Liverpool ,B 291mil. S 200mil. - 91m Chelsea, B 391mil , S 323mil. - 68m Man City. B 397mil , S 122 mil. -275m Arsenal. B 200 mil. S. 85 mil. - 115m Man Utd B 387 mil , S 124 mil - 263m
How do Spurs stack up?
As you've asked...
Last 5 seasons NET spend...
Liverpool £163m Spurs -£37m
A small difference of £200m of investment in both squads...
Agree they made some poor signings but the question is ,who signed them ? It is fairly common knowledge that they had a transfer committee at one time .
Looks like Klopp will be the next manager. I'm personally a bit surprised as I think his reputation means he could pretty much take any job in Europe. Could do better than Liverpool in my opinion. I guess it shows they are still a huge club
I was surprised Rogers made it to the end of last season. Remember watching a TV program on Liverpool and him saying Borini was a great player and would score loads of goals, that alone was a big mistake. Klopp like any manager will need players to suit his style of play and to be successful, will need a striker in the class of Lewandowski, who massivley helped Dortmund.
Liverpool are a huge club and will also have an extra 10k seats next season when their new main stand opens, Klopp could be a good fit for them.<</b>/blockquote>
Christ! Has he put a lot of weight on whilst on sabbatical then???
Liverpool ,B 291mil. S 200mil. - 91m Chelsea, B 391mil , S 323mil. - 68m Man City. B 397mil , S 122 mil. -275m Arsenal. B 200 mil. S. 85 mil. - 115m Man Utd B 387 mil , S 124 mil - 263m
How do Spurs stack up?
As you've asked...
Last 5 seasons NET spend...
Liverpool £163m Spurs -£37m
A small difference of £200m of investment in both squads...
Net spend is nonsense though. Just because you sold a player for £70m doesn't mean you magically didn't buy a player for £70m. I'm not getting involved in the debate about Liverpool and Tottenham's spending in either direction, but I don't think quoting net spend is a valid argument. Liverpool sold Torres for £50m but Andy Carroll for £35m was still an atrocious bit of spending. Gareth Bale was sold for something like £86m which was great business but was replaced with £26m Soldado, £30m Lamela, Capoue, Paulinho and Chiriches for whatever ridiculous amounts they were. Maybe Spurs' net spend there levelled out but it was money terribly spent. Net spend is like Tim Sherwood's win ratio at Tottenham; if you have to quote it, things probably didn't go that great
Liverpool ,B 291mil. S 200mil. - 91m Chelsea, B 391mil , S 323mil. - 68m Man City. B 397mil , S 122 mil. -275m Arsenal. B 200 mil. S. 85 mil. - 115m Man Utd B 387 mil , S 124 mil - 263m
How do Spurs stack up?
As you've asked...
Last 5 seasons NET spend...
Liverpool £163m Spurs -£37m
A small difference of £200m of investment in both squads...
Net spend is nonsense though. Just because you sold a player for £70m doesn't mean you magically didn't buy a player for £70m. I'm not getting involved in the debate about Liverpool and Tottenham's spending in either direction, but I don't think quoting net spend is a valid argument. Liverpool sold Torres for £50m but Andy Carroll for £35m was still an atrocious bit of spending. Gareth Bale was sold for something like £86m which was great business but was replaced with £26m Soldado, £30m Lamela, Capoue, Paulinho and Chiriches for whatever ridiculous amounts they were. Maybe Spurs' net spend there levelled out but it was money terribly spent. Net spend is like Tim Sherwood's win ratio at Tottenham; if you have to quote it, things probably didn't go that great
Sorry but the point I picked up on was, as quoted by Carragher, was Liverpool was becoming Tottenham. Net spend is proof that they are not. Liverpool are huge players in the upper realms of the transfer market yet Spurs are being run on a shoe string in comparison by the tune of £200m+.
Liverpool ,B 291mil. S 200mil. - 91m Chelsea, B 391mil , S 323mil. - 68m Man City. B 397mil , S 122 mil. -275m Arsenal. B 200 mil. S. 85 mil. - 115m Man Utd B 387 mil , S 124 mil - 263m
How do Spurs stack up?
As you've asked...
Last 5 seasons NET spend...
Liverpool £163m Spurs -£37m
A small difference of £200m of investment in both squads...
Net spend is nonsense though. Just because you sold a player for £70m doesn't mean you magically didn't buy a player for £70m. I'm not getting involved in the debate about Liverpool and Tottenham's spending in either direction, but I don't think quoting net spend is a valid argument. Liverpool sold Torres for £50m but Andy Carroll for £35m was still an atrocious bit of spending. Gareth Bale was sold for something like £86m which was great business but was replaced with £26m Soldado, £30m Lamela, Capoue, Paulinho and Chiriches for whatever ridiculous amounts they were. Maybe Spurs' net spend there levelled out but it was money terribly spent. Net spend is like Tim Sherwood's win ratio at Tottenham; if you have to quote it, things probably didn't go that great
Sorry but the point I picked up on was, as quoted by Carragher, was Liverpool was becoming Tottenham. Net spend is proof that they are not. Liverpool are huge players in the upper realms of the transfer market yet Spurs are being run on a shoe string in comparison by the tune of £200m+.
I don't think net spend is proof of anything. Spurs are still spending massive, massive money. They're just selling more intelligently than Liverpool. When you bid on a player you bid the amount he costs. The fact you've got stacks of money in the bank off a recent sale doesn't mean you're not a huge player in the upper realms of the transfer market. If Liverpool and Spurs were to fight it out over the same player for instance they could, Spurs would just cover their losses by wrangling over an extra 50p for Harry Winks. What Carragher was saying is that both clubs spend huge money to try and climb into the top four but never quite manage to get the right blend of players despite a massive outlay. The fact Spurs set themselves up to pad their fall isn't relevant to that discussion. For what it's worth I quite like Spurs and am revelling in Liverpool's suffering, I just don't think net spend is valid
I think Rodgers has been hard done by. Liverpool have progressed under him, and they're in transition having lost two irreplaceable world class players in first Suarez and then Gerrard. They needed to spend the Suarez money better, but by all accounts Rodgers was only part of a committee and didn't have the final say.
He also had Sturridge out on long term injury, twice. I think people need to remember the mess Liverpool were in before Rodgers took over. Whoever comes in now has a very different club to manage, but I think Rodgers deserved more time. He was a hair's breadth away from a title a year ago, for goodness sake - how unrealistic are their expectations?
The season before he arrived they reached two cup finals and won one of them.
They spent £120m that season under Dalglish, and he was sacked at the end of it for a reason. They finished 8th in the League, their lowest for 18 years, and the whole club needed rebuilding, which needed and still needs time.
The season they finished 2nd under Rodgers they overachieved in my view, and they did what many burgeoning title contenders did - they failed to get over the line when well-placed, lost key games at the wrong time, and that's down to sheer inexperience of winning. Since then he's seen his best player sold at the end of each season - first Suarez then Sterling - and Gerrard decided to effectively retire to the USA as well. This season was always going to be about transition, and that means inconsistent performances, and trying to gel new players. Players Rodgers didn't have the final say on buying, incidentally.
In Sturridge and Coutinho they had two match winners, but Sturridge is perpetually injured and Coutinho's a kid. I thought one mistake Rodgers did make was sticking by Mignolet, but there's nothing better behind him.
Clearly Rodgers also had to learn as he went along, it was a big job but my own view is that he made people think about Liverpool as a club capable of delivering a title again, which seemed a million miles away under Benitez, Hodgson and Dalglish. I think history may see him more kindly than our too-frequent short-termism.
Than Benitez? Are you joking? He won the Champions League, FA Cup, Super Cup, was a beaten finalist in another Champions League final and ALSO finished 2nd in the Premier League in 2008/09 (Rodgers' best and sole achievement). Comparing the two is absolutely laughable, as any Liverpool fan will tell you.
As already stated, i dont think Rogers is a good manager, however some of the stuff ive read about him and from him (including his statement after his sacking) shows him to be a good person. I hope he finds himself work.
So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.
In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.
I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.
I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.
I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.
To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.
So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.
In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.
I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.
I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.
I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.
To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.
They wanted to sign sanchez as part of the suarez deal but he rejected them
So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.
In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.
I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.
I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.
I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.
To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.
They wanted to sign sanchez as part of the suarez deal but he rejected them
That may be true and fair, but what we don't know is what they offered him and how hard they really pursued him.
My point is, Rogers was expected to break into the top 4 but, particularly starting form the base that Liverpool were, that costs big big bucks to secure top quality players. Over the last few years they have lost the likes of Suarez, Gerrard and Alonso who have at various points been amongst the very best in the world in their position and they haven't come close to replacing any of them.
They are to an extent a more high profile version of what Roland is trying to do with us, but the reality is you are only going to get so far without pushing the boat out on one or two top drawer players,
So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.
In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.
I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.
I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.
I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.
To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.
They wanted to sign sanchez as part of the suarez deal but he rejected them
That may be true and fair, but what we don't know is what they offered him and how hard they really pursued him.
My point is, Rogers was expected to break into the top 4 but, particularly starting form the base that Liverpool were, that costs big big bucks to secure top quality players. Over the last few years they have lost the likes of Suarez, Gerrard and Alonso who have at various points been amongst the very best in the world in their position and they haven't come close to replacing any of them.
They are to an extent a more high profile version of what Roland is trying to do with us, but the reality is you are only going to get so far without pushing the boat out on one or two top drawer players,
Liverpool and Spurs have both tried and failed to sign the big names, and as a result ended up buying overpriced quantity rather than a true replacement for Suarez and Bale. Arsenal by contrast have managed to sign both Sanchez and Ozil, helped by 1) London 2) Wenger's style of football, signings know the team will play exciting, attacking football and hence attacking players will get plenty of chances to shine 3) Consistently qualifying for the Champions League
At a different level, it's the same problem newly promoted teams face in the Premier League, you may have cash to spend, but the top players won't want to join you.
So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.
In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.
I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.
I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.
I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.
To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.
They wanted to sign sanchez as part of the suarez deal but he rejected them
That may be true and fair, but what we don't know is what they offered him and how hard they really pursued him.
My point is, Rogers was expected to break into the top 4 but, particularly starting form the base that Liverpool were, that costs big big bucks to secure top quality players. Over the last few years they have lost the likes of Suarez, Gerrard and Alonso who have at various points been amongst the very best in the world in their position and they haven't come close to replacing any of them.
They are to an extent a more high profile version of what Roland is trying to do with us, but the reality is you are only going to get so far without pushing the boat out on one or two top drawer players,
Liverpool and Spurs have both tried and failed to sign the big names, and as a result ended up buying overpriced quantity rather than a true replacement for Suarez and Bale. Arsenal by contrast have managed to sign both Sanchez and Ozil, helped by 1) London 2) Wenger's style of football, signings know the team will play exciting, attacking football and hence attacking players will get plenty of chances to shine 3) Consistently qualifying for the Champions League
At a different level, it's the same problem newly promoted teams face in the Premier League, you may have cash to spend, but the top players won't want to join you.
City managed to do it though, but it costs huge amounts - not just in ransfer fees but its more about the wages you will pay.
I'm not criticising Liverpool for not paying it, but the reality is that its what is required to achieve their ambitions. If they can't/won't spend it then its not fair to blame the manager when he can't meet their goals.
So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.
In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.
I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.
I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.
I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.
To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.
