Accounts 22/23

[Tommy Fresh]

23 minutes ago, funkyrobot said:

Brighton are the most hyped team I think I’ve ever seen. The visuals aren’t matching the talk at least based on what we are all seeing at the moment. They’ve declined as a force this season. Their squad isn’t as good as last year. £25m for Baleba is a massive fee for an untested 20 year old btw, already shows their recruitment model is shifting. 

If they've spent that much on him it's because the data driven model they use points towards him being worth the risk.

[StanSP]

27 minutes ago, funkyrobot said:

Brighton are the most hyped team I think I’ve ever seen. The visuals aren’t matching the talk at least based on what we are all seeing at the moment. They’ve declined as a force this season. Their squad isn’t as good as last year. £25m for Baleba is a massive fee for an untested 20 year old btw, already shows their recruitment model is shifting. 

All it needs is one good season and the stock increases massively. 

 

But it's good to know you've picked one player out of the selection I chose, and in doing so chose to ignore the other valid examples of how their recruitment is actually working and they stand to continue to make profits on players where they've had cheaper outlay. 

 

 

[Tommy Fresh]

38 minutes ago, funkyrobot said:

I’m not disputing the quality of Brighton’s youngsters but we aren’t going to see another Caicedo etc. The bigger clubs are reducing what they spend. The bank of Chelsea has closed, players are increasingly working down contracts. Enciso has only got 2 years left on his contract so that’s going to limit his fee, never mind his injuries and the fact his Brighton stats don’t match your hype. 

Do they really need another Caicedo though, probably not. Think most are pointing out they have a considerable pool of players, signed fairly cheap and they'll probably make money on all of them.

[AjcW]

As much as people don’t like to admit it, football is a business more than a sport these days.
 

And the very simple fact is we have a glorified PE Teacher in a suit in charge of the financial aspects of the footballing side of the business. 

 

Not sure why anyone ever thought that would end well. The majority of top sides DOF’s have done degrees/add on qualis in sports business/finance, even the ones who are former footballers themselves. 
 

Were consistently biggest spenders on agents fees, consistently highest wage payers outside of the big 6, we have one agent in particular who basically runs the show on Rudkins behalf. Just smacks of someone with no idea who just wants to keep everyone happy to keep things ticking over. 
 

From Susan’s point of view, her biggest failing is not changing the person in that position. 

[los dedos]

Brighton do need to start winning things or else they become a mini Spurs success story of accounting over winning. 

Or though I wouldn't advocate they go down the Leicester route. 😬

Edited 3 April by los dedos

[st albans fox]

34 minutes ago, AjcW said:

As much as people don’t like to admit it, football is a business more than a sport these days.
 

And the very simple fact is we have a glorified PE Teacher in a suit in charge of the financial aspects of the footballing side of the business. 

 

Not sure why anyone ever thought that would end well. The majority of top sides DOF’s have done degrees/add on qualis in sports business/finance, even the ones who are former footballers themselves. 
 

Were consistently biggest spenders on agents fees, consistently highest wage payers outside of the big 6, we have one agent in particular who basically runs the show on Rudkins behalf. Just smacks of someone with no idea who just wants to keep everyone happy to keep things ticking over. 
 

From Susan’s point of view, her biggest failing is not changing the person in that position. 

Not sure about the highest spenders on agents fees. If that’s the case it’s a fairly recent development. 
 

I assume SW is responsible for generating budgets.  I cannot believe that she generates a budget to lose £90m. Either the footballing decision makers are ignoring their budgets or incapable of meeting targets set re player sales or wages/fees  paid.  That would have to be with the approval of the ownership. otherwise we would have seen either SW or JR already leave after the last two years after a power struggle.

[Lewis's Junior]

Been reading with interest opinions on here, and trying to decide whether we’ve been reckless or whether the leagues are out to punish clubs that aim higher like we did. 
 

Sustainability rules were put in place in part to stop clubs going to the wall if an owner ups and leaves and the club can’t wash its face. 
 

On this basis, we have been reckless - astoundingly so. 
 

I get the argument that Top / KP will continue footing the bill in the short term; but how sure is anybody this will continue indefinitely? There’s no bond placed with the league to use as leverage if he gets bored and stops underwriting us. And no guarantee the monopoly KP runs continues forever should there be regime change in Thailand. 

