Most neutrals want LIVERPOOL to win the league - FACT

Blimey, haven't seen you in a while.


Got to be difficult re-decorating your bedroom and getting rid of all those Jose mementos so quickly.

Sort of demolishes the bin dippers claims that they are not counting their chickens before they are hatched

1% - you might want to check Larry's history first. Though I wouldn't price it too big that he's not in the same chair as you right now.

Barth barth

Bring back Leicester and to hell with the big money boys.

I think most neutrals would like to see Spuds win it.

But I don't think thats gonna happen, so a Liverpool win would be the next best thing.

Think most would want Spurs (coming from a nuetral)

Agreed, I am a neutral and would far prefer Spurs to win it rather than Liverpool, in fact anyone but Liverpool

City are a bit like Chelsea, think a lot of people still see them as the pariah of football, all that's wrong with the game given their owners and money spent, truth is though, Liverpool are not shy of spending, they can't be out of that conversation when they're buying 66 million pound Goalkeepers and 70 million pound centre backs. Oh well, at least it hasn't been wasted on dross.

Tbf City and Chelsea fans had to watch a lot of sh1t when most of you were bouncing around in your old mans ballbag

why mention a 66m keeper and 70m cb without mentioning the sale of coutinho which essentially funded both? People said he'd be a huge loss but they did better without him last year and are a much better team this year than last. The rest of what they spent is TV money which is fine, they got to the CL final remember.

Spending within your means on the team is to be commended by the owners. Most of them don't do that and hoard money for themselves, Spurs aren't spending their money on the team, they're spending it on a stadium which will cost near £1bn. City are spending someone else's (a country's) money on theirs. The liverpool owners are smart with their money and realise that players will go up in value in the current climate with a good manager. Nothing wrong with that and spurs could compete with that but don't want to.

lurka    29 Dec 18 00:11 
why mention a 66m keeper and 70m cb without mentioning the sale of coutinho which essentially funded both? People said he'd be a huge loss but they did better without him last year and are a much better team this year than last. The rest of what they spent is TV money which is fine, they got to the CL final remember.

Spending within your means on the team is to be commended by the owners. Most of them don't do that and hoard money for themselves, Spurs aren't spending their money on the team, they're spending it on a stadium which will cost near £1bn. City are spending someone else's (a country's) money on theirs. The liverpool owners are smart with their money and realise that players will go up in value in the current climate with a good manager. Nothing wrong with that and spurs could compete with that but don't want to.





"Nothing wrong with that" as if every club had a choice about spending hundreds of millions of pounds on players. Just half a dozen clubs living in a world of their own who would probably be appalled at the thought of a level playing field for all. I can still remember all the whining on here when Leicester won the title accusing them of taking drugs etc.

Why do you think that?

Not completely on the money, but there's a Sky Sports graphic from May this year noting all the clubs' net spend since June 2014

May as well list them

Man City £496M
Man Utd £417M
Arsenal £166M
Everton £165M
C Palace £126M
Chelsea £119M
Leicester £113M
West Ham £86M
West Brom £85M
Stoke £65M
Tottenham £50M
Liverpool £18M
Swansea +£27M
Southampton +£71M


Appreciate you've got to add Allison to that and the fact that it slightly pre-dates Klopp but it shows a bit the work that has been done to re-build the squad. If you go back to that great Rodgers attack 4 years ago and said that we would have sold Suarez, Coutinho and Sterling and Sturridge would be a perennial crock only fit for cameo appearances then most people would say we'd struggle to get top 4.

Yes, we've spent money but we've sold very well firstly. Got good money for all 3 of the above and some others besides. But crucially we've spent really well. I don't think there's a club in the world who could match the success of Liverpool's signings since Klopp arrived. Some thought Robertson would be a failure given he was relegated and only cost £8M but now he's the best LB in the league. Shaqiri was a very similar deal and he's been an absolute bargain. Fans scratched their heads at what we paid for VVD, Salah, Mané, Ox but each and every time we were proved wrong and they've gone on to be great value.

There's a skill behind all this and Klopp and Edwards are very good at it. Our spending is a fraction of Utd's but you could make a strong case that a combined XI right now would all be coming from the pretty end of the East Lancs. You can throw money at it all you like but if the best you can do is Lukaku while the competition is getting Salah, Mané and change then it's clear that some are doing it better than others and the argument about who has most money to spend is pretty null. Liverpool are top because they've built a very strong team and bought well for a fraction of the money spent by the Manchester clubs.

The two dates I've given are relevant, Klopp's time and the Premier League as a whole,

However, if you want to look at that date since the beginning of the 2014/15 season, Liverpools net spending has been

14/15 - £38.38m
15/16 - £28 mil
16/17 - -£6.4 mil
17/18 - -£28 mil
18/19 - £146.5 mil

The top teams are not just paying big money they're also paying big wages to attract players and combined with extra revenue from European money, European games bringing more exposure and more replica kits sold, merchandise etc, it's basically a closed shop and so the league table usually becomes what it is, a money league, reflecting who has spent most, which is why everyone had Cardiff finishing bottom and Wolves doing quite well as promoted teams comparison.

I'm not discovering that now lurka obviously so it's a daft point.

I wasn't comparing Liverpool to the two with sugar daddy owners, they're in  a league of their own, I said they wasn't shy of spending big, which they're not.

"City aren't a bigger club but have outspent Liverpool as well but haven't spent nearly as well as Liverpool have"

Have Liverpool just won something or have I missed it? The only reason City haven't sold a player for a decent return is because they have successfully held on to them. Aguero, for example, could have been sold for a kings ransom at some point.

Keep up themovement Liverpool just won the title FFS.

As a Palace man and with no financial interest so completely neutral I really hope Liverpool win the league, definitely wouldn't want Spurs to win.

As a Palace man and with no financial interest so completely neutral I really hope Liverpool win the league, definitely wouldn't want Spurs to win.


For me it's a choice of having my eye dug out with a rusty spoon or having a red hot poker up my jacksy come on City