Have we spent enough since 2005 to win the Premiership?

Net spending since 2005 (05/06 summer onward) per club

Manchester United - £172m
Manchester City - £471m
Chelsea - £409m
Liverpool - £204m
Arsenal - £6.1m
Tottenham - £138m

A bit surprising to see we have outspent Manchester United by £32m. I know it's all relative to the time when that money was spent, being that market prices have increased significantly in recent years. Despite this, I'd expect us at the bare minimum to be finishing top 4 given that above statistic. But like they say, stats don't mean sh*t!

So, does money really buy you success?

Net spending since 2005 (05/06 summer onward) per club

Manchester United - £172m
Manchester City - £471m
Chelsea - £409m
Liverpool - £204m
Arsenal - £6.1m
Tottenham - £138m

A bit surprising to see we have outspent Manchester United by £32m. I know it's all relative to the time when that money was spent, being that market prices have increased significantly in recent years. Despite this, I'd expect us at the bare minimum to be finishing top 4 given that above statistic. But like they say, stats don't mean sh*t!

So, does money really buy you success?

Big difference is United was spending to maintain position.
Clearly Chelsea and City respective spending shows what was required to overhaul them in the short term.

More interesting is Arsenal's player sales generating enough money to cancel out their spend.

i'll let you know if we get any..

I do have to admit, that does show what a great job Wenger has done to maintain Arsenal within the top 4.

Some here heavily discredit him but he does do exceptionally well with the money he spends.

I assume those stats include the Ozil deal too.

I think we probably have spent enough, but we never had the money available in sufficient quantity at the right time. In other words we have had to buy too many squad players and not enough top players. Spending regularly but never having the lump sum in one window to really set the team up.Sadly I think we have made a few more poor buys than we should have as well, especially when we should have been kicking on.

Both under Houllier ( 2002) and Rafa we got into a position where we should have kicked on with the right buys and for whatever reason wasted the money on poor buys.

Enough money overall but never enough at one time, added to poor buys at the times when we just couldn't afford to make the mistakes we did. Too many second or third choice players obviously didn't help either.

   

Money is not the only affecting factor in winning the Prem.
Ask Chelski and Citeh.

So in 2008/09, we finished 2nd with 86 points. I then thought we were in a strong position to push for the title in the following years.

Net spent since then (09/10 summer onward - excluding summer just gone)

Liverpool - £80m
Man Utd - £33m
Arsenal - £-35m
Chelsea - £259m
Man City - £302m
Spurs - £2m

I don't want to look into the statistics too much. I think what it boils down to is bad directing of the club including hiring two absolute clowns in Hodgson and Comoli. The H&G saga was destructive in itself. I think we're on the right track now though, but obviously don't want to get my hopes up!

its a bit of a difficult point to make as Utd had a championship winning squad and we didn't so they wouldn't have to spend as much as others.you have just seen how difficult Moyes has found signing top players and maybe we have suffered that two.

So, does money really buy you success?

No it doesn't, it just gives people a very convenient excuse as to why we've not been as successful in recent years.

Think it just proves that spending for spending sakes doesn't always pay off if you're constantly changing the managers too. 

Fergie got lucky late 90's by having a huge crop of really talented kids come through the academy which not only saved them a fortune but generated pure profit sales too.  If you think of the huge amounts he's paid out on individual players over the years it's not exactly effected the net spend due to those large sales outward.

It's alright crediting Wenger for keeping them in the top 4 without spending but they started from a very high point, much more difficult to spend zero and move up the league.

6.1 m has bought the CL every year since then.

I think we probably have spent enough, but we never had the money available in sufficient quantity at the right time. In other words we have had to buy too many squad players and not enough top players. Spending regularly but never having the lump sum in one window to really set the team up.Sadly I think we have made a few more poor buys than we should have as well, especially when we should have been kicking on.

Both under Houllier ( 2002) and Rafa we got into a position where we should have kicked on with the right buys and for whatever reason wasted the money on poor buys.

