Those are very selective stats (why last two years, not last 5?). Elsewhere I have seen stats suggesting thast Klopp's total net spend since 2015 was just £145m, or £20m a year. But those are also stats that are questionable. What isn't in doubt are the figures released by the club themsleves (that Swiss ramble routinely analyses) which shopw the club has never been richer, a reduced wage bill and plenty of capacity for further growth. You can post all the other estimates you like, but it won't alter the fact that the club has plenty of money and was widely reported to be looking to get a midfielder during the summer.
Let's look at a 5 year period then.We should also bear in mind that transfer spend and how it's accounted for is very different than net spend based on transfer fees alone. But let's put that to one side.
Revenues From Swiss Ramble's review of 2020.21 accounts:
#
LFC revenue has now fallen £46m (9%) from the £533m peak pre-pandemic two years ago to £487m, as the COVID-driven £81m reduction in match day has been partly offset by £30m increase in commercial. I estimate a club record £540-560m for this season.
As a result, #LFC £487m revenue is the third highest in England, within touching distance of #MUFC £494m, but nearly £100m below #MCFC £570m. There is then a fair sized gap to the following clubs: #CFC £435m, #THFC £360m, #AFC £328m and #LCFC £226m.
#LFC EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation & Amortisation), which strips out player sales and exceptional items, improved from £42m to £77m, though this is below #MCFC £116m, #MUFC £95m and #THFC £95m (and also lower than #LFC 2019 peak of £124m).
#LFC reduced pre-tax loss from £46m to £5m, driven by operating expenses falling £37m (6%). Revenue overall was slightly lower at £487m, but profit from player sales increased £12m to £39m. Loss after tax narrowed from £39m to £10m.
COVID lossesFrom Swiss Ramble on 2020/21 accounts:
#
LFC revenue was significantly impacted by COVID. I estimate the loss as £87m in 2020/21 (match day £74m, commercial £10m and broadcasting £3m), which
would make £114m lost over the last 2 years. Partly offset by £35m of TV money deferred from prior year accounts to 2020/21.
WagesFrom Swiss Ramble
#LFC wage bill fell £12m (3%) from £326m to £314m, as prior year included bonuses for winning 2019 Champions League (played in June 2020) and 2020 Premier League (accrued).
Wages have increased by £107m (56%) in the last 4 years, around the same as #CFC and #MCFC.
Following this fall,
#LFC £314m wages are 4th highest in the Premier League, below #MCFC £355m, #CFC £333m and #MUFC £323m, then a big gap to #AFC £238m. Underlying growth due to 12 player contract renewals, including Virgil van Dijk, Fabinho, Trent and Harvey Elliott.
#
LFC wages to turnover ratio slightly improved from 66% to 65%, which is not too bad, given the estimated net £52m COVID revenue impact. Also one of the better results in the Premier League, sandwiched between #MCFC 62% and #MUFC 65%, though much better than #CFC 77%.Transfer spendFrom Swiss Ramble:
#LFC player amortisation, the annual charge to expense transfer fees over a player’s contract, rose £2m (2%) from £106m to £108m. Nearly doubled from £58m in 2017, but relatively low compared to the other Big Six clubs (except #THFC), especially #CFC £162m and #MCFC £146m.
#LFC spent £136m on player purchases, including Diogo Jota, Thiago, Kostas Tsimikas and Ben Davies,
with £93m net spend. This was
much higher than prior season’s very low £29m, and was only surpassed by big-spending #CFC £221m and #MCFC £194m, but more than #MUFC £116m.
#LFC have spent a lot of money in the transfer market with a £660m outlay in the last 5 years (prior to 2020/21), but only £318m net spend. Klopp said, “Our transfers have to hit the ground running, because we can’t make a £40-50m signing and say that if they are not playing, that is not important”
In fact, #LFC £278m net spend in 5 years up to 2020 was only 6th highest in the Premier League, far below #MCFC and #MUFC (around £700m). Gross spend of £626m was in 4th place, but around £300m less than #MCFC, #MUFC & #CFC.
Spent £75m on Ibrahima Konaté & Luis Diaz this seasonThe crux of people's gripe seems to be that we are 6th in net spend over the last 5 years. In essence that's because we are behind Manchester City, Chelsea, Manchester United, Everton and Arsenal. We can't compare to Chelsea and City since they have benefactors who fund their clubs. Everton have also had the same over the last few years. They aren't operating with the same model as the other teams.
Liverpool, Arsenal and United are operating approximately similar models.
Cumulative revenues over last 5 years (up to and including 2020/21):
Manchester United 2801M
Liverpool 2329M
Arsenal 1878M
Cumulative wages over last 5 years:
Manchester United 1499M
Liverpool 1422M
Arsenal 1117M
Net Transfer spend in last 5 years:
Manchester United 655M
Liverpool 278M
Arsenal 363M
Total spend on wages+ net transfer
Manchester United 2154M
Liverpool 1700M
Arsenal 1480M
I know this is a really simplistic way to compare resources versus spend but it feels a bit more holistic than net transfer spend only. It generally only uses numbers from the club accounts. Our cumulative spend on squad investment (i.e. wages and transfers(net)) is nearly 220M more than Arsenal's over the last 5 years. That's despite Arsenal's net spend being about 85M more than ours. Our revenues were about 400M more than Arsenal so that's probably part of the reason why.
Compared to United their combined wages and transfer investment over 5 years is about 450M more than ours. Their cumulative revenue over 5 years was about 500M more than ours though.
Like I said it's a simplistic view since it doesn't account for things like dividends payments for United to the Glazers or any existing loan repayments. Equally it doesn't account for infrastructure improvements that we have done and are paying for over the last 5 years (Main stand and Kirkby mainly). United have virtually no infrastructure improvements over the same time period.
What I agree with is that Liverpool are in a healthy position to grow. That's why i think we can spend money (post-pandemic impact on finances) when the right player is available. Luis Diaz is a good example. It would be interesting to see what happens if Bellingham become available for transfer next week. That would really test the hypothesis.
What I don't necessarily agree with is that there has been a lack of investment in the club. That we are holding back finances that is preventing the team. The only real true example of that was January 2020 and even then we don't know if that was a financial or recruitment decision to wait until May to activate Konate's release clause. Comparing our holistic investment in the playing squad versus Arsenal and United (2 closest clubs in terms of operating model and resources) shows we are comparable. We just utilse the available funds better than those 2. We also compare favourably to Bayern Munich if you do this analysis with a similar sized European club with similar(ish) operating model.
Hopefully the above exemplifies this using just facts and over a longer time period like you suggested.