The Assasination of Claffys': Part 3 MAN U !

[Sir X]

How LFC consistent positive net spend in the 90s,resulted in a decreased squad value and increased wage bill and a fall from grace or How Man U got more out of less to knock LFC off its perch by the begining of the century- spending @ times a negative net spend to increase squad value ,therby increasing wages.


http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2013/09...0-to-2012.html

Of note from another site below ,Man U won the Prem with a negative net spend in 00/01- the point is you can build value by building with less money to get value ,it can be done and it has been done ,and its not determined by only having a positive net spend ,or a massive net spend as shown by Man U.

More so an astute world class coach,Proof CLAFFYS' were wrong about BR.


http://www.transferleague.co.uk/manc...ited-transfers



Klopp a man on Par or above Sir Alex ..hehe is on the same path to get more out of less,as reported by various news agencies ,he has a built a threatning squad with a negative net spend,throwing claffys amongst us in disaray as going against thier percieved norm ,but as Sir Alex has shown,doing it Klopps way is the norm...hehe.

http://www.espnfc.us/club/liverpool/...-act-for-klopp


http://www.thisisanfield.com/2016/09...mer-liverpool/


The Transfer market anotherwebsite , has a positive net spend of 600K,still way below our rivals.Some of us will dwell on the semantics of the grammar in this presentation others will dwell on the granular about consistency...lol


Of note this website left out , João Carlos Teixeira £250,000 and Lawrence Vigouroux £360,000 which would have made it a negative net spend O.K Pet'y .One thing is for sure LFC will get more out of less .


http://www.transfermarkt.com/liverpo...saison_id/2016


Easy nuh man.

[Rockman]

I really do not know why Man U somehow always get mentioned by you fans of Liverpool,it certainly runs contrary to those amongst us who will never buy a copy of Fergie's book,scholars or what?

[Sir X]

Uncomfortable truths,the positive net spend and increase in wages by LFC in the 90s led to our demise or DECREASE in squad value and your rise because of one reason,Rux coaches! Any fool who only looks at the quantitative data of money to garner success with out factoring the qualitative of a Bonafide world class coach,manager,leader,CEO etc will look like a claffy.

The figures include all transfers up to and including 31 May 2012.

* The accounts for the last year are not yet available, and I didn't want to include estimates in these factual tables.

* The figures come directly from Liverpool and Manchester United's official financial accounts, i.e. the only factual, irrefutable source.

[Paul Marin]

Uncomfortable truths,the positive net spend and increase in wages by LFC in the 90s led to our demise or DECREASE in squad value and your rise because of one reason,Rux coaches! Any fool who only looks at the quantitative data of money to garner success with out factoring the qualitative of a Bonafide world class coach,manager,leader,CEO etc will look like a claffy.

The figures include all transfers up to and including 31 May 2012.

* The accounts for the last year are not yet available, and I didn't want to include estimates in these factual tables.

* The figures come directly from Liverpool and Manchester United's official financial accounts, i.e. the only factual, irrefutable source.

Like I said, each post cements and confirms your stupidity and intellectual inferiority. One last time: to *consistently* challenge for the title, a negative or positive spend only matters if it brings your wage bill and squad value on par with your rivals and par is sustained year over year.

Secondly, it is a given that a proper coach and administration etc. is required for a club to do well. After all, no one is saying that Spurs with a wage bill and squad value on par with City's if managed by you or Jangle would win anything. However, at the same time, even Jesus himself won't be able to maintain a sustained challenge for the title year over year unless parity is achieved with the top clubs.

Third, (because you keep referencing "one offs"), a one off win, e.g. Leicester winning the title, is not a sustained challenge. If Leicester this year finish in the top 2 or 3, then maybe they have found the secret sauce, but I don't see that happening.

Fourth, you can't compare LFC's 3 campaign squad value to City's or Manu's or Arsenal's 4 campaign squad unless you are going to *stupidly* suggest that LFC's summer spend would have been the same had we had a 4th campaign. But hey, it's you we're dealing with.

Continue to post ignorance. It confirms what we all know about you already. LOL!!!

[Sir X]

.............................lololololol........CL AAAAAFFFFFYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

.....a negative or positive spend only matters (if) it brings your wage bill and squad value on par with your rivals and par is sustained year over year.



CLAFFY , PAN DEM !

[Paul Marin]

.............................lololololol........CL AAAAAFFFFFYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

.....a negative or positive spend only matters (if) it brings your wage bill and squad value on par with your rivals and par is sustained year over year.
CLAFFY , PAN DEM !

