Ha! If you want to arbitrarily remove players from net spend numbers, go right ahead. Skew the numbers as works for you! Any team could have bought Ronaldo for 12MP and sold him for 80MP, but only Manchester United did, credit to Ferguson.
I'm not fooling myself, I'm using factual numbers.
__________________ "I think the eye test is still good, but analytics can sure give you confirmation: what you see...is that what you really believe?" Scotty Bowman, 0 NHL games played
Ha! If you want to arbitrarily remove players from net spend numbers, go right ahead. Skew the numbers as works for you! Any team could have bought Ronaldo for 12MP and sold him for 80MP, but only Manchester United did, credit to Ferguson.
I'm not fooling myself, I'm using factual numbers.
Arbitrarily remove players from net spend? The Ronaldo one was a typo, my mistake.
You are fooling yourself.That one transfer skews the net spend over a period of time enormously, and that is where you are fooling yourself if you think it doesn't.
But ignore the fact that your squad cost about double ours, and your XI more than twice ours.
Want the wage bill comparison as well, or do you just use the factual numbers you made up.
You have zero idea what you are talking about if you think Rafa spent poorly and like a maniac. Quite the contrary, your twat faced manager actually does, did and is a hypocrite.
But please keep listening to absolute s such as Jamie Redknapp and the likes. They are always completely right, since facts are irrelevant right?
You are fooling yourself.That one transfer skews the net spend over a period of time enormously, and that is where you are fooling yourself if you think it doesn't.
But ignore the fact that your squad cost about double ours, and your XI more than twice ours.
Want the wage bill comparison as well, or do you just use the factual numbers you made up.
You have zero idea what you are talking about if you think Rafa spent poorly and like a maniac. Quite the contrary, your twat faced manager actually does, did and is a hypocrite.
Fine. I'll just irrationally take the Alonso sale off Liverpool's net spend numbers as it suits me and in my eyes skews things enormously.
I was simply comparing transfer numbers during Rafa's term. You can try and change the subject to jabs at Ferguson or wages, change the timeframe to suit yourself, or do whatever else you want to do. Fact remains, Liverpool's net spend over his term was higher than the listed teams, so surely money can't be the only excuse for the drop in form.
I never said he spent like a maniac, but he's clearly spent poorly.
__________________ "I think the eye test is still good, but analytics can sure give you confirmation: what you see...is that what you really believe?" Scotty Bowman, 0 NHL games played
Liverpool Football Club tonight issued the following press statement:
The Board of Directors have received two excellent financial offers to buy the Club that would repay all its long-term debt. A Board meeting was called today to review these bids and approve a sale. Shortly prior to the meeting, the owners - Tom Hicks and George Gillett - sought to remove Managing Director Christian Purslow and Commercial Director Ian Ayre from the Board, seeking to replace them with Mack Hicks and Lori Kay McCutcheon.
This matter is now subject to legal review and a further announcement will be made in due course.
Meanwhile Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre continue to explore every possible route to achieving a sale of the Club at the earliest opportunity.
Author: Liverpool Football Club
turning in to a civil war
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
Fine. I'll just irrationally take the Alonso sale off Liverpool's net spend numbers as it suits me and in my eyes skews things enormously.
I was simply comparing transfer numbers during Rafa's term. You can try and change the subject to jabs at Ferguson or wages, change the timeframe to suit yourself, or do whatever else you want to do. Fact remains, Liverpool's net spend over his term was higher than the listed teams, so surely money can't be the only excuse for the drop in form.
I never said he spent like a maniac, but he's clearly spent poorly.
Ronaldo's transfer skews Ferguson's net spend by 68MP. That highly skews it. Alonso's doesn't on the other hand.
But up until 2008/2009 when Ronaldo was there, what do you think the net spend looked like?
Money is the reason, and if you want to be ignorant to that fact then you can. But right now we are seeing what an average manager can do with the squad compared to one of the world's best.
He's not spent poorly. List his bad transfers. Keane was a Parry buy, Morientes and Pennant were poor granted, but almost everyone else he's made a profit on or has played well and consistently for the club.
United may have spent more or they may not have - I really don't care. The bottom line is that the disparity of spending under Rafa is nowhere near as large as Liverpool supporters would have us believe.
Ronaldo's transfer skews Ferguson's net spend by 68MP. That highly skews it. Alonso's doesn't on the other hand.
