Will Mike spend any of this on NUFC?

[Dave]

It's only 'currently fashionable' because Ashley shows no sign of spending much money (or leaving). This season I'm satisfied with consolidation but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it long term, and if we do stay up then I'd expect the pressure to invest to be much higher next summer.

 

Not sure why people being satisfied now automatically means they will always be happy with merely surviving. It's utter bollocks, tbh.

[UV]

It's only 'currently fashionable' because Ashley shows no sign of spending much money (or leaving).

 

No Dave, there are plenty of people saying they are happy with it. The person I quoted for example.

 

and next to no experience.

 

Sorry about that by the way, shall we get back on the blower to Nicky and beg him to sign another deal?

 

We've done the 'experienced campaigner for big money' transfer policy to death and the result was a year in the Championship. Signing younger players who will garner experience by playing and signing them for good prices that represent value in the current economic climate doesn't sound too bad in comparison, not to me anyway.

 

Spot on

 

This season I'm satisfied with consolidation but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it long term, and if we do stay up then I'd expect the pressure to invest to be much higher next summer.

 

Not sure why people being satisfied now automatically means they will always be happy with merely surviving. It's utter bollocks, tbh.

 

How are we "consolidating" anything if we end up not significantly improving on a weaker squad than the one we got relegated with the last time, and with the remnants of quality left one year closer to the ends of their contracts?

[Dave]

Eh? It mentions value and good prices, something we should always be looking for no matter who is in charge.

 

Would you had been happier if we'd signed Gosling for £5m?

[OzzieMandias]

I certainly was applying your comment about LFC fans to our own, we're not doing too badly this summer - I think the two signings we've made so far have been level-headed and I would welcome more of the same (type of signing, not necessarily type of player). Low-key, minimal cash outlay and players with something to prove/not demanding unsustainable wages. It's not very exciting in the short-term, but we had that with Owen, with Luque, with Duff, with Emre, with Parker, with Boumsong...none of them really worked out and probably did more harm, than good, to the club overall.

 

We finished 7th with those players that didn't really work out. Some of them didn't play much of a part in the season due to injury, but then their backups were at least as good as our first choice players are now relative to the competition. If you consider getting into Europe doing more harm than good, then I'm not really sure what your hopes are for the club you support. The effect of the players you mention "not working out" (ie not performing to level you would expect for the money paid) is that we didn't finish as high up the table as we would have liked. The effect of the calibre of players we are buying now "not working out" (which is every bit as likely) is humiliating relegation.

 

I know it's currently fashionable to be happy with signing second rate players for low fees on low wages, but I guarantee if that policy continues without supplementing it with established quality players, we'll be relegated again within a couple of seasons as any remnants of quality we have left in the squad (or which develops from the players bought in) leaves due to lack of ambition from the club.

 

 

 

As to whether Mike is going to put in £20m, here's my rough working out on the state of the club's finances for this year:

 

Going by the 2006 accounts which are the last one's I have, I make the annual running costs of the club outside of the wage bill and interest repayments to be around £22m, lets say that's gone up to £25m. In the relegation season, revenue was £86m, down from £99m the previous year. I would expect revenue this year to be somewhere inbetween, say a conservative £90m. Let's also say the wage bill is now around £50m.

 

I make that 90-50-25 = £15m profit.

 

Very rough of course, and all based on guestimates, but I think I've very much erred on the side of higher costs and lower income (part of the reason the turnover reduced was because catering was contracted out so costs from that will have gone), but I'm happy for anyone to come along and correct or update any of those figures so we have a more accurate picture. I haven't for example included the money we will be receiving this year for the players sold in the past few years.

 

So if Mike is putting in £20m on top, by my reckoning we should have £35m+ to spend on players & wages this year.

 

Let the good times roll? I guess we'll see. Anyone want to bet on it?

 

There's the flaw in your argument right there.

[Dave]

Nowhere in there do Pilko or Stu say they are happy with 'signing second rate players for low fees on low wages' as you put it.

[Dave]

This season I'm satisfied with consolidation but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it long term, and if we do stay up then I'd expect the pressure to invest to be much higher next summer.

 

Not sure why people being satisfied now automatically means they will always be happy with merely surviving. It's utter bollocks, tbh.