Enough money overall but never enough at one time, added to poor buys at the times when we just couldn't afford to make the mistakes we did. Too many second or third choice players obviously didn't help either.

 

Simao Sabrosa, Dani Alves, and Sergio Aguero to name a few. If we wanted these players, we would've had them and things may have been different. It's all if's and buts, I know, but I hope losing out on our three targets this summer doesn't cost us in that same manner with finishing outside the top four.

Still can't believe we opted for Pennant and Crouch over Dani Alves...

I think we've spent enough money, but some of it was blown on mediocre players unfortunately. I still put it down to Hicks and Gillett, they royally fu**ed our club up and we were always going to end up playing catch up under their ownership. Rafa did a great job to get the players he did under them cu*ts, but moving on I think/hope we're heading towards the right direction. I just hope the board show some faith in Brendan over the next couple of windows to ultimately push us where we want to be, fighting for the league title and not languishing in 4th-6th saying that it's good enough, cause it isn't.

Net spending since 2005 (05/06 summer onward) per club

Manchester United - £172m
Manchester City - £471m
Chelsea - £409m
Liverpool - £204m
Arsenal - £6.1m
Tottenham - £138m

A bit surprising to see we have outspent Manchester United by £32m. I know it's all relative to the time when that money was spent, being that market prices have increased significantly in recent years. Despite this, I'd expect us at the bare minimum to be finishing top 4 given that above statistic. But like they say, stats don't mean sh*t!

So, does money really buy you success?

We haven't spent wisely enough obviously as man u have won a few spending less then us

We haven't spent wisely enough obviously has man u have won a few spending less then us

your ignoring the point of how much their squad was worth against our we have been playing catch up for a long time.

your ignoring the point of how much their squad was worth against our we have been playing catch up for a long time.

The question was have we spent enough since 05 to win the league. We've outspent them in those 8 years.  Where we spend 16 million on Downing they spend the same on Valencia or 12 million on Kagawa. 

Could argue had our board/boards been a bit more savvy we could have at various times signed certain players in that time that might have pushed us on,some of those players went on to help other clubs in the premier league

Jesus on a sidenote have Arsenal really only spent 6.1? If true fair play to them consistently getting champions league

The question was have we spent enough since 05 to win the league. We've outspent them in those 8 years.  Where we spend 16 million on Downing they spend the same on Valencia or 12 million on Kagawa. 

Could argue had our board/boards been a bit more savvy we could have at various times signed certain players in that time that might have pushed us on,some of those players went on to help other clubs in the premier league

you cant ask that question without looking at the squad values it does not make any sense. If UTD had a squad value of £300mil and ours was £200 spending the same would only keep the gap that's why City had to spend so much.
so the initial question is flawed.

Since 2005 of course not, otherwise we would have won it. Different owners, managers, players have played its part.  We were never gonna be a City or Chavs so that has taken its toll as well, but the one thing we've lacked (imo) is stability.     Sick of Liverpool being in 'transition'.

Still can't believe we opted for Pennant and Crouch over Dani Alves...

I thought it was Kuyt over Kuyt & Alves. He wanted a striker / right winger as well as a right winger/ right back. Only had the money for one, so went for the striker.

We have over-spent in the last few years, it's no question. We have build two squads under 4 managers tho, which is weird. Usually a club should have a continuous one if they want sustained success, IMO.

A bit surprising to see we have outspent Manchester United by £32m.

Not that surprising, that time period covers the sale of Ronaldo for circa £80m which they pocketed and dipped into as needed over the following couple of seasons whereas we sold Torres for £50m and immediately pumped that into transfers. Of course we can argue whether it was spent on the wrong players or not but at least it did go on transfers.

No it doesn't, it just gives people a very convenient excuse as to why we've not been as successful in recent years.

Indeed. It's not always what you spend but how.

The Manc's also had a core of top quality experienced winners in their squad in 2005 and beyond, negating the need to spend as much as the rest of the teams including ourselves. We've also paid significantly less in wages and haven't been able to attract the same type of quality. Nevertheless I think we've had enough to allow us to go close and we have gone close but only one occasion, whereas you'd maybe expect us to have challenged on one or two more occasions for the money that's been spent.

