What's new

The Mauricio Pochettino thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coco-1101

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
587
995
No, I've given you a "wtf" for completely twisting the point.

"Net spend" is transfer expenditure. If you sell a player for £60m and buy another for £70m, you haven't "spent" £70m - you've spent £10m.
But that is from the business point of view. We are not comparing managers with net spend but how much budget is available and of which quality they can buy players.
 

SheffieldAndy

Friends with the monster under my bed.
Jul 4, 2012
1,677
1,985
No, I've given you a "wtf" for completely twisting the point.

"Net spend" is transfer expenditure. If you sell a player for £60m and buy another for £70m, you haven't "spent" £70m - you've spent £10m.
Net spend is just a crude way to evaluate money in vs money out. Transfer expenditure is how much spent is spent on transfers. Transfer income and transfer expenditure are not necessarily intrinsically linked in that basic of a fashion.
 

PeeLee

Active Member
Oct 2, 2019
208
218
Murphy is right on the comments about Poch needing to ditch the diamond and looking to play a 433, but wrong on the personnel.

At this stage there is no coming back for Eriksen, Alderweireld, Vertonghen and maybe even Rose. They should be transitioned out and told to focus on finding new clubs.
That interview clip with Danny Murphy that you link to, was a systematic analysis of what's what at Tottenham, and a cut above the kind of media punditry from windbags that too often pad out such programmes. It was a fascinating piece of radio from someone who played for Liverpool, Spurs and Fulham and who is an accomplished explainer of how footballers think and behave.
 
May 17, 2018
11,872
47,993
I have no idea it will be so hard for you to understand. When you spend less and buy more players that mean lower quality. likes of Llorente, nkoudu, njie, aurier e.t.c
When you spend more on few players that means high quality Likes of Van dyke, Allison, Mane, firmino, salah e.t.c

I am not talking about net spends and all other stuff. I am talking about how much budget is available for each of them.

Stop being patronising. You're making a straw man.
 
May 17, 2018
11,872
47,993
Net spend is just a crude way to evaluate money in vs money out. Transfer expenditure is how much spent is spent on transfers. Transfer income and transfer expenditure are not necessarily intrinsically linked in that basic of a fashion.
But that is from the business point of view. We are not comparing managers with net spend but how much budget is available and of which quality they can buy players.

Hence Klopp doesn't have a bigger budget (you know - the original point, before the straw-man army arrived).

Regardless, you can't just divide signings by total transfer cost and say "aha!" either, that's ridiculous and proves nothing - Aurier cost 5 times what Alli cost, so this whole line of logic is flawed on multiple levels.
 

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,453
38,521
Umm no.

Klopp has spent less money. A lot less. ~ £30m + Lo Celso less.

He has just deal with players of a higher value, as you'd expect at what is essentially a bigger club.
Thing is with Liverpool that they never stopped being a big club even during the 'lean years'. They still won a fair few trophies even though the premier league title eluded them. When people get irritated that we aren't competing with them - they never really stopped being a bigger club.
 

Coco-1101

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
587
995
Thing is with Liverpool that they never stopped being a big club even during the 'lean years'. They still won a fair few trophies even though the premier league title eluded them. When people get irritated that we aren't competing with them - they never really stopped being a bigger club.
No one is saying we are bigger than Lpool or we should spend the same as them.

The debate started on a point that its not fair that poch is compared with klopp and pep who have high budgets. That was it.
 
May 17, 2018
11,872
47,993
Thing is with Liverpool that they never stopped being a big club even during the 'lean years'. They still won a fair few trophies even though the premier league title eluded them. When people get irritated that we aren't competing with them - they never really stopped being a bigger club.

Definitely in European terms - they've never been irrelevant ( 4 CL finals and 2 wins in the last 15 years) which is pretty important for reputation and attracting players.

They've not been as stable as us, yo-yoing somewhat, but they have won more than we'd have been happy with.

In terms of the current comparisons, I'm surprised people are comparing Poch to various Man Utd scenarios, or 'Klopp at Dortmund', when one of the more relevant scenarios would be Rodgers at Liverpool.

As much as Rodgers is good and has kicked on since then, I bet none of their fans would change that decision.
 

SheffieldAndy

Friends with the monster under my bed.
Jul 4, 2012
1,677
1,985
Hence Klopp doesn't have a bigger budget (you know - the original point, before the straw-man army arrived).

Regardless, you can't just divide signings by total transfer cost and say "aha!" either, that's ridiculous and proves nothing - Aurier cost 5 times what Alli cost, so this whole line of logic is flawed on multiple levels.
Liverpool if you don’t stop ignoring the fact you’re comparing different timescales and calling it straw man, have pretty much exactly the same net spend which you’re so keen on quoting. But that doesn’t fit us spending a lot more than them that you like to trot out.

Though we are arguing hypotheticals as we have no idea how much either has to spend with or without outgoings. We do however know that Liverpool generate more than we do.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,687
104,969
[@TheAthletic] | Some Tottenham Hotspur players have started jokingly referring to Spurs boss Mauricio Pochettino as 'Big Brother' due to the manager's habit of watching training sessions on the club's CCTV systems

Here we go. Once bullshit like this comes out you know there’s a problem behind closed doors.
 
