If Theo Walcott signs for Everton

That would take everton's spending since the summer to £200m on new players. Everton.

Also, if Chelsea complete the signing of Andy Carroll for 30m ... That would take their spending since last summer up to £230m

Nobody seems to mention this in relation to where they are in the league constantly like they do with United. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/oddsbible/status/953254197192949760

Originally Posted by Zorg

https://twitter.com/oddsbible/status/953254197192949760

I'm sure he will take it well.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

That would take everton's spending since the summer to £200m on new players. Everton.

Also, if Chelsea complete the signing of Andy Carroll for 30m ... That would take their spending since last summer up to £230m

Nobody seems to mention this in relation to where they are in the league constantly like they do with United. Funny that.

Klopp has spent £303m in just over two years at Liverpool. More than Mourinho's spent at Old Trafford.

I believe it has been mentioned on occasion that Chelsea owe a large part of their unprecedented success in the 21st century to their owner's largesse

Originally Posted by Switching Off

Klopp has spent £303m in just over two years at Liverpool. More than Mourinho's spent at Old Trafford.

Anfield on line would dispute your figures there Switchers

14 Players Bought: £221,300,000

18 Players Sold: £255,050,001


https://www.anfield-online.co.uk/sta...-signings.html

Cameron Brannagan Oxford United £1

Wonder if his agent got a percentage

Originally Posted by TheFatGoth

Cameron Brannagan Oxford United £1

Wonder if his agent got a percentage

I don't know.

In fairness though, those figures suggest that Klopp has a fairly good track record with replacing outgoing stars with new and upcoming ones don't they?

Originally Posted by sub three hours

Anfield on line would dispute your figures there Switchers

14 Players Bought: £221,300,000

18 Players Sold: £255,050,001


https://www.anfield-online.co.uk/sta...-signings.html

They've missed Keita off. I've got him at £75m which brings them close enough to my figure.

Originally Posted by Switching Off

They've missed Keita off. I've got him at £75m which brings them close enough to my figure.

You're right. well done Switchers.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

That would take everton's spending since the summer to £200m on new players. Everton.

Also, if Chelsea complete the signing of Andy Carroll for 30m ... That would take their spending since last summer up to £230m

Nobody seems to mention this in relation to where they are in the league constantly like they do with United. Funny that.

Loads of Premier League teams quietly spend a fortune. Crystal Palace have spent about £130m over the last two or three years ffs

But, as a wise man once said, talk about net spend fella. The most comfortable job to be in is one where you don’t have as much pressure to sell to buy. The difference between us and City and the rest is that we have big budgets regardless of outgoings.

Everton’s spending is largely a reaction to losing Stones, Barkley and Lukaku. That’s probably why it’s seen as different to Guardiola and Mourinho.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Loads of Premier League teams quietly spend a fortune. Crystal Palace have spent about £130m over the last two or three years ffs

But, as a wise man once said, talk about net spend fella. The most comfortable job to be in is one where you don’t have as much pressure to sell to buy. The difference between us and City and the rest is that we have big budgets regardless of outgoings.

Everton’s spending is largely a reaction to losing Stones, Barkley and Lukaku. That’s probably why it’s seen as different to Guardiola and Mourinho.

And our spending has been a reaction to the piss poor management and dross brought in between fergie and mourinho.

There's zero difference. You could argue the purchases of Bailly and Lindelof were to replace Vida and Rio, Pogba to replace Scholes, Lukaku Rooney, Sanchez (!) Giggs.... etc etc

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

And our spending has been a reaction to the piss poor management and dross brought in between fergie and mourinho.

There's zero difference. You could argue the purchases of Bailly and Lindelof were to replace Vida and Rio, Pogba to replace Scholes, Lukaku Rooney, Sanchez (!) Giggs.... etc etc

Yeah, the point is that those we lost brought us £#%&! all money in, not like we got £100m for Vidic or anything. Everton, Liverpool etc. all generate vast sums via selling, then buy. We spend a ton, then let players leave for £#%&! all and never sell at their peak value because we don't have to

City do similar, only where we get 10 years out of Rio, Scholes, Rooney etc. they get 15 minutes out of their £50m CB, decide he isn't good enough and £#%&! him off for buttons and buy another £50m CB that's where the discrepancy lies. If they had to balance the books properly, they'd be upper mid-table.

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

And our spending has been a reaction to the piss poor management and dross brought in between fergie and mourinho.

There's zero difference. You could argue the purchases of Bailly and Lindelof were to replace Vida and Rio, Pogba to replace Scholes, Lukaku Rooney, Sanchez (!) Giggs.... etc etc

Tell that to the bank mate. One account is £200m down and the other is roughly where it was two years ago.

Everton could not have spent £200m if they hadn’t lost their three biggest talents. We can spend it regardless. That’s quite a big difference.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Tell that to the bank mate. One account is £200m down and the other is roughly where it was two years ago.

Everton could not have spent £200m if they hadn’t lost their three biggest talents. We can spend it regardless. That’s quite a big difference.

It would be interesting to see if there are any any Premier League clubs who have (over say the last 10 years) made more from player sales than they have spent on new players. I can't see it myself.

Originally Posted by dunk

Yeah, the point is that those we lost brought us £#%&! all money in, not like we got £100m for Vidic or anything. Everton, Liverpool etc. all generate vast sums via selling, then buy. We spend a ton, then let players leave for £#%&! all and never sell at their peak value because we don't have to

City do similar, only where we get 10 years out of Rio, Scholes, Rooney etc. they get 15 minutes out of their £50m CB, decide he isn't good enough and £#%&! him off for buttons and buy another £50m CB that's where the discrepancy lies. If they had to balance the books properly, they'd be upper mid-table.

If Lovren or Mignolet had been bought by United they’d be long gone by now. Same with Xhaka (although I tend to the view that he’s been misused) or Sissoko at Spurs. Problem for those clubs is it’s not as easy to just cut them loose at a huge loss and go again.

For Everton the comparison is utterly laughable.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

If Lovren or Mignolet had been bought by United they’d be long gone by now. Same with Xhaka.

United's record of getting rid of shit players must be the worst in the league.

Originally Posted by sub three hours

It would be interesting to see if there are any any Premier League clubs who have (over say the last 10 years) made more from player sales than they have spent on new players. I can't see it myself.

I believe Spurs are at a net loss of just £7m over the last three years, which is why is suspect Levy would give Poch a lifetime contract if he can make top four again.

Weird because other than Walker I struggle to remember major sales.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

I believe Spurs are at a net loss of just £7m over the last three years, which is why is suspect Levy would give Poch a lifetime contract if he can make top four again.

Weird because other than Walker I struggle to remember major sales.

Lot's of smallish sales at a profit, I'd imagine.. Wimmer, NJie, that Dutch Striker, Bentaleb, Chadli, Mason etc..

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Tell that to the bank mate. One account is £200m down and the other is roughly where it was two years ago.

It’s not. Our revenues are much higher than Everton’s