Backroom & executive staff

[Hanshithispantz]

21 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 Aye that chart is one of the worst ways a totally correct point has ever been made. 

 Perfect way to put it.

 

 

[Guest HTT II]

1 hour ago, PeepShow4life said:

We should bring in some good scouts to help Ashworth.

 

That will be one of his jobs to find and bring into the club!

[Shearergol]

20 minutes ago, macphisto said:

£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). 

 

The top 6 spenders for the last 10 years happen to match the top 6 teams in the premier league, consistently over the last 10 years. I really don't think the "data" has ever really mattered; teams just throw money at good players. 

 

Everton are pretty much the only example of this failing. Even Man United, as bad as they've been recently, have managed to retain their top 6 status purely by spending.

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone's in disagreement over this; good players will always top the "data charts".

[gdm]

Not listened myself yet but could be a good listen. 
 

 

[r0cafella]

7 minutes ago, gdm said:

Not listened myself yet but could be a good listen. 
 

 

It is a good listen. 

[macphisto]

46 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

The top 6 spenders for the last 10 years happen to match the top 6 teams in the premier league, consistently over the last 10 years. I really don't think the "data" has ever really mattered; teams just throw money at good players. 

 

Everton are pretty much the only example of this failing. Even Man United, as bad as they've been recently, have managed to retain their top 6 status purely by spending.

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone's in disagreement over this; good players will always top the "data charts".

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.

[Guest HTT II]

Liverpool are the model to follow. They have achieved great success and competed for every competition they’ve been in for the last 5 years with a net spend much lower than the likes of City, Man Utd and even Everton. That’s down to the manager of course, but a brilliant recruitment process, a brilliant working environment, clever scouting and of course PEDs…

[TheBrownBottle]

Liverpool's team that started the European Cup Final last week cost £350m almost on the button - their bench that day cost £180m.  £530M total.

 

It's not Man City cash-spunking - but it isn't exactly doing it on the cheap.  Over half a billion is a serious chunk of change.  That doesn't detract from the fact that they've generally recruited well and that Klopp is an exceptional manager - clearly both are true

[Rich]

Must’ve brought in a canny whack through sales as well?

[kingxlnc]

Liverpool are well run at all levels, that's why it appears so. For example, you have home-grown youngsters like TAA that have become world class, then you have cheap buys like Robertson who have become world class, then you buy young potential like Carvalho with the potential to be world class. Even their main players, Salah, Thiago, Mane - were in the 30's - whilst now being worth at least double. This allows them to then buy a transformative signing Van Dijk or Allison once a year to really move forward. So there's that element which is true, which is it's a club that increases value of their players on the whole, whereas a Chelsea or Man U is often the opposite. They often buy high, and then sell cheap or let go. 

[Manxst]

2 minutes ago, Rich said:

Must’ve brought in a canny whack through sales as well?

Since 2012 Liverpool have spent approx €1128m, and have recouped approx €781m

 

https://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2021/wp367/en/

 

“Using widely reported fees that include all eventual add-ons, they have calculated the Redshave spent £955million on transfers, placing them eighth in the overall list of top spenders.

However, that Liverpool have recouped £661m in sales - putting them ninth in the table of transfer income - means they have a balance in arrears of £294m.”

 

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-294m-transfer-spend-truth-23008166.amp

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Rich said:

Must’ve brought in a canny whack through sales as well?

Yeah, a shitload - particularly early on in Klopp's time.  Coutinho, Sakho, Benteke, Solanke etc

[Manxst]

The sale of Coutinho for £142m skews the figures a bit too. 

[NWMag]

They also did well to get £20 million for Solanke, £20 million for Brewster, and Ibe went for somewhere between £10-20 million too

[Manxst]

https://www.anfield-online.co.uk/stats/jurgen-klopp-lfc-transfer-signings.html
 

They’ve sold some players for inflated fees- Brewster, Sakho etc

[Miggys First Goal]

So Managing Director appointment next? Who are the candidates?

[Manxst]

3 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

So Managing Director appointment next? Who are the candidates?

Jeremy Darroch

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

So Managing Director appointment next? Who are the candidates?

We should retire the position in Charnley's honour, like Milan's no. 3 shirt

[Nobody]

6 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

So Managing Director appointment next? Who are the candidates?

Charnley

[Manxst]

Peter Kenyon? 

[r0cafella]

Richard Scudamore please. 

[Keegans Export]

6 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Jeremy Darroch

He's all but ruled himself out unfortunately 

[Ben]

I think the MD needs to be a boring grey suit wearing type that nobody really knows that can put a team together to manage club into the the top 6 commercially 

[JonBez comesock]

33 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

So Managing Director appointment next? Who are the candidates?

Shortlist of two 

 

Sonia Jackson (eastenders)

Or 

Spuggy (byker grove)

[Happinesstan]

1 hour ago, kingxlnc said:

Liverpool are well run at all levels, that's why it appears so. For example, you have home-grown youngsters like TAA that have become world class, then you have cheap buys like Robertson who have become world class, then you buy young potential like Carvalho with the potential to be world class. Even their main players, Salah, Thiago, Mane - were in the 30's - whilst now being worth at least double. This allows them to then buy a transformative signing Van Dijk or Allison once a year to really move forward. So there's that element which is true, which is it's a club that increases value of their players on the whole, whereas a Chelsea or Man U is often the opposite. They often buy high, and then sell cheap or let go. 

If you're buying one transformative signing each year then the need for them to succeed increases. I imagine if you look at how many of Liverpool's transformative signings have flopped you'll get an idea of how effective their recruitment system is.