 

How are we "consolidating" anything if we end up not significantly improving on a weaker squad than the one we got relegated with the last time, and with the remnants of quality left one year closer to the ends of their contracts?

 

Consolidating our position in the Premier League means staying up this year, no matter how we do it. Next year we'd no longer be a newly-promoted team and would have the benefit of two season's worth of Premier League income etc, which if it's anything like as lucrative as you've mentioned before will surely see us with a nice transfer kitty. If that doesn't prove to be the case I won't be happy at all.

 

I'd say us having a weaker squad now is debatable tbh, not that it's even possible to compare any season with the train wreck when we went down. Every conceivable thing that could go wrong went wrong. We might have fewer individual talents now but we have better team IMO.

 

As I said before, me being happy just to stay up by any means this time does not mean I'm happy with doing that every year. I can't understand how accepting the situation we're in somehow means I advocate it and want it to continue forever.

[UV]

There's the flaw in your argument right there.

 

Great counter argument as usual. Let's see your figures.

[UV]

This season I'm satisfied with consolidation but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it long term, and if we do stay up then I'd expect the pressure to invest to be much higher next summer.

 

Not sure why people being satisfied now automatically means they will always be happy with merely surviving. It's utter bollocks, tbh.

 

How are we "consolidating" anything if we end up not significantly improving on a weaker squad than the one we got relegated with the last time, and with the remnants of quality left one year closer to the ends of their contracts?

 

Consolidating our position in the Premier League means staying up this year, no matter how we do it. Next year we'd no longer be a newly-promoted team and would have the benefit of two season's worth of Premier League income etc, which if it's anything like as lucrative as you've mentioned before will surely see us with a nice transfer kitty. If that doesn't prove to be the case I won't be happy at all.

 

I'd say us having a weaker squad now is debatable tbh, not that it's even possible to compare any season with the train wreck when we went down. Every conceivable thing that could go wrong went wrong. We might have fewer individual talents now but we have better team IMO.

 

As I said before, me being happy just to stay up by any means this time does not mean I'm happy with doing that every year. I can't understand how accepting the situation we're in somehow means I advocate it and want it to continue forever.

 

Ashley has said the plan is to break even by 2015-2016. Ozzie is about to come back and show how we are going to make a loss this year without spending anything significantly more on players, but until he does let's assume we'll make a modest cash flow profit this year. He can't mean year on year break even, so what does that imply that Ashley means by "break even" and what does it suggest will happen for the next 5 years?

 

If I'm correct and the club is on course to make a profit this year do you find it acceptable that the club should risk not spending that profit this year to improve our chances of staying up or to give us a better platform to work from next year?

[OzzieMandias]

There's the flaw in your argument right there.

 

Great counter argument as usual. Let's see your figures.

 

Nah, I'll just wait until one of those on the forum who actually knows their way around a set of accounts comes along and points out the various ways in which you're talking shite -- just like the last couple of dozen times you got in over your head.

[Stu]

This season I'm satisfied with consolidation but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it long term, and if we do stay up then I'd expect the pressure to invest to be much higher next summer.

 

Not sure why people being satisfied now automatically means they will always be happy with merely surviving. It's utter bollocks, tbh.

 

How are we "consolidating" anything if we end up not significantly improving on a weaker squad than the one we got relegated with the last time, and with the remnants of quality left one year closer to the ends of their contracts?

 

Consolidating our position in the Premier League means staying up this year, no matter how we do it. Next year we'd no longer be a newly-promoted team and would have the benefit of two season's worth of Premier League income etc, which if it's anything like as lucrative as you've mentioned before will surely see us with a nice transfer kitty. If that doesn't prove to be the case I won't be happy at all.

 

I'd say us having a weaker squad now is debatable tbh, not that it's even possible to compare any season with the train wreck when we went down. Every conceivable thing that could go wrong went wrong. We might have fewer individual talents now but we have better team IMO.

 

As I said before, me being happy just to stay up by any means this time does not mean I'm happy with doing that every year. I can't understand how accepting the situation we're in somehow means I advocate it and want it to continue forever.

 

Again

 

In the same way being satisfied with making astute and low-risk signings doesn't mean that we're happy to sign second-rate players, not hating Ashley and anything Ashley-related doesn't mean that we want the club to languish in the lower half of the league for eternity fighting relegation battle after relegation battle.

