And Howe is basically the sporting director at the moment as well
Isakly what we need
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
And Howe is basically the sporting director at the moment as well
Missed 1 game with a groin injury in the last 12 months. Incidentally against us at Anfield.
We have the best medical and sports science team now. I don’t think it will be an issue.
And it’s not your money, so why care about it?
Maybe, but the contract "he wants" probably includes a 25M LFC specific release clause
The “it’s not my money” thing doesn’t quite work. I care about the money in the context of Liverpool. It’s not endless and I want us to see it spend well and be successful.
His injury record is undoubtedly a concern.
Yeah the injuries are definitely a concern, and he's also a couple of years older than you'd ideally want him to be. I just think he's so much better than every other option that it's worth the risk.
This is why Diaz going is a bit of a nuisance. He's not great at CF but he knows what we require there and can fill in for 10 games a season. Chiesa might be alright at that but he really looks done physically.
I can't see us buying another striker so we're left hoping a Diaz replacement can fill in there.
Well, it kinda does when you look at our financial position and correlate that with ambition.
It’s not endless but we’re basically spending 50 mill on top of what we would spend on the next best striker. Is it worth the gamble? Given the gulf in difference of class, goals, suitability and Prem experience, yes.
His injury record is a concern given the outlay but what speaks positively for him is that it’s been improving and we have one the best sport science departments now.
The window of opportunity to win trophies is small and it’s the finer details that tip the balance in your favor.
50 mill extra to maximize is a gamble we should take.
As an ambitious striker, I'd see Liverpool's transfer activity and future prospects and think, 'That's the place to be'.
Maybe FSG are prepared to back Slot & co's ability to manage players & reduce injuries. They came in with that rep & have proven it out quite well in the first 12 months.
wtf did I read then? I could have sworn he’s been out for a decent chunk of games with groin injuries.
As said previously, he has had groin issues earlier but seem to have improved on that front.
That’s all fine and reasonable arguments to make. I was just specifically calling out the not my money thing.
Well, technically it’s not your money is it?
And it’s fine to be sensible and have that approach to transfers, but we’re 7th when it comes to net spend in the last 10 years. Closer to West Ham in 8th than Spurs in 5th.
It’s not a problem for us to spend that money on probably one of the best strikers in the World who is tailor made for our team.
Be sensible at the right times but have the urgency to show ambition when there is an opportunity that fits you. That’s what winners do.
We’re one of the best run clubs in the World. If they feel they can spend the money, spend it.
I'm pretty relaxed about us spending big on Isak but I think it's reasonable to question the value. We aren't Chelsea so we'll definitely feel this spending one way or another - this might be it for transfers for a couple of years, say.
Also I think the net spend figures are a bit misleading. We tend to spend big on wages, Spurs on transfer fees. It all comes from the same pot ultimately.
Also I think the net spend figures are a bit misleading. We tend to spend big on wages, Spurs on transfer fees. It all comes from the same pot ultimately.
We look like we're going to spend a couple of hundred million net while adding 2 very high earners to the wage bill. If you don't think that's going to affect our spending for a while you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
And re the wages, from what I remember they're generally around 60% of turnover. That's high. Not dangerously so, but it's clear that's where a large chunk of our missing transfer spending is going.
1) Never said it wouldn’t affect us, but we are in a position to spend big thanks to how the club has been run
2) We’re have the second largest wage bill but are 11th in the wage to turnover comparison in the league. Nearly bang on the average, 63%
3) The net spend will be heavily affected by the amount of sales we make on the back end of these deals. We might see 200 mill in income
I can see a lean few years after this one, which is fine as the players we've signed are all a good age. There will be the need to replace Salah, VVD, and maybe Ali, depending on how Marma goes.
Hopefully we only need to make one or two signings a summer window for a few years and we have cash available to go big if we need to. Better yet we uncover another Salah type deal, but I'd certainly prefer to have the option to go big again.
If we land Isak to supplement Wirtz then the process of replacing Salahs goals and assts is well underway. We would still need a decent option there, though. From what I know of Rodrygo is that he's equally good on both flanks, which would be invaluable but it might be a deal too far this year if Isak is signing.
Hopefully we only need to make one or two signings a summer window for a few years and we have cash available to go big if we need to. Better yet we uncover another Salah type deal, but I'd certainly prefer to have the option to go big again.
If we land Isak to supplement Wirtz then the process of replacing Salahs goals and assts is well underway. We would still need a decent option there, though. From what I know of Rodrygo is that he's equally good on both flanks, which would be invaluable but it might be a deal too far this year if Isak is signing.
it might not be a deal too far if we move, as mooted, Nunez, Diaz and Elliott off the books for 150-200m..
Wage bill isn't average compared to the teams we're actually competing with and whose transfer spending ours is typically contrasted to. Utd and Arsneal are at about 50%, Spurs is even less than that. You're looking at about an extra 50 to 70m in wages spending a year. That'll go a huge way to making up our net spend deficit.
We aren’t competing with Utd.
Arsenal fine. But their wage bill will sky rocket with new deals for key players and the signings they’ve made.
The top 6:
Chelsea, 72%
Newcastle 68%
Villa 93%
City 57% (but we all know that isn’t the real number)
I don't mind it being lean, so long as we have enough players to compete in all competitions, and we don't do Klopp hug hold onto players that are just not good enough because they have served us well. I am more than happy for the data nerds to make all these signings and sell on even our biggest stars if need be - so long as the money is good and they have a replacement that will fill the void. What I hope does not happen is that they go into the season short, like if they bought in Gueyhi and then sold Konate and got no one else in - then that is a big problem.
You're missing the point. Which is simply that we don't necessarily have this treasure chest of funds available just because we've spent less on transfers than comparable clubs. It depends if we've spent it elsewhere, and to a large extent we have - on wages.
No, you’re missing the point. We do in fact have the treasure chest given our financial position, transfers and wages.
View: https://x.com/_davepowell/status/1945167943484023146?s=46
