KLOPP: Work with what you have to get more

[Paul Marin]

So if you say consistently , then you have contradicted yourself when you said ....Squad value therefore, can only be INCREASED with a POSITIVE net spend (Pauly)

Consistently isnt the same as only ,only implies one result- or the final outcome ! Consistently means repetitive behavior.

There lies your problem, i have never denied that a positive net spend should give you a consistent positive results, you and Petey seem hell bent on making that my point of issue - THE SPIN !

I have stated you can get more out of less to consistently challenge for positive results, in this case top 4.

You need to do what you do best flip , agree , give me my ratings - you can get more out of less- consistently.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Proof positive that you're an idiot! Re-read your rubbish; hopefully you'll realise how stupid you really are. Please explain how we will achieve WAGE PARITY and SQUAD VALUE PARITY without a positive net spend (it being understood that appreciation/depreciation basically are a wash). Secondly, you keep making ass-inine posts about "net spend" trying to make a linkage between "performance on the day" and the current "net spend" figures as if that's some validation with your stupid "more with less" mantra which (by your admission) will only get us to top 4.

I HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID THAT WAGE AND SQUAD VALUE PARITY WITH CHELSEA, MANU AND CITY IS NECESSARY TO CONSISTENTLY CHALLENGE FOR THE TITLE - NOT EFFING TOP 4 YOU EFFING ASS!!! TOP 4 ASPIRATIONS IS FOR ARSENAL, EVERTON AND SPURS!!! REAL LFC FANS WANT THE TITLE YOU IDIOT. AND WE WANT TO CHALLENGE FOR IT EVERY EFFING YEAR!!!! Challenging every year is where City, Chelsea and Manu are and we will not be in their company without increased squad value and wage bill parity. PERIOD!!! That does not mean to say that we can't win a title - Leicester did, BR almost did it - but CONSISTENTLY means YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR we have to be in the mix come May!

It is pretty obvious that with the continued deterioration of your intellectual capacity, you are proving that you're capable of doing less and less with less...consistently! Those are your ratings.

[Sir X]

....You said it,not me.....only....hehe,and I am the idiot.You failed English comprehension in class didn't you.

[Peter R]

Paul, I tried to explain acquisition cost vs market value to X, and my "lesson" might as well have been flushed down the toilet!...wait, I think it was!! LOL

It appears, according to transfermarkt that players sent on loan (i.e. after they have been bought) and those returning from loans, are considered in their (the site's) market valuation and "net spend" calculation (market value basis)... they have some criteria by which they apply a market value to players, but IMO, that's a bit of a crapshoot. The site does however separate market from acquisition and sell costs in another column. That to me is the better judge of how the club's money has been spent, when measured against performance and IF we want to compare teams.That's how I see it with my limited knowledge of what happens in fact. Appreciation/depreciation are subject to bias and error to be dependable. That said, one can easily pick out the standouts whose market value has increased/decreased... by how much? that's a shaky figure IMO.

And the site does indicate that LFC had a very small positive net spend, i.e. LFC spent MORE than it brought in on sales (to be clear).

[Paul Marin]

....You said it,not me.....only....hehe,and I am the idiot.You failed English comprehension in class didn't you.

No, I did not fail English...it is clear however though, that you didn't show up to class, much less fail. More to the point, you are a fraud and to show you how incredibly stupid and disingenuous you are, you leave out the relevant aspect of my posts focusing only on elements you chose to take out of context...but I may be giving you too much credit, you really may be that stupid. For the record, what I said EXACTLY was:

...mitigating factors such as player depreciation/appreciation aside....squad value can only be INCREASED with a POSITIVE net spend, and to challenge for the title consistently, it has to create a squad value COMPARABLE to the top teams AND the comparative differences in squad values have to be maintained if not reduced.

If you weren't so stupid, you'd realise that the argument has more to do with comparative squad value and wage bill, not net spend...but with your kindergarten brain, you can't make the leap...sad.

For the record, here is a link to the full post...not what this peashead eedyat interpreted
http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...ide#post563839

[Paul Marin]

Paul, I tried to explain acquisition cost vs market value to X, and my "lesson" might as well have been flushed down the toilet!...wait, I think it was!! LOL

It appears, according to transfermarkt that players sent on loan (i.e. after they have been bought) and those returning from loans, are considered in their (the site's) market valuation and "net spend" calculation (market value basis)... they have some criteria by which they apply a market value to players, but IMO, that's a bit of a crapshoot. The site does however separate market from acquisition and sell costs in another column. That to me is the better judge of how the club's money has been spent, when measured against performance and IF we want to compare teams.That's how I see it with my limited knowledge of what happens in fact. Appreciation/depreciation are subject to bias and error to be dependable. That said, one can easily pick out the standouts whose market value has increased/decreased... by how much? that's a shaky figure IMO.

And the site does indicate that LFC had a very small positive net spend, i.e. LFC spent MORE than it brought in on sales (to be clear).

I agree that the only numbers that should count are the ones you say. Until they are sold on or bought (or a credible offer is made) the valuation of each player is speculative. So counting an inflated/deflated number for the purpose of computing overall squad value only skews the interpretation of the overall team value subjectively. My problem with our "net spend" figure this year is that it was not enough to bring us even close to par with the top teams. We lie 5th according to transfermarkt in overall squad value. Now, we don't have Europe, so that may be enough as it was with Rodgers to bring us to challenge for the title this year, but to be there year after year will require new owners with deeper pockets, or the present ones have to buss out the check book. If Leicester repeats this year or comes close, I will stand corrected.