9 Aug 2012

Bravo! Brendan Rodgers debunks yet another false LFC myth...

During Rafa Benitez's Anfield reign, the tiresome 'sell-to-buy' excuse reason was wheeled out on a regular basis by the Spaniard's deluded disciples fans in a bid to rationalise mistakes in the transfer market. Predictably, the same thing is happening under Brendan Rodgers, but like with Benitez, there is absolutely no evidence to back up that contention.

Along with the cretinous Net-Spend argument, and the tedious, oft-debunked notion that 'Rick Parry signed Robbie Keane', the sell-to-buy argument is one of the most irritating unfounded myths about Benitez's time at Liverpool.

The same myth is now popping up under Rodgers. Due to Liverpool's slow movement in the transfer market, and potential sales of Daniel Agger, Martin Skrtel and Andy Carroll, fans are once again surmising that Liverpool's manager is being forced to sell in order to free-up funds to buy new players.

Thankfully, Rodgers himself debunked that myth today in his Melwood press conference. When discussing the potential sale of Agger, Rodgers made a special point of stating the following:

"I am not being forced to sell anyone, which is important"

There you have it, straight from the manager's mouth: he is not being forced to sell anyone, and if that's the case, then he's not being forced to sell-to-buy.

Case closed.

Not that it will make any difference. Fans will still persist with the myth, just like they did under Benitez. As a comparison: during his recent 'Audience with Rafa Benitez' show, the Spaniard himself debunked the Robbie Keane myth, yet some fans still continue to argue that Benitez didn't want Keane (!)

People believe what they want to believe, even when that belief is directly contradicted by irrefutable fact.

Jaimie Kanwar


80 comments:

  1. Pfft, who wants facts or to take what the manager says on face value?

    Didn't you know that Rogers has had to sell his family silver to fund player buys? I know this because my cousin's friend's step-brother read it on an internet forum. That's clearly more reliable than what Rogers says :P

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is always strange how you can slag people off but no one else can. Oh i guess coz you put a line through it it is ok?

    ReplyDelete
  3. On another note, i don't think Rogers has to sell to buy. I think he is just trying to get the right players in and right now it isn't working out for him just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also JK, why can you say bad things about people and we can't?

    ReplyDelete
  5. He's not being forced to sell anyone, but he's not allowed to actually sign someone if he doesn't. Jamie, you're a big fan of numbers; have you looked at whether or not LFC have spent more than they have made in transfers since FSG arrived?

    ReplyDelete
  6. its mr kenny to you cretin10:43 am, August 09, 2012

    eh jamie, you remember that liverpool were under different ownership under rafa? your posts are getting worse. go support man utd please.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There was never a doubt in my mind that he had to sell before buying to be honest, which is a good thing.

    New acquisitions will come, but with inflated player prices and greedy agents it has become more difficult, especially with the media speculating all the time.

    I still think, IMO, that we need a left back, left and right winger, attacking mid and a striker. 

    We shall see...
     

    ReplyDelete
  8. jamie i agree its fantastic to hear that we don't have to sell-to-buy under Brendan but Rafa said himself that he was working under financial constraints and that he did have to free up funds to bring in players in an interview with sky sports when he was at home last year. 

    ReplyDelete
  9. didn't have to sell ** 

    ReplyDelete
  10. I simply believe that Rodgers is working to a plan. Which is to work to a tight budget to get us into 4th and then he will have better funds because as we found with King Kenny money means very little when you cant offer Champions league to players.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jaime, you're the only one still stuck in the past. Pretty sure everyone else have moved on. 

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Of course you might lose a top player but if it benefits you going forward - and you can make two or three steps because of it - you may have to consider it." Brendon Rodgers!!!

    Case back open!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jamie;  Just because for some unknown reason you hated Rafa Benitez, please don't insult others who did like him, and some of whom had a greater insight into what was going on behind the scenes during the Hicks/Gillette reign than you had.  

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you are going to have an open blog you have to accept that not everyone will be a Jaimie Kanwar diciple (that kind of devotion will take serious effort on your part).  You wind people up this then starts slanging matches between opposing factions, which then get heated and become personal whilst you continue to stir your wooden spoon.  You then ban people who overreact to your insults. 

