19 Jun 2026 21:48:03
The thing with Diomande is not it's mine or your money, so let's not worry about it. We have to replace someone who has been outstanding for so many years and if the club sees that in Diomande then I'm all in.
19 Jun 2026 22:29:11.
Whose money is it then?
All the money in the game, directly or indirectly, comes from the fans.
• TV subs are the biggest one.
• TV advertising is another, and they pay that money because they feel the advertising influences the spending habits of the fans.
A very small percentage of the money in the game comes from the super rich benefactors who may or may not be involved in something called 'sports washing'.
19 Jun 2026 23:19:24
Nestle makes chocolates and a big variety of dairy products. They have customers globally. The customers fund Nestle through their purchases. Are you saying the customers should have a say in what their products taste like, look like?
20 Jun 2026 00:01:57
Or more importantly, should we have a say in where Nestle source their ingredients and how much they pay?
Ron, we do provide the funding, directly and indirectly, to the club. But it's not up to us how they choose to spend it.
If the club decide to buy one superstar and 5 other players from lower leagues, I don't really care. I just want success on the pitch and for us not to breach any rules that affect results (obvs, as we're not Citeh).
{Ed001's Note - yes, we should have a say, then they wouldn't be stealing water from drought areas, causing more of a drought. Then selling that water they stole back to those people they stole it from, as bottled water at a massive mark up. Just for an example, people should be able to say no, you can't do that. There needs to be some oversight always.}
20 Jun 2026 00:50:16
It's got to come from somewhere.
5 - 10% on season tickets, a fiver on all things in the club shop, you pay your hard earned, but it's not enough to have a say on business.
It's their business that they're not involved with, out of the goodness of their hearts.
It's a long term venture in which they'll want 2x, 3x, 4x their initial investment, but out of the goodness of their heart let us support!
20 Jun 2026 01:03:55
Let's get a bit of perspective, Hoof It. Liverpool season ticket prices, when reported in the Echo (from their own data unit) rose by 0.4% over the previous 10 years (from 2014-15 to 2023-24) and then rose by 2% in 2024-25. So, not sure where you get 5-10% per season from??
For context, in the same time period, Everton went up 25% and Man City by over 40%.
And to your point about not having a say in how the money is spent in terms of players, you're damn right! We should definitely have a voice, through fan groups, but it's absolutely right that your fiver doesn't give you a say on how it's spent. That's life.
20 Jun 2026 01:22:39
My apologies.
My 5 - 10% was a generic way of saying prices will be increasing. Absolutely no way factual.
All I am saying is whatever their outlay is, it's not from their goodness and they'll want a return on that investment.
20 Jun 2026 01:39:32
ArAy 1969, Well Nestle's customers do have a say in what the products taste like because if they taste rank then no-one will buy them and the business will fold.
What I'm saying is, it's nonsense to say "it's not our money". It absolutely is money from fans that supports this business.
The more money they spend on transfer fees/wages/agent fees, then the more prices will increase - whether it be TV packages, merchandise or ticket prices.
I'm not advocating for having a say in how it's spent, just that it is the fans who pay ultimately.
20 Jun 2026 04:01:48
@Ron, it's simple - stop putting money into the club. It isn't compulsory to give money to football clubs. Nobody is making you do it. But in contributing to revenues you are acknowledging that the money you bring to the club is used in a way that the owners of the business see fit.
That's as far as your, mine, our contribution goes. It would be different if we were shareholders but we aren't.
20 Jun 2026 06:40:06
In the last 30 years, Liverpool season tickets have increased by over 300% (£220-£260 to £700-£900+), and match day tickets (£15-£20 to £39-£65).
20 Jun 2026 07:37:19
You've just got me wrong.
It's the phrase "it's not our money" or the notion that it's not the fans who are paying.
The fans do pay for players' wages and transfers.
I'm not complaining about it, I'm just stating the reality - it is our money.
20 Jun 2026 07:47:49
Is this really a conversation? It stopped being your money the second you spent it. None of us have any say in how it is used after that, because it's not ours.
{Ed001's Note - of course we have a say, we can stop spending it if we don't like what is done with it.}
20 Jun 2026 07:56:38
Let me start off by saying I want to be wrong about this fella.
There's a bit of hypocrisy going on here, folks. There are ample occasions where people lose their minds about what wages x player is being offered, people leaving on a free etc.
But when it's a shiny new thing that is the latest trendy player, all of a sudden it's "don't worry about finances".
This kid has had 1 season at a good standard of football and has done nowhere near enough to warrant £100mil fee.
Be honest with yourselves about this. Nobody had ever heard of him before this last season.
When people don't fancy a certain attacker, the argument is how poor the defending is in the Bundesliga?
Don't give me "it's the market" b******* either, because it's clearly not. We are being milked and there's no margin for error with this transfer and money involved.
20 Jun 2026 06:46:42
A few thoughts.
A player like Diomande is worth however much someone is willing to pay for him or her. That is one of the most fundamental principles of any market, whether we are talking about football, business, art, or any other industry. Value is not determined solely by statistics, opinions, or what people think something should cost. Instead, value is ultimately determined by what a buyer is prepared to spend and what a seller is prepared to accept. In football, this reality often creates debate among supporters, pundits, and commentators, particularly when transfer fees reach levels that appear excessive or difficult to justify on the surface eg Anthony Gordon to Barca in my humble opinion.
Every transfer window seems to bring renewed discussion about whether a particular player is "worth" the amount being paid. Some supporters look at a transfer fee and immediately compare it to the player's recent performances, goals scored, assists provided, or appearances made. Others compare the fee to previous transfers and question how the market has evolved. Yet football clubs are not making these decisions based purely on public perception. They are making them based on a wide range of moneyball factors including current market conditions, future potential, commercial value, squad requirements, contractual situations, and long-term strategic planning.