So at the least, as fans we have to be demanding that whoever owns our club gives it a fighting chance of operating sustainably without a benevolent owner. For the simple reason you can’t trust a billionaire to not ultimately be self serving; they accrued that money for a reason in the first place, by making unpopular and often unethical decisions. 
 

So if you agree fans are the ultimate custodians of a club, then these losses and their underlying causes should cause considerable anger towards the board for their recklessness. 

[Ric Flair]

15 hours ago, st albans fox said:

we lost ten places so our merit payment was going to be slashed

our broadcast revenue was also depleted re no euro campaign (as was euro match day )

 

looks like we took a hit of almost £40m compared to previous season on those metrics 

 

we sacked Brendan and his team.  Wages and other costs seem to have increased by £29m from 21/22.   They were consistent in previous year so did that sacking cost way more than we thought ????  I’m struggling to work out where increases come from in the playing squad ??

 

so we have those losses together totalling approx £70m more than previous year. our profit on madders and wes were £75m.  

 

presumably people expected us to post losses around £60m  

 

we can see how they’ve probably undercooked that but the additional £20m beyond £70m ….. 

 

the point here is that last June we knew where we stood

we knew we’d broken ffp without selling a further £50m (profit) of players before July 1st.
we made a conscious decision to stick Barnes into 23/24.  Can only assume we thought we’d get a fine in the PL and we were better off trying to keep more of a lid on 23/24 losses because EFL have a history of points deductions and there was no guarantee of promotion 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Babylon said:

It's all very well them saying they were budgeting for x, y, z finish / position. It's not guaranteed, did nobody run a "what if" scenario. That's a flabbergasting loss considering it includes those sales. 

I think there's a very real possibility that Brendan was not only entitled to his entire remaining salary but also paid in full in the year in which he was sacked. They've certainly led with having to remove Brendan as a huge causation of the losses. If it could be ascertained how much him and his staff were paid to be removed it would shine a light on this theory.

 

If this is the case then it is simply staggering. We cannot claim to be a serious football operation that back in 2019/20 and less than a year in to his original contract and in no way were we backed up by top 6 finishes yet, that we signed off on a potential £50m liability if he were to be sacked that at any point would cause an unforeseen increase in expenditure and a potential PSR breach given you can only post £105m ACROSS 3 seasons. Not only that but that it would be paid up in full rather than over the remaining financial years. 

 

If that is the case then it almost negates any mitigating circumstances because the stupidity is beyond comprehension.

 

 

[HankMarvin]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I think there's a very real possibility that Brendan was not only entitled to his entire remaining salary but also paid in full in the year in which he was sacked. They've certainly led with having to remove Brendan as a huge causation of the losses. If it could be ascertained how much him and his staff were paid to be removed it would shine a light on this theory.

 

If this is the case then it is simply staggering. We cannot claim to be a serious football operation that back in 2019/20 and less than a year in to his original contract and in no way were we backed up by top 6 finishes yet, that we signed off on a potential £50m liability if he were to be sacked that at any point would cause an unforeseen increase in expenditure and a potential PSR breach given you can only post £105m ACROSS 3 seasons. Not only that but that it would be paid up in full rather than over the remaining financial years. 

 

If that is the case then it almost negates any mitigating circumstances because the stupidity is beyond comprehension.

 

 

It seems we have form

 

 

The investigation centres on a deal Leicester say they did in January 2014 with a company called Trestellar Ltd, to market the club in the UK and south-east Asia. That deal immediately produced an apparent £11m increase in Leicester’s sponsorship and commercial income, reducing the club’s loss from £34m the previous year. In the club’s most recent accounts, for 2014-15, Leicester say Trestellar sold the club’s main sponsorships – the name on the players’ shirts and the stadium – to King Power, the club’s owners.

The Thai owners were already sponsoring the shirt and stadium before the Trestellar deal; in 2012-13 Leicester’s sponsorship and other commercial income was £5.2m. After the Trestellar deal, with King Power still holding the same main sponsorships, the income immediately jumped to £16m.

That substantially reduced Leicester’s loss, which was otherwise likely to have resulted in a large fine under the Football League’s then new financial fair play rules by which all clubs agreed to cap losses at £8m to try to reduce excessive spending on players’ wages. Losses under FFP rules are not reduced by a club owner paying money to the club, or by doing so via sponsorship, if the amount paid is clearly inflated beyond market value.

