Liverpool related transfer speculation

[bluebell]

There are three seasons where we've spent close to or more than £200m, albeit across Summer and January windows:
2017-18 - £195m gross spend (£58m net)
2018-19 - £223m gross spend (£163m net)
2023-24 - £194m gross spent (£157m net)
It's not a huge leap to £200m, but £200m + all sale proceeds would be a huge leap, especially given it's a coach we've only had in post for 12 months, even if he did win the league. But let's not get fixated on a particular number. It's not beyond FSG to go big on occasion, and a lot of our restrained spending in recent years has been due to funding capital spend instead (training ground and Annie Road). I've said in the past that those projects are as much a part of Klopp's legacy as the trophies and a title-winning squad.
I also don't buy the narrative of him not being allowed what he wanted. He was given budgets, sure, but we broke global transfer records for goalkeepers (Alisson) and defenders (VVD) because those were the guys he wanted - them and no-one else. We signed Naby because he was the guy Klopp wanted, and believe me, that deal was a pain in the arse to get done. We even tolerated paying for him and still having to wait 12 months. It's also rumoured that Nunez was his shout too. When there was a player he wanted above any other, and where that player was willing to sign for us, he got that player. And when we didn't spend big, he was on board with that because he saw the bigger picture and believed in the effectiveness of his own coaching.
I get the Leeds comparison with Chelsea. A lot of the behaviours are the same, but I think the big difference is that Chelsea have genuine financial clout behind them, whereas Leeds didn't. They were dependent on the banks, and when the banks called in their debt they went to the wall. I don't see that happening at Chelsea. They have a power struggle going on at the top, but it feels like either of those parties would continue to bankroll the club, if the other one were to be pushed out. The biggest risk to Chelsea is regulatory, if either UEFA or the PL grow the balls to go after them on their financial bullshit. UEFA are likely in a position to send them a hefty fine already on the back of their participation in Europe this season, while I suspect the PL are waiting for 115 before deciding their next move.
But I don't see them going bust in a hurry because the financial strength of their owners.

Correct if I am wrong but Chelsea are not a vanity project it has to have an ROI, right? When they spend £1.1bn over 3 seasons with little to show for it. We all know they'll face a PSR points deduction, how long can they keep investors resilient?

 

[Mamma Mia]

I'm disappointed in people being disappointed

 

[peekay]

Given everything that has happened over the last five years, I am dazed that players will consider Chelsea over us. I could understand why anyone wanted Chelsea over us in the pre-Boehly era.

There is no guaranteed path to the first team, no CL qualification guarantee, no guarantee that the manager who oversaw your signing will last more than three months, and no guarantee that they won't relegate you to the reserve squad when the next shiny player in your position pops up somewhere. They have about six goalkeepers over the age of 20 in their squad and at least three out on loan, including Kepa, the costliest keeper.

Huijsen, or any young player who considers Chelsea a viable alternative, should not be considered for transfer as I have serious concerns about their judgment or their agent's unhealthy influence.

 

[Beamrider]

Correct if I am wrong but Chelsea are not a vanity project it has to have an ROI, right? When they spend £1.1bn over 3 seasons with little to show for it. We all know they'll face a PSR points deduction, how long can they keep investors resilient?

I suspect they are stupid enough to think they got it for a bargain price because of the Russian sanctions and still think they'll make a huge profit when they sell. They also probably think they are geniuses for buying mostly average players on 7-year deals, and they're the kind of morons who'll throw good money after bad rather than admitting they called it wrong and selling up.
In the mean time, it'll be throwing off huge US tax losses which will go a long way to funding the extra money they've put in.
And the sad reality is that most investors who plough loads of money into a football club get away with it because there are more idiots like Clearlake out there who think they're still buying un-tapped goldmines. Farhad Moshiri played an absolute blinder to manage to lose most of his wealth on Everton. Tip of the hat to him.

 

[Frogfish]

Konate is surprisingZ I guess Slot wants better ball players at CB.

I'm guessing it's because they don't want to pay him 200k.

 

[Farkmaster]

Konate for the first third of the season was the reason we had defensive stability, in that when that side broke down he was a beast in the resultant 1v1.

 

[Beamrider]

I agree. Hopefully it catches up with them. Seem to remember that UEFA are bit tougher than the PL:


View: https://x.com/DeadlineDayLive/status/1908778197501587862

Just for some context on this, it really shouldn't be news. UEFA's rules are now based on the ratio of football costs (broadly wages and amortisation) to income (turnover and a few other specific bits, broadly income from operations that isn't classed as turnover). A profit on the sale of a subsidiary is NOT turnover, nor is it income from operations.
Translation - this is NOT news. It's not come from some UEFA pronouncement, there's no agenda against Chelsea, nor is there a standing up against their bullshit or their ridiculous valuation of the Women's team, it's just applying the rules.

 

[Hansern]

View: https://x.com/anfieldsector/status/1919475856038089106?s=46

 

[Fabio]

No chance. I wouldn't even want him

 

[Modo]

If he scores a hatrick against Man U on Thursday and they keep a clean sheet, then maybe...