David Hodgson

At the afterworks bar with the gaffa, J Henry. His round. Stuffs a fifty into my palm and says 'get a bottle of their best champagne. Only the best mind !'. I looks down at the crumpled note dubiously . 'What are you waiting for?! Go get 'em tiger !' urges JH. I return to the group moments later. 'They say their best champagne is about 200 quid'. 'Whaaaa ??!!' says John, 'whoever heard of such a thing. That's daylight robbery. I'd rather we go thirsty than pay that !' 'What does £50 actually buy us ?' he asks. 'A bottle of Pinot Grigio, about 6 pints, and a pack of scampi fries. It's dear for basic s***e here, ' I reply. 'Great ! Get that ! ' says JH, 'we're celebrating !'. I move to go back to the bar. A hand on my shoulder. 'Let me have that fifty back. See what you can get for 20'.

I didn't think he implied the £100m was on top of any rollover from last year. His point that this year's budget - whatever level it started at - *may* have been augmented by last years under spend is entirely reasonable . And I don't even begin to get what you're driving at with your last para I didn't think he implied the £100m was on top of any rollover from last year. His point that this year's budget - whatever level it started at - *may* have been augmented by last years under spend is entirely reasonable . And I don't even begin to get what you're driving at with your last para

There's logic in what he says. You think they don't budget net transfer spends year by year ? Last spring there will have been projections on net transfer spending requirements for the following 3 years. If the budget doesn't get spent year one it's more than possible it gets rolled over into year 2. Obviously there's no guarantee this happens because other cash flow considerations come into play as circumstances change, but you can be damned sure they will have 'modelled' for it to do so. And all the 'but yeah, where's the Robbie Keane money' eye rolling doesn't make this principle incorrect.

I don't want to blow hot and cold on the club, but this seems such an easy thing not to be messing up on.

Yeah but .... Matip and Lovren are under threat from a very much wanted new centre back signing. One of them is likely to lose first choice status. Liverpool initially moved for Mendy and Sessegnon, so Milner can't rest easy . Clyne will be nervous about an improving TAA. Lallana and Wijnaldum are threatened by the pursuit of Keita and the possible dropping back of Coutinho. Firmino is threatened by Salah and other attacking signings . Of the outfield players I think only Mane & Coutinho can rest easy at this moment that they'll be first picks come August.

Guaranteed starts : Mignolet Coutinho Mane

More than ties in. I'd wager one messaged the other.

Don't be obtuse. I'm making a point about the fine margins between success and failure. Also, in the latter list we come closer to winning a premier league title than at any time in 27 years. It would've been the biggest event in the last 27 years . There are lots of sliding doors moments in football . No. Just that it's probably more complex than the polarisations which settle on either - - they're sh*t or - they're great If I thought they were merely unlucky I'd be giving them a much higher score than 6/10.

We've been close. In their 7 years - 2 League cup finals 1 FA Cup final 1 Europa final 2nd in the league. In the 7 years that precedes them - 2 Champions League finals 1 league Cup final 1 FA Cup final 2nd in the league I know first is first and all that, but it isn't their fault Lallana misses a penalty in a shoot out, or that Gerrard slips, and it isn't previous regimes credit that Dudek keeps out shevchenko at point blank range, and that Gerrard scores the greatest goal ever seen in an FA cup final in injury time. I don't think they've been bold enough with team investment, but they've never been appalling with it either. They remain 6/10 custodians. For custodians of football clubs you maybe take that. I'm not sure. I think there was an obvious weaknesses in our squad size coming into this season. Sturridge - an injury record that suggested he couldn't be relied upon. The season he has had was entirely predictable. Origi - had looked raw in 15/16, and that he could be viewed as adequate cover for Firmino, Coutinho or Mane was highly debatable. We went into last season with real question marks over the cover for our front 3. As a minimum, we should have set our squad up so that players of the level of Sturridge and Origi were fully fit and available on our bench week in week out. We had 5 players for our front 3 positions, and at any one time it would be likely that one would be injured, leaving you a man short on the bench. Put Sturridge into the mix and the risk of 2 injuries from 5 possibility increases. And then there's Mane and the AFCON situation. I'll accept we were reasonably stocked in defence and midfield (especially given Lallana's conversion) but the front 3 options always looked limited. One more very good forward player would've made a massive difference, and that could be seen without knowledge of hindsight.

I know what you mean. Wish listing feels a bit futile and pointless when there are actual names to discuss . Having said that , there have been some links to Mahrez and he's one you could see being on our radar, and would be very gettable.

I think Zaha would be a good buy. I think he's progressing at just the right time. Every time I've watched him this season he's been mediocre . Doesn't work hard enough , lacks pace and strength. Hard to know which was the real Mahrez. The current one or last season's version.

We want Mbappe. Been working on that one for a while . Hope is that we can convince him that we're best next club for his development . No idea if this means we've got a hope in hell or not.

Exactly. The Chinese purchases end the bulls*** notion that players these days give a f*** about location. In fact it demonstrates very clearly that when the money offered is sufficient there is no club a player won't move to. There are lads going there in their prime and being prepared to retire their careers for dough. It proves that at a certain price it's not worth talking about location, Champions League, club, prospects or anything. The highest bidder will win. If money on offer is equal I think we can compete with Juve in terms of our league being far more attractive than theirs. I'm not saying we see them off every time, but we shouldn't worry about going head to head with Juve in the way we would if it was say Barca. I think 50k a week extra would talk. Over a 5 year deal that's 12.5m. It's a fair wedge. And yano what, I'd love to see us offer Griezman 50k a week more than United's top offer. At the very least force the c**ts to have to pay more to get him.

Those squad players aren't an extraordinary expense. I'm starting from a position of saying - LFC need about 4 new faces, so instead of buying ones at the 120k level we would've budgeted for let's go for ones at a 250k level. And if you want I'll give you a more detailed analysis when I have time, but the broad brush strokes I'm talking in aren't nuts in percentage of turnover or existing wages terms. And fwiw that show you want is being recorded for Anfiedl Wrap's 'Unwrapped' on Wednesday with me hosting and Simon Hughes of the Independent as the main guest. We'll be looking at the fors and againsts raised in his piece today : http://www.independent.co.uk/author/simon-hughes

I think its do-able. Have a policy of securing 4 players, worth in today's market 180k a week, and pay them 250 a week. Let them replace the lads we currently pay c.£120k a week to. The delta (over 4 players ) is then a rise in wage costs of £520k per week, which is near as dammit £25m a year. That's a decent extra investment but not a gamble that would break the club. The potential upside is enormous - at the very least in financial terms - greater commercial exploitation because of bigger names, greater prospect of CL qualification etc. The only argument of note I've ever heard against this policy is that paying 4 lads 250k a week will put pressure to rise the wages of the rest of the squad. That is a myth, and Barcelona's wage structure is proof of it (4 or 5 on very high wages, and the rest on modest wages).

I don't get this ref dreading thing. They're all terrible men. I never see a good one. And even if they're especially bad, unless you genuinely believe they are utterly bent, then they're just as likely to give us a pen in the next game as the next team. And I don't care if we've had three pens and a sending off against us in our last 5 with Arthur Clattenwebb, he's still just as likely to come through for us, as stitch us up. Again - caveat - *unless* we're saying ref 'x' is actually corrupt. Really ? All bullsh*t aside. Really ?

He scores when he wants. I've watched him a bit. I can't see anything special in him mind.

This kid is the one they're getting really excited about :

I think our perception now that the squad isn't strong enough is largely with benefit of hindsight. I don't think, when we were taking down all comers in the Autumn, that there was much lamenting the lack of squad depth. Especially given our lack of European competition. The first sign really was from Klopp himself after the Ings injury. He said he felt he needed another attacking player (a 'winger'). However, I'm going to give it the big one and say (having set up this straw man brilliantly) that I - and I alone - flagged in August that it was dangerous to be going into the season counting on the like of Origi, Sturridge and Ings. Origi - because he's raw and prone to form lapses Sturridge - because he's injury prone Ings - because he had a major injury issue and is not nearly good enough Having said all this, it feels as though we've been a bit unlucky with all three of these things actually manifesting themselves. All of this compounded by us being without 3 of our main attacking 4 for large swathes of a 2 month period. I'd love to see how Chelsea would've coped had they seen similar levels of absence with likes of Hazard, Costa and Pedro. Yes they have Willian to come in, but they don't trust Batshuyi. Is Chelsea's squad strong enough to have endured what we've endured (in terms of injury) unscathed ? I doubt it. Would United have gone on the run they did with Zlatan or Mikhitaryan out ? Truth is, if we could've had the versions of Origi, Sturridge and Emre Can that we enjoyed between Feb and May last year , then we'd be a lot better off points wise. I also think that a dip for our whole team was inevitable, but it was exacerbated by a number of things going against us at key moments. Marginally better luck and we might have won any of the 5 games we failed to win. Turn 2 of those back into wins and we're right in the title race. I'm the first to say we should have just paid double for Pulisic or Brandt but there's no great likelihood that either would have arrived by Jan 10th (say) and pulled up any trees. And now, with f*** all games left, we don't actually need them. There was always more chance of Origi refinding his mojo than Pulisic working immediate wonders. For me, the challenge this summer is very simple - find a clone for Sadio Mane. Pay whatever that takes.

All day. By far the best option.

He's not denying it. He's just saying PSG are favourites.

We've just paid over £30m for Sadio Mane and Wijnaldum. Draxler is a current German international. FSG aren't going to flinch at £30-40m if Klopp wants the player. Especially given the low net spend last summer.

He's a full back. You take 'meh' every day. Finnan was that. Phil Neal and Alan Kennedy were a bit that. Clyne is fine.

Nothing prepared us for the march of the Traores.

It was weird that it was live on TV. It made it seem like such a big trophy. I watched it in my nan's house. I loved that game. Rushie's debut too? Mad.