Leicester still say Trestellar paid the club for the rights to market their brand, then sold the sponsorships to the owners. The resulting smaller loss – £21m in 2013-14, including expenses clubs are allowed to offset – meant Leicester argue they complied with FFP rules and no sanction should be applied. Some other clubs are furious, arguing they reduced spending on players to comply with the rules while Leicester overspent on players’ wages, achieved promotion and have since resisted any sanctions.

Leicester’s 2013-14 accounts state they spent £36m on players’ wages, £5m more than the club’s entire income – the goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel, the captain Wes Morgan, the prolific striker Jamie Vardy and other core players were already on the payroll then – although Leicester said £9.4m comprised bonuses paid on promotion. During the season, in January 2014, Leicester signed Riyad Mahrez from Le Havre for a reported £560,000, and the Algeria midfielder has since been instrumental in Leicester’s promotion and remarkable Premier League turnaround.

Trestellar, the company which produced this immediate increase in sponsorship and commercial income – vast for a Championship club – was a newly formed company. It was set up on a Sheffield trading estate by the son and daughter of Sir Dave Richards, a former Premier League chairman. Richards had close links to Leicester’s Thai owners (his Thai football contacts also include having become acquainted with the country’s ousted prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who became Manchester City’s owner in 2007).

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/leicester-city-finances-football-league-financial-fair-play-investigation

 

[Ric Flair]

For those who are still very much in the mindset that PSR is a load of bull shit and owners should be allowed to spend what they like, please can you consider why our ownership has opted to regularly take out loans with this Australian bank despite hikes in interest rates that have led to the unforeseen increases in our costs.

 

If our owners were as cash rich as many think they can be, in the pursuit of footballing glory, then why aren't they funding this and saving us millions?

 

We'd be blown out of the water even more than we currently do, by clubs with more resource than us if PSR was entirely removed. It would inflate transfer fees and wages even more so.

 

Whilst there are limitations in place, it seems suspicious that an ambitious club who wants to be able to spend more wouldn't maximise their financial flexibility by saving paying out millions in interest and that makes it a further struggle to comply. 

 

[Mickyblueeyes]

11 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

For those who are still very much in the mindset that PSR is a load of bull shit and owners should be allowed to spend what they like, please can you consider why our ownership has opted to regularly take out loans with this Australian bank despite hikes in interest rates that have led to the unforeseen increases in our costs.

 

If our owners were as cash rich as many think they can be, in the pursuit of footballing glory, then why aren't they funding this and saving us millions?

 

We'd be blown out of the water even more than we currently do, by clubs with more resource than us if PSR was entirely removed. It would inflate transfer fees and wages even more so.

 

Whilst there are limitations in place, it seems suspicious that an ambitious club who wants to be able to spend more wouldn't maximise their financial flexibility by saving paying out millions in interest and that makes it a further struggle to comply. 

 

Thank you.

[Ric Flair]

One final one from me for now...

 

There was never a scenario that we wouldn't have breached 22/23 from planning that season back in June/July 2022. We didn't want to sell Fofana and yet despite selling him and Maddison for a £75m pure profit to the accounts we still lost £90m.

 

What the club aren't saying in all of this when they give the reasons for how we've got to where we've got ro is their complete and utter failure to sell fringe players or players approaching less than 1-2 years on their contracts. Somewhere in their forecasts back then must have been to raise north of £100m for the likes of Tielemans, Soyuncu, Praet etc and they received ZERO.

 

They won't publicise that though will they, oh no. 

[HankMarvin]

51 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

we sacked Brendan and his team.  Wages and other costs seem to have increased by £29m from 21/22.   They were consistent in previous year so did that sacking cost way more than we thought ????  I’m struggling to work out where increases come from in the playing squad ??

@st albans fox When you consider the players out the door that season, 

 

outgoings 

Kasper 7/8m per year 

Fofana 6m 

Perez maybe we covered wages 

Albrighton same as above 

Choudary “

Lookman returning to parent club

 

 

Incoming 

Faes 4m?

souttar 6months 2m

Victor 6 months 2m

Tete 6 months loan 

Praett 4m

Smithie 1m

 

At least 14m out

Approx 13m in,

Yet wages increased 24m 

 

 

Rodgers 2 years left “mutual agreement” was reported to have a 10m compensation clause 

The Daily Mail also suggests if Leicester do fire Rodgers, they would have to pay off the remaining years of his contract.

