• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Victimpool FC - Klopp leaving, grown men crying

XdTTGyI.jpg

CFyvhc6UEAAl9Hq.jpg

2mwt5bk.jpg

11141159_10153021834326859_2956246599735014924_n.jpg

HilariousSnappyAlbertosaurus.gif
 
Legohamster said:
I think he has done a fantastic job at BD, but Ramos did brilliantly in Spain, AVB in Portugal!

It might not be a decent fit, I actually think we would be a better fit.

Anyway. Back to laughing at Liverpool


Bloke on TS today
Click to expand...

That has to be a joke call, it's like the YNFA spoof commentaries of liverpool games.
 
Scary levels of accuracy from a Liverpool fan on RAWK

Of course, he got the usual abuse of someone going against the deluded tide of opinion over there. His perceived ability to predict the future took a small hit with this latest response though: "Concurrently, I hope RAWK will start acting like grown ups when someone has an opinion that goes against the tide."
 
Jordinho said:
If someone is in the 40-70K bracket, Pool are most likely paying them 70-100K.
Click to expand...

This is true. I seem to recall about 10 years or so back when 70k a week was still considered a fortune in footballing terms Saudi Sportswashing Machine and West Ham seemed to almost have a policy on doing just that.
 
Neymar said:
you cant just look at expenditure on players alone. firstly, liverpools transfer activity this seasons was largely offset by the suarez sale. but more importantly, like us, the season we sold bale, liverpool bought players who are in the 40-70k p/w category. and their current squad is largely made up of players in that quality bracket. the total amount spent on the players is largely irrelevant. thats what made rodgers' comment on us so ridiculous/delusional a couple of seasons ago (im referring to the "100m..challenge for the title"). whatever we spent that summer, our sqaud was still made up of 40-70k p/w players. the 'problem' for us ad liverpool is that we cant really afford to have those 100-140k p/w like arsenal do, or even the 250k players that the top 3 have. we simply cant afford to take on that kind of risk. at the start of the season, i pointed out that liverpool would be in an almighty fight if they were to finish in the top 4, despite what the media and rodgers and liverpool fans were saying/hoping for (another title challenge). liverpool's financial structure means that even a 4th place finish is a massive acheivment.

in addition, you can quite clearly see that fsg are trying to reduce expenditure at liverpool. liverpool have been making significant operating losses over the past few years. and its only this season that they have managed to break even. *my source is the swissramble blog. rodgers has had to offload high wage earners like pepe reina and replace him with the cheaper but weaker option that is mignolet. also in terms of transfer activity, fsg dont really seem to be investing like previous owners (espeically when compared to rafa benitez' reign). most of their acitivty seems to be balanced by player sales.

in short, liverpool's best players are the likes of coutinho and sterling. to expect this kind of squad to constantly challenge teams made up of players like {ozil, alexis}, {silva, yaya}, {hazard, fabregas}, {rooney, mata, di maria} is delusional. the difference is that all those players are quite obviously 100k+ p/w players (and they have many more of this level of player), whilst liverpool arguably have no players that are in the 100k plus bracket (perhaps apart from sterling). when liverpool have had this calibre of player over the past few seasons, they have not been able to afford them, so have sold them off. much like they will probably end up having to do with sterling. so it doesnt matter how much a team like liverpool spend net in transfer fees. the more important thing to look at is the calibre of player they are bringing in. and quite honestly, i dont think rodgers has been given the license to get a much better bunch of players than the ones he has done.
Click to expand...

According to this

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/29/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

Liverpool's wage bill in 2014 was £144m, ours was £100m, Arsenal's £166m
 
Raziel said:
What? not sure where you got that from, Pool's expenditure on buys & wages in last 5 years (3 of Rodgers) is double ours and very close to Scum's ..

You could just look at last season's buys, plus the wages on offer for some of their younger players .. stupid money, crud results
Click to expand...
milo said:
According to this

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/29/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

Liverpool's wage bill in 2014 was £144m, ours was £100m, Arsenal's £166m
Click to expand...

FWIW... figures from http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/ and http://www.transferleague.co.uk/...

w8wbav.jpg
 
when the "sack race" market comes out in July, I'll be having a few quid on Rodgers, no manager will be under greater pressure if they don;t start the season well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back