January Transfer Window 2013/2014 Season Rumours/Signings/KonoplyankOFF:(

starwarsisgash · 31 Jan 2014 at 23:57

BaZ87 said:
What I don't understand is how they agreed a deal in principle with the other club without their owner ok'ing it.

edit: we've spent more than Chelsea?

Yes, although chelsea have the third highest net spend. This is specifically since FSG took over though.

Overall i think you have the third highest net spend in premiership history with only Man City and Chelsea ahead of you.

Mark1989 · 31 Jan 2014 at 23:58

starwarsisgash said:
I don't understand why some Liverpool fans are moaning about FSG etc

Since FSG took over you have the second highest net spend in the league, second only to Man City. They have given you tons of money since taking over and for the most part its been wasted on jarg players such as Caroll, Aspas, Downing, Allen etc.

Most fans would love to have owners who pump as much money into the club as FSG do. Seems some fans are never happy.

Your missing most fans point it isn't about how little or much where spending it's how it's being done in such laughable ways I mean like this one agree a deal with player then dealing with club yeah cause that's going to work. No one is knocking FSG either were laughing at ayre who isn't very good lately at dealing with transfers

Purdy · 31 Jan 2014 at 23:59

starwarsisgash said:
I don't understand why some Liverpool fans are moaning about FSG etc

Since FSG took over you have the second highest net spend in the league, second only to Man City. They have given you tons of money since taking over and for the most part its been wasted on jarg players such as Caroll, Aspas, Downing, Allen etc.

Most fans would love to have owners who pump as much money into the club as FSG do. Seems some fans are never happy.

Except we're complaining about Ian ayre largely. Surprised fsg are still letting him deal with transfers. Should just work on sponsorship deals please

starwarsisgash · 31 Jan 2014 at 23:59

Mark1989 said:
Your missing most fans point it isn't about how little or much there spending it's how it's being done in such laughable ways I mean like this one agree a deal with player then dealing with club yeah cause that's going to work

but thats how tons of clubs do deals, its not specific to Liverpool.

Castiel · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:01

I can't understand Wenger, why not meet the asking price of Draxler...in the summer he's going to have no chance of meeting the valuation, especially if he has a good World Cup. He had a golden opportunity to sign one of the best wunderkinds out there for a reasonable fee and he tried to get him on the cheap!!!

BaZ87 · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:02

starwarsisgash said:
Yes, although chelsea have the third highest net spend. This is specifically since FSG took over though.

Overall i think you have the third highest net spend in premiership history with only Man City and Chelsea ahead of you.

I don't believe for one minute that we've spent more than Chelsea since FSG took over.

BaZ87 · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:03

Purdy said:
Except we're complaining about Ian ayre largely. Surprised fsg are still letting him deal with transfers. Should just work on sponsorship deals please

If the journo's that follow Liverpool are to be believed, Ayre has to approve everything with Henry himself. It's easy to sit here and blame Ayre but if he's not got permission to go over a certain amount, there's nothing he can do.

After all, Comolli was sacked for going rogue and spending what he liked.

Mark1989 · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:04

BaZ87 said:
I don't believe for one minute that we've spent more than Chelsea since FSG took over.

I can't see how we would have done more than city lol they went crazy in first couple transfer windows when all money came in

starwarsisgash · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:04

BaZ87 said:
I don't believe for one minute that we've spent more than Chelsea since FSG took over.

you can believe what you want mate, its a fact which you shouldn't have too much trouble confirming with a little help from google.

Mark1989 said:
I can't see how we would have done more than city lol they went crazy in first couple transfer windows when all money came in

you haven't done more than city, they are in their own little world.

drunkenmaster · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:05

Snax said:
I thought you hated AVB (who didn't play him in the league at all). Then again AVB didn't play Adebayor either... When Holtby played, in the rooey dopey league, we scored. When he didn't play I.e. the league, we didn't score. One of the few times he started in the league, he scored.

Your generalisations to interpret the stats are not very helpful. You have no regard for AVB yet use him as a great judge when it comes to not playing Holtby. The onkLy other manager who hasnt played him is Sherwood who has favourites (and won't play Lamela, Capoue or Defoe), limited tactical acumen and limited knowledge of how to run a squad. You don't like Holtby, I do; none of the stats point to him being rubbish, they hint more at him actually out performing the Spurs squad when he played.