They wanted to sign sanchez as part of the suarez deal but he rejected them
That may be true and fair, but what we don't know is what they offered him and how hard they really pursued him.
My point is, Rogers was expected to break into the top 4 but, particularly starting form the base that Liverpool were, that costs big big bucks to secure top quality players. Over the last few years they have lost the likes of Suarez, Gerrard and Alonso who have at various points been amongst the very best in the world in their position and they haven't come close to replacing any of them.
They are to an extent a more high profile version of what Roland is trying to do with us, but the reality is you are only going to get so far without pushing the boat out on one or two top drawer players,
Liverpool and Spurs have both tried and failed to sign the big names, and as a result ended up buying overpriced quantity rather than a true replacement for Suarez and Bale. Arsenal by contrast have managed to sign both Sanchez and Ozil, helped by 1) London 2) Wenger's style of football, signings know the team will play exciting, attacking football and hence attacking players will get plenty of chances to shine 3) Consistently qualifying for the Champions League
At a different level, it's the same problem newly promoted teams face in the Premier League, you may have cash to spend, but the top players won't want to join you.
City managed to do it though, but it costs huge amounts - not just in ransfer fees but its more about the wages you will pay.
I'm not criticising Liverpool for not paying it, but the reality is that its what is required to achieve their ambitions. If they can't/won't spend it then its not fair to blame the manager when he can't meet their goals.
But then for all the vast amounts City have paid, have they really bought the TOP drawer players? They're lack of success in Europe suggests not. Aguero is one now, but at the time he left Athletico, the top clubs weren't after him. Barcelona were happy to let Ya Ya go. Most of their signings have been from the selling clubs of Europe, and have probably been overpriced.
So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.
In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.
I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.
I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.
I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.
To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.
They wanted to sign sanchez as part of the suarez deal but he rejected them
That may be true and fair, but what we don't know is what they offered him and how hard they really pursued him.
My point is, Rogers was expected to break into the top 4 but, particularly starting form the base that Liverpool were, that costs big big bucks to secure top quality players. Over the last few years they have lost the likes of Suarez, Gerrard and Alonso who have at various points been amongst the very best in the world in their position and they haven't come close to replacing any of them.
They are to an extent a more high profile version of what Roland is trying to do with us, but the reality is you are only going to get so far without pushing the boat out on one or two top drawer players,
Liverpool and Spurs have both tried and failed to sign the big names, and as a result ended up buying overpriced quantity rather than a true replacement for Suarez and Bale. Arsenal by contrast have managed to sign both Sanchez and Ozil, helped by 1) London 2) Wenger's style of football, signings know the team will play exciting, attacking football and hence attacking players will get plenty of chances to shine 3) Consistently qualifying for the Champions League
At a different level, it's the same problem newly promoted teams face in the Premier League, you may have cash to spend, but the top players won't want to join you.
City managed to do it though, but it costs huge amounts - not just in ransfer fees but its more about the wages you will pay.
I'm not criticising Liverpool for not paying it, but the reality is that its what is required to achieve their ambitions. If they can't/won't spend it then its not fair to blame the manager when he can't meet their goals.
But then for all the vast amounts City have paid, have they really bought the TOP drawer players? They're lack of success in Europe suggests not. Aguero is one now, but at the time he left Athletico, the top clubs weren't after him. Barcelona were happy to let Ya Ya go. Most of their signings have been from the selling clubs of Europe, and have probably been overpriced.
Barcelona didn't want Sanchez or Pedro, Real didn't want Ozil, but those clubs have such quality players that just because they release someone it doesn't mean they aren't bloody good players. Khedira & Ibrahimovich are another couple of examples. Kompany, Toure, Silva and Aguero would all be close to the first team in any of the top club sides when on form. I think you play down how Aguero was rated when he was at Atletico but you're right, he was arguably the key signing and they could get him because he wasn't already at one of the big boys, rather like when Suarez joined Liverpool, but the difference is City built in the success Aguero helped bring and kept him, Liverpool sold Suarez and undid all the hardwork.