    I think your people skills still need work.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To be honest, even if the manager is being told that he has to sell to buy, he is not going to come out in a press conference and state that is he? As a Club, you do not want to showcase that fact.

    And in terms of slagging off Rafa's buys, well if Agger leaves for £27m then that will be another in the long line of players he bought where significant profits have been made on them (following the likes of Alonso, Torres, Sissoko, etc) And you know that if we sold Skrtel and Reina then they would join that group. Rafa obviously made bad buys - every manager does - but people conveniently forget the fantastic buys he made for the Club.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rodger's has said numerous times that there isn't a lot of money in the pot. So if he wants to spend big he will obviously have to sell players to fund those moves. Why else would he make the comments he did regarding the potential Agger sale if money for signings wasn't an issue? This is the quote:


    "The reality is we don't the money that was here, I don't have a bucket-load of money to go and get in a load of players. We have to be strategic."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Brendan also said the club has to be strategic in the money it spends and while he says he is not being forced to sell anyone he is also saying that he has not got funds to buy players so in reality he is having to sell to buy!
    Your infatuation with Rafa is borderline stalkerish, he is a manager that brought liverpool to the brink of winning the premier league, won us the champions league the FA cup and got us to 2 other finals one being a champions league he was a fantastic servant yet you continually try to darken his tenure, move on your only dragging out your ridiculous spat with his many fans. I for one think he was a wonderfull manager who brought far more good times than bad during a very turbulent time in the clubs history which we are still reeling from.
    out of few managers the club has actually had in its entire history Rafa is one of the better ones. Not saying he didnt make mistakes he obviously did some glaring ones in fact but those days are gone i dont hear you bang on about Roy Evan, Houllier, Souness, Hodgson etc.

    For the record i think its better we sell before we buy as we dont have a rich owner to bankroll our expenditure 

    ReplyDelete
  17. To be honest I don't feel strongly about this either way as what a new manager does in the transfer market is down to him and the board and none of us will ever know their budgets so what happens happens.

    However will say that the above statement alone is not proof that rodgers doesn't have to sell to buy at all. It just means he doesn't have to sell, taken as just that statement, it has no relevance to buying. If he'd then gone on to say that he can spend what he likes or words to that effect, that would mean he doesn't have to sell to buy. 

    As it stands, here's what you can take from that statement: 
    rodgers doesn't have to sell and recoup money, but that it's his choice as to whether he doesn't sell and sticks with the squad he has, or that he has to sell in order to buy, or that selling doesn't have any impact on his buying. 

    ReplyDelete
  18. About whom did I say bad things?  Did I attack an individual?  No. If you want to generalise about a group (i.e. stupid Hodgson fans, for example), go ahead.  I'm criticising a group, not an individual (i.e. deluded Benitez disciples). Attacking individuals is outlawed.  Besides, calling someone 'deluded' is not really a serious insult. People call me deluded in the comments section and I just let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  19. They've definitely spent more. I'll post the exact figures later.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This has nothing to do with selling to buy; if a top player wants to leave, or if the price is too good to turn down then you'd have to consider it, no?

    ReplyDelete
  21. So what exactly is your point ? You don't like him being honest and upfront ? Your not happy that he's looking to bring in the right players at the right price? Let him do his job and let things unfold. I'm confident he has his targets and plenty of work is being done behind close doors. Suarez resigning shows that he believes in the manager and his philosophy .

    ReplyDelete
  22. Exactly the same way as 'not being forced to sell anyone' has no direct relevance to who can be bought. This article doesn't 'debunk' anything. 

    ReplyDelete
  23. yes budget of 30 mil a year spring to mind. thats  one class player. Not alot of money really,

    Bought bonie for 12 mil then gonna waste 15 mil on Allen. So as you see excluding the wages he  has saved the money has dried up.
    No wonder he is now shouting loans. Fact is if he wants to reshape the squad then he  has to sell to buy like other manager have to.

