You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Liverpool Thread 2012/13
- Thread starter Mad Eyed Screamer
- Start date
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
44% said:waspish said:44% said:G&H never , ever supported rafa , that's the basic fact you should know about them
Do you know how much money they backed him with?
£83m net spend in 5 year's period , £16m each year
Ah, net spend.
The enduring default mode for LFC apologists.
44% said:waspish said:44% said:G&H never , ever supported rafa , that's the basic fact you should know about them
Do you know how much money they backed him with?
£83m net spend in 5 year's period , £16m each year
-- Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:29 pm --
The Pink Panther said:44% said:He's not a big earner and no , that decision will be taken by rodgers , not FSG , he deserves to be benched anyway
You honestly don't think Gerrard is your biggest earner!
Who is then and what's your estimate of what your biggest earner is on and how much Gerrard is?
Luis suarez £120000 a week
Gerrard should be around £100000 a week i think
It's was 230m
waspish said:44% said:waspish said:Do you know how much money they backed him with?
£83m net spend in 5 year's period , £16m each year
-- Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:29 pm --
The Pink Panther said:You honestly don't think Gerrard is your biggest earner!
Who is then and what's your estimate of what your biggest earner is on and how much Gerrard is?
Luis suarez £120000 a week
Gerrard should be around £100000 a week i think
It's was 230m
What was 230m?
44% said:waspish said:44% said:£83m net spend in 5 year's period , £16m each year
-- Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:29 pm --
Luis suarez £120000 a week
Gerrard should be around £100000 a week i think
It's was 230m
What was 230m?
That's how much they backed him with over his time at Liverpool
waspish said:44% said:waspish said:It's was 230m
What was 230m?
That's how much they backed him with over his time at Liverpool
We sold alonso , mascherano etc. As well to raise the money , it's net spend that matters , we usually spent £36m gross and recouped £20m through sales which was not idle at all
ohonefiveone said:VOOMER said:44% said:I think FSG are better that H&G for that matter , it's not like we are not spending money , we spent £120m last summer and despite not being in champions league spent £27m this summer , not at all bad for a club not in champions league for three years
It's just that we overpayed by around £60m last summer , so it was always going to bite us in our asses this time
And i don't believe buying dempsey would have affected our medium-long term future in any way , in short term till january? Yes , but we will but player's in january
-- Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:22 pm --
Red sox did a very , very good job getting contracts worth $270m off their wage bills , those players except maybe gonzales where not the same or worth that money now , this gives red sox a platform , to invest again , they can now atleast flex their arms again , those player's were not performing anyway , it meant a huge loss in next 5-7 years , a good deal from red sox i think
I'm not writing to be flippant, but G&H really backed Rafa and but for a couple of dickrisculas performances, you would have 19 titles and would still be top 4. the rug was pulled on them and Henry & Co, were gifted the club in a dubious, dodgy handshake deal by the arsehole of all banks Barclay's. I hate what Henry's crew stand for and the Glaziers, we must thank are luck stars that we got an owner, who's knows that a world class club brings immeasurable prestige, not immeasurable profit!
fucking hell get it sorted lad. clearly know shite about what actually happened. i'm not the biggest FSG fan but G&H were a cancer to the club, might not even be here without them. no exaggeration.
With cancer there's a chance of survival, FSG, are Ebola to G&H cancer.
I'm not a pro-FSG fan but there's a lot of FSG bashing here to be honest , for me , barring this window they have done decent enough , for them , it's about spend what we earn and i am totally happy with spending no more than £30m net a year till we get to champions league (if ever)
Better than any owner who make FALSE promises and then not completes them , FSG never said we will build a stadium in 30 days or we will buy the best talents in the world
Better than any owner who make FALSE promises and then not completes them , FSG never said we will build a stadium in 30 days or we will buy the best talents in the world
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
No it isn't. Or it is maybe from an accountant's viewpoint but football isn't played between balance sheets (despite what Arsenal think).44% said:...it's net spend that matters...
In the book "Pay As You Play" by Paul Tomkins, Graeme Riley and Gary Fulcher, they carry out an analysis based on something called Total Transfer Value. So, in real terms (based on football transfer price inflation) what is your current squad worth?
Generally speaking, the squads with the highest worth should outperform those with a lower worth but some managers will do better or worse than others, both by buying shrewdly and/or managing their resources better. So what you sold Player x for has no bearing on whether Stewart Downing is good value or not.
And they're all Liverpool fans by the way.