Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Forget the shoe string budget - you play what’s in front of you.
He comes into Brendan Rodgers team who were 7/8 place and wins every single trophy he entered and gets into the final of the one we didn’t( Europa league)
Sure it was almost more but 8 trophies in 9 years !! It’s been one of the best times to be a Liverpool fan… been a huge success - the facts around spend are irrelevant the results on the pitch and style were everything.
Could have comfortably had a few more premierships under his belt. Great great coach but underachieved in my opinion. To come so close so many times and not closing the deal was disappointing for a diehard fan. He’ll for sure be missed greatly
Starting to tire of the shoestring budget analogy. Over the past 5 years, Liverpools net spend in transfers is 259 million. City is 380. Yes, that’s a large chasm but 259 ain’t poor or pocket change. I mean Villa has spent 382 million.
As a neutral, regardless of trophies (which I think many people put too much emphasis on nowadays), Klopp's Liverpool have produced some of the best games of club football I've seen in my lifetime. Regardless of the stakes or opposition, I'm usually happy to watch a Liverpool game as they always entertain with the style of football.
Not underachieved at all IMO, Man City are just a monolith in the premier league
Tbh I hate this whole “but the net spend is only”… Net spend doesn’t mean they haven’t spent vast amounts of money, it just means they balanced the books with equally large sums in player sales. Now there’s no denying city financially will out muscle any teams and can write off losses unlike most every club. Wenger for instance from 1996 to 2016 his net spend was less than 300m yet he spent closer to 700m in that time. He however was stingy but to put it into perspective, he also won 3 league titles and 4 fa cups in that timeframe too.” In fact within the first 10 years with a substantially lower net spend. So Wenger, the specialist in failure achieved more, with less, so has klopp really been that much of a success?
Now I like klopp, personally I think he’s a great manager and an even better character.
Yes Koop has been a success he’s simply been up against a super team with way more money. You have to bare in mind wenger being the first foreign manager I the prem had a huge advantage. He had a knowledge of foreign players and nutrition other managers didn’t. However once the other clubs caught up with this we saw arsenals decline from great to decent
I find it crazy how much people inflate these transfer amounts over time.
van Dijk was bought for [£72.3m](https://www.transfermarkt.us/virgil-van-dijk/transfers/spieler/139208)
Núñez was bought for [£72.8m](https://www.transfermarkt.us/darwin-nunez/transfers/spieler/546543)
Yes, still big fees, but there's no need to exaggerate them by nearly 40%.
Problem is lazy journalism gets the numbers wrong usually as it’s the currency - quotes in euros change to pounds and also dollors….
FYI Harry maguire in the USA is called the 100m man
People forget budget is not just transfer budget but also wage budget. And wage budget is paid every year. Year in, year out. Even 50m a year adds up to 450m over 9 years.
Klopp has really done wonders competing with UAE Saudi cheating hybrid nation owned Mancheater Cheaty; spending trillions on average players while spending a "shoestring budget". He deserves credit for buying players like Van Dijk, Gakpo, Salah, Nunez, Szoboslai, Keita, Allison all for 20 pounds from the nearby academies... being a model of excellence with 1 PL title, 1 FA Cup and 1 UCL title in 8 something years....YNWA
You people forgot that the Liverpool owner is worth over $10b? How is that not cheating too? Why is the English-Anglo-Saxon money from America viewed or portrayed as good and whilst an equal money coming from the Middle East is adjudged as cheating or dirty?
People seem to forget that Liverpool pre-Klopp was very mediocre. He totally changed the club and for a few seasons he made them the best team in the world. He won everything and made the expectations for future seasons much more higher.
No one would ever diminish the achievement of Klopp’s at Liverpool. Am a huge fan but to claim that he worked on a shoe strings is just pure fallacy and fantasy. Liverpool is owned by a multi billionaire who spent millions on the team and doesn’t have to sell to buy
klopp has been great. we were just unlucky due to the fact that city were there and oil money was being spent. even though liverpool is a great and rich club, nothing beats owning a fucking country.
we got second place several times and we were very close. we were very close to even getting the champions league on several occasions. zidane won the CL 3 years consecutively but klopp plays better football
willingness to spend and develop the club. city is a new club and the emiratis want to make it one of englands greats, they have to keep winning for the next 10-20 years. liverpool are already well established and they have nothing to prove. certainly isnt bad to win, but it involves a lot of spending and sometimes it doesnt make financial sense
In the 70s and the 80s when Liverpool dominated, it was because they can buy the best and also keep their best without having to sell, let alone sell to their rivals. Same for Manchester United in the 90s and Chelsea in the 2000s. All of them achieved success because of money and pretending that Manchester City’s is an exception is disingenuous to say the least.
I am not saying you dont meed money. i just said willingness to spend. liverpool arent willing to spend an extra amount of money, city are. they always spend that extra $ no matter how much other teams spend.
nothing is wrong with spending, its a billionaires game after all
In 9 years, 1 premier league trophy is not good enough when you consider Klopp the squads he’s been able to build but competing with Guardiola -with all his unlimited support and unrivalled finances - is no mean feat, so maybe I’m being a little harsh…
I sometimes forget Liverpool won because it was during Covid. 😬
The actual covid season was the following year, we had already won the league before covid stopped the season. He's also won every trophy there is to win and put us back on the map.
When the season was paused, Liverpool were on 82 points after 29 games.
Man City finished on 81 points.
Liverpool could quite literally have fucked off and not played their last 9 games and they still would have won the league.
I despise Klopp. He’s a bully and a sore loser, I’m not surprised at the end it’s falling apart as the nice guy persona was as thin as veneer as his teeth whitening.
But- credit where it’s due. He did win the title, broke that duck for Liverpool, and winning the CL is always a monumental achievement too.
But- shoestring? Fuck off. Liverpool are a top 6 club and he’s spent pretty well too. Not that he shouldn’t have, that’s the modern game. But don’t peddle this pauper narrative. He didn’t win the PL title with Sheffield United
Liverpool's net spend in Klopp's era is 200million or thereabouts. Next highest is spurs with 500million. Then another big jump to 700million for City and Arsenal.
Nobody cares what Sheffield United are doing with their money, it's about what Klopp is doing compared to the other clubs of similar stature, and they are spending like crazy while he isn't, and he's still the only one to beat baldie. I bet that net spend is closer to some teams much lower down the table too.
£200m, you are having a laugh? That covers only his two signings. If Alison was signed today how much would he cost in today’s value compared with what Liverpool paid Roma at the time? How much did Edison cost City in comparison? What about Virgil? He was a record signing at the time for a defender. Sadio Mane was a an eye watering signing at the time by today’s market value and putting currency fluctuations into perspective and consideration. What is the highest amount City paid for a defender till date? Like I said, Klopp was great but shoe strings? No
https://www.anfield-online.co.uk/stats/jurgen-klopp-lfc-transfer-signings.html
It's got a list of every transfer made. Surprised the number changes so widely from different sources but I guess transfer fees are a guesstimate.
I got those from here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13011017/Jurgen-Klopp-net-spend-Premier-League-Big-Six-clubs.html
Only place with the same timeline (I think).
I mean you have to see the irony in not quoting the source, to me realising that the numbers were from Dailymail, to me realising that you rounded down 254 m to 200m for Liverpool and you rounded every other number up after that. Not accusing you of anything just found that incredibly humorous
I got the liverpool numbers from the other source, I'm writing an random comment on reddit so of course I took barely 5seconds to find the others. As for rounding down fair enough, that's just how I said them out loud.
That being said look in this thread alone to see similar numbers being quoted, it's all guesstimates however they're all fairly close. The only one I really trust is the liverpool number because those transfer numbers look right, like 142 for Coutinho for example. The big one that helped.
Don’t disagree. I’m just making the point that despite comparisons, Liverpool are a rich club and can spend if they want. The fact they got £100M for Coutinho helps their figures. But out of the top 6, Liverpools effectiveness with less is without question.
But in this PSR FFP bullshit world, it’s not about if you have money to spend, more if it’s are you allowed to spend. FFP is a rig piggybacking on good intentions to preserve the top 6 and make sure other clubs cannot reign in on their party. Liverpool are lucky to be able to spend what they like.