    ReplyDelete
  24. am not being forced to sell anyone?but if i want to buy someone thats a different question,or does rodgers believe caroll and agger are the worst players at the club please god hope not or were doomed anyway hope we get entertained tonight because uptill now its been trash

    ReplyDelete
  25. reply to guest post
    i actually agree with you here. well said but must admit for the few interesting posts from other people. it makes it worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. What is your point? Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.  Rodgers clearly stated he is not being forced to sell anyone; I didn't state that his statement has any 'direct relevance' to who can actually be bought.  Rodgers will have to work with whatever budget he has.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't really understand what you are getting at with this one Jamie, it all sounds very naive .He is just saying he doesn't have to sell. But obviously if he wants more money to spend he will have to! This has always been the case. How daft would Rodgers sound if he said "I am under pressure to sell"? Apart from anything else it would send out a message to other teams, for example City, that they can get Agger for less because he needs to sell him. Agreed? 

    ReplyDelete
  28. Not a Man Ure fan11:36 am, August 09, 2012

    hahaha! So so deluded!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Different owners when Benitez was there. Can't really compare Benitez's time in charge with Rodgers'. But if you're moaning at Benitez wasting money you need to strongly re-assess your views. Our best players were signed by Benitez and not one of them was over-valued and not one of them are un-worthy of a place in the starting 11. When compared with Downing, Carroll, Henderson; at least 1 Liverpool fan will question their existance in the current squad.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Naive? Give me a break. There is a difference between being forced to sell and making a personal choice to sell.  Rodgers has a personal choice.  He wasn't asked a direct question - he advanced that info of his own accord. 

    ReplyDelete
  31. Your whole article is about LFC managers and the myth they're being forced to 'sell to buy'.  You mention this around four times in your 6-7 paragraphs. 

    My point, is that the statement you're using as proof to debunk this myth has no relevance to the 'buy'-ing part, which is at least half of subject of your article. Thought that would have been obvious?! 

    ReplyDelete
  32. It makes perfect sense. Sell to Buy. No owner wants a bloated squad with high payout on wages. If there are no returns on investment. 
    Now the yanks want to rebrand Anfield. WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hear Hear!! Jaimie might use facts and figures all he wants but the fact is he only uses them to beat up Rafa. I have yet to see an article praising the good buys of Rafa and how much profit was made from them. Torres and Alonso alone brought us around 50 mill profit from purchase to sale price. He may have bought some duds (compare his to Fergies duds) but his gems made a massive impact on the club with trophies and then with profits from sales. Come on Jaimie, show us that you can be objective when it comes to Rafa. I want an article on the positives Rafa brought to Liverpool.

    ReplyDelete
  34. One thing you have to take into consideration is the 25 man squad rule Maxi,Aurelio and Kuyt have both left thats 3 spaces at least from last seasons squad selling to buy doesnt always have to be about money when you want to get players in

    ReplyDelete
  35. No, you're just being needlessly pedantic. If a manager is not being 'forced to sell' then how can he be forced to 'sell to buy?! You can't have one without the other. You need both components:

    a) Being forced to sell
    b) Buying as a result of being forced to sell

    Without part A, part B doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You are the one who needs to be objective. There are dozens of articles praising Benitez. Do some research on the site. Just because they're not right in front of your face it doesn't mean they don't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Of course it does! The manager has the option to stick with his existing squad. It just means he doesn't have to sell to bring any money in. Doesn't have to be any impact on buying there at all. 

    ReplyDelete
  38. We dont need to buy that many with the youth we have.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm sorry, but your completely missing the point, and trying to make this about something that's totally irrelevant. 

    There is nothing in my article that suggests anything to do with how Rodgers deals with his current squad.  The point is simple: he does not have to sell to buy. Anything outside of that is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  40. But if he is told he cant to buy his targets unless he brings in 20m plus from sales is he not then being forced to sell?

    ReplyDelete
  41. While I actually agree with you on FSG's intentions, I think the final proof can only be found at the end of the transfer window. If Rodgers ends up getting his 3-4 targets, spends 30 or 40 million and has no major sales then it will be clear: he did not need to sell in order to buy. However, just from that statement alone, it's not clear that's what he means. He's only said that he doesn't need to sell. He's saying nothing about why or what that means for getting our targets. He does otherwise say that if we did get money from selling Agger that it would potentially help the squad with 2 or 3 other additions. That's a clear indication that selling players would allow him to spend more. It's not a "you must sell players in order to raise funds for any transfer" but it's still very much a concept of "sell to buy". No matter how you twist it, the concept will always stand: there is never limitless money to spend and no LFC manager is likely to be able to acquire every one of his targets without a care for some kind of budget. If he wants to spend more and the money simply isn't available then he'll have to raise funds. How could it be any other way? Unless we have a sheik or an oil tycoon with deep pockets, there will always be a ceiling and for that reason it will always make sense that there will be a point where in order to spend more money a manager will have to raise funds through sales. It's just simple maths. 