City have struggled in Europe so far, but they are firmly established in the top 4 and have won titles, Liverpool are still aspiring to that.
It is tough to get those top players to you, especially without the Champions League football, because there is so much competition but don't forget a year ago they did have Champions League football. Maybe they could have got a Higuain if not a Sanchez. I don't know, I'm speculating but without one or two of that quality I don't think it'll matter who they have as manager.
Maybe Klopp has the personality and reputation to attract a couple, I reckon Ancelotti would be an even bigger draw though.
Ancelotti would've been my preferred choice, brought success absolutely everywhere he's been. Klopp probably more fits the owner's profile of being a young manager willing to nurture young players that the owners seem to want. In terms of german football dortmund were at the same kind of level and size that liverpool are at in relation to the league when klopp took over.
The thing with the Liverpool situation, is that they have adopted this 'Moneyball' approach, and have a supposedly scientifically data led approach to selecting players, which are then approved by a transfer committee.
However when it all goes wrong, they go the old fashioned route and sack the manager, and leave the rest of the system in place.
Surely anyone who knows football could tell you, that Liverpool's biggest problem has not only the players they have brought in, but also how much they have paid for them?
Firminio $30M, Adam Lallana $25M, Markovic $20M, Lovren $20M, Emre Can $10M, Origi $10M - that is over $115M on players, none of whom are currently first choices!!
Comments
Last 5 seasons NET spend...
Liverpool £163m
Spurs -£37m
A small difference of £200m of investment in both squads...
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons
Klopp like any manager will need players to suit his style of play and to be successful, will need a striker in the class of Lewandowski, who massivley helped Dortmund.
https://www.facebook.com/BleacherReportUK/videos/vb.544392522289888/988357821226687/?type=2&theater¬if_t=comment_mention
In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.
I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.
I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.
To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.
My point is, Rogers was expected to break into the top 4 but, particularly starting form the base that Liverpool were, that costs big big bucks to secure top quality players. Over the last few years they have lost the likes of Suarez, Gerrard and Alonso who have at various points been amongst the very best in the world in their position and they haven't come close to replacing any of them.
They are to an extent a more high profile version of what Roland is trying to do with us, but the reality is you are only going to get so far without pushing the boat out on one or two top drawer players,
Arsenal by contrast have managed to sign both Sanchez and Ozil, helped by
1) London
2) Wenger's style of football, signings know the team will play exciting, attacking football and hence attacking players will get plenty of chances to shine
3) Consistently qualifying for the Champions League
At a different level, it's the same problem newly promoted teams face in the Premier League, you may have cash to spend, but the top players won't want to join you.
I'm not criticising Liverpool for not paying it, but the reality is that its what is required to achieve their ambitions. If they can't/won't spend it then its not fair to blame the manager when he can't meet their goals.
Most of their signings have been from the selling clubs of Europe, and have probably been overpriced.
City have struggled in Europe so far, but they are firmly established in the top 4 and have won titles, Liverpool are still aspiring to that.
It is tough to get those top players to you, especially without the Champions League football, because there is so much competition but don't forget a year ago they did have Champions League football. Maybe they could have got a Higuain if not a Sanchez. I don't know, I'm speculating but without one or two of that quality I don't think it'll matter who they have as manager.
Maybe Klopp has the personality and reputation to attract a couple, I reckon Ancelotti would be an even bigger draw though.
However when it all goes wrong, they go the old fashioned route and sack the manager, and leave the rest of the system in place.
Surely anyone who knows football could tell you, that Liverpool's biggest problem has not only the players they have brought in, but also how much they have paid for them?
Firminio $30M, Adam Lallana $25M, Markovic $20M, Lovren $20M, Emre Can $10M, Origi $10M - that is over $115M on players, none of whom are currently first choices!!
Madness, utter madness.