But up until 2008/2009 when Ronaldo was there, what do you think the net spend looked like?
Money is the reason, and if you want to be ignorant to that fact then you can. But right now we are seeing what an average manager can do with the squad compared to one of the world's best.
He's not spent poorly. List his bad transfers. Keane was a Parry buy, Morientes and Pennant were poor granted, but almost everyone else he's made a profit on or has played well and consistently for the club.
HAHA. Wait. So Ferguson buys a quality young player, develops him into a superstar, and in turn sells him at the start of his prime for 80MP to a willing buyer...Yet you want to discount 68MP of that for no apparent reason? I can't even respond to that logic.
Money clearly isn't the reason as shown by hard numbers. It doesn't even matter who has spent the most really. Fact is Liverpool under Benitez spent a huge amount and failed to produce results recently. Go ahead and tell us all that the only reason Liverpool finished behind Tottenham, Arsenal, and freaking Aston Villa last season is money.
__________________ "I think the eye test is still good, but analytics can sure give you confirmation: what you see...is that what you really believe?" Scotty Bowman, 0 NHL games played
United may have spent more or they may not have - I really don't care. The bottom line is that the disparity of spending under Rafa is nowhere near as large as Liverpool supporters would have us believe.
Fair enough. Since Ronaldo's the big issue here (which does make QUITE the difference in net spending) let's play a game over the next few years. How many trophies do the Mancs win post Ronaldo? You're one league cup up on us since then. Enjoy...? Anyways, let's make that be the last time we mention them when not playing them the following or previous weekend shall we? Good.
If you've got nothing to say about the club this thread is about, don't say it. Also, pick your words carefully. From here on I will report trolling. If you want to talk about your club, take it to your own thread (although you might as well just use an MSN chat window, since there's only 2 of you...I'm done now)
Time for more pressing matters. No football to be played until after D-day #2. Tomorrow (which occurs in 76 minutes as of typing this sentence), we are about to default on a massive interest. On the 15th, the full loan has to be paid to RBS.
Hicks is trying to resort to epic nepotism (if anyone thinks what the Sutters do here is nepotism, that is NOTHING!), to buy himself 10 days. The Dallas Stars are looking for buyers, and have been rumoured to be "assisted" by the NHL more than a year ago. The Texas Rangers are being sold, as far as I know with help from the MLB. Hicks' assets in the sporting world are all in jeopardy. He's got his real estate, but those are likely small fish in comparison. He may have to wear a mask to enter a bank without getting a picture on twitter, and having that bank contacted on the spot. Luckily, you usually get arrested for wearing a disguise in a bank.
Gillett still has his turning left team (Nascar) as far as I know. However, rumour was that Gillett's owing of a massive debt payment he couldn't afford (not sure what from) was a major factor in Hicks' desire to buy his partner in crime out. That leads me to believe that he can't exactly raise money himself either.
The fans are ready to sacrifice 9 points so that RBS does the selling. I know we can't even afford that right now. However, as long as staying in the premiership is assured (which the potential owners have the money to help bankroll in January), I'll sacrifice 9 points to ensure that those pieces of absolute crap lose their shirts. I want them to lose Liverpool. I want them to lose the Stars, Rangers, Gillett's Nascar team. Not only that. I want the bank to be able to take the ridiculous amount they're in debt, and seize every one of their assets. Money making real estate ventures, their own houses. The Royal Bank of Scotland should bleed them drier than they ever thought they were capable of bleeding our club. I want their pictures to be up in every bank in the world, saying that they shouldn't even give them overdraft protection. These s should suffer. Anyways:
The video. If you haven't watched it, check it out.
Tom Hicks, George Gillett. You are scum. I've never in my life seen this level of greed. You're done. You're through. I'm not a scouser born and bred. I've been to Liverpool once, for a total of 6 days and 5 nights. That was enough to know what this club is. When I think about it now, that's enough for me to realize what you two s are messing with. Out! Now!
__________________
"Correction, it's not your leg son. It's Liverpool's leg" - Shankly
Liverpool Football Club today announces that the Board has agreed the sale of the Club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV).
New England Sports Ventures currently owns a portfolio of companies including the Boston Red Sox, New England Sports Network, Fenway Sports Group and Rousch Fenway Racing.