 

UV - Going back to your earlier post about the players who 'took us up to 7th', individually, there were some very good players but if they lack the winning mentality, then it doesn't matter how much you spend. Again, I'm going back to my long-standing question of why people attach such significance to the price & wage of a player (i.e. if we're spending lots of money, it's a good thing and we're signing world beaters ) - it's defintely a recurring trait amongst the Ashley bashers.

 

Price is just the amount of money someone is willing to pay for something. It doesn't intrinsically represent the true value or worth of a good (i.e. player) to the club. It's easy to argue that if you're spending more money on players then you have a greater chance of getting together a squad of 'better' skilled players, but our recent experience doesn't support it.

 

I'm not going to speculate on the income levels for this season, best to wait for last season's accounts to come out next March/April and see which direction the club is heading off the pitch. You can only bash Ashley with the concrete numbers from the accounts published, which shows that he's still using his own funds to run the club.

[Stu]

I don't get this, you're arguing that Liverpool's owners are more prepared to strengthen their squad for what is clearly a 'make or break' season for the club based upon them hypothetically spending £15-25m which they don't have, over the next 5 weeks.

 

Our club has made a couple of modest signings whilst releasing some deadwood squad members (i.e. Nicky Butt) which can only be a good thing for the couple of promising youngsters that we have (I'm sure you'll agree that a couple of games with the untried Vukcic has got to be better than a couple of game with Butt walking about midfield?).

 

We're not talking about a complete overhaul of the squad, but we were evidently a step above the championship level last season and Hughton has only improved upon those players, with another 5 weeks for any hypothetical signings to come through.

 

This isn't a make or break season for NUFC, our financial model (much to the disgust of a sizeable section of our support) is clearly designed to withstand a season of championship football income. Liverpool can't afford more than one season out of the Champs League (and even then, they need a good run in the Europa to offset some of the losses).

 

With that in mind, I think our owners have done a better job than Liverpool's to prepare the club for the coming season (how many newspaper reports do you read of NUFC players wanting to leave SJP?)

 

As ever we seem to not connect Stu.  I'm saying I consider 10 - 20m to be "reasonable investment" for Liverpool should they make it, not that they will.  That's why I said "for me would be reasonable".  With the current squad they have, plus say 2 good players for that type of money they'd make the CL again imo, assuming the signings work which is always key.

 

As regards your comment in bold how can you possibly say that Stu?  Gosling will not play this year and Perch might not even be first choice in whatever position he's best at (which seems under question).  How on earth is that better than what Liverpool have done?

 

Anyway as you say there's 5 weeks for hypothetical signings to be made, I offered the opinion at the start of this that Liverpool's owners will recognise the need to strengthen on the pitch as it will help them sell the club eventually.  At the end of the transfer window I expect to be proven right, although that strengthening might end up coming from the inflated sale of a Mascherano or Torres or someone. 

 

I may well end up being wrong on the net spend part, in which case fair enough.

 

Just to clarify this, you're saying that the LFC current owners are better than our current owner because their sole intention is to try and make a profit on the club; whereas our guy may or may not have that ambition?

 

Anyways, looks like you might be right about Liverpool's net spend, they're about to sign Young from Villa although they're selling Insua to Fiorentina for £5mil to help pay for it...oh, yeah...it's Luke Young

 

Campbell on a free looks like a sensible piece of business for this season particularly as Taylor will miss the first couple of months. Keeps us with three first choice centre-backs and a couple of promising youngsters to go with the recent utility man signing. Agree that Gosling doesn't do much immediately but it's certainly a positive signing by the club

[mrmojorisin75]

Just to clarify this, you're saying that the LFC current owners are better than our current owner because their sole intention is to try and make a profit on the club; whereas our guy may or may not have that ambition?

