Davvo

The point you're missing here is that BR came up with a style that suited the players we had. It kept the ball at the other end of the pitch, where some of the best talent around kept banging the ball in. To do that, we were susceptible to the break, and to compound it there were some errors by error prone players. It'd be nice if the attack was great, and the defence was great, but it's not an ideal world. If he changes the style to a more conservative one, where we create fewer chances, you reduce the margins, and invite more pressure on poor defenders. The only game we played with a little more caution in the run in, was Chelsea. You can see why, with Hazard etc around, but also how one mistake means the game is gone. If you score 3 or 4, you can make 2 or 3 mistakes and still win. Risky, yes, but with those players last season it made total sense.

The accounts say otherwise.

Gutted. Odd how they don't tie the reasoning into the fact they don't have CL rights next year though. Actually, BT Sport will need more bodies for their coverage next year you'd think, so the disappointment could be short lived.

Where on earth did you find that? He's signed for them hasn't he ?

Don't think anyone has rubbished it, just that it's unlikely they'd do it for significantly less cash. Ayre most likely.

Rumours and counter rumours, who knows what to believe. I do find it hard to believe Sanchez goes to Arsenal for significantly less money though. I think London comes into it if the offers are similar, but not for half a million per year or something. These lads will go and play anywhere if they're offered enough cash, and understandably so.

We conceded against Palace, because we were forlornly trying to boost our GD, to give us an outside chance of going into the Newcastle game with the title partially on the horizon. There's nothing overly simplistic about that at all.

This nonsense about the defence costing us the league needs knocking on the head really. We leaked goals, in part, because of how committed we were to scoring. Winning 5-4 is better for your league position than winning 1-0, for a start. If you're looking at if's and but's, then scoring a goal against Chelsea is about the only variable needed, as we wouldn't have gone chasing goals at Palace. Saying you can't win the league conceding 50 is utter garbage. Granted it makes it harder, but when you have Suarez and Sturridge banging then in for fun, who cares.

It's his work, presumably they are pleased with it.

Because the evidence is that players on high wages are being off-loaded, and replaced by players on much lower wages. Unless there's a change in direction, we'll be going into next season with virtually no experience, on the pitch or off it.

There are 3 things players look at 1. How much am I getting paid 2. Who's the manager 3. What's the postcode of my new palace. Winning medals is generally tied up in points 1 and 2. If we have a challenge to lure big names, we need to solve point 1. If that doesn't work, then look at point 2. 3 is only a factor in the event of a tie in points 1 and 2. That's assuming we want to lure big names of course. Big names want big money.

Agree completely with this, of course it has turned up a couple of gems in Coutinho and Sturridge, but on the whole seems less than convincing so far.

Think you're confusing some figures there Flight. The amortisation and impairment is standard practice, the actual full cost of the transfers is noted seperately, and not relevant to profit loss in any one year's accounts. If we spend £120 million on players, all on 4 year contracts, then the cost incurred during that window is just £30 million. That's why I say there will be a profit showing for 2014 Summer window, as Suarez will show as the sale of an asset worth circa £10M, with the full fee being accounted for in that year's figures regardless of payment schedules from Barca. This is why it's important to see if other lowly valued assets, are sold for high fees. Smart work, but you have to be careful to make sure there's talent on the pitch still, not just potential.

Our accounts upto May 2014 (2013 Summer/2014Winter windows footnoted in May2013 accounts for profit/loss), show a loss of around £10M on player trading during their time here. Accounts covering the last transfer window will not be published for another year or so, but possibly footnoted again in the upcoming accounts, and they will likely show a profit for that period, or at least not a significant loss, depending on the exact fee for Suarez. Like I said, he's smart, and he plays the numbers game. These next 2 windows will be interesting, as the yearly amortisation has been increasing, so there would need to be a large fee received for a player with a low book value, in order to keep managing the books the way he has been (Sterling/Sturridge/Coutinho). If there are no such sales, and we keep buying, then the accounts will start to show a large investment on the playing side. Pretty much breaking even over his first 4 1/2 years, whilst people talk of £143M nett spend, is pretty smart though.

£50M of that is the loan to cover that rather odd debt due to the Dallas architect firm isn't it? I find it odd that was so high, and that they left it on the accounts, only to clear it once the legal stuff had been settled. More to that whole thing than meets the eye. Haven't seen anything about the debt to equity, but still, all in all, this isn't a big investment they've made yet is it ? Certainly not to the level of proving he's someone who invests big to win even bigger. Maybe if you look at it as FSG investing £300M or whatever it all is with the purchase cost, in the hope of getting £500M or more by selling, but not in terms of investing in the team for success ?

Whether that £143 is remotely accurate in terms of nett spend on transfers, I have no idea, but it's what, £35 million a year ? With the increases in TV money, ticket prices etc, and the general inflation in football, it's no more than we were used to spending under Moores. Henry has not spent big. He's managed us well so far, in terms of reducing the percentage of revenue spent on wages, generally getting our finances in better order (I think, but the accounts are so far behind, that's mostly assumption), and getting a stadium development started. All good, sound management, but not big spending by any stretch. The football side is still showing signs of poor judgement, and direction, in my opinion, largely with regards to the transfer policy and scouting. Gazprom's great for getting clothes clean I heard.

Hicks and Gillett must really have invested big in LFC then, considering the losses they incurred ? How much has that loss actually cost them Rimbeux ? Not on paper, I mean actually cost them ? They are smart and savvy investors, not wasteful. That's a good thing, I don't want our club bankrupted in the pursuit of trophies. However, let's not pretend they are big spenders being held back by the constraints of a pesky financial regulator.

Whilst I agree, signing him instead of Balotelli would have cost very little, if anything ( no idea on wages and agent fees etc). Even signing both, if it resulted in more goals, more points, and a greater chance of top 4 or higher, huge CL money next year etc, would it have been worth the money ?

I don't think it's ever going to be more than a mild deterrent, and more likely to hinder a club run like ours currently is, than the likes of City/Chelsea/PSG.

I think you'll find he likes to be the smartest fella in the game. The fact there is a rule in place restricting everyone, supposedly, to spending 'x' percentage of income, gives him the chance to prove he's the smartest. If he wanted to have spent bigger here he could have done, we don't appear to have even scratched the surface in terms of circumnavigating the flimsy FFP rules. I'm not suggesting we necessarily should, but he certainly hasn't shown a desire to. Any examples of him investing big at LFC mate ?

Oh absolutely, nothing wrong with the aspiration, though given the nature of the beast, it does seem there needs to be some risk to obtain reward. FFP is nice to have around though, when you're trying to be frugal in a business like football, isn't it? Nice to lean on when fans complain that you're not competing for top players in the market. I also think the whole concept really appeals to Henry, the thrill of playing the numbers and being the smartest owner.

Quite apart from anything else, it's not like they'd feel it anyway, if the sanctions on City and PSG's massive overspend are anything to go by. Staying within FFP is a nice excuse to offer lower wages though.

I don't think there's any evidence to support any of that, 1st sentence excepted. The last bit is just rhetoric really, who's accepting having their expectations managed ? We all want more don't we ? Moores and Parry were getting stick at every turn, I think some have short memories.

That can be the only explanation for suggesting we were better run 5 years ago.

Only been back in training a couple of days hasn't he ?