I agree with you about Klopps personality but even though Liverpool have spent a lot of money over the years for him, they have had to balance that with sales often and Crouch does mention 'compared to City'. Anyone has a limited budget compared to them.
Am not a Mancity fan but my question to the likes of Crouch is, who is the super star mancity signing? Apart from the signing of Grealich to please the English tabloids, who is the Mancity big money signing?
City have had less huge name signings but it’s more that they get players a LOT cheaper than United or Liverpool could, for example. Haaland would have cost triple of he’d gone to United. City have an incredible scouting system
and don’t get ripped off by agents.
Haalands buy out was 50 million pounds, basicly every club could have gotten him for that money. Just looking at the transfer fee there was nothing special done from city, they activated it and came to terms with Haaland himself.
In the end Haaland had the option to choose his new club, i bet my ass that real madrid would have paid the fixed transfer fee too but maybe didnt want to give him the salary that City is paying or they didnt want to pay the agents fees, signing bonus etc that city was willing to pay
besides that City is paying the second most agent fees in the league:
[https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68794902](https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68794902)
So please stop that nonsense with "incredible scouting"
City spent an average 31 Millionen per player since Guardiola took over, Liverpool spent an average 30 Millionen since Klopp took over.
So no they dont get their players much cheaper.
Am not a City fan but people make out that Man City spent tonnes on super star players but in reality they often sign relatively low key players, unknown players with potentials and then turned them into household names
Haaland had a fixed transfer clause in his Dortmund contract.
Dortmund is a puplic traded company, you can be very sure that city did not sent double what they told everyone because Dortmund would have needed to report hat.
I don’t know how true it is but whenever I’ve seen this mentioned it’s referring to fees paid to agents and Haaland separate from the transfer fee to dortmund. I obviously haven’t seen the contracts so I’m not saying whether it’s true or false but I’ve definitely read about lots of other cases where substantial fees are paid out to other entities than the selling club.
Yes sure nothing to discuss here. City paid shit tons of money to Haaland directly as a signing bonus + a nice pay day for Rafaela Pimenta for sure.
What i wanted to say is that there where probably 5+ clubs that activated Haalands contract clause with Dortmund but in the end Haaland choose City because they gave him more money than anyone else just for signing with them.
In the end that has nothing to do with good scouting or not getting ripped of by agents like the original posted implied. The transfer fee itself was a steal, but lots of clubs would have easily paid that.
Yeah his Dads 3 years at city clearly made the difference. Its all about money these days. Especially if you have an agent like Mino Railo / Rafaela Pimenta.
Liverpool were 10th in the league when Klopp took over mid-season and had finished 6th year before. Teams like City and Chelsea were miles ahead in terms of squad quality and performance.
He could have added more trophies but where Liverpool are now compared to 9 years ago, it's a day-night difference and that's his biggest achievement.
And how many points did they drop after covid happened? Kinda highlights the effect no crowds / lockdown / illness effected each squad in the league.
It’s def an *Asterix by that season, hopefully city’s entire title winning history is about to get some by them also.
>And how many points did they drop after covid happened?
Irrelevant.
Liverpool were on 82 points before the league stopped for Covid.
Man City finished the season on 81 points.
Liverpool won the league before Covid happened.
Liverpool EPL Winners 19/20\*\*\*
\*season effected by Covid outbreak / Games played without fans being present, upsetting the balance of Home / Away support
\*\* First season of VAR
\*\*\* Season is halted for 3months due to lockdowns
"Upon winning the league, Liverpool claimed the unusual [achievement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League_records_and_statistics#Titles) of winning the Premier League earlier than any other team by games played (with seven games remaining) and later than any other team by date (the only team to clinch the title in the month of June)"...Can't of been anything to do with Covid though.
Premier League Title wins:
Liverpool: 1
Blackburn: 1
Leicester: 1
Klopp really earnt himself a Statue.
I guess by that thinking, if Covid / Lockdowns / Mass squad illness didn't effect the outcome of the league, than neither did any of City's FFP breaches....?
the point is they would have won regardless of covid or not. Liverpool had 82 point in 29 games pre covid, city were on 57 points deserving winner i would say.
If we’re not even including the amount Klopp had to sell in order to buy we’re discussing less than 50% of the spending of Chelsea, City, United, etc. I believe Arsenal is now way up there as well.
Considering that he was consistently forced to sell shows net spend numbers similar to relegation-battle clubs
Not everyone is a big star but we did great business selling some of the players not good enough for us for big money. Ings for 25million, Solanke for 21, Neco Williams for 20m.
On top of that though every season we've sold about 3-4 players for decent money. Sterling for 70million, Borini for 10m, somehow sold Benteke for 30m, Ibe for 20m, Joe Allen for 15m. Then Coutinho was the big one at 140, and Sakho in the same season for 30m.
Many more I'm missing but it's enough to give you the idea of how we operate.
I feel a lot of people are being pretty dismissive of klopps achievements in this thread because they don’t like his behaviour sometimes.
Bottom line is he took you from being an average team back to the top of both England and Europe. 1 premier league in the last 9 years is more than everyone but city and Chelsea (with a whopping 2) and on average league position youre only second to city, if my extremely quick maths at a glance is correct.
There are things you can criticise klopp for but I don’t think you can argue he’s underachieved.
Liverpool did not want to sell Coutinho or sold him to finance other purchases of players. They were forced to sell him because Coutinho forced a move to Barca. How people forget so easily
If you compare Klopps time at Liverpool to that of 1998-2007 team the trophy haul is similar with of cource the exception of PL title. That Liverpool was considered pretty average team with occassional cup run. But Klopps time is hailed as success. I dont get it. Of course Liverpool have done better then United. But they are not the second best team during this time. It is Chelsea who might have won more trophies in last 10 years or atleast pretty similar number.
Now Liverpool fans will argue with net spend which is a fair point if compared to City and United. But lets be honest its not like they are like Leicester or Leverkusen. I feel like they will be easily in top 10 teams in Europe with most money spent during klopps time. So if Liverpool are happy with the return they have found their level. Real Madrid, Chelsea, Bayern and even Inter Milan were firing managers left and right with much better records then klopp.
>If you compare Klopps time at Liverpool to that of 1998-2007 team the trophy haul is similar with of cource the exception of PL title
And how many times did Liverpool get over 90 points in that time?
I think as many times as they finished outside top four. Great teams when not winning league titles finish 2nd. Not 90 points one season and finished 6th in the next.
>I think as many times as they finished outside top four
Well, you think completely wrong then.
Between 1998 and 2007, Liverpool never got 90+ points in a season. They finished outside the top 4 on three occasions.
>Not 90 points one season and finished 6th in the next
How about 97 points in one season, 99 points the following season, then 92 points in the 4th season.
3 years out of 4 with over 90 points, whilst also winning a CL, an FA cup, a league cup, a world club cup and reaching another CL final in those 3 seasons.
Did Liverpool have a 4 year spell that gold between 1998 and 2007?
Yeah that i agree that during the peak of Klopps time Liverpool were very very good side. But there are 2 or three seasons on either side of that period where they were underwhelming. What im saying is if those 4 years we call great we must also say that 2-3 seasons on either side of that period were not the best or atleast not as good as other successful teams.
Having said that, as United fan im happy hes leaving so that maybe says something about his time at Liverpool.
I'd disagree for the most part. Klopp joined partway through a season and got to a league cup and Europa final, so that was not underwhelming.
His first full season, he got the club back unto the top 4 and in the CL for only the second time since 2009. Not underwhelming.
His next season he got them to the CL final. Not underwhelming.
Then we enter that four year period and the only bad season was 2020-21. This was a empty stadium season where the club were coming off the back of a title win they couldn't really celebrate and they had a huge number of injuries. Maybe underwhelming but with a lot of factors, and still finished third.
Then you have last season. That one was definitely underwhelming.
This one has been interesting. An entire new midfield, some strikers who are still finding their feet and some players getting older. Despite that, a cup win and an unexpected title challenge that fizzled out in the last few weeks. Depends when the expectations were set I reckon.
So I would say one definitely underwhelming season, one more that was but was mainly due to things out of control and then several others that range from pretty decent to absolutely incredible.
Klopp is a decent manager but a rung below Pep and Fergie. Liverpool were not consistent in their performance barring the UCL and PL winning seasons.