Yes, we've spent enough to win titles if we use hindsight. Easy to say we shouldn't have brought Andy Carroll, and brought Falcao instead. Not brought Kuyt and brought in Dani Alves. Brought Juan Mata instead of Downing.

I think we've wasted a huge amount of resources in the past. Overpaid for British players, and i think this last transfer window has been the most astute window we've made in a long time. Too early to judge however.

We've tried to bring in undervalued players.

But to be honest, you need investment to win premier leagues. No team has won the premier league cheaply. United being closest to doing that but they've invested huge amounts at times, and had a huge financial return for Ronaldo. Plus they had a fantastic manager who could always over perform their squad.

I don't think the fact our squad has gotten weaken over the last few years was just down to investment though. I believe our downfall was when we sold key players, we were just awful at replacing them.

Selling Alonso and replacing him with Aquliani was a terrible decision. Especially as Aquliani was already injured when he arrived. We sold Torres, and Suarez was a great replacement, but we wasted £35 million on Carroll.

Losing two key players that has turned us from a top 2 side, to a top 7 side. Also Gerrard getting older, not at his best as that 2nd place finish season didn't help.

That's been our downfall, not spending, but not replacing our best players well enough over the years.

Ofcourse we haven't spent enough.

Anyone who thinks you can win a league with 15m a year obviously hasn't heard of the word "inflation".
They'd probably try and buy a new car with "3 shillings and sixpence"...

Chelsea and Man C have proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Also 2005-6 is a pretty arbitrary start point. I suppose you should look at 11 year cycles of something like that ie the who career of a top level player. You'd also need to look at wages in that figure,  what was inherited at the start date etc etc. Then add in wage and transfer fee inflation. Even how strong rival countries were at the time, euro-sterling exchange rates etc.

In football you get virtuous and vicious circles.  Its interesting to analyse the Mancs. They had big wages AND they were able to continue their "golden era" of home grown players eg Scholes, Nevilles, Giggs etc. Because there was a big squad, Ferguson was able to protect their home grown stars throughout their careers.

In contrast, we basically lost Owen, Fowler, Redknapp, Rob Jones, (Heggem?),  McManaman to their own greed, laziness or being overplayed- causing injury and premature career demise. Imagine if we had protected and kept that core. The 170m could then have been spent on the extras. Perhaps we'd have then seen a few PL titles at Anfield.

Basically, lack of resources meant our "golden generation" was overplayed at too young an age, and a vicious circle continued.
We were in a bit of a mess when Rafa arrived, but he managed to weave some magic, and picked us up a level.

We weren't THAT far from genuinely challenging for the league at the end of the Rafa era. Just replacing Bodgson with Rafa again, replacing Keane with Suarez(yes I know he was only there a few months under Rafa... but it was a hole in the team), finding a replacement for Xabi, and either keeping a revigorated Nando/ finding an established replacement. Add in some depth, maybe a top winger etc and we could have challenged very well.

Anyone who thinks league titles can be won by games of switcheroo and sell to buy, is frankly living on Planet Fenway.

Fair play to the Arse for their frugality over the years but what have they won ? a big fat F**k all, had i been a Arse bandit , i would be pissed that having moved to a multi million £ stadia and spent less on players than it would cost in security for aforementioned stadia, ok they have had regular CL football but that just increases their revenue and arguably have more funds at their disposal, they did get to a final once but got stage fright i believe, and now having finally splashed the cash this window buying one player at £42+m they still think that reaching CL football is a achievement, wrong, it may appease those in the boardrooms but in all honesty ARSE bandits  to a man would much prefer to be challenging for titles, and regard CL as a bonus, same way we do, well the majority of us anyway.

YNWA

 

We have spent enough, just not spent it well enough, really can't see the point in saying it isn't, not when you look at players purchased for prices we spent on far inferior talent.

