Jurgen Klopp Sack Watch

adexkola said:
Of course net spend matters. I've not yet heard a convincing argument as to why value outflows from a club should be discounted.
Click to expand...

I think most people accept that net spends matter, but having a low net spend doesn't necessarily equate to having not had money to invest.

Klopp has a low net spend, but the bottom line is that he still has been able to spend a lot on players. He has an expensive squad overall, one of the more expensively assembled ones in the country.

That said, it obviously does have to be taken in to account that they had to sell Coutinho to fund a lot of that. This Liverpool team + Coutinho this season would be top of the league, City don't have to sell their star midfielder in order to fund the likes of Laporte or Walker, and that's obviously an advantage. They don't have to take a step back to take 2 steps forwards whereas Liverpool (to a certain extent) do, as they have to spend within their means.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
I think most people accept that net spends matter, but having a low net spend doesn't necessarily equate to having not had money to invest.

Klopp has a low net spend, but the bottom line is that he still has been able to spend a lot on players. He has an expensive squad overall, one of the more expensively assembled ones in the country.

That said, it obviously does have to be taken in to account that they had to sell Coutinho to fund a lot of that. This Liverpool team + Coutinho this season would be top of the league, City don't have to sell their star midfielder in order to fund the likes of Laporte or Walker, and that's obviously an advantage. They don't have to take a step back to take 2 steps forwards whereas Liverpool (to a certain extent) do, as they have to spend within their means.
Click to expand...

Liverpool is top of the league because their defense is very solid. Not because of their attack. Their defense is very solid for 2 reasons:
-individual players are performing very good (Robertson, VVD)
-midfield is helping them a lot

Their offense is not as good as last year because of 2 reasons:
-individual players are not performing as good as last year (Firmino, Salah)
-midfield isn't helping them a lot

Coutinho instead of Wijnaldum/Henderson/Fabinho/Millner (one of them) - yes, he would be the better individual player. There game would be more attractive to watch. But would they be on more points? I don't think so. Of course nobody knows, but you can't just say liverpool + coutinho would be top of the league.
 
PaulScholes99 said:
Liverpool is top of the league because their defense is very solid. Not because of their attack. Their defense is very solid for 2 reasons:
-individual players are performing very good (Robertson, VVD)
-midfield is helping them a lot

Their offense is not as good as last year because of 2 reasons:
-individual players are not performing as good as last year (Firmino, Salah)
-midfield isn't helping them a lot

Coutinho instead of Wijnaldum/Henderson/Fabinho/Millner (one of them) - yes, he would be the better individual player. There game would be more attractive to watch. But would they be on more points? I don't think so. Of course nobody knows, but you can't just say liverpool + coutinho would be top of the league.
Click to expand...

I really can. They're a point off, having Coutinho as another option would be an incredible asset. He had 7 goals and 6 assists in 13 games before he had to leave in January.

They could easily go with a more defensive setup in the games that are necessary, but Coutinho would have turned plenty of their draws in to wins because he's exactly what they lack: a genuinely creative midfield player. I don't think it is at all a stretch to say having Coutinho as an option would have gained them at least a few points.
 
Brendan Rodgers wasn't judged well......
bJxzQAm.jpg
 
God knows those prejudice trophies are not to be trusted among men. Should stay far away from them buggers
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
I think most people accept that net spends matter, but having a low net spend doesn't necessarily equate to having not had money to invest.

Klopp has a low net spend, but the bottom line is that he still has been able to spend a lot on players. He has an expensive squad overall, one of the more expensively assembled ones in the country.