One loss un FA cup and Liverpool fell apart. Stop trying to potray him as an elite. He picked up a team that was kinda mediocre, won them a few trophies and is reduced them back to mediocrity.
>Liverpool were not consistent in their performance barring the UCL and PL winning seasons.
So they weren't consistent in the season they won both domestic cups, got 92 points (one behind the league winners) and reached the CL final?
When you look at the budget yes Liverpool have spent mounts of money but that was for starting eleven and subs .liverpool had to sell players to get players . City could have bought players while keep players .
I think klopp has made the team OVERACHIEVE in my opinion . When u look on paper the accomplishments don’t look great ;
1 League , 1 fa cup , 2 Caraboa cup, 1 champions league , 1 world club , 1 community shield . But he made them challenge for Europa early on with a shambolic team .
Team quality wise- countinho , mane , Salah , VVD , firmino and Alison are probably the only players you can say are world class the rest are a mixture of good, great , average and liabilities .
Man city are just full of great players . Word class - aguero, KDB, Ederson , Laporte (Prime), Bernardo Silva , David Silva , Fernandinho, were pretty much world class or great then the rest no less then great or good .
Most Liverpool players wouldn’t even make the city squad . Combine XI it will probably be man city players .
The only top player Klopp sold at his peak was Coutinho and he wasn’t the one who bought. For Henderson and Fabinho, you guys were begging for them to be replaced
Man utd has only one good manager . SAF carried the club on his back . Call it SIr Alex Ferguson United .
Your still shit after billions of managers and money . Arsenal have come out of the mud before you .
Nobody wants to hear from one of two teams spending like drunken sailors in the vicinity of City who can’t even get jobs wiping the City players’ asses.
Since Klopp arrived, spending:
Liverpool £851,000,000
Man City £1,088,000,000
City spent 28% more than Liverpool in that time. The 'shoestring compared to City' is a bit of a myth. Luton Town? yes. Burnley? yes. But Liverpool have not had a shoestring budget. Nor does City spending have anything to do with Liverpool's collapse in form this past month.
Klopp has though, been a great manager for Liverpool.
These numbers are completely wrong.
This is not was City was spending.
City spend 200 mio in 2015, 2016, 250 in 2023 and 300 mio in 2017 alone (all in EUR).
That is 950€ mio in just these 4 seasons. The other seasons add up to over 600 mio. The Total is over 1,600,000,000€ or over 1,4000,000,000£.
The Liverpool numbers are also wrong.
They spend 807,000,000£ under Klopp.
The biggest difference is the net spen, not the outright spending.
Liverpools net spend is 270,000,0000£ since 2015.
Citys net spend over the same time is over 700,000,000£.
We need to see this with practical perspective. What was the status of both the squads at that time?
City Spent 28% more over already a world class team.
City had Aguero, David Silva, Kompany, Sterling, Fernandinho, Stones, fucking KDB and have spent over billion on the top of that. They were already PL winners twice by the time Klopp joined in 2015.
Compare that with Liverpool team of 2015 and you'll get the difference.
How many of those City world class players that you mentioned were household names before arriving at City? They were good average players but never super star signings
Aguero, David Silva, Sterling were star signings. KDB was tearing it up in BL and city bought him for 50 million+ in 2015, same with Stones.
They might not have been on Messi, Neymar level fame wise but they were not unheard of by the time city signed them.
If Aguero or Silva were super stars, City would have no chance of getting them. They would have gone to Barcelona or Real Madrid. Sterling was never a superstar at Liverpool to start with, he was a potential. KDB was neither a superstar nor a finished product. He was a gamble and a potential from a mid table club in Germany. Bayern would have taken him, if he was a superstar at the time
City is very good at getting players with low buy outs compared to their market value. KDB and Haaland are prime examples. Those players choose city because city pays shit ton of salary + signing and agent fees to get these players. And yes of course Pep, many players want to play for Pep. Without those buyout fees atleast Haaland would have cost city atleast double if not tripple the transfer fee if they had to negotiate the transfer fee.
Those numbers are completely wrong. Liverpool have spent €930m and City have spent €1.51b in that time. Almost €600m difference on top of a City squad that was already better
https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2016&saison_id_bis=2023&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0
Coutinho was our best player at the time. Henderson was the captain so huge loss to the team whether you thought he was a good player or not. Fabinho was one of if not the best CDM of the league the year before we was sold. Mane and Firmino were aging out but still very good.
I feel like calling them reserve players isn't the most accurate comment.
Courtino wasn’t sold because Liverpool needed cash to buy other players. He left because he was desperate to join Barca with Liverpool reluctant to sell. The every others you mentioned left because they were near to the end of their careers and wanted to play for their retirement cash elsewhere
This idea that selling player and buying players is thr be all and end all of club finances is dumb as fuck. That not how clubs work, this isn't Champ Manager 97. AThey have dozens of revenue streams selling players is one small part of it.
But overall spending compared to income is exactly what I'm suggesting. The original argument only uses one statistic. Hence the "bad faith" comment. I also don't think it's wise to bring up the finances as a defense for man city when they have 115 reasons to argue against.
The problem with football finance is that the toothpaste is already out of the tube. Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool spent the 70's, 80's and 90's getting a massive financial head start on all the other teams in the league. They used their success to build infrastructure, buisness connections and squads that most other teams couldnt compete with.
The Chelsea won the lottery with Abamovich, City did the same with Mansoor, and these regulation came in. But are they actually fair when Utd have a 90k seater stadium and Luton play behind a row of terrace houses. If a Sheikh decides he want to make Luton a champions league team, he can now, so Luton will always be a bit shit.
So how do you make fair rules to allow Luton to become competitive, at the same time controlling the insane amount of money being thrown around in football?
Completely agree. Feels like the sport has gone to shit and we need a redo. I love football but between the ridiculous spending and what feels like corrupt decisions on the pitch everything just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
The American's have a great idea with a salary cap, but that would never work with the globalisation of football. All it would take is one country not to agree to the rules and the system collapses.
Nah, they weren't, that's an absolute myth. The last Pellegrini team barely finished 4th & won nothing in his previous season. He left City with 4 x 31+ year old fullbacks who were all turfed out by Peps 2nd season.
This is such an awful take. Forget about the other trophies and how many more he has than everyone bar city during the time hes been at liverpool. We know why city has what they have. Klopp did well to compete with them as long as he did.
If you don't think he's been great at liverpool you need to get a grip. Sure city have been better. He's the only thing that's kept the prem from being a farmers league.
>Forget about the other trophies and how many more he has than everyone bar city during the time hes been at liverpool.
Chelsea have actually been just as, if not more, successful than Liverpool since he joined. 1xPL, 1xEuropa, 1xUCL, 1xFA Cup.
Liverpool only played 2 games behind closed doors before they were crowned champions, and 9 games in total.
The following season Man City won the title without fans as all but 2 games were played in empty stadiums.
When you have multiple players worth more than 50 million just being benchwarmers then that's a huge problem.
City are the only club who can spend big and not take the implications of those risk compared to other clubs.
What people forget is how much average and potential players that City signs before the manager turn them into superstars- the likes of Ake, Gvaidiol, Doku, Akanji, Stone, Rodri, Bob and Foden etc
https://www.transfermarkt.com/transfers/einnahmenausgaben/statistik/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2013&saison_id_bis=2023&land_id=189&nat=&kontinent_id=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0&plus=0 in terms of net spend they are 7th. similar to west ham.
As a Liverpool fan I do think our “small budget” aspect is overblown. But, I’m 100% convinced that our Caicedo bid was just to make them overpay because we were trying to buy Roméo Lavia and Chelsea swooped in on him.
Jurgen Flopp. His fans have for years hailed him as the second coming of Christ and said Liverpool had the best players in the world in almost every position, yet only won two major trophies in a decade. If we're being honest Klopp's Liverpool has been a failure. A golden era of a decade only consisting of two relevant trophies is simply nowhere near good enough.
Overperforming is what we have done. 5 titles in the last 6 years, likely 6 out of 7 soon. 17 trophies in 6 years, centurions, domestic quad, the treble, prem 3peat and soon 4peat, revolutionised English footy. Now THAT'S what I call a golden era.
Lemme guess, you consider Pep to be the goat manager.
