Greenlizard0 PL & Championship Football Thread ** spoilers ** [7th - 12th May 2022]

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
42,479
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.
It's not a fallacy though, it's a matter of fact (relative to who we're competing with anyway). Yes, the overall cost of our first 11 or even our squad isn't massively short of that of Utd or City's however we've built that squad with a far smaller budget. Where Utd and City have signed a £50m player, flopped, signed a £50m player, flopped and signed another £50m to replace them, we've typically bought once and bought well. Had we not bought so well then there's not a chance that we'd have a squad that could compete with City's, because we can't (or at least couldn't) keep replacing failed £50m signings with more £50m signings.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Posts
4,221
Location
Location, Location!
It always amazes me when people will happily look at the cost of players and then simply dismiss the sales made to fund these a large portion of these purchases. As if the money just appears out of thin air for all clubs and as if player sales don't impact the squad...

Scotomisation at its finest.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Posts
19,834
It always amazes me when people will happily look at the cost of players and then simply dismiss the sales made to fund these a large portion of these purchases. As if the money just appears out of thin air for all clubs and as if player sales don't impact the squad...

Scotomisation at its finest.
But the original debate wasn't about who sold and bought better. It was simply the fact that Liverpool have spent more than arsenal by a lot which many still can't admit to...
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Posts
4,221
Location
Location, Location!
But the original debate wasn't about who sold and bought better. It was simply the fact that Liverpool have spent more than arsenal by a lot which many still can't admit to...

Lol no,

Arsenal have spent far more on transfers than Liverpool. Liverpool may pay more in wages but a lot of that is also linked to success. I wonder if Liverpool had the performance of Arsenal and vice versa how close the wages bill would be then.

Arsenal have easily outspent Liverpool on the transfer market.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2002
Posts
22,277
Location
Boston, Lincolnshire
It always amazes me when people will happily look at the cost of players and then simply dismiss the sales made to fund these a large portion of these purchases. As if the money just appears out of thin air for all clubs and as if player sales don't impact the squad...

Scotomisation at its finest.

It's not dismissing anything it is the myth that Liverpool have a cheap team which just isn't true. Leicester City's league winning team was a cheap team. Net spend is irrelevant in that.
 
Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
42,479
Liverpool may pay more in wages but a lot of that is also linked to success.
Except it isn't. Our wages last season, when we won nothing, was still hugely more than Arsenal's. Only a fraction of our wagebill is linked to success - based on what we paid the season we won the CL and where we won nothing, it's circa 5% difference. We pay more in wages because we have a bigger senior squad than Arsenal's, with better players in it.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Posts
4,221
Location
Location, Location!
Except it isn't. Our wages last season, when we won nothing, was still hugely more than Arsenal's. Only a fraction of our wagebill is linked to success - based on what we paid the season we won the CL and where we won nothing, it's circa 5% difference. We pay more in wages because we have a bigger senior squad than Arsenal's, with better players in it.

You're forgetting clean sheets / assists / goal bonuses etc that also come with performing well, not just winning trophies. It's well known that Liverpool have always favoured performance related contracts where possible.
 
Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
42,479
You're forgetting clean sheets / assists / goal bonuses etc that also come with performing well, not just winning trophies. It's well known that Liverpool have always favoured performance related contracts where possible.
I'm not forgetting but this point is more than a little bit misleading. As I pointed out re VVD's original contract, a big chunk of add-ons were linked to simple things like playing games and being at the club. VVD received £9m for playing 150 games (3 seasons of football) and still being at the club - that's hardly linked to success. As we can see from last season, even when we have a unsuccessful season, we're still committed to paying north of £300m in wages, which is a hell of a lot more than what Arsenal pay.
 
Top