That said, it obviously does have to be taken in to account that they had to sell Coutinho to fund a lot of that. This Liverpool team + Coutinho this season would be top of the league, City don't have to sell their star midfielder in order to fund the likes of Laporte or Walker, and that's obviously an advantage. They don't have to take a step back to take 2 steps forwards whereas Liverpool (to a certain extent) do, as they have to spend within their means.
Click to expand...
Net spend is all about luck.
Solanke was brought on a free and sold for 20m.
Courthinho was brought for 10m and sold for 140m.
Shaqiri was brought for 13m and will be sold next season for 25-30m.
This kind of business is down to the financial people at the club and not Klopp. I have to admit it's a good model and it's working well. But winning a net spend cup means feck all. Just ask spurs.

Utd have the money, so they don't run like Liverpool. Rafael, fellani, park, nani, Vidic, Rooney, Rvp, Evra, were all sold for less than 60m. That was the price of Di Maria. UTD don't do net spend because they don't need to.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
I think most people accept that net spends matter, but having a low net spend doesn't necessarily equate to having not had money to invest.

Klopp has a low net spend, but the bottom line is that he still has been able to spend a lot on players. He has an expensive squad overall, one of the more expensively assembled ones in the country.

That said, it obviously does have to be taken in to account that they had to sell Coutinho to fund a lot of that. This Liverpool team + Coutinho this season would be top of the league, City don't have to sell their star midfielder in order to fund the likes of Laporte or Walker, and that's obviously an advantage. They don't have to take a step back to take 2 steps forwards whereas Liverpool (to a certain extent) do, as they have to spend within their means.
Click to expand...

Of course they have to spend within their means, every football club on the planet is obliged to operate under those same limitations, but some clubs have a great deal more room to work with than others - Liverpool are one such club. They have invested just shy of £1 billion on transfer expenditure over the last decade, placing them 7th on the list of Europes highest spenders during that period. They were spending large amounts of money in the transfer market long before the sale of Coutinho.

Hearing Liverpool fans drone on about Netspend is frankly offensive. They support one of the most financially secure football clubs the world over, so secure in their wealth that reinvesting 100% of the Coutinho funds directly back into the transfer kitty was done so without consequence. There are few clubs in existence that can operate in such a fashion, as a Spurs fan you can appreciate this more than most.
 
Josh 76 said:
Net spend is all about luck.
Solanke was brought on a free and sold for 20m.
Courthinho was brought for 10m and sold for 140m.
Shaqiri was brought for 13m and will be sold next season for 25-30m.
This kind of business is down to the financial people at the club and not Klopp. I have to admit it's a good model and it's working well. But winning a net spend cup means feck all. Just ask spurs.

Utd have the money, so they don't run like Liverpool. Rafael, fellani, park, nani, Vidic, Rooney, Rvp, Evra, were all sold for less than 60m. That was the price of Di Maria. UTD don't do net spend because they don't need to.
Click to expand...


No, winning the net spend doesn't mean anything.

But having to sell Coutinho in order to fund their biggest signings clearly does. They would have been much better off keep Coutinho and bringing in players, which is what the biggest net spends can do. That makes a difference.

Of course there's a huge element of fortune (or a solid business model) in bringing in players on the cheap then selling them on, but Liverpool are still limited in a way their competitors aren't. They likely would never have OK'ed the splurge on VVD, Alisson etc, without the Coutinho money.
 
Random Task said:
Of course they have to spend within their means, every football club on the planet is obligated to operate under those same limitations, but some clubs have a great deal more room to work with than others - Liverpool are one such club. They have invested just shy of £1 billion on transfer expenditure over the last decade, placing them 7th on the list of Europes highest spenders during that period. They were spending large amounts of money in the transfer market long before the sale of Coutinho.

Hearing Liverpool fans drone on about Netspend is frankly offensive. They support one of the most financially secure football clubs the world over, so secure in their wealth that reinvesting 100% of the Coutinho funds directly back into the transfer kitty was done so without consequence. There are few clubs in existence that can operate such a fashion, as a Spurs fan you can appreciate this more than most.
Click to expand...


And some clubs have a great deal more room to work with than Liverpool, i.e City and United, one is ran by people who don't care how much is spent, and the other is a club which has revenue streams far exceeding those of Liverpool.