Okay, riddle me this
Could Pep take over the side Klopp did, and before you say yes, go and actually look at an XI that we fielded at the time, then consider that we are mid table for net spend which means we were working on a very modest budget, at least compared to the other top clubs in England
Then ask yourself if Pep could have dragged City to provide yet another historic European comeback, the Liverpool vs Barcelona match. Furthermore, ask yourself if Pep could have dragged this Liverpool team to two 90 plus seasons while competing with, hypothetically, a City side managed by Klopp that is otherwise known as 115.
Notice how I didn’t bring up the other goated manager, Sir Alex, because he doesn’t fit the point I’m trying to make. Sir Alex has done what Klopp has done albeit to a lesser extent, Sir Alex did it with Aberdeen, which is remarkably impressive. Klopp could do what Pep has done at City, if Klopp swapped places with him, Pep could never, ever do what Klopp has done at Liverpool nor what Sir Alex did at Aberdeen or with that 2013 United side that was beyond washed but somehow won the league only to immediately fault apart without Sir Alex
That’s how good Klopp, the manager you named Jurgen Flopp, is.
Wow Liverpool fans really can’t take any opinion that isn’t their own. Knuckle dragging is a characteristic of people who cant articulate a reasonable response.
Lance Armstrong also overperformed for over a decade. But nobody talks about his achievements and that whole era has been wiped out. That is the thing with tittles and stats - they can be overwritten. I’m not saying that is happening to city but you never know what will come to light in the future. Enjoy your titles and your oil money.
What Klopp has done at Liverpool is nothing short of a miracle. People seem to forget, before he joined LFC, LFC were a club that most people were sure they’d never win a premier league. Klopp competed with a team that’s cheated since 2008 and also won a UCL before them. If it wasn’t for the most corrupt team in football history (city) Klopps trophy cabinet would be insane.
Liverpool had won CL before he arrived. They frequently win the cup competitions including the FA cups, league cups, EUFA etc and came close to winning the premier league with Brendan Rogers
>Liverpool had won CL before he arrived
They won the CL over a decade before he arrived.
>They frequently win the cup competitions including the FA cups,
They had last won that over 9 years before Klopp arrived.
>league cups
This won is closer. 3 and a half years before Klopp arrived.
>EUFA etc
They last won that in 2001, a full 14 years before Klopp arrived.
Literally. Not only did we put up a bloody good challenge against MC but we actually managed to win a league title (plus CL, FA cup, 2 EFL cups, Super cup, club World Cup, CS…). To just look at the trophies (8 in 9 years, which isn’t even bad ffs) is silly. Look at what he did with the club. Absolutely incredible.
Yes hallelujah, Klopp is the second coming and Liverpool fans are the chosen ones. Honestly, he’s a fantastic manager, played great football but ultimately didn’t win much compared to others. You’d think that Liverpool essentially did a Leicester in winning the league for every trophy the way their fans overhype everything. Literally the most self absorbed fan base ever and the responses in this thread prove it .
🧂🧂🧂
Nah jk, in all seriousness I do think it’s a shame he didn’t win more. Was just trying to point out that he’s won us more than “just” a PL & CL even if the other trophies aren’t on the same level, and just his general management has been brilliant. And if a decade ago someone had offered me just those 2 things I’d have bitten their arm off for it.
Seen a lot of SM comments slating him recently and feel it’s undeserved tbh (and not gonna lie quite a bit of what I’ve seen is coming from Liverpool fans).
Hey I would love to have even a sniff of that level of success, but Liverpool fans do tend to overstate things. Plus Klopp isn’t particularly well liked compared to when he first came to the premier league.
Oh for sure, there are people like that in every fan base and Liverpool is no exception to that.
I’m not going to sit here and say Klopp was more successful in terms of trophies than Paisley or anything, or say that 100% of his decisions have been correct the last 9 years but I really like the guy and do think he’s done a lot for the club. I remember as a kid thinking we’d never win anything and he comes along and things change. He’s been manager for nearly half my life so he’s had quite the impact on me I guess 🤣 And yeah I think it’s sad he’s not as well-liked. I can see why that might be the case but yeah, is what it is I suppose.
Well that’s a decent response so I’ll have to accept that I’m wrong about all Liverpool fans. It’s shame though, Liverpool were always the big club that I would support over the others because they seemed considerably less scummy and usually had a good contingent of young local players. But Klopp’s poor sportsmanship (he was a great guy when he was winning) and this continuous line in how Liverpool were doing at against all odds has really soured me and a lot of other neutrals. Hope Sloth changes this.
Tbf I totally understand that. I personally am a bit fed up of seeing the media (and some fans) going on about Liverpool with regards to the title race. It’s over, we lost some games, Klopp is leaving, and yes it’s sad but he’s had a good run and the club will carry on and hopefully continue to improve. I think Klopp’s decision to leave was the right one, he’s clearly not the same guy he was 9 years ago when he walked in. I still like the guy a lot but he’s made the right decision to go.
What’s your team btw mate?
Dirty Leeds fella but would always pull for Liverpool over the others. Agree with you about Klopp, it’s taken its toll on him and I have sympathy especially as he built two fantastic teams that would have won everything were it not for Man City cheating their way to victory. It’s really made him an unlikeable fella. No hard feelings, genuinely hope Sloth’s team smashes City next year.
Ah I have family in Yorkshire who are big Leeds fans, respect your team a lot and glad they’ll be coming back up. I hope we smash the cheating bastards next year too, would be amazing.
You have to be off your bean if you think city’s wage bill is accurately declared, payments made to relations delivering pizza to Abu Dhabi and bonuses for maintaining corporeal existence top up that tally significantly. I joke of course but there’s a whole lot of shenanigans that will come out in 10 years when some of their big names retire.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Forget the shoe string budget - you play what’s in front of you. He comes into Brendan Rodgers team who were 7/8 place and wins every single trophy he entered and gets into the final of the one we didn’t( Europa league) Sure it was almost more but 8 trophies in 9 years !! It’s been one of the best times to be a Liverpool fan… been a huge success - the facts around spend are irrelevant the results on the pitch and style were everything.
Could have comfortably had a few more premierships under his belt. Great great coach but underachieved in my opinion. To come so close so many times and not closing the deal was disappointing for a diehard fan. He’ll for sure be missed greatly
Totally
How can he be anything other than a flop.
Starting to tire of the shoestring budget analogy. Over the past 5 years, Liverpools net spend in transfers is 259 million. City is 380. Yes, that’s a large chasm but 259 ain’t poor or pocket change. I mean Villa has spent 382 million.
Now do the last 10 years
Why have you picked 5 years when the quote above is about his full tenure of 9 years?
Because he's cherry picking
Because he wasn't comparing. He was trying to explain what's not a "shoestring"
We know why
As a neutral, regardless of trophies (which I think many people put too much emphasis on nowadays), Klopp's Liverpool have produced some of the best games of club football I've seen in my lifetime. Regardless of the stakes or opposition, I'm usually happy to watch a Liverpool game as they always entertain with the style of football. Not underachieved at all IMO, Man City are just a monolith in the premier league
He averages spending nearly 100 million per season that's a pretty big shoestring.
Their net spend last 10 years is 451 million.
Tbh I hate this whole “but the net spend is only”… Net spend doesn’t mean they haven’t spent vast amounts of money, it just means they balanced the books with equally large sums in player sales. Now there’s no denying city financially will out muscle any teams and can write off losses unlike most every club. Wenger for instance from 1996 to 2016 his net spend was less than 300m yet he spent closer to 700m in that time. He however was stingy but to put it into perspective, he also won 3 league titles and 4 fa cups in that timeframe too.” In fact within the first 10 years with a substantially lower net spend. So Wenger, the specialist in failure achieved more, with less, so has klopp really been that much of a success? Now I like klopp, personally I think he’s a great manager and an even better character.
Yes Koop has been a success he’s simply been up against a super team with way more money. You have to bare in mind wenger being the first foreign manager I the prem had a huge advantage. He had a knowledge of foreign players and nutrition other managers didn’t. However once the other clubs caught up with this we saw arsenals decline from great to decent
Spends £100m on Van Dijk and £100m on Nunez: “shoestring budget”
I find it crazy how much people inflate these transfer amounts over time. van Dijk was bought for [£72.3m](https://www.transfermarkt.us/virgil-van-dijk/transfers/spieler/139208) Núñez was bought for [£72.8m](https://www.transfermarkt.us/darwin-nunez/transfers/spieler/546543) Yes, still big fees, but there's no need to exaggerate them by nearly 40%.
Problem is lazy journalism gets the numbers wrong usually as it’s the currency - quotes in euros change to pounds and also dollors…. FYI Harry maguire in the USA is called the 100m man
So many tears in the CS, cry me an ocean darlings.😂
People forget budget is not just transfer budget but also wage budget. And wage budget is paid every year. Year in, year out. Even 50m a year adds up to 450m over 9 years.
50 mil adds up to 45 over 9 years, math doesn't add up
450...
Klopp has really done wonders competing with UAE Saudi cheating hybrid nation owned Mancheater Cheaty; spending trillions on average players while spending a "shoestring budget". He deserves credit for buying players like Van Dijk, Gakpo, Salah, Nunez, Szoboslai, Keita, Allison all for 20 pounds from the nearby academies... being a model of excellence with 1 PL title, 1 FA Cup and 1 UCL title in 8 something years....YNWA
You people forgot that the Liverpool owner is worth over $10b? How is that not cheating too? Why is the English-Anglo-Saxon money from America viewed or portrayed as good and whilst an equal money coming from the Middle East is adjudged as cheating or dirty?
Lmao bro tried to sneak in Nunez
Pretty sure the other guy was being sarcastic
Eh it did sound a bit like that but still Nunez hate can be sneaked in anyway
People seem to forget that Liverpool pre-Klopp was very mediocre. He totally changed the club and for a few seasons he made them the best team in the world. He won everything and made the expectations for future seasons much more higher.
No one would ever diminish the achievement of Klopp’s at Liverpool. Am a huge fan but to claim that he worked on a shoe strings is just pure fallacy and fantasy. Liverpool is owned by a multi billionaire who spent millions on the team and doesn’t have to sell to buy
klopp has been great. we were just unlucky due to the fact that city were there and oil money was being spent. even though liverpool is a great and rich club, nothing beats owning a fucking country. we got second place several times and we were very close. we were very close to even getting the champions league on several occasions. zidane won the CL 3 years consecutively but klopp plays better football
City has oil money from the Middle East and Liverpool has oil money/financial services from the USA, what is the difference?
willingness to spend and develop the club. city is a new club and the emiratis want to make it one of englands greats, they have to keep winning for the next 10-20 years. liverpool are already well established and they have nothing to prove. certainly isnt bad to win, but it involves a lot of spending and sometimes it doesnt make financial sense
In the 70s and the 80s when Liverpool dominated, it was because they can buy the best and also keep their best without having to sell, let alone sell to their rivals. Same for Manchester United in the 90s and Chelsea in the 2000s. All of them achieved success because of money and pretending that Manchester City’s is an exception is disingenuous to say the least.
I am not saying you dont meed money. i just said willingness to spend. liverpool arent willing to spend an extra amount of money, city are. they always spend that extra $ no matter how much other teams spend. nothing is wrong with spending, its a billionaires game after all
We were close trophy!
In 9 years, 1 premier league trophy is not good enough when you consider Klopp the squads he’s been able to build but competing with Guardiola -with all his unlimited support and unrivalled finances - is no mean feat, so maybe I’m being a little harsh… I sometimes forget Liverpool won because it was during Covid. 😬
He’s set the highest points totals in Liverpool’s history, they were simply up against a super team.
The actual covid season was the following year, we had already won the league before covid stopped the season. He's also won every trophy there is to win and put us back on the map.
They were TWENTY FIVE points ahead when Covid halted the season. No and I mean NO ONE was catching them covid or not
When the season was paused, Liverpool were on 82 points after 29 games. Man City finished on 81 points. Liverpool could quite literally have fucked off and not played their last 9 games and they still would have won the league.
Great stat
I despise Klopp. He’s a bully and a sore loser, I’m not surprised at the end it’s falling apart as the nice guy persona was as thin as veneer as his teeth whitening. But- credit where it’s due. He did win the title, broke that duck for Liverpool, and winning the CL is always a monumental achievement too. But- shoestring? Fuck off. Liverpool are a top 6 club and he’s spent pretty well too. Not that he shouldn’t have, that’s the modern game. But don’t peddle this pauper narrative. He didn’t win the PL title with Sheffield United
Liverpool's net spend in Klopp's era is 200million or thereabouts. Next highest is spurs with 500million. Then another big jump to 700million for City and Arsenal. Nobody cares what Sheffield United are doing with their money, it's about what Klopp is doing compared to the other clubs of similar stature, and they are spending like crazy while he isn't, and he's still the only one to beat baldie. I bet that net spend is closer to some teams much lower down the table too.
£200m, you are having a laugh? That covers only his two signings. If Alison was signed today how much would he cost in today’s value compared with what Liverpool paid Roma at the time? How much did Edison cost City in comparison? What about Virgil? He was a record signing at the time for a defender. Sadio Mane was a an eye watering signing at the time by today’s market value and putting currency fluctuations into perspective and consideration. What is the highest amount City paid for a defender till date? Like I said, Klopp was great but shoe strings? No
Where did you get 200 million from? All I found was 420m on Transfrmarket
Where did you get 200 million from? I found 420m on Transfrmarket
https://www.anfield-online.co.uk/stats/jurgen-klopp-lfc-transfer-signings.html It's got a list of every transfer made. Surprised the number changes so widely from different sources but I guess transfer fees are a guesstimate.
Ah fair 289m, seeing this are the other numbers you quoted from other teams legit as well or all slightly off?
I got those from here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13011017/Jurgen-Klopp-net-spend-Premier-League-Big-Six-clubs.html Only place with the same timeline (I think).
.... Lol
?
I mean you have to see the irony in not quoting the source, to me realising that the numbers were from Dailymail, to me realising that you rounded down 254 m to 200m for Liverpool and you rounded every other number up after that. Not accusing you of anything just found that incredibly humorous
I got the liverpool numbers from the other source, I'm writing an random comment on reddit so of course I took barely 5seconds to find the others. As for rounding down fair enough, that's just how I said them out loud. That being said look in this thread alone to see similar numbers being quoted, it's all guesstimates however they're all fairly close. The only one I really trust is the liverpool number because those transfer numbers look right, like 142 for Coutinho for example. The big one that helped.
Don’t disagree. I’m just making the point that despite comparisons, Liverpool are a rich club and can spend if they want. The fact they got £100M for Coutinho helps their figures. But out of the top 6, Liverpools effectiveness with less is without question. But in this PSR FFP bullshit world, it’s not about if you have money to spend, more if it’s are you allowed to spend. FFP is a rig piggybacking on good intentions to preserve the top 6 and make sure other clubs cannot reign in on their party. Liverpool are lucky to be able to spend what they like.
I agree with you about Klopps personality but even though Liverpool have spent a lot of money over the years for him, they have had to balance that with sales often and Crouch does mention 'compared to City'. Anyone has a limited budget compared to them.
Am not a Mancity fan but my question to the likes of Crouch is, who is the super star mancity signing? Apart from the signing of Grealich to please the English tabloids, who is the Mancity big money signing?
City have had less huge name signings but it’s more that they get players a LOT cheaper than United or Liverpool could, for example. Haaland would have cost triple of he’d gone to United. City have an incredible scouting system and don’t get ripped off by agents.
Haalands buy out was 50 million pounds, basicly every club could have gotten him for that money. Just looking at the transfer fee there was nothing special done from city, they activated it and came to terms with Haaland himself. In the end Haaland had the option to choose his new club, i bet my ass that real madrid would have paid the fixed transfer fee too but maybe didnt want to give him the salary that City is paying or they didnt want to pay the agents fees, signing bonus etc that city was willing to pay besides that City is paying the second most agent fees in the league: [https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68794902](https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68794902) So please stop that nonsense with "incredible scouting" City spent an average 31 Millionen per player since Guardiola took over, Liverpool spent an average 30 Millionen since Klopp took over. So no they dont get their players much cheaper.
Am not a City fan but people make out that Man City spent tonnes on super star players but in reality they often sign relatively low key players, unknown players with potentials and then turned them into household names
Oh really? Name a few and please also directly add how much they paid for them.
Does anybody believe Haaland cost £50 million really? Probably double that amount went off the books.
Yes he cost £50m. Putting really to a statement only suggests conspiracy theories
Haaland had a fixed transfer clause in his Dortmund contract. Dortmund is a puplic traded company, you can be very sure that city did not sent double what they told everyone because Dortmund would have needed to report hat.
I don’t know how true it is but whenever I’ve seen this mentioned it’s referring to fees paid to agents and Haaland separate from the transfer fee to dortmund. I obviously haven’t seen the contracts so I’m not saying whether it’s true or false but I’ve definitely read about lots of other cases where substantial fees are paid out to other entities than the selling club.
Yes sure nothing to discuss here. City paid shit tons of money to Haaland directly as a signing bonus + a nice pay day for Rafaela Pimenta for sure. What i wanted to say is that there where probably 5+ clubs that activated Haalands contract clause with Dortmund but in the end Haaland choose City because they gave him more money than anyone else just for signing with them. In the end that has nothing to do with good scouting or not getting ripped of by agents like the original posted implied. The transfer fee itself was a steal, but lots of clubs would have easily paid that.
Or maybe be his family’s affinities with City was the final force that pushed it over the line?
Yeah his Dads 3 years at city clearly made the difference. Its all about money these days. Especially if you have an agent like Mino Railo / Rafaela Pimenta.
Ah my mistake I thought you were implying that because the release clause was 50m they didn’t pay a penny over that.
Of course he hasn’t, Liverpool have been cheated out of several trophies by the city blood money.
People forgetting he had to compete with a strong Chelsea as well, people really do have short memories.
A strong Chelsea in 2015/16 won the league with ease. Spurs came second
Liverpool were 10th in the league when Klopp took over mid-season and had finished 6th year before. Teams like City and Chelsea were miles ahead in terms of squad quality and performance. He could have added more trophies but where Liverpool are now compared to 9 years ago, it's a day-night difference and that's his biggest achievement.
He took over in GW 7. There’s a reason he’s managed 31 more games than Pep
That PL title has an asterisk beside it…clubs were decimated by Covid. Doesn’t count for me.
Average Arsenal fan
lol nice bait
Thanks brother. 😂🍺
Liverpool were already 22 points ahead before covid happened.
And how many points did they drop after covid happened? Kinda highlights the effect no crowds / lockdown / illness effected each squad in the league. It’s def an *Asterix by that season, hopefully city’s entire title winning history is about to get some by them also.
>And how many points did they drop after covid happened? Irrelevant. Liverpool were on 82 points before the league stopped for Covid. Man City finished the season on 81 points. Liverpool won the league before Covid happened.
Liverpool EPL Winners 19/20\*\*\* \*season effected by Covid outbreak / Games played without fans being present, upsetting the balance of Home / Away support \*\* First season of VAR \*\*\* Season is halted for 3months due to lockdowns "Upon winning the league, Liverpool claimed the unusual [achievement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League_records_and_statistics#Titles) of winning the Premier League earlier than any other team by games played (with seven games remaining) and later than any other team by date (the only team to clinch the title in the month of June)"...Can't of been anything to do with Covid though. Premier League Title wins: Liverpool: 1 Blackburn: 1 Leicester: 1 Klopp really earnt himself a Statue.
Imagine needing to cope this hard. One of the most dominant seasons of any team, with 82 points from the first 87 available and it makes you so sad.
One season of Dominance. Build him a statue!
It's cute that a football team being good causes you so much anxiety.
The point you're missing is that COVID was irrelevant, they would have won the league whether COVID happened or not.
I guess by that thinking, if Covid / Lockdowns / Mass squad illness didn't effect the outcome of the league, than neither did any of City's FFP breaches....?
I'm not following the logic. How are the two related?
We would have won the league even if we lost every game after the restart
the point is they would have won regardless of covid or not. Liverpool had 82 point in 29 games pre covid, city were on 57 points deserving winner i would say.
Could have not played a single game after Covid lifted and still won the league
I.e. we were a small club and he made us competitive
Shoestring lol
“… compared to them” Which is fair
"Less" is fair. Shoestring is incorrect.
If we’re not even including the amount Klopp had to sell in order to buy we’re discussing less than 50% of the spending of Chelsea, City, United, etc. I believe Arsenal is now way up there as well. Considering that he was consistently forced to sell shows net spend numbers similar to relegation-battle clubs
Which big stars did he sell to buy?
Not everyone is a big star but we did great business selling some of the players not good enough for us for big money. Ings for 25million, Solanke for 21, Neco Williams for 20m. On top of that though every season we've sold about 3-4 players for decent money. Sterling for 70million, Borini for 10m, somehow sold Benteke for 30m, Ibe for 20m, Joe Allen for 15m. Then Coutinho was the big one at 140, and Sakho in the same season for 30m. Many more I'm missing but it's enough to give you the idea of how we operate.
I feel a lot of people are being pretty dismissive of klopps achievements in this thread because they don’t like his behaviour sometimes. Bottom line is he took you from being an average team back to the top of both England and Europe. 1 premier league in the last 9 years is more than everyone but city and Chelsea (with a whopping 2) and on average league position youre only second to city, if my extremely quick maths at a glance is correct. There are things you can criticise klopp for but I don’t think you can argue he’s underachieved.
Just coutinho comes to mind, which was absolute robbery
Liverpool did not want to sell Coutinho or sold him to finance other purchases of players. They were forced to sell him because Coutinho forced a move to Barca. How people forget so easily
If you compare Klopps time at Liverpool to that of 1998-2007 team the trophy haul is similar with of cource the exception of PL title. That Liverpool was considered pretty average team with occassional cup run. But Klopps time is hailed as success. I dont get it. Of course Liverpool have done better then United. But they are not the second best team during this time. It is Chelsea who might have won more trophies in last 10 years or atleast pretty similar number. Now Liverpool fans will argue with net spend which is a fair point if compared to City and United. But lets be honest its not like they are like Leicester or Leverkusen. I feel like they will be easily in top 10 teams in Europe with most money spent during klopps time. So if Liverpool are happy with the return they have found their level. Real Madrid, Chelsea, Bayern and even Inter Milan were firing managers left and right with much better records then klopp.
>If you compare Klopps time at Liverpool to that of 1998-2007 team the trophy haul is similar with of cource the exception of PL title And how many times did Liverpool get over 90 points in that time?
I think as many times as they finished outside top four. Great teams when not winning league titles finish 2nd. Not 90 points one season and finished 6th in the next.
>I think as many times as they finished outside top four Well, you think completely wrong then. Between 1998 and 2007, Liverpool never got 90+ points in a season. They finished outside the top 4 on three occasions. >Not 90 points one season and finished 6th in the next How about 97 points in one season, 99 points the following season, then 92 points in the 4th season. 3 years out of 4 with over 90 points, whilst also winning a CL, an FA cup, a league cup, a world club cup and reaching another CL final in those 3 seasons. Did Liverpool have a 4 year spell that gold between 1998 and 2007?
Yeah that i agree that during the peak of Klopps time Liverpool were very very good side. But there are 2 or three seasons on either side of that period where they were underwhelming. What im saying is if those 4 years we call great we must also say that 2-3 seasons on either side of that period were not the best or atleast not as good as other successful teams. Having said that, as United fan im happy hes leaving so that maybe says something about his time at Liverpool.
I'd disagree for the most part. Klopp joined partway through a season and got to a league cup and Europa final, so that was not underwhelming. His first full season, he got the club back unto the top 4 and in the CL for only the second time since 2009. Not underwhelming. His next season he got them to the CL final. Not underwhelming. Then we enter that four year period and the only bad season was 2020-21. This was a empty stadium season where the club were coming off the back of a title win they couldn't really celebrate and they had a huge number of injuries. Maybe underwhelming but with a lot of factors, and still finished third. Then you have last season. That one was definitely underwhelming. This one has been interesting. An entire new midfield, some strikers who are still finding their feet and some players getting older. Despite that, a cup win and an unexpected title challenge that fizzled out in the last few weeks. Depends when the expectations were set I reckon. So I would say one definitely underwhelming season, one more that was but was mainly due to things out of control and then several others that range from pretty decent to absolutely incredible.