 

Anyways, looks like you might be right about Liverpool's net spend, they're about to sign Young from Villa although they're selling Insua to Fiorentina for £5mil to help pay for it...oh, yeah...it's Luke Young

 

Campbell on a free looks like a sensible piece of business for this season particularly as Taylor will miss the first couple of months. Keeps us with three first choice centre-backs and a couple of promising youngsters to go with the recent utility man signing. Agree that Gosling doesn't do much immediately but it's certainly a positive signing by the club

 

No, I'm saying they want to sell and in order to get what asking price they want they'll understand that they can't allow things to stagnate or go backwards on the pitch.  I don't know what they paid for LFC and I don't know what their asking price is so I can't comment on the profit part, I'm assuming as no-one has met the asking price it's pretty high though therefore how they could think it'll be met by them not improving on the pitch is beyond me.

 

Ashley, we've seen by our relegation doesn't appear to grasp the concept.  On the pitch we're arguably in a much poorer state than when he took over so unless someone wants to buy a club in 3 years time with a decent balance sheet and average to poor playing staff then I can't see his price being met either.

 

I already said the net spend part might be inaccurate Stu but selling someone like Insua (unproven) for 5m and getting Luke Young (proven to certain level) is a very Roy Hodgson sort of move.  It may be he's wheeling and dealing as he has to break even, it may be he's wheeling and dealing now to use money on a marquis player.  Again if Inter come in with 30m for Mascherano for example and Hodgson spends that wisely on 2 - 3 very good players they'll still have strengthened...net spend does not = strengthening.

 

The next 5 weeks will tell.

 

And Campbell is an excellent signing for us, as Gosling might turn out to be.  The next 5 weeks will tell for us if any more come in where we need them, same for Liverpool.

 

I'll piss myself if Roy spends 20m on Bobby Zamora mind.

[Stu]

Just to clarify this, you're saying that the LFC current owners are better than our current owner because their sole intention is to try and make a profit on the club; whereas our guy may or may not have that ambition?

 

Anyways, looks like you might be right about Liverpool's net spend, they're about to sign Young from Villa although they're selling Insua to Fiorentina for £5mil to help pay for it...oh, yeah...it's Luke Young

 

Campbell on a free looks like a sensible piece of business for this season particularly as Taylor will miss the first couple of months. Keeps us with three first choice centre-backs and a couple of promising youngsters to go with the recent utility man signing. Agree that Gosling doesn't do much immediately but it's certainly a positive signing by the club

 

No, I'm saying they want to sell and in order to get what asking price they want they'll understand that they can't allow things to stagnate or go backwards on the pitch.  I don't know what they paid for LFC and I don't know what their asking price is so I can't comment on the profit part, I'm assuming as no-one has met the asking price it's pretty high though therefore how they could think it'll be met by them not improving on the pitch is beyond me.

 

 

Where do you get this impression from? To date, their actions would suggest otherwise.

[madras]

Just to clarify this, you're saying that the LFC current owners are better than our current owner because their sole intention is to try and make a profit on the club; whereas our guy may or may not have that ambition?

 

Anyways, looks like you might be right about Liverpool's net spend, they're about to sign Young from Villa although they're selling Insua to Fiorentina for £5mil to help pay for it...oh, yeah...it's Luke Young

 

Campbell on a free looks like a sensible piece of business for this season particularly as Taylor will miss the first couple of months. Keeps us with three first choice centre-backs and a couple of promising youngsters to go with the recent utility man signing. Agree that Gosling doesn't do much immediately but it's certainly a positive signing by the club

 

No, I'm saying they want to sell and in order to get what asking price they want they'll understand that they can't allow things to stagnate or go backwards on the pitch.  I don't know what they paid for LFC and I don't know what their asking price is so I can't comment on the profit part, I'm assuming as no-one has met the asking price it's pretty high though therefore how they could think it'll be met by them not improving on the pitch is beyond me.

 

Ashley, we've seen by our relegation doesn't appear to grasp the concept.  On the pitch we're arguably in a much poorer state than when he took over so unless someone wants to buy a club in 3 years time with a decent balance sheet and average to poor playing staff then I can't see his price being met either.

 

I already said the net spend part might be inaccurate Stu but selling someone like Insua (unproven) for 5m and getting Luke Young (proven to certain level) is a very Roy Hodgson sort of move.  It may be he's wheeling and dealing as he has to break even, it may be he's wheeling and dealing now to use money on a marquis player.  Again if Inter come in with 30m for Mascherano for example and Hodgson spends that wisely on 2 - 3 very good players they'll still have strengthened...net spend does not = strengthening.