Liverpool have spent a lot, there's no doubt about it. But they've sold both Suarez and Coutinho in that time (two world class players) in order to fund much of that spending, which is simply something that clubs like City and United (who they compete with) really don't have to do. Liverpool even without sales can spend significant money, but not quite as much as the biggest spenders in the league.

Of course, I agree with all of that. Liverpool are in the very enviable position of being able to reinvest pretty much everything and having owners prepared to spend a bit more on top as well, they're in a great position. I don't think anybody is denying that, it's just also a fact that they're competing with City: a club who don't have to sell anybody, they can keep all their stars and add players on top of that. That's a significant advantage. They don't have to remotely care about net spend.

City don't sell De Bruyne to fund Laporte and Walker, they offer De Bruyne a new massive contract to keep away the biggest clubs, and then they bring in the players they need anyway.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
No, winning the net spend doesn't mean anything.

But having to sell Coutinho in order to fund their biggest signings clearly does. They would have been much better off keep Coutinho and bringing in players, which is what the biggest net spends can do. That makes a difference.

Of course there's a huge element of fortune (or a solid business model) in bringing in players on the cheap then selling them on, but Liverpool are still limited in a way their competitors aren't. They likely would never have OK'ed the splurge on VVD, Alisson etc, without the Coutinho money.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter where the money comes from though. Our money comes from our brand. Theirs came from Coutinho. Why do they get some kind of net spend pass? They've still spent a lot of money on their team.
 
VeevaVee said:
It doesn't matter where the money comes from though. Our money comes from our brand. Theirs came from Coutinho. Why do they get some kind of net spend pass? They've still spent a lot of money on their team.
Click to expand...

Nobody has said otherwise. I've acknowledged they still have an expensive team - and the expectations should come with that. They're on course for a 90+ point season, I'd say for their level of spending they're matching those expectations.

You can't really expect them to win the title against this City side though, because they're at a clear disadvantage, needing to sell stars to fund their biggest acquisitions. They don't get a 'net spend pass', but I think it's silly to ignore the fact that they had to sell the best player at the club (at the time), because the bottom line is their competitors don't need to do that.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
No, winning the net spend doesn't mean anything.

But having to sell Coutinho in order to fund their biggest signings clearly does. They would have been much better off keep Coutinho and bringing in players, which is what the biggest net spends can do. That makes a difference.

Of course there's a huge element of fortune (or a solid business model) in bringing in players on the cheap then selling them on, but Liverpool are still limited in a way their competitors aren't. They likely would never have OK'ed the splurge on VVD, Alisson etc, without the Coutinho money.
Click to expand...

If you want to praise Liverpool for low net spend yeah, it makes sense (then again what should be years in consideration, why only last 5 years instead of last 10-15 years) but when the managers gets praised for it, it's just baffling. Its like the 250 million Liverpool spent in the last 2 seasons when Klopp took over is reset to 0, even the 120 million Liverpool spent (before Neymar transfer money) in summer is ignored just because Klopp took over in October.

34 million was sent to sign Benteke under Rodgers, so by selling him Klopp started with -34 million. How does that make sense? He was signed by Rodgers. Same with Coutinho. Klopp was lucky that he has player worth 150 million whereas managers like Jose took over club who didn't have player worth that much to sell. Sakho was signed for around 20 million under Rodgers but Klopp sold him so again he starts with -20 million.

So if Solskjaer spends only 50 million and sell 1 player for 50 million, can anyone really say Ole is achieving so much by spending nothing? Why should you ignore the squad cost or the money spent before manager took over?

Net spend for a manager makes no sense at all, it makes sense if you want to compare clubs. Klopp shouldn't get credit for Rodgers signings a 150 million worth player.
 
Net spend is useful but not fail safe.