We have spent enough, just not spent it well enough, really can't see the point in saying it isn't, not when you look at players purchased for prices we spent on far inferior talent.

Is the correct answer.

It's not what you spend, it's how you spend it that counts.
A bit simplistic, I know, because every manager will make misjudgements in the market at times, but the fact remains that if you spend well on the right players at the right time, that's more important than just chucking money around for the sake of it.

Houllier made some good buys, but he also made some awful ones, as did Rafa (although to be fair, his big money signings did very well for the most part), so it will be interesting to see how BR fares in the coming years.

its a bit of a difficult point to make as Utd had a championship winning squad and we didn't

In '08/09 you could argue we did too...so why were we spending so much more money since that year and United didn't and they've had greater success?

Ofcourse we haven't spent enough.

Anyone who thinks you can win a league with 15m a year obviously hasn't heard of the word "inflation".
They'd probably try and buy a new car with "3 shillings and sixpence"...

Chelsea and Man C have proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Also 2005-6 is a pretty arbitrary start point. I suppose you should look at 11 year cycles of something like that ie the who career of a top level player. You'd also need to look at wages in that figure,  what was inherited at the start date etc etc. Then add in wage and transfer fee inflation. Even how strong rival countries were at the time, euro-sterling exchange rates etc.

In football you get virtuous and vicious circles.  Its interesting to analyse the Mancs. They had big wages AND they were able to continue their "golden era" of home grown players eg Scholes, Nevilles, Giggs etc. Because there was a big squad, Ferguson was able to protect their home grown stars throughout their careers.

In contrast, we basically lost Owen, Fowler, Redknapp, Rob Jones, (Heggem?),  McManaman to their own greed, laziness or being overplayed- causing injury and premature career demise. Imagine if we had protected and kept that core. The 170m could then have been spent on the extras. Perhaps we'd have then seen a few PL titles at Anfield.

Basically, lack of resources meant our "golden generation" was overplayed at too young an age, and a vicious circle continued.
We were in a bit of a mess when Rafa arrived, but he managed to weave some magic, and picked us up a level.

We weren't THAT far from genuinely challenging for the league at the end of the Rafa era. Just replacing Bodgson with Rafa again, replacing Keane with Suarez(yes I know he was only there a few months under Rafa... but it was a hole in the team), finding a replacement for Xabi, and either keeping a revigorated Nando/ finding an established replacement. Add in some depth, maybe a top winger etc and we could have challenged very well.

Anyone who thinks league titles can be won by games of switcheroo and sell to buy, is frankly living on Planet Fenway.

And yet the part in bold is exactly what Rafa did.
He bought and sold players at an incredible rate, all to raise the few extra million that allowed him to buy in the players he wanted.

The current owners keen to keep finances in order and not overspend, as what they seem to see, has happened in the past. Having said that the current squad of players is doing very well, in the early days of the season as our position inn the table shows.

The current owners keen to keep finances in order and not overspend, as what they seem to see, has happened in the past.

I agree with this ethos, even though it's deeply unpopular with some of our fans. As many have already said: It's not spending lots that brings success, it's striking the balance to bring in the right players for the right price.

I'm just hoping that Brendan has spent well so far. The next season or two should determine whether the likes of Allen (£15m), Aspas (£7m), Borini (£11m), and Alberto (£7m) will come good. That's £40m of talent there!

What I couldn't understand is why we'd sell Shelvey (who in my opinion is a better player than Allen) for only £5m?!

I think we've spent enough but the window of 2011 may have cost us and put us back a bit further than we would have liked. if we appointed Rodgers after WOY we might have spent that Torres cash a little wiser or not spent it at all and waited for the summer. That massive mistake of buying a w*nk player for £35mil was terrible.

I think we've spent enough but the window of 2011 may have cost us and put us back a bit further than we would have liked. if we appointed Rodgers after WOY we might have spent that Torres cash a little wiser or not spent it at all and waited for the summer. That massive mistake of buying a w*nk player for £35mil was terrible.

The awful transfers of summer 2011 put us back two years. If we had spent better then we'd be looking forward to CL footie this year.

I think we've spent enough but the window of 2011 may have cost us and put us back a bit further than we would have liked. if we appointed Rodgers after WOY we might have spent that Torres cash a little wiser or not spent it at all and waited for the summer. That massive mistake of buying a w*nk player for £35mil was terrible.

Don't you like how we have spent right now? All bargain players. Max of £15m per player with potential sell on value. Sturridge for sale at £20m anyone? A cool 30% return on investment.

The owners are determined not to make the mistakes of the past, by paying over the top prices for players who do not come up to the standard, required by the club. It seems to be the case of buying players at a more realistic price, that can fit into the side.

The owners are determined not to make the mistakes of the past, by paying over the top prices for players who do not come up to the standard, required by the club. It seems to be the case of buying players at a more realistic price, that can fit into the side.

And Rodgers has said if the right player is worth £30m and they wanted to come here, he had the dough (in the now shut window) to buy them.  But as you state, the most important thing is that they fit the side and what Rodgers is building.

Money has ALWAYS bought the PL title, has done from day one...Man Utd (one of the richest clubs in the world) have splashed out record transfer fees many times since the PL began (and before). Citeh, Chavs, and Blackburn all bought the title (Leeds bankrupt themselves buying their title). Arsenal seem to be the exception to the rule.

In answer to the OP, no we haven't spent enough to win the title, we can clearly see that the title currently costs £400+ million, we are £200 million short.

Sturridge for sale at £20m anyone? A cool 30% return on investment.

No deal!

Can I ask the OP why just since 2005?

And yet the part in bold is exactly what Rafa did.
He bought and sold players at an incredible rate, all to raise the few extra million that allowed him to buy in the players he wanted.

 

Well taking this in  the context of your previous agenda, thats a pretty ridiculous suggestion.
But then when I read someone trying to tell me how "great" Fenway are, followed by phrases such as "I'm having too much fun, already..."...

For the record, Rafa came close to the title, manifestly NOT because he was forced to sell to buy. When he WAS forced, our challenge fell into ruin.

Would you desribe THIS as "sell to buy"?:-

Purchases of Torres (upto 28m), Mascherano, Keane and Alonso. Even Reina's transfer fee was nearly the size of Mignolet's 5 years ago. Add to that the fact that Rafa KNEW you had to pay decent salaries, infact at that time LFC competed with EVERYONE on salaries. Unlike your heroes in Boston.

But hey, why let the facts get in the way of your ridiculous agenda...?

The owners are determined not to make the mistakes of the past, by paying over the top prices for players who do not come up to the standard, required by the club. It seems to be the case of buying players at a more realistic price, that can fit into the side.

I think relative to what we've seen, we've violated this principle many a times. Borini, Allen, Aspas, Alberto, Sakho and even Mignolet. That's around £65m for six players. Avg price little over £10m and when you buy players in this category, regardless of how many you purchase, you'll get a poor return. Some turn out rather good though, like Daniel Sturridge and hopefully Alberto Moreno.

We've spent a lot, but have opted for quantity before quality.

What I couldn't understand is why we'd sell Shelvey (who in my opinion is a better player than Allen) for only £5m?!

Good point, there aren't many sales you can point to where we've actually got a good deal for our player. We've been shafted in the sales department relentlessly and probably why so many were keen to take that £14m for Borini, it seemed for the first time in a long time we were getting a decent deal selling someone.

Can anyone name our biggest  customers last season?
(Or indeed biggest revenue earner full stop last yr - including shirt and club sponsors etc).

Its rather a telling statistic. And goes some way to explaining what the Americans transfer and also business policy is.

Good point, there aren't many sales you can point to where we've actually got a good deal for our player. We've been shafted in the sales department relentlessly and probably why so many were keen to take that £14m for Borini, it seemed for the first time in a long time we were getting a decent deal selling someone.

And then the deal fell through. Typifies our luck at the moment. What is even more bizarre is that Borini seems to be Brendan's third choice striker ahead of Lambert. He wanted to sell the former but keep the latter.

