The Liverpool FC Forum > Liverpool FC Forum

The Klopp Template

<< < (1282/1729) > >>

Dave McCoy:

--- Quote from: Knight on October  2, 2022, 10:03:42 pm ---Hope lots read this because I’d be interested to see the counter arguments, because plenty are pretty derisory about the ‘our net spend is very low’ arguments.

--- End quote ---

Because net spend is only one financial aspect of the club's whole financial situation. Transfer fees are not an absolute indication of player quality. What matters most is to get CL level quality players across the whole squad for whatever the fee is and then pay them to stick around so you can build a coherent team and win things. If you are able to build a CORE of players that win trophies for cheaper than the market would indicate does that mean you weren't spending enough? Seemingly for most of our fans that answer is yes which is ridiculous.

Once you build that CORE and only need to do 2-4 transfers a year but have a ton of other assets that you can sell that aren't part of the CORE, should you just not sell them so it looks like you're spending more? Should you just spend more on those 2-4 transfers even though it's not necessary to do so? Again for a lot of our fans the answer is seemingly yes.

Mo just hand waves all this away by saying Klopp is loyal to a fault and our wage bill isn't anything out of line with our competitors which is disingenuous. If he agrees that FSG and LFC's intent is to clearly win things then how does that square with them intentionally sabotaging it by refusing to spend?

The bottom line for me is FSG hired a host of people to run LFC. They have the entirety of the teams revenue to use, nothing is going back to Boston, and they usually make great decisions in doing this. Maybe it will never make us on par with ManC but that goes for the entirety of the rest of the PL. Now maybe finally for once they made some bad player recruitment decisions. Does that mean they were intentionally trying to do that? No. Does that mean FSG was intentionally trying to make LFC worth less by falling out of a CL spot? No. Nobody is perfect, bad things can and do happen. European football isn't fair, it never has been.

The other thing that keeps getting glossed over is turning over a trophy winning team is hard. In my lifetime I can only recall SAF and now Pep doing it successfully with the same team. Maybe it's not something in Klopp's wheelhouse? As far as I can tell he's never really had to do it either. Not that this is solely on him but if this is a collaborative approach then Klopp saying he wants to keep the band together as long as possible, which clearly seems to be happening, is going to make that turnover into the next LFC take longer.

So yes, for all those reasons and more just pointing to "net spend" is bullshit and anybody who focuses solely on that should be laughed out of the thread.

ThePoolMan:

--- Quote from: newterp on October  2, 2022, 09:51:41 pm ---A very well reasoned thread from Mo Chatra:

https://twitter.com/MoChatra/status/1576652385388142594

Not a great read. But maybe it's obvious anyway.

--- End quote ---

I agree with what chatra said. I don't know who is at fault for the under investment - whether it is the owners or the manager or his team who are choosing not to sign pricey younger replacements who have matured enough to bring performances to a higher level, but whoever is responsible needs to wake up and start spending in January and in the summer windows. It may already be too late but to do nothing would make falling out of the top 4 much more likely.

ThePoolMan:

--- Quote from: Dave McCoy on October  3, 2022, 01:56:40 am ---Because net spend is only one financial aspect of the club's whole financial situation. Transfer fees are not an absolute indication of player quality. What matters most is to get CL level quality players across the whole squad for whatever the fee is and then pay them to stick around so you can build a coherent team and win things. If you are able to build a CORE of players that win trophies for cheaper than the market would indicate does that mean you weren't spending enough? Seemingly for most of our fans that answer is yes which is ridiculous.

Once you build that CORE and only need to do 2-4 transfers a year but have a ton of other assets that you can sell that aren't part of the CORE, should you just not sell them so it looks like you're spending more? Should you just spend more on those 2-4 transfers even though it's not necessary to do so? Again for a lot of our fans the answer is seemingly yes.

Mo just hand waves all this away by saying Klopp is loyal to a fault and our wage bill isn't anything out of line with our competitors which is disingenuous. If he agrees that FSG and LFC's intent is to clearly win things then how does that square with them intentionally sabotaging it by refusing to spend?