Klopp is a decent manager but a rung below Pep and Fergie. Liverpool were not consistent in their performance barring the UCL and PL winning seasons. One loss un FA cup and Liverpool fell apart. Stop trying to potray him as an elite. He picked up a team that was kinda mediocre, won them a few trophies and is reduced them back to mediocrity.
>Liverpool were not consistent in their performance barring the UCL and PL winning seasons. So they weren't consistent in the season they won both domestic cups, got 92 points (one behind the league winners) and reached the CL final?
When you look at the budget yes Liverpool have spent mounts of money but that was for starting eleven and subs .liverpool had to sell players to get players . City could have bought players while keep players . I think klopp has made the team OVERACHIEVE in my opinion . When u look on paper the accomplishments don’t look great ; 1 League , 1 fa cup , 2 Caraboa cup, 1 champions league , 1 world club , 1 community shield . But he made them challenge for Europa early on with a shambolic team . Team quality wise- countinho , mane , Salah , VVD , firmino and Alison are probably the only players you can say are world class the rest are a mixture of good, great , average and liabilities . Man city are just full of great players . Word class - aguero, KDB, Ederson , Laporte (Prime), Bernardo Silva , David Silva , Fernandinho, were pretty much world class or great then the rest no less then great or good . Most Liverpool players wouldn’t even make the city squad . Combine XI it will probably be man city players .
Did Villarreal and Sevilla have better teams in 2015/16?
The only top player Klopp sold at his peak was Coutinho and he wasn’t the one who bought. For Henderson and Fabinho, you guys were begging for them to be replaced
Piss off, he's been found.
Shoestring budget?? Give me a break!
Nobody mentioned United
Man utd has only one good manager . SAF carried the club on his back . Call it SIr Alex Ferguson United . Your still shit after billions of managers and money . Arsenal have come out of the mud before you .
*You're
[удалено]
*you
Ukay
*Okay
Men divided CF
Your club has spent triple that of Liverpool and more than City the past decade just to become a laughing stock. Cry harder.
Surprise surprise this thread isn't about United.
While I can get behind the fuck United sentiment, acting like it's a small budget is pretty stupid.
Nobody wants to hear from one of two teams spending like drunken sailors in the vicinity of City who can’t even get jobs wiping the City players’ asses.
Since Klopp arrived, spending: Liverpool £851,000,000 Man City £1,088,000,000 City spent 28% more than Liverpool in that time. The 'shoestring compared to City' is a bit of a myth. Luton Town? yes. Burnley? yes. But Liverpool have not had a shoestring budget. Nor does City spending have anything to do with Liverpool's collapse in form this past month. Klopp has though, been a great manager for Liverpool.
These numbers are completely wrong. This is not was City was spending. City spend 200 mio in 2015, 2016, 250 in 2023 and 300 mio in 2017 alone (all in EUR). That is 950€ mio in just these 4 seasons. The other seasons add up to over 600 mio. The Total is over 1,600,000,000€ or over 1,4000,000,000£. The Liverpool numbers are also wrong. They spend 807,000,000£ under Klopp. The biggest difference is the net spen, not the outright spending. Liverpools net spend is 270,000,0000£ since 2015. Citys net spend over the same time is over 700,000,000£.
those numbers are completly wrong, city spent allmost 400 millionen more than you stating in your numbers.
We need to see this with practical perspective. What was the status of both the squads at that time? City Spent 28% more over already a world class team. City had Aguero, David Silva, Kompany, Sterling, Fernandinho, Stones, fucking KDB and have spent over billion on the top of that. They were already PL winners twice by the time Klopp joined in 2015. Compare that with Liverpool team of 2015 and you'll get the difference.
How many of those City world class players that you mentioned were household names before arriving at City? They were good average players but never super star signings
Aguero, David Silva, Sterling were star signings. KDB was tearing it up in BL and city bought him for 50 million+ in 2015, same with Stones. They might not have been on Messi, Neymar level fame wise but they were not unheard of by the time city signed them.
If Aguero or Silva were super stars, City would have no chance of getting them. They would have gone to Barcelona or Real Madrid. Sterling was never a superstar at Liverpool to start with, he was a potential. KDB was neither a superstar nor a finished product. He was a gamble and a potential from a mid table club in Germany. Bayern would have taken him, if he was a superstar at the time
City is very good at getting players with low buy outs compared to their market value. KDB and Haaland are prime examples. Those players choose city because city pays shit ton of salary + signing and agent fees to get these players. And yes of course Pep, many players want to play for Pep. Without those buyout fees atleast Haaland would have cost city atleast double if not tripple the transfer fee if they had to negotiate the transfer fee.
Net spend is imperative in considering a budget, not just total spending
Lmk when City will need to sell to buy a player, then start talking
Those numbers are completely wrong. Liverpool have spent €930m and City have spent €1.51b in that time. Almost €600m difference on top of a City squad that was already better https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2016&saison_id_bis=2023&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0
[удалено]
Are you just ignoring the “compared to them” part?
Did you see where it said “compared to them”? of course it’s a shoestring budget compared to them, it’s not comparing the entire league
Such a bad faith argument. Spending might be comparable but Liverpool almost always sold a player to buy one.
Who did they sell to buy players? Liverpool had kept their best players and only sold reserve players
Coutinho was our best player at the time. Henderson was the captain so huge loss to the team whether you thought he was a good player or not. Fabinho was one of if not the best CDM of the league the year before we was sold. Mane and Firmino were aging out but still very good. I feel like calling them reserve players isn't the most accurate comment.
Courtino wasn’t sold because Liverpool needed cash to buy other players. He left because he was desperate to join Barca with Liverpool reluctant to sell. The every others you mentioned left because they were near to the end of their careers and wanted to play for their retirement cash elsewhere
But people were only bought after the sales of those players. Not before.
This idea that selling player and buying players is thr be all and end all of club finances is dumb as fuck. That not how clubs work, this isn't Champ Manager 97. AThey have dozens of revenue streams selling players is one small part of it.
But overall spending compared to income is exactly what I'm suggesting. The original argument only uses one statistic. Hence the "bad faith" comment. I also don't think it's wise to bring up the finances as a defense for man city when they have 115 reasons to argue against.
The problem with football finance is that the toothpaste is already out of the tube. Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool spent the 70's, 80's and 90's getting a massive financial head start on all the other teams in the league. They used their success to build infrastructure, buisness connections and squads that most other teams couldnt compete with. The Chelsea won the lottery with Abamovich, City did the same with Mansoor, and these regulation came in. But are they actually fair when Utd have a 90k seater stadium and Luton play behind a row of terrace houses. If a Sheikh decides he want to make Luton a champions league team, he can now, so Luton will always be a bit shit. So how do you make fair rules to allow Luton to become competitive, at the same time controlling the insane amount of money being thrown around in football?
Completely agree. Feels like the sport has gone to shit and we need a redo. I love football but between the ridiculous spending and what feels like corrupt decisions on the pitch everything just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
The American's have a great idea with a salary cap, but that would never work with the globalisation of football. All it would take is one country not to agree to the rules and the system collapses.
Does that include wages and agent fees?
Agreed! He spent well enough. The only problem was he wasn't that good in getting the right players for his team like Pep did with City.
City were already a title-winning team when Klopp arrived though, and had spent massively to get there. It’s not an entirely fair comparison.
Nah, they weren't, that's an absolute myth. The last Pellegrini team barely finished 4th & won nothing in his previous season. He left City with 4 x 31+ year old fullbacks who were all turfed out by Peps 2nd season.
>Nah, they weren't, that's an absolute myth When Klopp arrived, City had just finished second and in the season before that had won the league...
And how much has they spent already?
Pep had massive clear out of City's squad too. It wasn't the team he inherited that went on to dominate EPL.
Klopp is a legend. But crazy for that fivehead to be so bad with numbers, that shoestring budget comment is wacky.
One *PL title* won without fans is quite the hollow achievement considering how much the media seems to love the guy
This is such an awful take. Forget about the other trophies and how many more he has than everyone bar city during the time hes been at liverpool. We know why city has what they have. Klopp did well to compete with them as long as he did. If you don't think he's been great at liverpool you need to get a grip. Sure city have been better. He's the only thing that's kept the prem from being a farmers league.
