Chelsea's spending is obviously mental but I saw this article yesterday on Coinpoker indicating the Blues have spent more just on teenagers under Todd Boehly then the Merseysiders have on all players since the American took control at SB. Crazy stat or is it not really that surprising?
by 9horlb81
14 comments
I’ve seen two coinpker articles and both of them are this sort of weird irrelevant shit.
Liverpool don’t spend money, and then the owners gaslight the fans into believing they haven’t got any to spend….
A boy the millionth karma farming post in this topic
It’s neither crazy nor unsurpising, it’s irrelevent. What does it matter what Liverpool have spent, or Chelsea for that matter? These are two separate things and comparing them in this weirdly specific way serves no purpose at all.
Well let’s see, Liverpool are always hesitant to spend that’s why their fans always bang on about ‘NET SPEND’. Chelsea have always, and will continue to spend whatever their heart desires, spending under Boehly is bad but it’s hardly new for Chelsea, so these comparisons are quite silly
Liverpool fan here,
It only takes little research to find out that FSG are disliked in America by the boston redsox fans because they don’t spend and they’ve released 2 of their best players for free.
FSG are currently wanting to purchase another baseball team. The fanbase were praying FSG don’t buy them out.
It’s known, we don’t spend. We’re getting further from winning the CL and Prem. Im afraid we are gonna end up like 2006-2015 arsenal. Just constantly getting top 4 and it being enough for the owners.
I don’t even see us getting 4th this season. Maybe 5th
Edit : they’re trying to get an NBA team my bad
Not that surprising. I saw a stat that said Chelsea have signed 35 players under Boehly; more than Klopp’s entire tenure.
If you go back 35 signings for Liverpool, its a teenage Joe Gomez signed by Brendan Rodgers in 2015. He’s now our longest serving player.
Boehly is just doing in real life what FM players do in game. Bringing in as many players as he can in hopes one or two become the 1% of the 1%, the rest will be split between selling for profit to some unfortunate mid table club or will make a small loss.
The transfer policy is obvious in its tactic
Funny thing is because of the sheer amount spent they could have just brought in some truly top class players. Like why the fuck were they not competing with Atletico for Alvarez??? They need a striker and he could have been the main man for the next 8 to 10 years. Sure Man City may not ideally want to sell to them but they didn’t even sniff
So what , it’s Chelseas money , they can do what they want with it
Liverpool has been atrocious in the market.
Hopefully they are going to be a good investment just one might be a messi or Ronaldo
I have two conspiracy theories:
1. Boehly and his Saudi backers will put the club in such financial trouble that they will be able to strip the club of all it’s real estate and land assets.
2. They’re chipping away at PSR to such an extent that the league will be forced to scrap it in favour of alternative controls, at which point Chelsea, City and Newcastle will start pumping the system with billions of pounds. The result will be an arms race which will eventually lead to such a dependence on oil cash that the league will have to allow some form of Saudi ownership, be that by allowing them to fully own more than one club or by allowing them to purchase a slice of the brand. (As is happening in Tennis and golf) What’s in it for Boehly? Mountains of cash and the prestige.
Liverpool and Chelsea are two ends of a spectrum and none of them are feasible in the long run
People are going to get really upset when they meet FFP this year by selling 50% of the Cheslea YouTube channel to Todd.