macphisto

100% agree, spending a lot of money will definitely get you into the top six whether you're managed by Klopp or Ole, I would not disagree on that point. Where I would diverge is in the case of Liverpool, 6th place in expenditure and 8th in net spend over the past five seasons. To have appeared in three Champions League finals in the last five years, win the PL/runner-up, is not simply down to them buying success. By rights with their expenditure they could expect to finish around the top four and possibly go through the group stages of the Champions League most seasons. Who knows how much of it is overblown but it is a common held belief that Liverpool's success can partially be attributed to their transfer committee with a strong use of data. This is a long read on their use of data in the New York Times.

£40 million isn't a fortune for a player. Expenditure since 2017/18 (Source) 1 Chelsea FC: £791.55m 2 Manchester City: £776.17m 3 Manchester United: £665.73m 4 Arsenal FC: £582.50m 5 Everton FC: £483.18m 6 Liverpool FC: £482.52m The above expenditure hardly indicates they've bought success. Obviously spent a bit of money but their success is down to them spending it very wisely which most people put down to their use of data (my original point).

Who's the plethora of homegrown talent? City, Chelsea? You missed out Arsenal, Man U and Everton. Yes but the difference between their 4th place and the outlay of those above will be a lot more. Liverpool signed Jota and Diaz for less than what Chelsea paid for Lukaku. No one is pretending they're a Leicester but at the same time let's not pretend they've been bankrolled by a Gulf state, Russian Oligarch or the money Man U spend.

And is that a fortune given their league points, Champions League finishes and domestic cups? Of course they've spent money but no where near the sums of a lot of other clubs who have enjoyed far less success.

No it didn't cost a fortune, apart from Van Dijk, Allison and Kieta who cost a fortune? If these figures are correct, 8 teams have a greater net spend than Liverpool over the last 5 years.

I'm not a massive fan of that chart but it will be interesting in the years ahead where clubs strike the balance between data and their "own eyes" when buying players. From the outside, Liverpool appears to have a very data driven recruitment process, I wonder how much they go against their instincts if the data is telling them something else? One thing about the traditional model of scouting, in general the success rate is appalling.

We're in a strange cycle of football at the moment where a lot of top scorers don't score that many goals. 18-20 goals sounds reasonable and attainable but then Ronaldo was 3rd highest scorer last season with 18. In 2011/12 Aguero was 3rd highest top scorer with 23, Van Persie was top with 30 goals.

Based on the shirts I've seen in Thailand/Vietnam then I'd give the fakes a miss. Not based on any moral issues but more that the quality was poor. Hasn't been an issue as never considered buying a shirt under Ashley.

And that's not including his free advertising too....

I'm sure Newcastle under Ashley was 3rd or 4th most profitable club over the last 10 years. I think I saw it on a Kieran Maguire tweet. I just did a quick search for most profitable PL club but I could only see income

Interesting video on Liverpool and PEDs

It would basically mean a manager didn't know what they were doing and couldn't decide who was the best keeper. You don't have to manage the fitness of goal keepers as much as other players so why would a manager not always play the person they considered their best keeper?

I read he's there as part of BTs coverage but I agree that I wouldn't be happy as a Villa fan.

@Conjo These are just some very recent examples but there are countless others. I also never said anyone is saying don't spend money but the lack of ambition because we might follow Everton is startling. If we are to believe the stated goals of our owners then we will have to start spending a big money soon on players, there is now way around it. We have so much wriggle room with regards to FFP that it's not even an issue at the moment. I appreciate the examples below are not in context but the reason Everton are in the mess they are in is not because they spent a lot of money within a few years but more that they bought a load of £20 million-ish risky players with no strategy in place. It was and is a completely dysfunctional club.

There's an unhealthy obsession on this board with Everton and their failures. That's one club who has messed up whilst ignoring countless examples of successful clubs who have done it by spending money.

I wonder how true these figures are and do they reflect take home pay? A while back, I read The Great Tax Robbery: How Britain Became A Tax Haven For Fat Cats And Big Business which, amongst others things, discussed football players and in particular overseas players using certain off-shore tax schemes that saw them earn a lot more in real terms.

Slight tweaks to the ESL format with more open promotion and relegation would get it through in my opinion. Arsenal/Spurs would be the Norwich of the ESL in being yoyo clubs

If it's not forming a super league then the only way they can make a return is through the Premier League forming it it's own production company and selling directly to consumers, similar to Netflix. Either way, our league is going to be screwed in a few years time as whatever changes will happen the top clubs will receive an even greater % of the income, particularly with increased American ownership. People talk about PIF taking a steady approach to building the club, if I was in PIFs position then I'd go all out now and stretch the limits of FFP by the end of next summer to ensure Newcastle are at the table when future changes are discussed.

Sorry

Good point about tone, it's important we pay market value for our first player or we'll suffer like we did in January when we overpaid for Wood early doors which meant other clubs upped their valuations.

We don't have Targett.

It wouldn't be that ruthless, he's only on loan.

With the new owners, it feels like we are looking at this the wrong way. Ignore the price, only question should be does he fit the style of player Howe is after?

He did play for Fulham back in the day.

I think most people would be alright with it, particularly if you were attending a match with 1 or 2 other people. Far from ideal but much better than not seeing any matches. I also suppose with those fixtures, on paper, you're more likely to see a win It does sound convoluted but in practice I don't think it would be too difficult to implement.