You're second line is what I was getting at. Losing is one thing but getting humiliated like that across the season is exceptionally bad. Other teams can match the defeat record but even the poor ones realise they have to tighten up at times.Originally Posted by Letters
Last edited by Kano; 22-04-2014 at 05:13 PM.
It happening 3 times in one season is pretty bad (arguably twice, I thought we played pretty well at City and could have been closer).
You'd have thought after the 2nd one we'd have approached the 3rd differently.
Other way around - gross spend irrelevant, net spend all important. A negative net spend shows talent going out, negative plus shows talent coming in. In the main. And you don't really need to examine the figures because it's self evident when you see who we sold compared to who we bought. The quality has ebbed away all over the pitch - consequence of funding business operations with player transfers. Should reverse now though, first signs of that being last summer.As can be seen, we are only just behind Chelsea, and 800K ahead of Liverpool. Now I know that this ignores transfer spending - and that is where we have a more legitimate claim to have been relative paupers these past few years - but Rogers has spent 100M on transfers since he has been at Liverpool - and while I haven't checked, I would imagine that we have spent at least this much (for these purposes, net spend is irrelevant).
Für eure Sicherheit
No - for comparative purposes, I think that net spend is irrelevant. Look at it this way - Liverpool have funded player purchases without having to sell the crown jewels. Granted, the financial model is an alternative to ours. But without financial doping they have made effective use of their resources. For me, its where both clubs are now - in light of spending (not sales) that is a valid comparison of our respective achievements.
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
You used to be everything to me
Now you're tired of fighting
Dental plan!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote