Add up the transfer fees if the players that played, and it adds up to just shy of £350m.
So over the last 5 years or so they’ve spent that. That’s still nothing compared to the others. In fact having a cursory look, I can’t see how that team was £350m?
Edit: Using Wikipedia for fees and even including subs I get £270m.
And you’re right, they have spent less than Man Utd, but only one of the top 5 in England made a loss in 2017, yep Liverpool.
The fact that Man Utd, Man City & Chelsea all have bigger revenue than Liverpool is ignored.
How relevant is it though? They’re all big clubs with big revenues and most clubs make loses, some huge. Christ Man U carry fuck loads of debt don’t they?
It just annoys me that they use the fact they’ve managed to convince other clubs to overpay for their players as some kind of badge of honour.
Or maybe they’re astute enough to get fair money for them? I’m not sure why that’d annoy you, seems like good business practice to me.
Also, having just googled more info about your points, in the last 5 years Man C have spent £563m nett, Man U £437m, Chelsea £222m, Liverpool, £52m.
Anyway, arhm oot, I’m very aware it’s a waste of my time to discuss something this trivial.
I feel like Liverpool are one of the more real and properly supported clubs in this country, as opposed to publicly traded brands, and they’re one of only about 3 or 4 I’d quite like to see doing well. Albeit mainly due to Klopp.