    ReplyDelete
  42. Someone talking sense! Very good points!

    ReplyDelete
  43. No you're deliberately missing my point Jaimie. And that is, from the statement you provide from rodgers, you don't know that he doesn't have to sell to buy, and you have no proof to suggest otherwise.  

    ReplyDelete
  44. Please post a link to the quote where Rodgers has been told he must bring in 20m from sales.

    You won't be able to because he hasn't been told that. You can make up anything you want when it comes to speculative counter-arguments but it doesn't mean anything.

    What you've suggested is unfounded, baseless speculation; what I've posted is fact, direct from the manager's mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  45. You just don't get it. Rodgers' statement speaks for itself, and you're so blinded by your zeal to prove me wrong that you have no objectivity. I'm not wasting any more time on this pedantry.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Jaime

    I disagree with the "cretenous Net-Spend argument" comment.  People are entitled to their views on the merits of Net-Spend vs Gross Spend. 

    Here are my views on the matter:

    Gross spend - great metric to use when assessing a managers judgement on a player as well as the level of funding given by owners in order to back their manager.  However, because it doesn't take into account the overall budget available, it is an incomplete measure

    Net spend - great metric to use when judging a manager based on their ability to live within the budget assigned to them, ability to invest wisely in players who won't dramatically lose their value, ability to improve a player

    There are lots of other metrics to judge a manager - most notably their team's performance in the league, europe, the cups, etc. 

    It's not a question of Gross Spend vs Net Spend.  You should judge a manager in the round, and not on the basis of a very narrow metric. 

    Weak debaters & poor commentators will often latch onto one narrow statistic in order to try to prove a point.  This is intellectually dishonest in my view. 

    ReplyDelete
  47. I enjoyed LFC under Rafa but then i`m deluded

    ReplyDelete
  48. When I say 'deluded disciples' I refer to a minority subset of Benitez's support, i.e. the fanatical 'In Rafa We Trust' brigade who believed he was some kind of messiah and could do no wrong, ever; who believed that Benitez was more important than the club. If you were part of that group, then yes, you are deluded.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I used that figure hypothetically to illustrate my point Jamie. Ok I will put it another way. Rodgers has obviously identified players he wants but do you think he will be given the funds to buy his targets without selling? FSG are a business, the words spoken by Rodgers are obviously to send out the message that he is not going to sell on the cheap. I don't understand how you can't see this.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You are the most one-sided, biased, deluded blogger out there Jaimie. It's quite staggering. When Benitez said something in a press conference he was lying but when Rodgers says it it's conclusive proof??! Ridiculous. Oh and, can you please put up all those articles you wrote which were themselves debunked and you subsequently removed? In the interests of ‘critical reality' or whatever other bullshit jargon you want to use. There is only one cretin here Jaimie. *you*

    ReplyDelete
  51. There's nothing to get Jaimie. The article you're trying to pass off as proof is not proof at all. The statement doesn't speak for itself, it doesn't even prove what you're trying to say. It's just one quote from an interview plucked with the intention of bending people's opinions to fit you own. You don't know whether rodgers has to sell to buy same way as I don't, and despite your so called 'proof', you never will, unless of course you suddenly get appointed to the liverpool board in the next few weeks. 

    ReplyDelete
  52. So just to be sure, we can attack groups but not individuals? Sounds silly to me. Anyway, i respect the fact you try to keep the forum a place to discus and not big name calling matches. Just don't like your stance on Rafa. I think the mans achievements deserve more respect from the deluded, anti-Rafa, "i want it so i deserve it" mind-set, cult 

    ReplyDelete
  53. why was any of the post edited? i was only pointing out your infatuation with all things Rafa related, you like to make statements "in your opinion" yet edit out anything you dont like, nothing in my post was offensive except maybe to your sensibilities

    ReplyDelete
  54. you say the subject of the article is that Rodgers doesnt have to sell which debunks the myth of having to sell in order to buy while singling out Rafa, and that it has no direct relevance when quite clearly it does.
    Another cheap shot twisting the argument to suit your agenda

    ReplyDelete
  55. It's sensible to sell unwanted players and remove them from the wage bill before adding further to it. If he's been told that's what he has to do, that isn't 'selling to buy' but it still means we have to sell 'before' buying.
    It would also be true that he isn't being 'forced to sell anyone' however it's still adding up to the same thing.