There is no termination clause within the deal, unless Rodgers chooses to resign of his own volition.

 

Don’t follow the women’s but are they well paid now with better players coming in?

Edited 3 April by HankMarvin

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, los dedos said:

Brighton do need to start winning things or else they become a mini Spurs success story of accounting over winning. 

Or though I wouldn't advocate they go down the Leicester route. 😬

Regularly being in and around the top 8 is success though. 3 teams can win something every season. Although if Man City are arsed then its more like 1.

 

Anyone that looks at success as a black and white thing will be basing their opinions essentially on the luck of cup runs and one off performances rather than consistency over a long period of time. 

 

Ive been reading madness from similar people, who have been trying to diminish Klopps work because he happened to be around at exactly the same time as Pep and Man City.

[STUHILL]

15 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

One final one from me for now...

 

There was never a scenario that we wouldn't have breached 22/23 from planning that season back in June/July 2022. We didn't want to sell Fofana and yet despite selling him and Maddison for a £75m pure profit to the accounts we still lost £90m.

 

What the club aren't saying in all of this when they give the reasons for how we've got to where we've got ro is their complete and utter failure to sell fringe players or players approaching less than 1-2 years on their contracts. Somewhere in their forecasts back then must have been to raise north of £100m for the likes of Tielemans, Soyuncu, Praet etc and they received ZERO.

 

They won't publicise that though will they, oh no. 

I imagine this is where we will fall well short of putting up any kind of credible defence and probably why we would prefer to fight the PL and EFL, than actually engage with them. 

 

I suspect it will be clear as day, that we knowingly broke the rules and had very little plan to get our spending under control. How else can you explain us holding on to players last summer and spending millions more on others, some of which aren't even starting for us. 

 

Behind closed doors, and off the official minutes, I suspect we either planned to try get away with any punishment or factored in a minor one, rather than try to run the club properly and get everything in order. 

 

It is a shame the club and the fans will suffer most from this, and not those in charge that are 100% responsible. Looks like they are all keeping their jobs!

 

[LFox99]

What amazes me the most is that the snake oil salesman was still somehow entitled to a massive payoff despite guiding us into the relegation zone. What kind of braindead executive would just sign off on a new deal for him without including some sort of performance clause which lets us get rid of him for nowt if the team isn't performing?

Oh right, Jon Rudkin 

[WigstonWanderer]

36 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

What amazes me the most is that the snake oil salesman was still somehow entitled to a massive payoff despite guiding us into the relegation zone. What kind of braindead executive would just sign off on a new deal for him without including some sort of performance clause which lets us get rid of him for nowt if the team isn't performing?

Oh right, Jon Rudkin 

It does seem incredibly naive. It actually gives an incentive to a person of lesser integrity to perform poorly in the hope of getting sacked and gaining an immediate windfall payoff. Whether or not Rodgers actually did this or not we can’t really know, but he clearly didn’t have much incentive to try harder.

Edited 4 April by WigstonWanderer

[Gamble92]

3 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

It seems we have form

 

 

 

The investigation centres on a deal Leicester say they did in January 2014 with a company called Trestellar Ltd, to market the club in the UK and south-east Asia. That deal immediately produced an apparent £11m increase in Leicester’s sponsorship and commercial income, reducing the club’s loss from £34m the previous year. In the club’s most recent accounts, for 2014-15, Leicester say Trestellar sold the club’s main sponsorships – the name on the players’ shirts and the stadium – to King Power, the club’s owners.

The Thai owners were already sponsoring the shirt and stadium before the Trestellar deal; in 2012-13 Leicester’s sponsorship and other commercial income was £5.2m. After the Trestellar deal, with King Power still holding the same main sponsorships, the income immediately jumped to £16m.

That substantially reduced Leicester’s loss, which was otherwise likely to have resulted in a large fine under the Football League’s then new financial fair play rules by which all clubs agreed to cap losses at £8m to try to reduce excessive spending on players’ wages. Losses under FFP rules are not reduced by a club owner paying money to the club, or by doing so via sponsorship, if the amount paid is clearly inflated beyond market value.