 

The next 5 weeks will tell.

 

And Campbell is an excellent signing for us, as Gosling might turn out to be.  The next 5 weeks will tell for us if any more come in where we need them, same for Liverpool.

 

I'll piss myself if Roy spends 20m on Bobby Zamora mind.

wrong,for liverpool. next summer will decide if they have failed again to reach the champions league.

[mrmojorisin75]

Just to clarify this, you're saying that the LFC current owners are better than our current owner because their sole intention is to try and make a profit on the club; whereas our guy may or may not have that ambition?

 

Anyways, looks like you might be right about Liverpool's net spend, they're about to sign Young from Villa although they're selling Insua to Fiorentina for £5mil to help pay for it...oh, yeah...it's Luke Young

 

Campbell on a free looks like a sensible piece of business for this season particularly as Taylor will miss the first couple of months. Keeps us with three first choice centre-backs and a couple of promising youngsters to go with the recent utility man signing. Agree that Gosling doesn't do much immediately but it's certainly a positive signing by the club

 

No, I'm saying they want to sell and in order to get what asking price they want they'll understand that they can't allow things to stagnate or go backwards on the pitch.  I don't know what they paid for LFC and I don't know what their asking price is so I can't comment on the profit part, I'm assuming as no-one has met the asking price it's pretty high though therefore how they could think it'll be met by them not improving on the pitch is beyond me.

 

 

Where do you get this impression from? To date, their actions would suggest otherwise.

 

Who?  LFC's owners...well to me their actions are pretty consistent with their goals - they've shipped someone who had become almost poisonous around the club because he "wasn't getting enough money" to spend and brought in Hodgson who can operate successfully on a limited budget, in fact he can build on a limited budget as we saw at Fulham.

 

Again strengthening can take many forms, such as getting rid of a manager that was clearly past his sell by date at the club (for which they deserve credit imo) and putting a manager like Hodgson in charge.  They have Spain's best forward (note not goalscorer) and England's best midfielder when on form...Benitez simply should have been getting more out of them, and Hodgson will imo.  That's not to mention the likes of Babel who Hodgson will use well imo, or Joe Cole etc.

 

If Hodgson gets them back in the CL this season with or without net investment then they'll still be a better proposition for new buyers than not being in the CL won't they?  It's fairly simple stuff.

 

The alternative for them would have been to bow to Benitez's demands and spend beyond their means, whatever their means are this summer, 'cause Benitez wouldn't have been satisfied whatever they gave him to piss away on the next Robbie Keane/Gareth Barry.

[mrmojorisin75]

Just to clarify this, you're saying that the LFC current owners are better than our current owner because their sole intention is to try and make a profit on the club; whereas our guy may or may not have that ambition?

 

Anyways, looks like you might be right about Liverpool's net spend, they're about to sign Young from Villa although they're selling Insua to Fiorentina for £5mil to help pay for it...oh, yeah...it's Luke Young

 

Campbell on a free looks like a sensible piece of business for this season particularly as Taylor will miss the first couple of months. Keeps us with three first choice centre-backs and a couple of promising youngsters to go with the recent utility man signing. Agree that Gosling doesn't do much immediately but it's certainly a positive signing by the club

 

No, I'm saying they want to sell and in order to get what asking price they want they'll understand that they can't allow things to stagnate or go backwards on the pitch.  I don't know what they paid for LFC and I don't know what their asking price is so I can't comment on the profit part, I'm assuming as no-one has met the asking price it's pretty high though therefore how they could think it'll be met by them not improving on the pitch is beyond me.

 

Ashley, we've seen by our relegation doesn't appear to grasp the concept.  On the pitch we're arguably in a much poorer state than when he took over so unless someone wants to buy a club in 3 years time with a decent balance sheet and average to poor playing staff then I can't see his price being met either.

 

I already said the net spend part might be inaccurate Stu but selling someone like Insua (unproven) for 5m and getting Luke Young (proven to certain level) is a very Roy Hodgson sort of move.  It may be he's wheeling and dealing as he has to break even, it may be he's wheeling and dealing now to use money on a marquis player.  Again if Inter come in with 30m for Mascherano for example and Hodgson spends that wisely on 2 - 3 very good players they'll still have strengthened...net spend does not = strengthening.