The reality is that a player's worth is rarely a simple calculation. Clubs employ teams of analysts, scouts, sporting directors, financial experts, and recruitment specialists who spend countless hours assessing whether a transfer represents good value. They consider not only what a player can contribute immediately, but also how they may develop over time, how they fit into a manager's system, and what value they may retain in the future. While supporters naturally focus on what happens on the pitch, clubs are often looking at a much bigger picture. Diomande is also about potential.
As fans, to take Ron. Keague it is perfectly reasonable and valid to have opinions about transfer fees and recruitment decisions. Football thrives on debate, and differing views are part of what makes supporting a club so engaging. Some transfers that appear expensive ultimately prove to be bargains like Alisson, while others that initially seem like excellent deals lik Keita fail to deliver the expected return. Hindsight often shapes how we view these decisions, but at the time they are made there are always risks involved. No club can guarantee success with every signing, regardless of the amount spent.
It is also important to remember that the financial realities of modern football are very different from those experienced by ordinary supporters. The sums involved in transfers can seem staggering when compared to everyday life. Millions of pounds changing hands for a single player naturally attracts attention and scrutiny. However, these decisions are made within the context of an industry that generates enormous revenues through broadcasting agreements, sponsorships, commercial partnerships, ticket sales, and global fan engagement. While the figures may appear extraordinary to the average person, they are part of the economic landscape in which modern football operates.
Ultimately, it is not our hard-earned money being spent directly. As supporters, we invest emotionally in our clubs, and many of us also contribute financially through tickets, merchandise, subscriptions, and travel. That investment gives us every right to care deeply about the direction of the club and the decisions being made. At the same time, we are not the ones tasked with balancing budgets, negotiating contracts, assessing risk, or planning for future seasons. Those responsibilities belong to the people appointed to run the club.
Because of that, there has to be an element of trust. Trust does not mean blind acceptance of every decision, nor does it mean supporters should never question the club's actions. Healthy scrutiny and discussion are part of football culture. However, there is a difference between questioning a decision and assuming incompetence before the outcome is known. Most clubs, regardless of size, are attempting to make decisions they believe will improve the team and strengthen their position in the future.
When a club decides to spend a significant amount on a player, it is usually because they believe the potential rewards outweigh the risks. They may see qualities that are not immediately obvious to supporters. They may have identified a specific need within the squad that the player can address. They may believe the player has the ability to improve considerably under the right coaching and environment. Whatever the reasoning, the decision is typically based on far more information than is available to the public.
Supporters should also recognise that transfer fees often reflect circumstances beyond pure footballing ability. Contract length, competition from rival clubs, market demand, age profile, nationality, commercial appeal, and timing can all influence a player's price. A fee that appears inflated may simply reflect the realities of a competitive marketplace where clubs are fighting for the same talent.
At the end of the day, football is about more than balance sheets and transfer fees. What matters most is whether players contribute to the success and progress of the team. A signing that helps deliver trophies, qualification for major competitions, or long-term improvement can quickly change perceptions about value. Equally, a player signed for a modest fee can become a club legend, while an expensive acquisition may struggle to meet expectations.
A player is therefore worth whatever someone is willing to pay for him or her. That is how markets work, regardless of whether everyone agrees with the price. As supporters, we can analyse, debate, and speculate, but we should also recognise that those making the decisions have access to information and expertise that we do not. It is not our hard-earned money on the negotiating table, but our hopes, ambitions, and loyalty are invested in the club. For that reason, we place our faith in the people responsible for guiding it, trusting that they will make the best decisions they can for the benefit of the team, the supporters, and the future of the club as a whole.
20 Jun 2026 08:12:45
Rola, congratulations on breaking the site's biggest ever comment record, mate.
Giving me Beckers Peckers vibes and I didn't even read it. ?
20 Jun 2026 09:01:51
The numbers are so abnormal to the everyday person, we can't easily assess the rights and wrongs and value of the business we do.
The only way, really, is relativity to other business done by top 6 clubs, Bayern, PSG, RM, Barca and AM.
That's the market, and Diomande, as an example, looks relatively high given his age and experience, but maybe he's just the latest benchmark.
20 Jun 2026 09:03:39
Thought Shappy swapped teams there with that post...
20 Jun 2026 09:33:51
Wow, that was a long post. Got to be honest, I never bothered reading it.
20 Jun 2026 10:26:19
Poor old RedCola!!. ?? I didn't read it either, but the comments after are great craic!!!. ?? ??
20 Jun 2026 11:44:11
Thankfully, it was only a few thoughts...
20 Jun 2026 12:43:08
Yes ed, but I think you've misread my message. Of course we can stop giving the club money if we don't like what's being done with it, but what I said is once we ALREADY HAVE given it to the club, then it's not up to us. It is categorically not our money at that point.
{Ed001's Note - I didn't miss it, I think you are missing the point, they need that income to keep coming in, so they still have to behave in a manner that keeps us onside. So we do still have power over it.}
20 Jun 2026 13:30:32
It is literally the fans money, all of it, FSG doesn't invest their own money; when they have invested, it's been through loans or equity share. If it wasn't for the fans spending money, the club wouldn't have a penny - TV deals, ticket sales, merch, even participation fees and prize money... pretty much all of it is generated by the fans, of course they should have a say.
ArAy1969, are you having a laugh? You do realise that something called 'product testing' and 'market research' exist, right? Not to mention that customer backlash plays a huge role in how companies produce their products. There are countless examples of companies who had to revert to old methods/recipes because of the public backlash after they altered their production methods.
20 Jun 2026 13:08:53
Two different conversations I think Ed. I'll leave it there.