    Interpreting Rodger's words to suit a particular point of view is no different to what you accuse 'certain fans' of doing. They interpreted Rafa's words and actions in a way that proved their 'point' or fitted in with their agenda.

    Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so. 'FACT'. 

    ReplyDelete
  56. The man was hounded out because the league title was beyond our reach. those same "fans" must be wishing we had rafa's brilliance to get us 4th place. my gosh, how the mighty have fallen. 

    ReplyDelete
  57. For sure he isnt being forced to sell. Its just a coincidence that there seems to be min money in the kity and no players coming in...

    1 + 1 = ???

    ReplyDelete
  58. You enjoyed rafa#s reign ? what a moron you are: whats so great about a CL, FA cup, Runners up medal in the league. Sigh...

    Nice to hear that BR is implementing a pressing game and zonal marking again. 

    ReplyDelete
  59. Missed the sarcasm I take it?

    ReplyDelete
  60. There just isn't any evidence of a 30m pound budget. You've only ever read that number on web sites or in cheap tabloids. Rodgers never said it, the owners never said it, no one within the club ever said it. It's just some number that a dodgy journo made up because it sounds plausible and us fans will maybe believe it. Rodgers has only said that there isn't "buckets of money". Does that mean 30m, 40m or 50m? How much did Dalglish get to spend? It's all speculation and made up rumours. Stop believing everything you read and let's just wait to see who we end up signing when the transfer window is done. 

    ReplyDelete
  61. The hole in your logic is that Rodgers fails to say weather or not he still has the ability to fund more transfers. If he doesn't, the statement is still consistent. It may be entirely possible that he is not "forced to sell" but also have no ability to bring in new players outside of loan deals. Of course he is not being "forced to sell to buy" because no one is going to force him sell one player and buy another. That would be absurd. 

    ReplyDelete
  62. The crux of this issue is very simply weather or not the owners have free cash available for Rodgers to fund transfers. If there are funds for transfers then he can get the players he wants. Saying he has to "sell to buy" is all about there being NO money to fund transfers. If there are no transfer funds available and he wants Joe Allen he must raise the 15 million needed. The only way to do that would be through player sales. That's just simple math. So in order to establish clearly that there he is not required to sell in order to get the transfer targets he wants, we actually do need to establish there are funds available. Rodgers simply saying he is not "forced to sell" is not enough. If no more transfer fees are paid out for incoming players then we can not conclude that funds were clearly available. Only when Rodgers says there are funds available or actually completes a transfer can we clearly say there is no need to sell in order to buy. Until that point all we have is the man saying he is under no pressure to sell any players. That's why JK's conclusion is premature and certainly not a statement of fact. 

    ReplyDelete
  63. Rodgers does not have to sell to buy. He has money to spend but just not as much as Mancini would have.

    If Rodgers had to sell Agger then that money from the sale will be added to whatever is in the kitty. Plain and simple.

    Rodgers either has the option of keeping Agger and spending what's left in the kitty or selling Agger and making the transfer kitty that much better with the money from the Agger sale.

    If Rodgers was forced to sell to buy then we would have not yet signed Borini and we have also triggered the 15mil release clause for Joe Allen. That is already 27mil spent on two players.

    We cant use the departures of Kuyt, Maxi, Aurelio and Aquilani as examples of having to sell to buy as we made bugger all off these players leaving Anfield for their new clubs but getting rid of these players has cleared a big chunk of the wage bill and made room for at least 5 players to join before the window shuts.

    Whether Agger and/or Carroll stay or go, we will still see new faces arrive before the window shuts.