Martin Broughton, Liverpool FC Chairman, said:
"I am delighted that we have been able to successfully conclude the sale process which has been thorough and extensive. The Board decided to accept NESV's proposal on the basis that it best met the criteria we set out originally for a suitable new owner. NESV's philosophy is all about winning and they have fully demonstrated that at Red Sox.
"We've met them in Boston, London and Liverpool over several weeks and I am immensely impressed with what they have achieved and with their vision for Liverpool Football Club.
"By removing the burden of acquisition debt, this offer allows us to focus on investment in the team. I am only disappointed that the owners have tried everything to prevent the deal from happening and that we need to go through legal proceedings in order to complete the sale."
Note to editors:
The sale is conditional on Premier League approval, resolution of the dispute concerning Board membership and other matters.
Is this the greatest thing we wanted to see happen? I dont know, maybe not, but at the same time, the Red Sox are a very stable icon of Baseball that are always competetive, if that same applies to Liverpool, then I'm happy.
The one thing that I read that I really like was that the owners dont really want to build a new stadium, rather they'd prefer to massively upgrade the existing one.
Maybe thats not the greatest thing ever, but I'd love to keep Anfield at Anfield rather than get a new ground. Its a sentiment thing rather than a business decision, but hey, its their business now.
G&H scratched and clawed to the very end and they're getting canned without a penny to their names. That counts for something in my minds. Finally Broughton and Purslow stood up for the club.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Fair enough. Since Ronaldo's the big issue here (which does make QUITE the difference in net spending) let's play a game over the next few years. How many trophies do the Mancs win post Ronaldo? You're one league cup up on us since then. Enjoy...? Anyways, let's make that be the last time we mention them when not playing them the following or previous weekend shall we? Good.
My posts were never about winning more trophies - it was simply to address the statements that Liverpool has not had any money to spend. This simply cannot be backed up. From the charts I posted Liverpool has spent more gross anyways from 04-09.
Quote:
If you've got nothing to say about the club this thread is about, don't say it. Also, pick your words carefully. From here on I will report trolling. If you want to talk about your club, take it to your own thread (although you might as well just use an MSN chat window, since there's only 2 of you...I'm done now)
I do believe that it is about Liverpool and was presented simply as a counter to the statement that Liverpool has not had funds. Ownership was a mess but the lack of results cannot be solely attributed to a lack of funds vis-a-vis the other clubs. I also linked your response to my chart before as it had an article with somewhat different figures. The numbers in your link also do not support the claim of a massive disparity. At the end of the article is states 221.95 million (MUFC) vs. 212.60 million (LFC). The ownership was brutal but not solely responsible - the fact remains that the club did not produce results outside of CL with fairly equitable spending. As for the reasons why I have not speculated as I do not follow Liverpool closely enough to do so.
Quote:
....
Now to step back a bit...
Quote:
If you want to talk about your club, take it to your own thread (although you might as well just use an MSN chat window, since there's only 2 of you...I'm done now)
This was a very interesting way to finish a threat to report trolling.
HAHA. Wait. So Ferguson buys a quality young player, develops him into a superstar, and in turn sells him at the start of his prime for 80MP to a willing buyer...Yet you want to discount 68MP of that for no apparent reason? I can't even respond to that logic.
Money clearly isn't the reason as shown by hard numbers. It doesn't even matter who has spent the most really. Fact is Liverpool under Benitez spent a huge amount and failed to produce results recently. Go ahead and tell us all that the only reason Liverpool finished behind Tottenham, Arsenal, and freaking Aston Villa last season is money.
I'm saying that if you think that Ferguson spent less than Rafa and that it shows that Rafa is not a good manager(or whatever you want to call him) then you're wrong. I'm saying that he spent far less, and that one sale skews that exponentially.
Liverpool under Benitez didn't spend a huge amount. If you look at net spend under Rafa's last few years, you'd see Villa, City, and Spurs spent more than him. Coincidently those 3 teams finished ahead of him in the standings.
It directly relates, and you're a fool if you cannot understand this.
Now, please tell me that he should win the league with that net spend, when at the end of the day, United had 3 or 4 players that were bought for double our net spend, and probably 4 or 5 more that were bought for more than our spending per year.
Oh, and Hicks is a prick. Just off you Yank . You've depreciated this asset(refuse to say his) so much that you are getting jack. It's all 100% your fault, and if you died tomorrow you'd have 10s of thousands willing to dig your grave, no matter the fact that it's the size of Texas.
