05 Feb 2016 20:27:26
I have a question if we are in the top ten richest clubs why do we not compete financially. This should be a given.
05 Feb 2016 20:59:53
It's about how wealth is measured, we're not the 10th most cash rich.
05 Feb 2016 21:02:40
Oh dear. You do realise that in the last few years only 5 teams have spent more money than us on transfers; PSG, Man City, Real Madrid, Man United and Barcelona. And no I'm not joking, we have actually spent more than Chelsea.
How are we not competing financially? We're not competing on the pitch due to players underperforming or flopping and an ex-manager wasting 3 years of our time building a team around 2 mercenaries, a cripple and an old man; all whilst failing to learn from a string of similar mistakes.
Stop trying to find a stick to beat the owners with. They've poured millions into the team whilst building a new stand and if you think this has been an easy venture for them with a cosy profit waiting for them you're insane. They've taken abuse, dealt with unimaginable stress and publicity issues, and all this whilst desperately throwing money at the sinking ship that is LFC. I'm sick of reading about how "evil" they are. Grow up the lot of you. If they make a profit, it probably still hasn't been worth their time. They're billionaires. The amount of time they've invested into this alone could've been spent investing into something far more profitable. You want proof? Wait until they sell us and see if they buy another football team. Will they hell because it isn't worth the time and money when all you get is abuse from a bunch of, to coin a phrase from Ed002, knuckle dragging oafs.
05 Feb 2016 21:03:13
because we spend more than we get.
05 Feb 2016 21:05:03
1. Because we are saddled with debts and running at a loss.
2. Because every team above us in the 'rich table' has a lot more money - most of them lots and lots more money, some so much that paying £100M for a player is no big deal.
Those I would speculate are the two main reasons.
05 Feb 2016 21:12:31
Top 10 in revenue, I doubt anywhere near 10th richest. Arsenal have more cash then the rest of the PL combined, or did last time I checked.
As of 31 May 2014, we had a massive £488k cash at bank and in hand.
05 Feb 2016 21:27:26
Rag week for EMS? 😄.
05 Feb 2016 21:37:33
"Rag week for EMS".
Brilliant :-)
05 Feb 2016 21:56:41
I know it's not as much, and it's only a few players, but I think it's important to take in sales of sterling and Suarez into your argument.
05 Feb 2016 21:58:18
They only spend what they get ems, if they hadn't sold Suarez and sterling they would only have chucked in a pittance.
05 Feb 2016 22:26:06
Sterlings fee didn't even cover the cost of Firmino. I assume Benteke, Clyne, Milner etc costs were covered by Balotellis loan fee?
You are embarrassing Hem B. Suarez and Sterling are the only players we've made a profit on since FSG took over. They were sold for about £100m. That doesn't even cover the costs of the first transfer window FSG were in charge for when they gave Dalglish and Comolli a Kings ransom and got Downing, Carroll and Enrique for their money. You're kidding yourself.
05 Feb 2016 22:28:54
To be fair, would you rather Suarez and Sterling or £80M or whatever we got for them that was largely wasted? If we still had them we likely wouldn't need much.
05 Feb 2016 22:53:14
I'm sure sterlings fee just about covered firmino mind.
05 Feb 2016 22:44:33
We also made a few on Jonjo, EMS. and a bit on N'Gog of all people. But yeah, in general we don't sell for anything near what we bought for.
05 Feb 2016 22:51:37
Torres?
06 Feb 2016 01:15:47
Good call, Rover. Torres as well. And I think Kelly as well?