surely you spent 180m on top of that sale
and as i said, keita was signed in 2017.as was vvd technically since it was confirmed on 27th dec and he was chased from the summer that year.
ox was also signed in 2017.
no idea where hes getting us spending 270m in 2018.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
did you sell Coutinho for 283m
_____
no 142m but we sold a few other players too which add up, solanke ibe sakho benteke etc.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly cared enough to comment.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly cared enough to comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is commenting not caring you thick tw@t.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly cared enough to comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is commenting not caring you thick tw@t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as i said cared enough to comment you thick tw@t
hence it not being a typical action of somebody who doesnt care, a typical reaction from somebody who didnt care who to be ignore and not even comment. but carry on clever clogs.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly cared enough to comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is commenting not caring you thick tw@t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as i said cared enough to comment you thick tw@t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I said, commenting isn’t caring you utterly thick to$$er.
is this you still not caring?
Not sure where i said commenting was caring. I said you cared enough to comment. Two different things .
But anyway....
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
...but frankly if you pass on financial astuteness to your kids the there’s no reason whatsoever they shouldn’t at least have the option to retire/semi-retire by the age of 40 regardless of any inheritance coming their way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
Can you explain please? This confuses me greatly.
comment by rosso - for your protection, we’ve installed this camera (U17054)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
...but frankly if you pass on financial astuteness to your kids the there’s no reason whatsoever they shouldn’t at least have the option to retire/semi-retire by the age of 40 regardless of any inheritance coming their way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
Can you explain please? This confuses me greatly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, please do
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 36 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with inheriting wealth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing per se about inheriting wealth. But:
1) We should be aware that the majority of very wealthy people inherited rather than created that wealth,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sure about that RR? Depends on how you define very wealthy.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 36 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with inheriting wealth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing per se about inheriting wealth. But:
1) We should be aware that the majority of very wealthy people inherited rather than created that wealth,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sure about that RR? Depends on how you define very wealthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hogan did the most detailed study on this matter and I think it found the complete opposite to be true.
Sign in if you want to comment
Joel Glazer
Page 4 of 4
posted on 20/8/20
There's a hell of a lot of blowing going on on this thread
posted on 20/8/20
I put the figures there. Liverpool spent 280+ million in one year (before they won the CL) compared to City spending a little over 100 million and United spending around 70 million I think it was. It was obscene how much money Liverpool spent that year.
posted on 20/8/20
Why mention the total value of City's squad? They've built that squad over 8-10 years now, so the money is spread out over that period. Liverpool spent in one calendar year over 280 million. Can you not see how obscene that amount is?
posted on 20/8/20
Sounds like a smart move from Joel in the current climate. There is a recession, people are losing their jobs and United have had losses due to the pandemic.
Spending £108m on a kid from a weak Bundesliga, no matter his stats, is incredibly risky. I saw his goals and assists from last season and you can ignore the assists stats as they were mostly simple passes that others finished off well. For his goals, the goalkeeping and defending was attrocious.
Not saying he won't succeed here but I've never been impressed watching him. He clearly has talent but the premier league is unforgiving.
The usual glazers/ed out cult who play fifa all day thinking transfers are simple will be disappointed. But well, they can always go support City.
We're on the up and the club should rightly be cautious.
posted on 20/8/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 36 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with inheriting wealth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing per se about inheriting wealth. But:
1) We should be aware that the majority of very wealthy people inherited rather than created that wealth, because there's a narrative that goes around suggesting we shouldn't tax the super-rich as they are the entrepreneurs who drive the economy, create jobs, etc. The truth is that most of the super-rich maintain their wealth through rentiership, which creates monopolistic, anti-innovative, anti-productive pressures in the economy.
2) You seemed quite outraged by the things we saw at the height of the pandemic, including the inequality of outcomes as the poorest sections of the population, often those who delivered the most essential services (medical care, sanitation, provision of food) fell ill and died in disproportionate numbers. This is a reflection of inequality - of the UK's status as one of the most unequal societies in the developed world.
No one is saying we should confiscate the wealth of the super-rich. But a tax system could be designed both to a little bit more redistributive (so that those people doing key jobs can afford to live a less precarious existence, with better workplace safety) and to incentivise innovative exploitation of property rather than rentier capitalism would have us in a much healthier place.