Like I said, you're an idiot and forever a fool. LOL!!! You give no explanation to your perspective because none makes any sense. I have said the very same thing several times, but you are intellectually crippled, and too stupid to get it. ~sigh To wit, the mere fact that you posted this:

"Based on the net spend being negative, according to your theory we will not be competitive this season?" More proof that you are incapable of good grammar nd just as importantly, incapable of comprehending a simple principle of "consistency". I have expressly stated many times that one title is not an example of mounting a "consistent" challenge (i.e. year over year). I used LFC almost winning under Rodgers and LCFC actually winning under Ranieri as examples of winning (or being close) but not being able to challenge consistently. But of course, it's over your head. You need to admit to yourself, (like the alcoholic that refuses to admit to his affliction), that you're an idiot, only then will there be hope. LOL!!! Bye!!! By the way, the shelter called, they found your dog, the one you spent hours training: http://imgur.com/M3AcnQz

[Sir X]

Pauly calling me names doesnt hide the fact you are a claffy , is it that you seek company ?


.....a negative or positive spend only matters (if) it brings your wage bill and squad value on par with your rivals and par is sustained year over year......


All I have to say is I am glad you have factored in a negative net spend ........lolol, so it doesnt matter if your wage bill isnt on par with your rivals, consistently of course .

Also if you have a consistent- sustained negative net spend how does the squad value increase , year after year ?

.....lolol........man can suh fool ...CLAFFFFYYYYYYYYYYYYYY PAN DEM !


GWANNNN CLAFFFYYYYYY VODOOO ECONOMICS SESSION , Yuh a cook up something hard Claffy


GWAAAN CLAFFY , one day , one day yuh theory aguh buss .

[Paul Marin]

Pauly calling me names doesnt hide the fact you are a claffy , is it that you seek company ?


.....a negative or positive spend only matters (if) it brings your wage bill and squad value on par with your rivals and par is sustained year over year......


All I have to say is I am glad you have factored in a negative net spend ........lolol, so it doesnt matter if your wage bill isnt on par with your rivals, consistently of course .

Also if you have a consistent- sustained negative net spend how does the squad value increase , year after year ?

.....lolol........man can suh fool ...CLAFFFFYYYYYYYYYYYYYY PAN DEM !


GWANNNN CLAFFFYYYYYY VODOOO ECONOMICS SESSION , Yuh a cook up something hard Claffy


GWAAAN CLAFFY , one day , one day yuh theory aguh buss .

Like I said, you are too stupid. Each post reconfirms it. Perfect example:

so it doesnt matter if your wage bill isnt on par with your rivals, consistently of course

Klown, the point has never been about net spend other than it gaining you wage bill/squad value parity...a point that continues to elude your likkle brain. You get you dog back yet? LOL!!!

[Sir X]

I am asking questions Claffy of the new economics: Voodoo!

Not making any definte statements , just giving you bait to expose you , for what you are ...a Claffy !

the point has never been about net spend (other )than it gaining you wage bill/squad value parity

a) Is there another point ,please share ?

...a negative or positive spend only matters (if) it brings your wage bill and squad value on par with your rivals and par is sustained year over year.

b) So LFC sustatained positive net spend in the 90s did not matter because it decreased squad value ,but it increased the wage bill ? and Man U spending less @ times with a negative net spend did not matter ? but their squad value increased ?

c) There seems to be a contradiction in your theory claffy ?

Juss asking, CLAFFY, CLAFFY, CLAFFFYYYYY ! to di worl in full flight.

[Sir X]

Claffy yuh a hide ?

Interesting looking at the chart LFC/Benitez in 08/09 had a negative net spend of -6.4 and finished 2nd , a year later he was sacked - Claffy stated his time had run out and Hodgson could get more out of less.

Hodgson had a positive net spend of 50 plus million and took us into a relegation battle by christmas, K.D stepped in and took us to 6th.

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2013/09...0-to-2012.html


Claffy says ...a negative or positive spend only matters (if) it brings your wage bill and squad value on par with your rivals and par is sustained year over year..........he tries to clarify it when pressed as to what he means stating ..................the point has never been about net spend (other )than it gaining you wage bill/squad value parity


O.K Claffy , its only - if- other than and never .......LOL....

MAN CAN SUH FOOOOLLLLLLLL ! Yuh cant even explain or defen yuh net spen, it tun inna next spend....lol

[Paul Marin]

I am asking questions Claffy of the new economics: Voodoo!

Not making any definte statements , just giving you bait to expose you , for what you are ...a Claffy !

the point has never been about net spend (other )than it gaining you wage bill/squad value parity

a) Is there another point ,please share ?