 

The next 5 weeks will tell.

 

And Campbell is an excellent signing for us, as Gosling might turn out to be.  The next 5 weeks will tell for us if any more come in where we need them, same for Liverpool.

 

I'll piss myself if Roy spends 20m on Bobby Zamora mind.

wrong,for liverpool. next summer will decide if they have failed again to reach the champions league.

wtf man, is this all an elaborate wind up?  'cause it's working

 

the next 5 weeks will determine in the most part if they get the players they need to get them back in the CL

 

how is it different from us and the next 5 weeks determining if we get the necessary players to keep us up?

 

next May will be the point when both clubs know their actual fate won't it?

 

[Stu]

Just to clarify this, you're saying that the LFC current owners are better than our current owner because their sole intention is to try and make a profit on the club; whereas our guy may or may not have that ambition?

 

Anyways, looks like you might be right about Liverpool's net spend, they're about to sign Young from Villa although they're selling Insua to Fiorentina for £5mil to help pay for it...oh, yeah...it's Luke Young

 

Campbell on a free looks like a sensible piece of business for this season particularly as Taylor will miss the first couple of months. Keeps us with three first choice centre-backs and a couple of promising youngsters to go with the recent utility man signing. Agree that Gosling doesn't do much immediately but it's certainly a positive signing by the club

 

No, I'm saying they want to sell and in order to get what asking price they want they'll understand that they can't allow things to stagnate or go backwards on the pitch.  I don't know what they paid for LFC and I don't know what their asking price is so I can't comment on the profit part, I'm assuming as no-one has met the asking price it's pretty high though therefore how they could think it'll be met by them not improving on the pitch is beyond me.

 

 

Where do you get this impression from? To date, their actions would suggest otherwise.

 

Who?  LFC's owners...well to me their actions are pretty consistent with their goals - they've shipped someone who had become almost poisonous around the club because he "wasn't getting enough money" to spend and brought in Hodgson who can operate successfully on a limited budget, in fact he can build on a limited budget as we saw at Fulham.

 

Again strengthening can take many forms, such as getting rid of a manager that was clearly past his sell by date at the club (for which they deserve credit imo) and putting a manager like Hodgson in charge.  They have Spain's best forward (note not goalscorer) and England's best midfielder when on form...Benitez simply should have been getting more out of them, and Hodgson will imo.  That's not to mention the likes of Babel who Hodgson will use well imo, or Joe Cole etc.

 

If Hodgson gets them back in the CL this season with or without net investment then they'll still be a better proposition for new buyers than not being in the CL won't they?  It's fairly simple stuff.

 

The alternative for them would have been to bow to Benitez's demands and spend beyond their means, whatever their means are this summer, 'cause Benitez wouldn't have been satisfied whatever they gave him to piss away on the next Robbie Keane/Gareth Barry.

 

But they are the owners who gave Benitez the ridicolous contract in the first place when most football followers could see that he wasn't working out after his honeymoon season, the style of football didn't suit the club and the fans (while appreciative for the Champs League win) weren't enamoured with his transfer policy. Now that they've done what was needed all along, you're giving them credit?

 

 

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Just to clarify this, you're saying that the LFC current owners are better than our current owner because their sole intention is to try and make a profit on the club; whereas our guy may or may not have that ambition?

 

Anyways, looks like you might be right about Liverpool's net spend, they're about to sign Young from Villa although they're selling Insua to Fiorentina for £5mil to help pay for it...oh, yeah...it's Luke Young

 

Campbell on a free looks like a sensible piece of business for this season particularly as Taylor will miss the first couple of months. Keeps us with three first choice centre-backs and a couple of promising youngsters to go with the recent utility man signing. Agree that Gosling doesn't do much immediately but it's certainly a positive signing by the club

 

No, I'm saying they want to sell and in order to get what asking price they want they'll understand that they can't allow things to stagnate or go backwards on the pitch.  I don't know what they paid for LFC and I don't know what their asking price is so I can't comment on the profit part, I'm assuming as no-one has met the asking price it's pretty high though therefore how they could think it'll be met by them not improving on the pitch is beyond me.

 

 

Where do you get this impression from? To date, their actions would suggest otherwise.

