Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
i would call it buying to build your team as opposed to buying a team full stop - at least when we bought torres our money from sale of players provided us with the money to spend. you must be having a laugh to comparee the spending of LFC and Chelski !?!
however, I agree with the post it's time to limit spending at transfer time - its getting ridiculous to the point of embarssing. Surely putting a cap on transfers can only serve to strengthen the premiership across all teams and make it more interesting ? I can even see the benefit of going back to maintaining at least 4/5 home players within the teams now.
I can understand teams buying to expand and build - i know its a free market - but chelsea often buy players that other teams are in for purely cos they have the funds - its a shame that so much talent sits on the bench at times, i'd rather see these players on the pitch
i hate to repeat myself but did i not mention liverpool man u arsenal and chelsea in the original thread or has someone been reading only the parts they think matter
and before you ask why is it called chelsea buy more success heres the answer
since red rom took over chelsea have spent 590.4 million pounds in 4 seasons and have won 6 trophies that averages around 100 million a trophy
now try and tell me chelsea aren,t the biggest culprits of over spending
- 2 Replies to A Yahoo! User
I don't know if you numbers for Chelse are gross or net, but I did look up numbers for Liverpool yesterday, also for the last 4 seasons:
Total spending was 151M
net after player sales was 75M
or said another way we spent on average of just under 20M net per season since Rafa arrived.