The Official Liverpool Thread - Part 2

[Philby]

You’d expect they will be one of the highest though in terms of salaries to total revenue %.

Not so sure on that front. Liverpool were lower mid-table on salary/revenue ratio last season.

An increase in wages this season would likely be buffered by an increase in revenues off the back of the title win.

 

[Nollaig O Muracu]

The Group Therapy is a jy to behold.

 

[The Duke]

View attachment 43485

Newsflash: City sell players too.

Got 90 million for Alvarez last summer. Caught Bumnal for about 90 million for Hey Zeus and Zinchenko a few years before that. That's just off the top of my head.

I'm sure there's plenty more. Yer a big club who always spend big and have since the time of Paisley.

Deal. With. It.

Absolutely agree. Liverpool do spend massively. The point though is that the club spend in a sustainable manner (since FSG came onboard anyway) and within their means, that is, their approach is spending based on earnings and always with an eye on offsetting (to a degree) spend with incoming transfer fees. I don’t want to go down the net spend rabbit hole with you, it’s all been said before. I personally think it’s disingenuous to only look at the money spent and to criticise clubs for that. Any business is run on the basis of debits and credits, costs and revenue, incomings and outgoings. Football is no different. The data is all there in terms of transfer spend over the last 10 years. Comparing City to Liverpool in the transfer market doesn’t remotely stack up.

 

[The Duke]

Not so sure on that front. Liverpool were lower mid-table on salary/revenue ratio last season.

An increase in wages this season would likely be buffered by an increase in revenues off the back of the title win.

Fair enough. Haven’t seen any data on this. Intuitively I would be surprised to see them that low down in the ‘rankings’.

Edit: you are absolutely correct. According to Swiss Ramble (4 April 2025) for season 23-24 they were at 63% (14th position).

 

[Philby]

I personally think it’s disingenuous to only look at the money spent and to criticise clubs for that. Any business is run on the basis of debits and credits, costs and revenue, incomings and outgoings. Football is no different. The data is all there in terms of transfer spend over the last 10 years. Comparing City to Liverpool in the transfer market doesn’t remotely stack up.

Exactly.

Spending big money once on a player is not the same as spending a similar fee for a player (who bombs), his replacement (who also bombs) and his replacement (who will also likely bomb).

And selling a high-performing player to use the money to improve the squad is not the same as making those same purchases without having to move anyone on.

But some (purposely) fail to get this.

 

[Handy Run]

Fair enough. Haven’t seen any data on this. Intuitively I would be surprised to see them that low down in the ‘rankings’.

Edit: you are absolutely correct. According to Swiss Ramble (4 April 2025) for season 23-24 they were at 63% (14th position).

Looking at one season is disingenuous too. You need to look over a few years as each year can differ drastically from one year to the next

 

[The Duke]

Looking at one season is disingenuous too. You need to look over a few years as each year can differ drastically from one year to the next

Yup you may well be right Handy. I’m sure the data is there somewhere. However, I would be very surprised (and concerned!) if there was a drastic change year on year. That would speak to very bad financial planning on the part of the club finance function! Budget cycles are typically done on a three year outlook. Also, given that player contracts are multi annual there is a certain degree of foresight in your largest single current cost (salaries); added to the fact that a not insignificant degree of player remuneration is variable and tied to on field performance i.e. on field success (more revenue) correlates to higher player payments (and vice versa).

 

[Nollaig O Muracu]

Exactly.

Spending big money once on a player is not the same as spending a similar fee for a player (who bombs), his replacement (who also bombs) and his replacement (who will also likely bomb).

And selling a high-performing player to use the money to improve the squad is not the same as making those same purchases without having to move anyone on.

But some (purposely) fail to get this.

No m8, what you purposely fail to get is this.

When a club does well their recruitment is also doing well. So their net spend bollocks does well too as they have good players other clubs want.

In net spend terms Liverpool outspent united most of the time when they were shit (do i have to bump Xvis thread again?). Because United had gems like Ronnie, Becks and RVN that other clubs wanted to buy.

Ive not looked into it but have seen it said that Fergie made a net profit from 2005 to 2013.

And so what if he did? He still bought top class talent like Tevez, Berba, Carrick, Eva, Vidic and RVP. Because back then United were well able to afford it.

As were Liverpool for most of the 90s and 00s despite having very little to show for it trophy wise. It's just yer recruitment was poor and so your net spend went up. Ye were still a wealthy club well able to spend fortunes when ye needed to. Just like now.

Seriously, about to spend the bones of 300 million in a summer and still wanting to pretend yer a little guy in a hopeless battle with City is comedy gold.

Carry on. I could do with some laughs given what's going on at Utd.

 

[Philby]

I think you've lost the run of your argument at this stage buddy,

Nobody is disputing that Liverpool have bought some expensive players. That's just a faacccccchhhhhttttttt.

Nobody is disputing that Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in the world.

Liverpool fans on here have simply pointed out that in the last decade or so the club have been heavily outspent (gross, net, first captain, second captain whateva') by a broad range of teams (domestically & across the continent) but still managed to compete at the top table and overachieve relative to the money which they actually spent.

Ive not looked into it but have seen it said that Fergie made a net profit from 2005 to 2013.

And so what if he did? He still bought top class talent like Tevez, Berba, Carrick, Eva, Vidic and RVP. Because back then United were well able to afford it.

If he did then it's a hell of an achievement as, like Klopp / Slot (so far), he was able to keep the club highly competitive despite being outspent by rivals.

That's a good thing. A very good thing.

The fact that Ferguson bought some expensive players is less important than the fact that he overachieved relative to his spend.

A club's achievement relative to their net spend tells you much more about a manager's performance than just cherry picking a few expensive players and saying "...ah he's had money to spend", however much you may try to oversimplify it.

If you agree with the above then we have very little to argue about (...which would indeed be a shame).

Seriously, about to spend the bones of 300 million in a summer and still wanting to pretend yer a little guy in a hopeless battle with City is comedy gold.

I've not done this. Except the Arsenal lot of course. Not that there's many of them left on here anymore.

 

[Nollaig O Muracu]

This thread is about to go nuclear.


Compare Liverpools and City's net spend for the last 5 years.

Arsenal above Chelsea in five-year Premier League net spend table

Forget the league table, it's all about the Premier League net spend table. And Chelsea have been unseated at last...

www.football365.com