 

Who?  LFC's owners...well to me their actions are pretty consistent with their goals - they've shipped someone who had become almost poisonous around the club because he "wasn't getting enough money" to spend and brought in Hodgson who can operate successfully on a limited budget, in fact he can build on a limited budget as we saw at Fulham.

 

Again strengthening can take many forms, such as getting rid of a manager that was clearly past his sell by date at the club (for which they deserve credit imo) and putting a manager like Hodgson in charge.  They have Spain's best forward (note not goalscorer) and England's best midfielder when on form...Benitez simply should have been getting more out of them, and Hodgson will imo.  That's not to mention the likes of Babel who Hodgson will use well imo, or Joe Cole etc.

 

If Hodgson gets them back in the CL this season with or without net investment then they'll still be a better proposition for new buyers than not being in the CL won't they?  It's fairly simple stuff.

 

The alternative for them would have been to bow to Benitez's demands and spend beyond their means, whatever their means are this summer, 'cause Benitez wouldn't have been satisfied whatever they gave him to piss away on the next Robbie Keane/Gareth Barry.

 

But they are the owners who gave Benitez the ridicolous contract in the first place when most football followers could see that he wasn't working out after his honeymoon season, the style of football didn't suit the club and the fans (while appreciative for the Champs League win) weren't enamoured with his transfer policy. Now that they've done what was needed all along, you're giving them credit?

 

 

what was it, 2 CL finals & 1 win in 6 years as manager...plus qualification for the CL every season bar last?

 

sacking him was needed all along was it?  tough crowd Stu, tough crowd

 

wheels came off near the end, especially the Keane/Barry carry on - if you can think of an equivalent sacking outside of the mental Real Madrid ones then i'd like to hear it

 

i'm giving them credit in a sense yeah, not saying getting shot of Benitez makes them ideal owners but they did what needed to be done...they gave their manager plenty of chances to repeat his success at Valencia...not their fault he replaced his most effective midfielder with a ghost and fucked the whole season up is it?

[madras]

Just to clarify this, you're saying that the LFC current owners are better than our current owner because their sole intention is to try and make a profit on the club; whereas our guy may or may not have that ambition?

 

Anyways, looks like you might be right about Liverpool's net spend, they're about to sign Young from Villa although they're selling Insua to Fiorentina for £5mil to help pay for it...oh, yeah...it's Luke Young

 

Campbell on a free looks like a sensible piece of business for this season particularly as Taylor will miss the first couple of months. Keeps us with three first choice centre-backs and a couple of promising youngsters to go with the recent utility man signing. Agree that Gosling doesn't do much immediately but it's certainly a positive signing by the club

 

No, I'm saying they want to sell and in order to get what asking price they want they'll understand that they can't allow things to stagnate or go backwards on the pitch.  I don't know what they paid for LFC and I don't know what their asking price is so I can't comment on the profit part, I'm assuming as no-one has met the asking price it's pretty high though therefore how they could think it'll be met by them not improving on the pitch is beyond me.

 

Ashley, we've seen by our relegation doesn't appear to grasp the concept.  On the pitch we're arguably in a much poorer state than when he took over so unless someone wants to buy a club in 3 years time with a decent balance sheet and average to poor playing staff then I can't see his price being met either.

 

I already said the net spend part might be inaccurate Stu but selling someone like Insua (unproven) for 5m and getting Luke Young (proven to certain level) is a very Roy Hodgson sort of move.  It may be he's wheeling and dealing as he has to break even, it may be he's wheeling and dealing now to use money on a marquis player.  Again if Inter come in with 30m for Mascherano for example and Hodgson spends that wisely on 2 - 3 very good players they'll still have strengthened...net spend does not = strengthening.

 

The next 5 weeks will tell.

 

And Campbell is an excellent signing for us, as Gosling might turn out to be.  The next 5 weeks will tell for us if any more come in where we need them, same for Liverpool.

 

I'll piss myself if Roy spends 20m on Bobby Zamora mind.

wrong,for liverpool. next summer will decide if they have failed again to reach the champions league.

wtf man, is this all an elaborate wind up?  'cause it's working

 

the next 5 weeks will determine in the most part if they get the players they need to get them back in the CL

 

how is it different from us and the next 5 weeks determining if we get the necessary players to keep us up?

