Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Maybe the math didn't add up..
15M (guestimate) on Carroll, plus his wages saved, brings around 20M.. Cole and Sahin's wages gone, another 6-8M, then another 20-30M from the Owners.. aka the "paupers"..
So, those numbers are roughly around 50M, give or take, and several world class players can be had for 20-30M.. then there are others in the 40+ range, and 50+ range.. Don't think we'll see many more of those in years to come.. So say we spend 25+ on ONE, add Ince, and add another for 15-20M, that's again roughly 50M spent.. for 3 players. Not enough I suppose?
I also suppose, us, LFC & FSG, spending 20.5M, third behind QPR 22.4M and Newcastle 20.5M, on multiple players, vs our 2, really shows what "Paupers" they are.. Even though City spent almost 0, Spurs spent 0, Chelsea spent 8M, Everton spent 3M..
Perhaps when making a comment of how many "elite" we can buy, vs other clubs, you should take into account, what other clubs already have at their disposal, while we've been rebuilding for only 1 season under a new manager..
Chelsea can afford to buy 2, because they may only need 2, same for United and City.. We need several more players, and they can't all be the "ELITE" costs because you can't build a squad for the present and future by buying just one player..
Eh, I continue to ask myself why I bother..
Anyways, goodbye Andy, I hope. (sorry to those who don't like that)..
City & Chelsea & Untited didn't need to spend.
Thats why we were ahead of them in terms od purchases this January.
£30m on a player still makes our owners sweat and panic.. it's a big deal to them.. Yet £30m on a player in terms of Ciy & Chelsea is no big deal.
So yea my assertion that our owners are "paupers" stands.
- 1 Reply to LFC_Armchair_Supporter
Armchair - a couple of questions if you please.
The owners have sanctioned some £ 200 million of player purchases since they came here, on a par with any other club. Why do you think they are so tight with the purse-strings? Why is this not good enough?
Tell how many £30+ million players have City and Chelsea have bought.
Why do you think paying over £30 million is a guarantee that a player will work out? If the owners are cautious ( which I know they're not) then who can blame them? I am thinking of Carroll, Torres to Chelsea, Veron, and a hundred other expensive flops!
Surely it's about buying the right player and not the money you fork out on them?
Is it a pride thing this spending with you? Do you just want to be able to say 'Our kn0b is as big as everyone else'?
Jason, you're right, your maths doesn't add up.
In the savings you are adding together notional transfer fee receipts and saved wages and a lump sum from the owners to get a fee of £50m. You're then spending that on transfer fees, ignoring the new players' wages. Can't do that. If you include wages on one side you'll have to include them on the other.
Also, Chelsea's net spend was -£4m.
- 1 Reply to Robert M
I thought I'd asked if we (you) could not be so literal all the time.. Surely you know I can sit down and add up exact numbers, and I was tossing about numbers not including nominal and unknown fees, just for examples purpose... Plus, let's be honest, if Sofa is going to be one of the main audience reading and tossing in his 2 pence on X millions spent, then it doesn't really matter what I say, does it? I could have said that leaves us with about 400M to spend this summer and it wouldn't be enough because then Chelsea and City would spend 800M in furniture land.. I can only wonder what Madrid might do..
And regards to Chelsea spending net, you've helped make my point, which Loki and I seem to be unable to get across the table..
But of course this was a goodbye Andy thread afterall..