Not sure marignally finishing above then is fair. We've been in the top 4 for 6 years straight it that time Arsenal havent finished in it once, their last time was 15/16. We are also in our fourth European cup final in 5 years...Of course our wage bill will be higher, its relative to our success. We arent winning things because we pay high wages, the wages comes with the success.
Greenlizard0 PL & Championship Football Thread ** spoilers ** [7th - 12th May 2022]
- Thread starter explicit4u
- Start date
It's almost as if you didn't read what I said. In 16/17 we finished marginally above them, we have since gone on to finish further ahead of them, which is what I said. As we have moved further ahead of them our wagebill has grown more and more because we have a bigger and better squad.
I appreciate that you don't want to just accept that your initial point that led to this debate was simply untrue but this twisting and turning is a little embarrassing now. Whatever way you want to spin it, Liverpool are spending considerably more than Arsenal on their squad, not the other way around as you claimed.
Ive said the same thing lol. Not entirely sure why you're embarrassed tbh. I was talking about how much a club spends i,e transfers then you mentioned wages. Discussing wages is pointless as they are two clubs fighting in different competitions and a different level which is what ive been saying...
What ACTUALLY started this whole debate was this :
Last 5 years spend transfer spend
What ACTUALLY started this whole debate was this :
Then this
You brought wages into the argument. We were talking about transfer fees. Shock horror that a team far superior, fighting in more competitions, players who've been there for ages, playing more games pays more wages.
Last 5 years spend transfer spend
Liverpool FC | £-51.75m | £-58.91m | £30.69m | £-126.79m | £9.56m | £-197.20m |
| Arsenal FC | £-122.42m | £-60.17m | £-96.44m | £-63.95m | £8.24m | £-334.73m |
Soldato
Jesus your still missing the point are you?
Liverpool have out spent arsenal. End of the story..
Your table above is a useless comparison as mentioned a thousand times already...
I was talking about transfer fees. Are we not allowed to discuss fees now without delving into whether the player gets paid XYZ or whether Hendersons contract being renewed has to factor in how much Liverpool have spent on transfers?
Our initial conversation was about how much Arsenal have spent on players not contracts etc. I'll factor that in though whenever a similar conversation comes up in the transfer threads.
I have no idea where @omnomnom and @C Kent have found their figures (their backsides maybe?) but they're completely wrong. Liverpool's net spend, as recorded in their audited accounts, over the past 5 years is £318m.
And yes @omnomnom I brought wages up because to simply say, as you did, Arsenal spend loads more than Liverpool is naive nonsense. By your thinking Mbappe on a free is cheaper than signing Shane Long for £5m, ignoring the fact that wages and other fees for Mbappe will be north of £200m over 5 years, compared to £10m for Shane Long. Your argument is nonsense and rather than accept that's the case you are going to dig and dig, further embarrassing yourself.
To say discussing wages is pointless shows how naive you are to be fair.
And yes @omnomnom I brought wages up because to simply say, as you did, Arsenal spend loads more than Liverpool is naive nonsense. By your thinking Mbappe on a free is cheaper than signing Shane Long for £5m, ignoring the fact that wages and other fees for Mbappe will be north of £200m over 5 years, compared to £10m for Shane Long. Your argument is nonsense and rather than accept that's the case you are going to dig and dig, further embarrassing yourself.
To say discussing wages is pointless shows how naive you are to be fair.
Well transfermarkt are clearly wrong. It's not an opinion, it's fact.
And yes Mbappe is an extreme example but I used it to prove a point. Whether it's Mbappe, Thiago, VVD or whoever, whenever a club are signing players they do not look at the transfer fee in isolation, they look at the total cost. And over the past 5 years, Liverpool's total investment in their squad is a lot more than Arsenal's. To argue otherwise would be like arguing that the earth is flat.
Caporegime
One of you is arguing that bananas are yellow and the other one is saying, no you're wrong tomatoes are red.