 

next May will be the point when both clubs know their actual fate won't it?

 

we done that and in the same position would probably do it again, my point is that they cant do it forever and if they dont qualify then the investment will diminish, lesser quality players will come in etc.

 

 

(wouldn't robson fit the bill as that type of sacking ?)

[mrmojorisin75]

(wouldn't robson fit the bill as that type of sacking ?)

aside from the fact Benitez was essentially undermining his own board and non-stop complaining...Robson remained dignified as always in arguably worse circumstances

 

some parrells though yeah

[Stu]

so you accept that I'm right about LFC and you're wrong about Ashley. fantastic

[mrmojorisin75]

so you accept that I'm right about LFC and you're wrong about Ashley. fantastic

[Stu]

so you accept that I'm right about LFC and you're wrong about Ashley. fantastic

 

sorry, I must have missed your counter-argument...

[mrmojorisin75]

so you accept that I'm right about LFC and you're wrong about Ashley. fantastic

 

sorry, I must have missed your counter-argument...

 

 

Lets not go into how much you miss huh Stu, we'd be here for the rest of our lives.

 

Where, exactly, did I agree to that then?

[Unbelievable]

This season I'm satisfied with consolidation but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it long term, and if we do stay up then I'd expect the pressure to invest to be much higher next summer.

 

Not sure why people being satisfied now automatically means they will always be happy with merely surviving. It's utter bollocks, tbh.

 

How are we "consolidating" anything if we end up not significantly improving on a weaker squad than the one we got relegated with the last time, and with the remnants of quality left one year closer to the ends of their contracts?

 

Consolidating our position in the Premier League means staying up this year, no matter how we do it. Next year we'd no longer be a newly-promoted team and would have the benefit of two season's worth of Premier League income etc, which if it's anything like as lucrative as you've mentioned before will surely see us with a nice transfer kitty. If that doesn't prove to be the case I won't be happy at all.

 

I'd say us having a weaker squad now is debatable tbh, not that it's even possible to compare any season with the train wreck when we went down. Every conceivable thing that could go wrong went wrong. We might have fewer individual talents now but we have better team IMO.

 

As I said before, me being happy just to stay up by any means this time does not mean I'm happy with doing that every year. I can't understand how accepting the situation we're in somehow means I advocate it and want it to continue forever.

 

Again

 

In the same way being satisfied with making astute and low-risk signings doesn't mean that we're happy to sign second-rate players, not hating Ashley and anything Ashley-related doesn't mean that we want the club to languish in the lower half of the league for eternity fighting relegation battle after relegation battle.

 

UV - Going back to your earlier post about the players who 'took us up to 7th', individually, there were some very good players but if they lack the winning mentality, then it doesn't matter how much you spend. Again, I'm going back to my long-standing question of why people attach such significance to the price & wage of a player (i.e. if we're spending lots of money, it's a good thing and we're signing world beaters ) - it's defintely a recurring trait amongst the Ashley bashers.

 

Price is just the amount of money someone is willing to pay for something. It doesn't intrinsically represent the true value or worth of a good (i.e. player) to the club. It's easy to argue that if you're spending more money on players then you have a greater chance of getting together a squad of 'better' skilled players, but our recent experience doesn't support it.

 

I'm not going to speculate on the income levels for this season, best to wait for last season's accounts to come out next March/April and see which direction the club is heading off the pitch. You can only bash Ashley with the concrete numbers from the accounts published, which shows that he's still using his own funds to run the club.

 

People argue this, because it is factually true and can be scientifically proven. You may want to have a read through this for example: http://tomkinstimes.com/2009/10/the-cost-of-premiership-success/

 

Now, I know spending more does not guarantee better performances, nothing can. Make no mistake though, by spending less or nothing at all whilst our competitors are, we would in effect be decreasing our chance of success in reaching our objective (in this case survival in the Premiership), and no amount of pulling together or strength of character is going to save our bacon when the bad results start rolling in and our collective of players will just not have enough quality about them to turn the tide.

 

I am reasonably satisfied with the business done so far, but I feel we still need some genuine quality added in midfield and up front if we want to have a fighting chance of staying up.