Leicester still say Trestellar paid the club for the rights to market their brand, then sold the sponsorships to the owners. The resulting smaller loss – £21m in 2013-14, including expenses clubs are allowed to offset – meant Leicester argue they complied with FFP rules and no sanction should be applied. Some other clubs are furious, arguing they reduced spending on players to comply with the rules while Leicester overspent on players’ wages, achieved promotion and have since resisted any sanctions.

Leicester’s 2013-14 accounts state they spent £36m on players’ wages, £5m more than the club’s entire income – the goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel, the captain Wes Morgan, the prolific striker Jamie Vardy and other core players were already on the payroll then – although Leicester said £9.4m comprised bonuses paid on promotion. During the season, in January 2014, Leicester signed Riyad Mahrez from Le Havre for a reported £560,000, and the Algeria midfielder has since been instrumental in Leicester’s promotion and remarkable Premier League turnaround.

Trestellar, the company which produced this immediate increase in sponsorship and commercial income – vast for a Championship club – was a newly formed company. It was set up on a Sheffield trading estate by the son and daughter of Sir Dave Richards, a former Premier League chairman. Richards had close links to Leicester’s Thai owners (his Thai football contacts also include having become acquainted with the country’s ousted prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who became Manchester City’s owner in 2007).

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/leicester-city-finances-football-league-financial-fair-play-investigation

 

Always said it, we were every bit as bad under Vichai. This proves it. The main difference was some brilliant people at recruitment level and Nigel/Shakey. 

 

If we don't get out the Championship that season we won it, then a couple of years later we'd have -12 and they'd probably have done a runner. 

 

Wasn't there a Dispatches documentary that featured our owners in undercover videos before they bought us, along with Birmingham's, where they were basically being taught to gamble £30m and risk getting up to the Premier League? 

 

Things worked out for us and they were hailed the best owners in the land. Although they were also the most hated pre Vichai's death for what they did to Ranieri. That's also forgotten about in the narrative now.

Edited 4 April by Gamble92

[Tom12345]

On 03/04/2024 at 01:14, Nick said:

I blame Wellens, covid and ambition. Not necessarily in that order. Although Wellens to be fair does have a lot to answer for.

 

 

To be fair, if it wasn’t for the covid break and Brendan, we should have finished top 4 that season and went on to become a bigger and more profitable club. Given where we were, it was not a crazy bet.  But then who would have thought that Brendan could so stuff it up with the choke. If it was Brendan in charge of our 15-16 season, we would not have won the PL given he would have cared more about himself and kept telling everyone his players are crap etc and undermine their confidence and belief. After the second choke however, management should have been decisive and sacked him then instead of giving him another season and a half.

[Tom12345]

I don’t know why the hate. It is not that the owners have not put money in. Loss after loss season after season. Wrote off hundred of millions of debt the club owed to the owners. I don’t see any fan putting up money of that sort. Yes, we could be a bit smarter with our transfer and player dealings in recent years, and they mismanaged with Brendan, but they are not the worst?? What about Man City and Chelsea with their financial fair play? The bigger problem here is that the rules are stacked against clubs like us who want to challenge before we become sustainably “big”. Hard to do when you need to invest a lot before you become “big” and if you fail then you not only lose a lot of money but they stamp down on you and punish you even more to make sure you never get up again!

 

How can you ever compete with the Man City, Chelsea, Man U etc?

 

The anger should be directed at the PL and the big clubs!

 

 

Edited 4 April by Tom12345

[funkyrobot]

9 hours ago, StanSP said:

All it needs is one good season and the stock increases massively. 

 

But it's good to know you've picked one player out of the selection I chose, and in doing so chose to ignore the other valid examples of how their recruitment is actually working and they stand to continue to make profits on players where they've had cheaper outlay. 

 

 

I picked the outlier as he was a more recent signing than the others except for Borca who had a release clause, highlighting a shift in their spend patterns. There are also hidden add-on fees due for Enciso and Buananotte will eventually cost double his £5.3m fee. I’m not disputing Brighton’s clever use of ‘moneyball’, I’m just suggesting that there’ll be a squeeze at both ends of the market they are moving in and pointing out that they have won nothing  other than accountancy plaudits. 

[FOXSE]

9 minutes ago, funkyrobot said:

I picked the outlier as he was a more recent signing than the others except for Borca who had a release clause, highlighting a shift in their spend patterns. There are also hidden add-on fees due for Enciso and Buananotte will eventually cost double his £5.3m fee. I’m not disputing Brighton’s clever use of ‘moneyball’, I’m just suggesting that there’ll be a squeeze at both ends of the market they are moving in and pointing out that they have won nothing  other than accountancy plaudits. 

