15 Aug 2026 20:35:34
I am not saying there will be a significant change in transfers instantly but even If there was LFC are not going to brief the media. They are cashed up in an already inflated transfer market!
I would happy not having to gamble injury prone players ie.
Gomez & Fede!
LFC had a £450m outlay last Summer so if the necessary players are available they will spend going forward!
15 Aug 2026 21:18:45
It is because Hughes wasted £450m last summer that we are shopping at Aldi this summer. Why is simple mathematics such a challenge?
15 Aug 2026 21:21:44
We generally don't do our transfers through the media. That's the way it always should be.
15 Aug 2026 21:28:33
The net spend last summer was around £220m. In effect, when you include the money for sales, we spent about half the number people normally cite.
15 Aug 2026 22:04:05
Exactly, Wdw, Arsenal actually spent more than us, but maths is not a strong point for some people.
15 Aug 2026 22:11:52
The transfer market is in a state, we're seeing a lot of rubbish move around for inflated fees. Yes, we have a few players in the squad who aren't good enough, but if it's going to cost over £80 million to replace them with someone marginally better, then what is the point?
Arsenal, City, United and Villa are in the Champions League as well, and all have positions they could do with upgrading in an ideal world.
They're in the same boat. It's not worth panicking over.
15 Aug 2026 22:17:35
Dress it up anyway you want, we spent 450million. The fact we recouped money in sales from previous seasons' outlay is only relevant to bookkeeping. 450 million? Feels like we spent 110. Hughes shouldn't be anywhere near transfers.
15 Aug 2026 22:22:52
Mutton is accusing posters of what he can't do. Classic.
15 Aug 2026 22:24:20
Pretty sure we did the Isak transfer "through the media" and the "Caicedo" transfer that failed.
15 Aug 2026 22:47:59
John doesn't think keeping the likes of Diaz, Nunez, Kelleher, Morton and Quansah would have made us better last season.
15 Aug 2026 23:20:45
@5th Element, obviously you don't know my thoughts. I would have loved to have kept Nunez. I'd have him back now.
16 Aug 2026 00:03:18
But that's the point, John, we didn't just go out and spend £450m and what's this about sales from previous seasons? It was sales in the same window!
Plus we lost Trent for nothing, who would've been worth at least £60m if we'd sold him under contract, so the point is, if you're going to criticise based on money spent, we lost more than £300m worth of talent from the squad and replaced it with £450m worth of talent.
That's a net increase in talent of circa £150m.
Arsenal sold no one, and spent £270m, so they increased their talent by £270m.
It's not linear, and so none of this actually makes sense, but people keep banging on about us spending £450m, so based on that, this is the truth. If spending £450m is supposed to improve the team by that much, then you need to take into account the value of the players who left the team.
Otherwise you could sell the entire squad for £1billion and then sign a new squad for £500m and then question why we haven't improved. We did spend £500m after all.
You see how ridiculous that sounds?
16 Aug 2026 00:17:11
Really annoys me, people going on about costs when FSG have shown over the years they won't spend what we cannot afford. I am more interested in if the player fits what we need. Let the money men with more knowledge at the club worry about the finances.
16 Aug 2026 00:41:07
Money, money, money.
Must be funny.
16 Aug 2026 01:49:09
Folks, I never typed that LFC spent £450m last Summer.
I said that was outlay, meaning before anyone was sold! People would argue black was white on here LOL!
Edwards has left, Hughes is going in a matter of weeks, and FSG have an exit strategy now!
The 450m figure is a narrative put out by the same media who claim LFC's spending will remain similar! In the world of elite level football, revenues hypothetically spending £200m net, approximately last Summer, is in the same ballpark as spending 300m net under this wealthier consortium, yes or no?
LFC's shirt and sleeve sponsors expire next Summer, so if Liverpool are clever they will exploit loopholes meaning they will earn much more than they do on shirt sponsorship for starters! The more LFC earn in revenue, the more they can spend, hence £300m net spend being achievable moving forward?
16 Aug 2026 07:58:14
I'm fairly certain that the outlay was predicated on the assumption that there would be monies coming in from sales. I think it was a simple cause and effect thing, and the only reason we were able to pay for Isak at the end of the window was because we had the money from outbound transfers.
However, if your opinion is that purchases and sales had nothing to do with each other, that's ok.
16 Aug 2026 08:08:09
We bought players for c450m having sold some for c300m. We could only afford the cost of the new players because we received income from the sales. One set of deals wouldn't have happened without the other.
The cost of the buys, the outlay of the 450m cash, was staggered over a period of time as agreed with the selling clubs, and will depend on the payment terms and if there's add ons in the figure etc. Same for the sales receipts.
However, all of that washes through, the net cash cost to the club of the business we committed to last summer was c£100m.
In the top 6, we're never the top net transfer spender when things are looked at over a period of time, that's how FSG run the investment, and the likes of Hughes work within that set of guidelines. We do well considering, offer high wages and bonuses for success, and run a fairly tight first 15 squad, with the rest padded out with youth and the likes of Endo on lower wages who are named but hardly ever play.
That's the model, which I reckon will continue even when the new investors bed in.
16 Aug 2026 08:10:03
Net spend is for the accountants. Liverpool spent £450 million on new players last season to improve the team. That has got absolutely zero to do with net spend.
16 Aug 2026 08:38:13
Fifth Element (crap movie). They wouldn't have made us better last season. The only individual who would have made us better last season was Klopp. We could have had prime MSN and Slot would have still played crap football.
16 Aug 2026 09:19:25
You've obviously no idea about cash flow Irish! That's the lifeblood of any business. Profits and losses, amortisation of transfer costs etc are where the accountants come in.
16 Aug 2026 09:59:48
Like I said, Overkill, that's for the accountants. Liverpool still spent £450 million on new players to improve on what they had. Isak for Nunez, Kerkez for Robbo, Leoni for Quansah etc etc. Wirtz!
That's the important bit, and if it was successful or not? I couldn't care less about who the club sold to "balance the books".
16 Aug 2026 10:33:18
I'm with Irish, people obsessed with balancing the books, it doesn't change the matter if we spent what we earned /recouped, we spent 450 million.
16 Aug 2026 11:05:55
I don't see many fans being interested in us balancing the books, that's for the guys running the club. The simple fact being pointed out was that we wouldn't make all of the buys we do unless we were also raising money from sales.
The general point, perhaps, is that the new buys, and also contract renewals, last summer were astronomically expensive, and we haven't seen a value return on it yet. Isak, Wirtz, Frimpong and Kerkez need to be much better this season.