Net spending since 2005 (05/06 summer onward) per club

Manchester United - £172m
Manchester City - £471m
Chelsea - £409m
Liverpool - £204m
Arsenal - £6.1m
Tottenham - £138m

Net spending this season:

Man Utd - £115m
Arsenal - £65m
Liverpool - £37m
Everton - £33m
Man City - £30m
Chelsea - £12m

You can excuse Chelsea's spending for they already had an excellent squad. They didn't need Luiz or Lukaku like we needed Luis Suarez, so they were able to spend little net amount and still strengthen significantly. City were similar and like Chelsea, only sold players who were surplus to requirements. Manchester United on the other hand needed to improve significantly, and have spent large amounts as a result. No doubting that they've got some real talent in their squad now. Proven talent as well. Arsenal spent well this summer, getting in Sanchez, Debuchy and Welbeck. And then you've got Everton, who have spent little less than us. Funny that. Thought they were always skint. However for £28m or so, I do not rate Lukaku. Do not think he's worth that.

Was genuinely expecting us to spend upwards of £60m net this summer. Maybe there is some to be spent in January, but Rodgers did state that this would be our biggest window for a good while.

We've spent a lot, but have opted for quantity before quality.

I think this point is especially true of this window. Squads aren't built in a single Summer. They're built over a period of years, usually by bringing in better players than you have and relegating the existing ones to the bench. We had no need to go out and spend so much on so many players this year and the excuse that we're in four competitions is ridiculous when we're in at least three in any given year. Successful management of your squad comes from prioritisation of competitions rather than bulk buying in a vain attempt to compete across them all. We would have been better bringing in three or four top players to allow us to consolidate our status as a top four club and compete reasonably well in the Champions League and leaving the domestic cups to the youth players on the verge of breakthrough to give them some real experience. Continue this process over the next few years until we have a quality squad strong enough to compete on four fronts.

As for the wider point, money alone does not buy you titles, contrary to popular myth, rather it's the quality of player that fits in with your footballing philosophy, which of course money makes easier because you can buy the highest quality player available. As others mentioned, the perfect example is Carroll for £35 mill and you don't need hindsight to see that was a bad deal from the get go. So we had the money to spend but we didn't spend it wisely on a quality player and I personally feel it's a mistake we've made again this season. In fact, I will (and have) go so far as to say I believe the entire strategy was wrong this season because we should have had a replacement for Suarez lined up and not put all our eggs in the Sanchez basket, and before some bright spark gives me the whole "you can't replace Suarez without buying Messi or Ronaldo" rubbish, you don't have to replace his quality to replace his attributes. We bought Lambert and then we bought Balotelli, two players largely identical in their play styles but one simply being a younger (and more talented, more experienced) version of the other rather than buying someone who has good off the ball movement, pace, power and an eye for goal.

So to go back to the original question, have we spent enough money? That's really the wrong question when what you should be asking is have we spent enough on quality? The answer to that, sadly is no.

Some people have probably mentioned it but in case they haven't. Yes we have spent more than enough, we've thrown most of it away on utter sh*t though.

Can anyone name our biggest  customers last season?
(Or indeed biggest revenue earner full stop last yr - including shirt and club sponsors etc).

Its rather a telling statistic. And goes some way to explaining what the Americans transfer and also business policy is.

Barcelona.
That's the idea isn't it.
Buy them young. 18-21.
Sell at the peak. circa 27.

Age of the players bought by Rodgers at the time:

Borini - 21
Allen - 22
Assaidi - 24
Yesil - 18
Sturridge - 23
Coutinho - 20
Texiera - 19
Alberto - 20
Toure - 32
Aspas - 26
Mignolet - 25
Sakho - 23
Ilori - 20
Can - 20
Markovic - 20
Manquillo - 20
Moreno - 22
Lallana - 26
Lambert - 32
Balotelli - 24
Lovren - 25
Origi - 19
Add in the loanee's as well, he has brought in 25 players for £212m. A lot of that on youth players. Am expecting big things from these players in the next 2-3 years..