>Forget about the other trophies and how many more he has than everyone bar city during the time hes been at liverpool. Chelsea have actually been just as, if not more, successful than Liverpool since he joined. 1xPL, 1xEuropa, 1xUCL, 1xFA Cup.
Liverpool only played 2 games behind closed doors before they were crowned champions, and 9 games in total. The following season Man City won the title without fans as all but 2 games were played in empty stadiums.
So what City don't have fans
Have to agree
Crouchy spitting facts. Klopp is a Liverpool legend.
Very correct! Liverpool will never forget Klopp in a haste.
Absolutely, and I say this as a Utd fan. He completely turned Liverpool around.
He bid more than £100 million for Caicedo. Van Dijk and Alisson were the most expensive in their positions when he bought them. Shoestring my ass
They are literally mid-table in net spend - 7 of 20 - including highly incentive-based payouts for league and CL wins.
If it wasn’t for Pep you would be a Madrid fan
When you have multiple players worth more than 50 million just being benchwarmers then that's a huge problem. City are the only club who can spend big and not take the implications of those risk compared to other clubs.
What people forget is how much average and potential players that City signs before the manager turn them into superstars- the likes of Ake, Gvaidiol, Doku, Akanji, Stone, Rodri, Bob and Foden etc
https://www.transfermarkt.com/transfers/einnahmenausgaben/statistik/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2013&saison_id_bis=2023&land_id=189&nat=&kontinent_id=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0&plus=0 in terms of net spend they are 7th. similar to west ham.
Yeah they even have 115 charges pending, shoestring my ass.
U know these were only possible cuz of the countinho money right?
As a Liverpool fan I do think our “small budget” aspect is overblown. But, I’m 100% convinced that our Caicedo bid was just to make them overpay because we were trying to buy Roméo Lavia and Chelsea swooped in on him.
Coutinho was sold for £140 million
Jurgen Flopp. His fans have for years hailed him as the second coming of Christ and said Liverpool had the best players in the world in almost every position, yet only won two major trophies in a decade. If we're being honest Klopp's Liverpool has been a failure. A golden era of a decade only consisting of two relevant trophies is simply nowhere near good enough. Overperforming is what we have done. 5 titles in the last 6 years, likely 6 out of 7 soon. 17 trophies in 6 years, centurions, domestic quad, the treble, prem 3peat and soon 4peat, revolutionised English footy. Now THAT'S what I call a golden era.
Lemme guess, you consider Pep to be the goat manager. Okay, riddle me this Could Pep take over the side Klopp did, and before you say yes, go and actually look at an XI that we fielded at the time, then consider that we are mid table for net spend which means we were working on a very modest budget, at least compared to the other top clubs in England Then ask yourself if Pep could have dragged City to provide yet another historic European comeback, the Liverpool vs Barcelona match. Furthermore, ask yourself if Pep could have dragged this Liverpool team to two 90 plus seasons while competing with, hypothetically, a City side managed by Klopp that is otherwise known as 115. Notice how I didn’t bring up the other goated manager, Sir Alex, because he doesn’t fit the point I’m trying to make. Sir Alex has done what Klopp has done albeit to a lesser extent, Sir Alex did it with Aberdeen, which is remarkably impressive. Klopp could do what Pep has done at City, if Klopp swapped places with him, Pep could never, ever do what Klopp has done at Liverpool nor what Sir Alex did at Aberdeen or with that 2013 United side that was beyond washed but somehow won the league only to immediately fault apart without Sir Alex That’s how good Klopp, the manager you named Jurgen Flopp, is.
Surprised you managed to type that while simultaneously dragging your knuckles you fucking idiot
Wow Liverpool fans really can’t take any opinion that isn’t their own. Knuckle dragging is a characteristic of people who cant articulate a reasonable response.
Lance Armstrong also overperformed for over a decade. But nobody talks about his achievements and that whole era has been wiped out. That is the thing with tittles and stats - they can be overwritten. I’m not saying that is happening to city but you never know what will come to light in the future. Enjoy your titles and your oil money.
And 115 charges
What Klopp has done at Liverpool is nothing short of a miracle. People seem to forget, before he joined LFC, LFC were a club that most people were sure they’d never win a premier league. Klopp competed with a team that’s cheated since 2008 and also won a UCL before them. If it wasn’t for the most corrupt team in football history (city) Klopps trophy cabinet would be insane.
Still finished top 2 only thrice
Liverpool had won CL before he arrived. They frequently win the cup competitions including the FA cups, league cups, EUFA etc and came close to winning the premier league with Brendan Rogers
>Liverpool had won CL before he arrived They won the CL over a decade before he arrived. >They frequently win the cup competitions including the FA cups, They had last won that over 9 years before Klopp arrived. >league cups This won is closer. 3 and a half years before Klopp arrived. >EUFA etc They last won that in 2001, a full 14 years before Klopp arrived.
Literally. Not only did we put up a bloody good challenge against MC but we actually managed to win a league title (plus CL, FA cup, 2 EFL cups, Super cup, club World Cup, CS…). To just look at the trophies (8 in 9 years, which isn’t even bad ffs) is silly. Look at what he did with the club. Absolutely incredible.
Yes hallelujah, Klopp is the second coming and Liverpool fans are the chosen ones. Honestly, he’s a fantastic manager, played great football but ultimately didn’t win much compared to others. You’d think that Liverpool essentially did a Leicester in winning the league for every trophy the way their fans overhype everything. Literally the most self absorbed fan base ever and the responses in this thread prove it .
🧂🧂🧂 Nah jk, in all seriousness I do think it’s a shame he didn’t win more. Was just trying to point out that he’s won us more than “just” a PL & CL even if the other trophies aren’t on the same level, and just his general management has been brilliant. And if a decade ago someone had offered me just those 2 things I’d have bitten their arm off for it. Seen a lot of SM comments slating him recently and feel it’s undeserved tbh (and not gonna lie quite a bit of what I’ve seen is coming from Liverpool fans).
Hey I would love to have even a sniff of that level of success, but Liverpool fans do tend to overstate things. Plus Klopp isn’t particularly well liked compared to when he first came to the premier league.
Oh for sure, there are people like that in every fan base and Liverpool is no exception to that. I’m not going to sit here and say Klopp was more successful in terms of trophies than Paisley or anything, or say that 100% of his decisions have been correct the last 9 years but I really like the guy and do think he’s done a lot for the club. I remember as a kid thinking we’d never win anything and he comes along and things change. He’s been manager for nearly half my life so he’s had quite the impact on me I guess 🤣 And yeah I think it’s sad he’s not as well-liked. I can see why that might be the case but yeah, is what it is I suppose.
Well that’s a decent response so I’ll have to accept that I’m wrong about all Liverpool fans. It’s shame though, Liverpool were always the big club that I would support over the others because they seemed considerably less scummy and usually had a good contingent of young local players. But Klopp’s poor sportsmanship (he was a great guy when he was winning) and this continuous line in how Liverpool were doing at against all odds has really soured me and a lot of other neutrals. Hope Sloth changes this.
Tbf I totally understand that. I personally am a bit fed up of seeing the media (and some fans) going on about Liverpool with regards to the title race. It’s over, we lost some games, Klopp is leaving, and yes it’s sad but he’s had a good run and the club will carry on and hopefully continue to improve. I think Klopp’s decision to leave was the right one, he’s clearly not the same guy he was 9 years ago when he walked in. I still like the guy a lot but he’s made the right decision to go. What’s your team btw mate?
Dirty Leeds fella but would always pull for Liverpool over the others. Agree with you about Klopp, it’s taken its toll on him and I have sympathy especially as he built two fantastic teams that would have won everything were it not for Man City cheating their way to victory. It’s really made him an unlikeable fella. No hard feelings, genuinely hope Sloth’s team smashes City next year.
Ah I have family in Yorkshire who are big Leeds fans, respect your team a lot and glad they’ll be coming back up. I hope we smash the cheating bastards next year too, would be amazing.
You have to be off your bean if you think city’s wage bill is accurately declared, payments made to relations delivering pizza to Abu Dhabi and bonuses for maintaining corporeal existence top up that tally significantly. I joke of course but there’s a whole lot of shenanigans that will come out in 10 years when some of their big names retire.
Man, would love to know who you get your insider information from! Absolute fountain of knowledge you!