The thing is we have a sell-to-buy policy. The majority of our transfer kitty comes from player sales. You look at our record incoming tranfer fees received and under FSG it has always dwarfed our record fee paid. Currently, it is £142m received and up to £85m spent. Given transfer inflation, our record fee received is around double what we have ever paid.
The success has been built on spending other people's money wisely backed up by the genius of Klopp. So the huge sums received either directly or indirectly from the oil clubs has been fundamental to our success. Since we stopped receiving money from the oil clubs directly or indirectly our spending has dried up.
The thing is, Al, these are distinct data points that you've tied together with a preconceived narrative. Which is fine, that's what humans do. It might even be correct. But it's just one of the possible narratives.
Clubs buy and sell players. Almost any club on earth could be accused of "the majority of our transfer kitty comes from player sales". It's churn. It's taking a portion of our revenue and deciding that
that portion is allocated to
that item of expenditure, like arguing that the NHS is paid for by NI, not PAYE. It doesn't matter. Player sales is quite a small proportion of our overall revenue.
Between 2017 and 2021, three of the big six spent, respectively, 85%, 85% and 87% of their total player expenses (i.e. minus sales) on wages, rather than net spend. The other three spent 78%, 70% and 75%. The latter three haven't won anything other than the transfer windows, and an FA Cup.
"Bloody penny pinching, they've made a profit selling Keegan and buying this Dalglish bloke. Why don't they invest and stick a million in for that Francis fella?".