The bottom line for me is FSG hired a host of people to run LFC. They have the entirety of the teams revenue to use, nothing is going back to Boston, and they usually make great decisions in doing this. Maybe it will never make us on par with ManC but that goes for the entirety of the rest of the PL. Now maybe finally for once they made some bad player recruitment decisions. Does that mean they were intentionally trying to do that? No. Does that mean FSG was intentionally trying to make LFC worth less by falling out of a CL spot? No. Nobody is perfect, bad things can and do happen. European football isn't fair, it never has been.

The other thing that keeps getting glossed over is turning over a trophy winning team is hard. In my lifetime I can only recall SAF and now Pep doing it successfully with the same team. Maybe it's not something in Klopp's wheelhouse? As far as I can tell he's never really had to do it either. Not that this is solely on him but if this is a collaborative approach then Klopp saying he wants to keep the band together as long as possible, which clearly seems to be happening, is going to make that turnover into the next LFC take longer.

So yes, for all those reasons and more just pointing to "net spend" is bullshit and anybody who focuses solely on that should be laughed out of the thread.


--- End quote ---

We can maybe take issue with Chatra's speculations but what he is saying as his basic premise seems incontrovertible. Whatever the reason, liverpool fc has substantially underinvested and now they have a prematurely aged core to their team who is not able to sustain the performance levels that is required of them.  Of course the solution isn't just to splash the cash but part of the solution must involve spending the requisite moneys to sign the younger more dynamic players we need to bring the performance level back up to scratch.

Hysterical Fool:

--- Quote from: Dave McCoy on October  3, 2022, 01:56:40 am ---Because net spend is only one financial aspect of the club's whole financial situation. Transfer fees are not an absolute indication of player quality. What matters most is to get CL level quality players across the whole squad for whatever the fee is and then pay them to stick around so you can build a coherent team and win things. If you are able to build a CORE of players that win trophies for cheaper than the market would indicate does that mean you weren't spending enough? Seemingly for most of our fans that answer is yes which is ridiculous.

Once you build that CORE and only need to do 2-4 transfers a year but have a ton of other assets that you can sell that aren't part of the CORE, should you just not sell them so it looks like you're spending more? Should you just spend more on those 2-4 transfers even though it's not necessary to do so? Again for a lot of our fans the answer is seemingly yes.

Mo just hand waves all this away by saying Klopp is loyal to a fault and our wage bill isn't anything out of line with our competitors which is disingenuous. If he agrees that FSG and LFC's intent is to clearly win things then how does that square with them intentionally sabotaging it by refusing to spend?

The bottom line for me is FSG hired a host of people to run LFC. They have the entirety of the teams revenue to use, nothing is going back to Boston, and they usually make great decisions in doing this. Maybe it will never make us on par with ManC but that goes for the entirety of the rest of the PL. Now maybe finally for once they made some bad player recruitment decisions. Does that mean they were intentionally trying to do that? No. Does that mean FSG was intentionally trying to make LFC worth less by falling out of a CL spot? No. Nobody is perfect, bad things can and do happen. European football isn't fair, it never has been.

The other thing that keeps getting glossed over is turning over a trophy winning team is hard. In my lifetime I can only recall SAF and now Pep doing it successfully with the same team. Maybe it's not something in Klopp's wheelhouse? As far as I can tell he's never really had to do it either. Not that this is solely on him but if this is a collaborative approach then Klopp saying he wants to keep the band together as long as possible, which clearly seems to be happening, is going to make that turnover into the next LFC take longer.

So yes, for all those reasons and more just pointing to "net spend" is bullshit and anybody who focuses solely on that should be laughed out of the thread.

--- End quote ---

Agree and just to add that player transfers are historically difficult to get right and they generally only represent value around 50% of the time.

ThePoolMan:

--- Quote from: Historical Fool on October  3, 2022, 05:21:07 am ---Agree and just to add that player transfers are historically difficult to get right and they generally only represent value around 50% of the time.

--- End quote ---

Winning the league is also historically difficult to do but that doesn't stop 5 or 6 of the clubs in the premiership to do their best to win  it every season. The point is that if signing the right player is difficult, managing to cultivate and grow youth players into world class levels to be ready at exactly the right time is even harder. There is no alternative to signing better and younger players to replace those players who are getting too long jn the tooth to perform to the same standard.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version