He did start in the league and as far as I can tell, he scored when he came off the bench against the irrepressibly good... Fulham.

Where did I say AVB was a great judge, people are saying that Sherwood doesn't like him, I merely said two managers didn't have faith in him, including the guy that bought him. The stats do not hint at him out performing the SPurs squad when played, in the europa league where I highlighted to you Spurs had no trouble scoring at all, Holtby got a 2 goals and 3 assists. You keep saying Spurs can't score yet he was scoring and assisting.

Spurs couldn't score IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE, Holtby played a decent amount, as a sub and starting, and provided one goal, looked crap in almost every game, ran about a lot, did nothing. In Europa where the team scored plenty, he got a couple goals, against really really poor opposition who are far far below premier league quality.

The stats suggest against prem league quality, he's completely unsuitable, against some terrible teams in poor leagues, he did okay.

Castiel · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:05

BaZ87 said:
I don't believe for one minute that we've spent more than Chelsea since FSG took over.

I was under the impression it was Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd in that order, that's in premiership history though. Don't about recent years.

http://talksport.com/magazine/featu...st-spenders-premier-league-history-190785?p=7

Pigeon_Killer · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:05

www.transferleague.co.uk suggests City, Chelsea and United have all spent more than us since FSG took over. United may have been behind us before the Mata transfer.

BaZ87 · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:08

starwarsisgash said:
you can believe what you want mate, its a fact which you shouldn't have too much trouble confirming with a little help from google.

I don't need google thanks. Chelsea have made several extremely expensive signings with only 1 noticeable departure in the last 3 years. Their net spend will have been massive.

starwarsisgash · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:10

maybe chelsea have topped you in the last couple of windows, prior to that you were most definitely second. united may have gone ahead as well via the mata transfer, forgot about that.

either way you're not exactly scraping the barrel in terms of money.

look at arsenal and how low their net spend has been for pretty much forever (bar ozil) and yet they still manage to qualify for top 4 every season... proof that money is not the sole answer to getting top 4.

Castiel · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:11

It depends who you read it seems...in this one it puts Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Spurs and Man Utd in that order...

Chelsea definitely seem to be the bank breakers in all of them though.

BaZ87 · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:14

starwarsisgash said:
maybe chelsea have topped you in the last couple of windows, prior to that you were most definitely second. united may have gone ahead as well via the mata transfer, forgot about that.

I doubt Liverpool have outspent Chelsea in any transfer window in the last 9.5 years.

And as somebody has already said to you, there's not too many Liverpool fans complaining about a lack of funds but seemingly the way in which we go about concluding deals.

Pigeon_Killer · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:16

Christ, 03/04 Chelsea spent over £150 million in a season :eek:

Castiel · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:19

BaZ87 said:
I doubt Liverpool have outspent Chelsea in any transfer window in the last 9.5 years.

And as somebody has already said to you, there's not too many Liverpool fans complaining about a lack of funds but seemingly the way in which we go about concluding deals.

With Liverpool I think its more about value for money, which seems to be in short supply when it comes to some of their transfer decisions.

starwarsisgash · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:20

BaZ87 said:
I doubt Liverpool have outspent Chelsea in any transfer window in the last 9.5 years.

And as somebody has already said to you, there's not too many Liverpool fans complaining about a lack of funds but seemingly the way in which we go about concluding deals.

ok fair enough, but you seem to go about deals the way most clubs do. gauge a players interest in joining, sort out terms then approach club.

thats pretty much the blueprint for signing players nowadays.

also you had higher net spend than chelsea in the 08/09 season, 07/08 season and 06/07 season.

08/09 :

Chelsea = minus 10.8m
Liverpool = 6.25m

07/08 :

Chelsea = 7.5m
Liverpool = 39.8m

06/07 :

Chelsea = minus 3.8m
Liverpool = 15.6m

People forget Chelsea went a few seasons without spending big, mainly because they spunked so much money previous seasons.

Fulax · 1 Feb 2014 at 00:21

Chelsea's spending beats Liverpool's (last 5 years, at least):

Note: the Cabaye transfer is not included in this table - so that's another £20m off Newcastle's net spend.