Liverpool only got stupid money for coutinho because barcawere minted from the neymar sale, and a player's value is dictated by the selling club, not the buyer. Are Allison or Kepa worth more than ederson? Not really. The fact that they cost more doesn't necessarily mean that they're better players.

You've also got to factor in wages, it's a completely pointless stat without that additional figure.
 
I think he's done a great job at Liverpool, he's given them some consistency.

Every year Liverpool would go on a 7 game streak doing really well and then you would hear a Pool fan saying "this is goin ter be us year" and then they would lose the next match, they would then spend the rest of the season getting good wins but dropping silly points.

Now you kinda expect them to take the title race right down to the wire, just like last year in Champions League they were consistent and you could tell they'd make it to the final.

He also hasn't been afraid to play some of the youngsters and doesn't crucify them if they make a mistake.

Rivals or not, I like seeing how foreign managers perform in the Premier League and unlike the guy along the road who has been given umpteen millions of pound to buy a whole new squad like he's on Football Manager, Klopp has had to do it in a more realistic way and i think he's done very well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Penna
SquishyMcSquish said:
I think most people accept that net spends matter, but having a low net spend doesn't necessarily equate to having not had money to invest.

Klopp has a low net spend, but the bottom line is that he still has been able to spend a lot on players. He has an expensive squad overall, one of the more expensively assembled ones in the country.

That said, it obviously does have to be taken in to account that they had to sell Coutinho to fund a lot of that. This Liverpool team + Coutinho this season would be top of the league, City don't have to sell their star midfielder in order to fund the likes of Laporte or Walker, and that's obviously an advantage. They don't have to take a step back to take 2 steps forwards whereas Liverpool (to a certain extent) do, as they have to spend within their means.
Click to expand...
Put it this way....You will be hard pressed to improve the quality of, add to or enhance your squad with a low net spend. You want to keep your existing talent and buy more. Not sell them to buy
 
I withdrew £1000 from my bank last week and paid £900 back in today.
I've worked out that if I do it every week for a month I'll be £3600 better off at the end of the month!
 
duffer said:
You're the Red Devils and have a picture of Satan on your shirts.
God does not support a team but it's certain that you lot piss him off.
Click to expand...
Obvious reverse symbology. You can't battle through this fallen world on the side of the angels. You'd get crucified.
 
duffer said:
You're the Red Devils and have a picture of Satan on your shirts.

God does not support a team but it's certain that you lot piss him off.
Click to expand...
Your team play a jungle song before every game. You're the supporter of Tarzan.
 
adexkola said:
Of course net spend matters. I've not yet heard a convincing argument as to why value outflows from a club should be discounted.
Click to expand...
I despise Klopp but the argument net spend doesn't matter is ridiculous.
 
Adisa said:
I despise Klopp but the argument net spend doesn't matter is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

As per xG it's too short sighted. A manager who takes over a young squad and sells one star to reinvest will have a decent net spend on record where as another manager taking over an aged squad with little value on paper will need to invest big.

Net spend logic seems to be that the latter should do better because they've got a bigger net spend but that's nonsense.

Then you ve got players you get lucky with, if Greenwood or Rashford turn into world class quality that massively favours our net spend. It's what's in your squad that should determine expectations not how the players got there.
 
Smores said:
As per xG it's too short sighted. A manager who takes over a young squad and sells one star to reinvest will have a decent net spend on record where as another manager taking over an aged squad with little value on paper will need to invest big.

Net spend logic seems to be that the latter should do better because they've got a bigger net spend but that's nonsense.

Then you ve got players you get lucky with, if Greenwood or Rashford turn into world class quality that massively favours our net spend. It's what's in your squad that should determine expectations not how the players got there.
Click to expand...
I understand your point. You essentially have to look at everything in context. But even then, Klopp took over a pretty rubbish squad. People keep forgetting but majority of his players were and are still not fancied by other club's fans. I think he deserves credit for that. It's also obvious they still miss Coutinho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.