Remember, we had substantially higher economic growth during the post-war years when the political consensus supported relatively higher marginal tax rates and the gap between the rich and poor was very big rather than different galaxies. That's not to argue that the slower average growth since Thatcher's economic revolution is directly caused by the relatively laissez-faire economics we've had since then, but it's hard to argue that relatively higher taxes for the richest automatically = strangling the economy when you look at historical growth vs tax rates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government are in the pockets of the wealthy, so there won't be any changes.
posted on 20/8/20
Nothing wrong with inheriting wealth.
++
Apart from keeping rich families rich and poor families poor, over many generations.
On the whole.
If you are inclined to see that a problem, of course.
posted on 20/8/20
I’m amazed that people still fall into the inheritance tax trap. There are so many ways around it and in the age of Google I’m in disbelief that the government is still able to make money from this particular cash cow.
posted on 20/8/20
...but frankly if you pass on financial astuteness to your kids the there’s no reason whatsoever they shouldn’t at least have the option to retire/semi-retire by the age of 40 regardless of any inheritance coming their way.
posted on 20/8/20
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
posted on 20/8/20
comment by Dr Tobias Fünke - 🏆 CHAMP19NS 🏆 (U1217)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Wahl Icht ^ (U22443)
posted 29 minutes ago
In 2018:
Liverpool
Fabinho 40m
Keita 53m
Shaqiri 13m
Alisson 67m
Oxlade Chamberlain 35m
Van Dijk 75m
TOTAL 283m
Man City
Mahrez 60m
Laporte 57m
TOTAL 117m
Man Utd
Dalot 19m
Fred 52m
TOTAL 71m
But Liverpool have never blown anyone out of the water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep after selling one of our best players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
did you sell Coutinho for 283m
my understanding it was 105m + about 37 if certain achievements were met (which clearly haven't been). so surely you spent 180m on top of that sale
posted on 20/8/20
and as i said, keita was signed in 2017.as was vvd technically since it was confirmed on 27th dec and he was chased from the summer that year.
ox was also signed in 2017.
no idea where hes getting us spending 270m in 2018.
posted on 20/8/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
posted on 20/8/20
did you sell Coutinho for 283m
_____
no 142m but we sold a few other players too which add up, solanke ibe sakho benteke etc.
posted on 20/8/20
over that period*
posted on 20/8/20
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly cared enough to comment.
posted on 20/8/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly cared enough to comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is commenting not caring you thick tw@t.
posted on 20/8/20
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly cared enough to comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is commenting not caring you thick tw@t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as i said cared enough to comment you thick tw@t
posted on 20/8/20
hence it not being a typical action of somebody who doesnt care, a typical reaction from somebody who didnt care who to be ignore and not even comment. but carry on clever clogs.
posted on 20/8/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 2 minutes ago
wahl totally ignoring how n why we were able to spent 270m over TWO seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be because he doesn’t care. Neither does anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly cared enough to comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is commenting not caring you thick tw@t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as i said cared enough to comment you thick tw@t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I said, commenting isn’t caring you utterly thick to$$er.
posted on 20/8/20
is this you still not caring?
posted on 20/8/20
Not sure where i said commenting was caring. I said you cared enough to comment. Two different things .
But anyway....
posted on 20/8/20
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
...but frankly if you pass on financial astuteness to your kids the there’s no reason whatsoever they shouldn’t at least have the option to retire/semi-retire by the age of 40 regardless of any inheritance coming their way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
Can you explain please? This confuses me greatly.
posted on 20/8/20
comment by rosso - for your protection, we’ve installed this camera (U17054)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
...but frankly if you pass on financial astuteness to your kids the there’s no reason whatsoever they shouldn’t at least have the option to retire/semi-retire by the age of 40 regardless of any inheritance coming their way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
Can you explain please? This confuses me greatly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, please do
posted on 22/8/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 36 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with inheriting wealth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing per se about inheriting wealth. But:
1) We should be aware that the majority of very wealthy people inherited rather than created that wealth,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sure about that RR? Depends on how you define very wealthy.
posted on 22/8/20
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 36 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with inheriting wealth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing per se about inheriting wealth. But:
1) We should be aware that the majority of very wealthy people inherited rather than created that wealth,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sure about that RR? Depends on how you define very wealthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hogan did the most detailed study on this matter and I think it found the complete opposite to be true.
Page 4 of 4