Yes. If it was spent wisely is another separate issue.

We spent more than enough, just didn't get the right players, at the right time.
Everytime we seem to find a worldy, another one leaves, so we rarely get them to play together.
Then of course there's the settling for mediocrity. The second tier player, we always seem to get. You know, the one with so much potential, who saves us a few million in transfer funds and wages.
F.F.S. Its about time we went in full bore for the top class marque players. Same overall spend on less players, better quality squad.

It all started when we bought Steve Macmahon   (could have spelt it wrong)   to replace Souness.  Not fit to lace his boots.

Is this a trick question seen as how we haven't won it?

Barcelona.
That's the idea isn't it.
Buy them young. 18-21.
Sell at the peak. circa 27.

Exactly. Sobering thought tho, I think.

" Liverpool football club exists to  win trophies    supply its customers such as Barcelona +Real Madrid+Chelsea  and be a source of pride for its supporters profit for its shareholders.

If  promising (or disappointing) players exist only to sell when they are good enough to win stuff, I don't see how I can ever remain attached to the team, and ultimately therefore the club.

It reminds me of the ads on LFC TV and you see a goals clip and think "he was terrific, and sold this Summer and so was he". Makes me think "what are they trying to sell me, the Barce team?"

This is why I think a non football fan (like the board!) can't understand the emotions of a football fan. Or even why someone wants to become a fan of a top/decent/or infact ANY club.

Most of us here are fans because of previous eras. But would we become fans as a result of what is happening in the current era? YOung guys in the city watch the game in the pub. And people around Britain and elsewhere are starting to support the bigger spenders, or even their local, smaller clubs.

If we lose the local AND the nationally/intl'ly based fans from the next generation, what catchment area have we got left?

It all started when we bought Steve Macmahon   (could have spelt it wrong)   to replace Souness.  Not fit to lace his boots.

I loved Macca as a player, but he wasn't in the same league as Souness in brains and creativity and passing. Terrific engineroom battler tho. I loved his duels with Peter Reid..!

I know there was a gap between Sourness and Macca. But since Souness it was one sad affair of also rans being bought or tried out. Lee, MacDonald, Molby,  Wark, Whelan, Barnes, Thomas, Stewart all with differing degrees of success in midfield, over a length of time.

After Macca, there was only Ince and then Didi+Stevie at the top level, until the Xabi and Masch era came.
This was a HUGE length of time.

The loss of Souness was actually massive IMO. Before then, we'd never sold and then downsized on a player. (Keegan was replaced by a fellow megastar for similar money).

We struggled to replace Souness and it actually pulled the rest of the team down.

I can see MANY parallels with the Luis sale. And it certainly puts to bed the myth that we "always replaced superstars".

Exactly. Sobering thought tho, I think.

" Liverpool football club exists to  win trophies    supply its customers such as Barcelona +Real Madrid+Chelsea  and be a source of pride for its supporters profit for its shareholders.

If  promising (or disappointing) players exist only to sell when they are good enough to win stuff, I don't see how I can ever remain attached to the team, and ultimately therefore the club.

It reminds me of the ads on LFC TV and you see a goals clip and think "he was terrific, and sold this Summer and so was he". Makes me think "what are they trying to sell me, the Barce team?"

This is why I think a non football fan (like the board!) can't understand the emotions of a football fan. Or even why someone wants to become a fan of a top/decent/or infact ANY club.

Most of us here are fans because of previous eras. But would we become fans as a result of what is happening in the current era? YOung guys in the city watch the game in the pub. And people around Britain and elsewhere are starting to support the bigger spenders, or even their local, smaller clubs.

If we lose the local AND the nationally/intl'ly based fans from the next generation, what catchment area have we got left?

Not totally true, know plenty of young lads going the game. The one's in the pub are some of the, let's be honest, the "can't be arsed lad" crew or ones that have jibbed it off because they have young families etc to look after.