The plaudits being given out to Brighton could have easily been given out to Southampton 6 years ago. But, in the prem, if you constantly sell your best players things can go wrong very quickly.

[st albans fox]

5 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

I don’t know why the hate. It is not that the owners have not put money in. Loss after loss season after season. Wrote off hundred of millions of debt the club owed to the owners. I don’t see any fan putting up money of that sort. Yes, we could be a bit smarter with our transfer and player dealings in recent years, and they mismanaged with Brendan, but they are not the worst?? What about Man City and Chelsea with their financial fair play? The bigger problem here is that the rules are stacked against clubs like us who want to challenge before we become sustainably “big”. Hard to do when you need to invest a lot before you become “big” and if you fail then you not only lose a lot of money but they stamp down on you and punish you even more to make sure you never get up again!

 

How can you ever compete with the Man City, Chelsea, Man U etc?

 

The anger should be directed at the PL and the big clubs!

 

 

Man City were not a small club before the foreign ownership 

chelsea were not a small club before Harding backed them (and then Roman) 

 

these clubs have massive commercial incomes with a much larger fan base.  When they were normal premier league clubs, they had a larger fan base too. 
 

we cannot compete commercially (that’s where the money is) with the rich six.  We cannot compete with wealthy owners such as newcastle and villa have (and Everton had).   You might think we are comparable in size with West Ham - I’d like to see us fill a 60k stadium each week. I was laughed at last week for suggesting we share our place in the food chain with palace and even dare I say it, forest.  I think some of you need to appreciate what we are as a club. 

also if you remove cost controls then you just allow the Wild West out there and those who spend the most will likely achieve the best results and placings.  It would not suit Lcfc.  If you’re proposing that there should be salary caps and limits on overall spend then the best clubs will be those that have the best personal in the background.  again we screwed. 
we seem to be very happy with psr when it suits us and very unhappy with it when it doesn’t. 

 

I think it’s simply a mechanism for delaying out sanction and potentially removing some of it on the basis that we fall through a legal gap in the rules. 

[Babylon]

8 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

For those who are still very much in the mindset that PSR is a load of bull shit and owners should be allowed to spend what they like, please can you consider why our ownership has opted to regularly take out loans with this Australian bank despite hikes in interest rates that have led to the unforeseen increases in our costs.

 

If our owners were as cash rich as many think they can be, in the pursuit of footballing glory, then why aren't they funding this and saving us millions?

 

We'd be blown out of the water even more than we currently do, by clubs with more resource than us if PSR was entirely removed. It would inflate transfer fees and wages even more so.

 

Whilst there are limitations in place, it seems suspicious that an ambitious club who wants to be able to spend more wouldn't maximise their financial flexibility by saving paying out millions in interest and that makes it a further struggle to comply. 

 

I don't think anyone wants a wild west siutation, just for them to be allowed to spend if they want, but with it underwritten by them, and ring fenced. 

 

Like most billionaires, the money is tied up in assets, there are few that are cash rich unless they've basically sold a large chunk of their shareholding. Loans are used by billionaires and mega rich companiues all the time. Apple have cash in hand of $70b, but still have borrowed $100b+. It's just an easy way to finance things, over time. Suggesting there is something untoward there isn't fair IMO. 

 

We are already blown out of the water, it's not going to suddenly become vastly different if owners need to use their own money rather than loans, becuase there is little apetite by rich peope to waste their money. Ours have pumped in more personally than most others have.

[los dedos]

8 hours ago, filbertway said:

Regularly being in and around the top 8 is success though. 3 teams can win something every season. Although if Man City are arsed then its more like 1.

 

Anyone that looks at success as a black and white thing will be basing their opinions essentially on the luck of cup runs and one off performances rather than consistency over a long period of time. 

 

Ive been reading madness from similar people, who have been trying to diminish Klopps work because he happened to be around at exactly the same time as Pep and Man City.

Surely at some point a constant top 8 finish just becomes hollow !  Does it appear in the history books and hold life time memories for fans.🤔

I mean Cov had a 34 year run in the top flight but its ultimately the Fa cup win that they remember and celebrate.