May 17, 2018
11,872
47,993
Liverpool if you don’t stop ignoring the fact you’re comparing different timescales and calling it straw man

I'm not calling that "Straw Man". The entire debate was based around debunking that Klopp has some sort of Pep-level budget that Poch does not.

Those two comparators are in different timescales, I can't help it if you have a problem with that. This is what you said:

So Klopp has spent more money on players in his shorter term as manager there. Got you.

Ignoring the passive-aggressive/patronising tone, that's a straw-man argument because it adds nothing to the discussion of whether Klopp has a Poch or Pep level budget.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,687
104,969
Really hope the club move forward ASAP. Can't help but think that this crap is going to drag on and on and I'm sick of it already.

I started the season envious of season ticket holders, now I'm absalutely gutted for them.

They're the ones paying the big bucks to watch a team that can't be arsed to put the effort in, play for each other or play for the manager, who in turn is so stubborn to persist with formations and tactics that don't work.

The whole situation is piss poor. Just feel sorry for people who have saved up and spent £1000's on tickets.

Don’t worry it was worse when we had to go and watch under Sherwood. I hated being there. This is nowhere near that yet. Nowhere near.
 

PeeLee

Active Member
Oct 2, 2019
208
218
Klopp has bought just under £400m worth vs Poch's £320 ish, but Poch is net at around £90m vs Klopp's £60m.
But Liverpool signings that contribute to that figure for them that you present, were made last January or earlier because this summer just gone Liverpool didn't make new signings, I believe. The Spurs figure that you give, on the other hand, is for players only very recently signed (who've mostly not played yet). And you need to keep in mind the relatively modest fees that Spurs accepted for players leaving the club this summer, because that would affect any net figure for transfer spending.
 

yido_number1

He'll always be magic
Jun 8, 2004
8,724
16,955
This is starting to feel like one of those relationships where you do love the other person and you had some amazing times but you just know it's not working.

The thought of them being with someone else (United) is horrible so you cling on to that small glimmer of hope that you can make it work and things will go back to how they used to be, knowing it might be good for a little while (Southampton) but your issues will soon come back.
And then you split up with your bird and end up a sad depressed git, living in a one bedroom flat above a laundrette wanking over youporn and realising what a mistake you made.
 
May 17, 2018
11,872
47,993
But Liverpool signings that contribute to that figure for them that you present, were made last January or earlier because this summer just gone Liverpool didn't make new signings, I believe. The Spurs figure that you give, on the other hand, is for players only very recently signed (who've mostly not played yet). And you need to keep in mind the relatively modest fees that Spurs accepted for players leaving the club this summer, because that would affect any net figure for transfer spending.

Liverpool signed Adrian, Harvey Elliot, and Sepp van den Berg this summer; the figures I was looking at reference £4m for Elliot, but not sure if that's official yet.

How we reached our net figure doesn't really detract from the total transfer investment for each manager though. People talk about Klopp like has spend Chelsea-level money each season, which isn't true - they had their own "Gareth Bale" fee with Coutinho - the difference is that they used the money to buy specific players they needed, whilst we let AVB blow it on random football-manager-esq names.

It's worth mentioning that the Bale fee stuff doesn't come in to any figures discussed, as it was before Poch's time, but the whole "spend" thing can be referenced there - Rodgers talked about how we'd "spent £100m" and should be winning the league, when we hadn't really - we'd simply replaced a Gareth Bale with a bunch of players.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,685
93,482
And then you split up with your bird and end up a sad depressed git, living in a one bedroom flat above a laundrette wanking over youporn and realising what a mistake you made.
Suspiciously specific post that mate.
 

GMI

G.
Dec 13, 2006
3,118
12,210
Genesis sums is up for me....
There's too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And not much love to go round
Can't you see this is a land of confusion?
I'm more of an old school Genesis fan. This excerpt from The Knife seems more apt for our painful rebuild. Quite extreme I'll admit. :sneaky: :

I'll give you the names of those you must kill,
All must die with their children.
Carry their heads to the palace of old,
Hang them high, let the blood flow.
Now, in this ugly world
break all the chains around us,
Now, the crusade has begun
give us a land fit for heroes,
 

thePessimist

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2012
1,270
3,356
In the words of Lana Del Rey, I’m a fuckin mess..

Oh, be my once in a lifetime
Lyin' on your chest in my party dress
I'm a fuckin' mess, but I
Oh, thanks for the high life
Baby, it's the best, passed the test and yes
Now I’m here with you, and I
Would like to think that you would stick around
You know that I’d just die to make you proud
The taste, the touch, the way we love
It all comes down to make the sound of our love song

you soul less fucks. don’t you get it? I thought he was the one ?
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,687
104,969
Just had an email from the club saying I can buy 3 guest tickets for the Belgrade game. Good to see fans are deserting the team in a moment of need.

And we wonder why the players don’t look bothered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top