One of us is bananas, I'll give you that!
Caporegime
Arsenal net spend over 5 years £334.73m
Liverpool net spend over 5 years £197.20m
Arsenal fans: LiVerPoOl haVe OuT SpeNt ArsEnaL .
I hate these net spend things as Liverpool's is heavily skewed by the fact they stole 120 million for Coutinho plus they got some absolute bargains before player transfers went through the roof after the Neymar deal.
Soldato
You hate the reality of the real prices paid by smart business decisions you mean?
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2019
- Posts
- 888
What an utterly bizarre statement. They will continue to get good deals for players post Neymar while you chuck £90m at the next bag of average you can find. I think it's money laundering. I can't think of any other reason why they are so consistently awful at spending money.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,670
The only fair comparison is the net spend from accounts. It will take in the amortization for transfer fees plus wages and bonuses.
So if Diaz signed for 30m for a 6 year deal, that would be 5m a year cost plus wages plus bonuses for that year. That is how all clubs structure player finance as they are viewed as assets. So a 2 year deal for Saka signing for 30m is clearly worse than a 6 year deal, but both have a transfer fee of 30m.
That is the problem with only looking at absolute transfer fees and why net spend is the fair comparison.
So if Diaz signed for 30m for a 6 year deal, that would be 5m a year cost plus wages plus bonuses for that year. That is how all clubs structure player finance as they are viewed as assets. So a 2 year deal for Saka signing for 30m is clearly worse than a 6 year deal, but both have a transfer fee of 30m.
That is the problem with only looking at absolute transfer fees and why net spend is the fair comparison.
Caporegime
The only reason Coutinho went for 120 million is because of the extortionate fee for Neymar and Barcelona caught with their pants down. It has nothing to do with smart business decisions.
What I was trying to point out is that once in a blue moon golden ticket heavily skewed what Liverpool have spent. VVD and Alisson cost 140 million. People try to make out Liverpool have assembled a squad on pennies which isn't true. The squad cost a pretty penny. They have just managed it very very well by not buying duds for the most part.
Caporegime
I wasn't even mentioning United at all so I do not know why you have brought that up. There was a clear increase of transfer fees across the board post Neymar. Joelinton costing 40 million as a prime example. The transfer fees Liverpool paid for Mane and Firmino for example were before this and would have been far bigger if done after.
Adam, some of your posts are so wild. Liverpool weren't the only side signing players pre Neymar. The summer Liverpool signed Mane, Arsenal signed Xhaka & Mustafi, Spurs signed Sissoko and Janssen, Utd signed Pogba & Mkhitaryan. Mane and Firmino weren't bargains because of the Neymar deal, they were bargains because they were good buys.
Soldato
So?, these big transfers have become the norm for many years now. Felix £104m, Griezmann £107m, Grealish £100m, Lukaku £97m, Hazard £89m. Pogba £89m Maguire £80m
How are these that different from Coutinho?
Sounds like you don't want to give any credit to Liverpool's transfer activity. If it was so easy why isn't every club making the astute deals Liverpool are making? All these other big teams like Man Utd, Arsenal etc have the same opportunities to spend wisely and have a low net spend. But when it's Liverpool it doesn't count in your eyes? Something, something distorted price market lol. I think you need to give Liverpool and the likes of Michael Edwards the credit they deserve.
Yes the value of transfers went up quite a bit post Neymar but there have always been good value players to be found.
Liverpool HAVE assembled an excellent squad on a modest budget.
Caporegime
I am not saying Liverpool haven't spent wisely. They clearly have. I am just pointing out that Liverpool have a top top team built on a small budget is a fallacy. The cost of Liverpool's strongest 11 is up there with the rest of them.
It is the same reason Manchester United's spend is realistically even worse considering Mctominay, Rashford and Greenwood were all essentially free in terms of transfer fees. Net spend never shows the true picture when talking transfers.