...a negative or positive spend only matters (if) it brings your wage bill and squad value on par with your rivals and par is sustained year over year.

b) So LFC sustatained positive net spend in the 90s did not matter because it decreased squad value ,but it increased the wage bill ? and Man U spending less @ times with a negative net spend did not matter ? but their squad value increased ?

c) There seems to be a contradiction in your theory claffy ?

Juss asking, CLAFFY, CLAFFY, CLAFFFYYYYY ! to di worl in full flight.

LOL! Like I said, each time you open your mouth you put your foot in it. Your questions prove you are an idiot. If I explain the logic of 2+2 = 4, and 10-2 = 8, to the question "What is 6-2?", when answered "4", you come back with, "I thought 4 was 2+2?" He he he...sheer genius. Good luck. To "b)" above, it shows your ignorance; you are babbling on incoherently...stop smoking weed, it's obvious that it impairs your little brain power adversely. Wheel an' tun Einstein. Whhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeelllllll an tun. LOL!!!

[Paul Marin]

Claffy yuh a hide ?

Interesting looking at the chart LFC/Benitez in 08/09 had a negative net spend of -6.4 and finished 2nd , a year later he was sacked - Claffy stated his time had run out and Hodgson could get more out of less.

Hodgson had a positive net spend of 50 plus million and took us into a relegation battle by christmas, K.D stepped in and took us to 6th.

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2013/09...0-to-2012.html


Claffy says ...a negative or positive spend only matters (if) it brings your wage bill and squad value on par with your rivals and par is sustained year over year..........he tries to clarify it when pressed as to what he means stating ..................the point has never been about net spend (other )than it gaining you wage bill/squad value parity


O.K Claffy , its only - if- other than and never .......LOL....

MAN CAN SUH FOOOOLLLLLLLL ! Yuh cant even explain or defen yuh net spen, it tun inna next spend....lol

LOL! you are a bwoy to me youth man...bwwoooy!! You have no sense, no brains, no talent. Every post you make is a collection of incoherent babbling with no discerning point delivered with the writing skills of an imbecile.

[Sir X]

You seem unhinged ........lol.....a bet yuh leff di net spend arguement alone,like yuh leff di made up quote alone....all I am doing is asking for clarification and yuh a brindle like a Claffy,wid yuh name calling ,yuh nuh ear calling me names doesn't hide the facts........esp this one,yuh a claffy.Now the world has seen ...Yuh a Claffy,nuff big chat and caan defen dat,Nuff big words and not a clue how to use them ...

Claffy !


Haha lolol .... Claffy...hehe.

[Paul Marin]

You seem unhinged ........lol.....a bet yuh leff di net spend arguement alone,like yuh leff di made up quote alone....all I am doing is asking for clarification and yuh a brindle like a Claffy,wid yuh name calling ,yuh nuh ear calling me names doesn't hide the facts........esp this one,yuh a claffy.Now the world has seen ...Yuh a Claffy,nuff big chat and caan defen dat,Nuff big words and not a clue how to use them ...

Claffy !


Haha lolol .... Claffy...hehe.

Delusional as usual. I'm not unhinged at all. And those aren't names, those are accurate interpretations of your intellectual state of mind. More correctly, I am simply calling out your eternal stupidity. You are always making an ass of yourself and sadly, not able to see it. There is not one forumite who has ever come to your rescue and no one who has ever embraced any of your stupid little mantras ("more with less", "new paradigm", oh...and the "quadrilteral" LOL!) Not one. Good luck in your alternate reality. Ha ha ha. Twit. Anyway - what is it you're asking to be clarified that has not already been explained 10,000 times? After a while, your ignorance becomes boring.

[Sir X]

Claffy : Rants !

There is not one forumite who has ever come to your rescue

* Do I need rescue, did I asked to be rescued ? You have quite a few rescuing you , lets See , Sass, Peter & Mo - the three stoogies or Claffy's.You even set up a Poll begging for rescue , went to the Man U camp and dem ave yuh like fool a geow yuh bout BR.Now yuh get catch wid yuh net spend from it buss mi tell yuh is a red herring , yuh move di net spend arguement from

...only - if- other than and never .Yuh unhinged , tun fool.Yuh arguement get killed claffy, assasinated,cant defend it , yuh tek on something yuh nuh ave a clue bout, read it inna somee online article run wid it , buk yuh toe and end up pan yuh face, a look who a stand up ova yuh and yuh a look up to di X ......and bufff, mi kill yuh !


LOLOL.......CLAFFFYY !