    ReplyDelete
  64. That definitely was a massive chunk of sarcasm for someone to miss! :P

    ReplyDelete
  65. Brendan Rogers is not being forced to sell players because he has owners who are backing him and have put in place a long term plan for the club to succeed. This does not mean that when Benitez was in charge he wasn't under pressure to sell players in order to bring other players in. As such nothing has been debunked. At the end of the day it is impossible to really now the truth...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Neiljamiesonhall4:03 pm, August 09, 2012

    The silence says it all!!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Well I am a reasonable man and I will take that on board. However how much did Daglish spend net on players? 28 mil if I am not mistaken. So lets see how much our present manager will spend. Considering they have  moaned about how much they have spent already ill be surprised if it exceeds that amount. The proof is in the pudding.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Jamie the more I think about it the  more I feel Gareth has a point. If you take into consideration net spending so far and all the sponsorship deals we have, gate takings , money from  being in competitions and the league had then the americans have not spent a dime overall.
    I could be wrong but I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I presume you refer to your silence. I asked you for proof of your earlier assertion and you haven't provided it.

    ReplyDelete
  70. No matter how Deluded so called fans like JK try to malign Rafa benetiz, Benetiz will be back in a season or 2, Rodgers looks like he is also going the same way Kenny went. 

    ReplyDelete
  71. leave it Ken, its easy to criticize someone like Rafa benetiz..who left one of teh best academy in uk right now, but not a word against Kenny dalglish such is the biased views of some of the so called writers. 

    ReplyDelete
  72. There is no such thing as a " In Rafa we trust, he is the Messiah and can do no wrong Ever, he is more important than the club" Brigade, However there is a "We blame rafa for everything and no matter how many times our deluded arguments are debunked we will stand by our cognitive dissonance" Brigade.

    ReplyDelete
  73. As long as FSG are around Rafa will never be allowed to manage at LFC. Plain and simple FACT.

    If Rafa was a wanted man then he would already have a job since being sacked by Inter. Guess what, he is still looking for a job in England which he will never get.

    Best for Rafa to head back to Spain but he might have to wait his chance for a team in La Liga to come knocking on his door.

    You have to ask yourself the question why no clubs have snapped up Rafa. How long has he been without a job now and does anybody actually want him?

    ReplyDelete
  74. forgive my petulance, but saying he is not forced to sell, doesn't exactly equate to saying he doesn't need to sell to buy. It just means he's not forced to sell. I know its pedantic, but I just wanted to make sure that we read the English as plain English. Football managers are notorious for making innuendos. For example, Rodgers says that Carroll is a great player, and would expect a player worth £35 mil should be adaptable. Not exactly a resounding defense, more like a veiled threat to Carroll - but phrased in such a way that it seems irrefutable. So saying he is not forced to sell is NOT the same as saying he has money for transfers, at least not in Football Manager speak. 

    I am not getting into this argument, since I don't think its worth it to get heated about it. Clearly FSG have some money aside, but we also know they will be weary after KD blew it all last time. I just wanted to point out that managers say a lot of things in the transfer window, and it may be about keeping Aggers price up. If others know we need to sell, they can undercut. 

    Just playing Devil's Advocate - the discussion doesn't really interest me.

    ReplyDelete
  75. This is how I read it too. Rodger's goes on to say that the club 'doesn't have a bucket load of money' and that they have to be 'strategic'. Which to me basically sounds like we don't have much room to maneuver unless we free up some more cash, i.e selling players.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I have explained that I was talking hypothetically but you have chosen to ignore my question for obvious reasons. 

    ReplyDelete
  77. Sorry, you're slating Rafa here? The man that earned us a 2nd place league finish, a champions league, another champions league final, and the FA Cup. Really?

    Sure, a few mistakes were made, but fuck me, those trophies forgive those mistakes. If Rafa had £150m to spend rather than Dalglish, we may even have won the league.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Rafa was working under different owners with different constraints. So this article is absolutely pointless...

    ReplyDelete
  79. Jaimie to further back up your point our COE also stated that we have the finances to compete with any club and if the manager identifies a player then the funds will be made available to him. I dont think it can be any clearer than that. Now we have Brendan telling us that he doesnt have to sell to buy. I dont see what more proof posters on here need but of course they will still try to split hairs over a point that isnt there to start with.

    ReplyDelete
  80. You only made the point that Rodger's doesn't have to sell.  However, Jasper's making the point that if he wants to buy, he may have to sell!
    Also I think its a bit naive to take what managers say at face value. Though I do doubt we are the position of having to sell to buy.  It seems FSG approach the transfer market on a case by case basis. It appears that if they believe there's good business to be done, they will invest.

    ReplyDelete