Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

The Special One wasn’t Spurs first choice

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BangrakBob said:

What is incorrect about my response to your question?

a net spend of 68M since June 2016. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mavideol said:

a net spend of 68M since June 2016. 

evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BangrakBob said:

evidence?

do as I did.... search and you will find out, but as indicated one alone Virgil Van Dick cost was 75 million thus already over your claim of 68, maybe you are not good with numbers 555

Edited by Mavideol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Ancellotti was 2nd choice but wanted more money than Jose's getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, champers said:

Apparently Ancellotti was 2nd choice but wanted more money than Jose's getting.

Doubt it was wages. Probably due to Napoli wanting compensation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

do as I did.... search and you will find out, but as indicated one alone Virgil Van Dick cost was 75 million thus already over your claim of 68, maybe you are not good with numbers 555

So you didn't read my post, you got it wrong and you are still getting it wrong. All the information I am posting come from factual calculations. There is plenty of evidence there for you to get it right, for now a 3rd time. Try https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-liverpool/startseite/verein/31

or one of the multiple articles referencing our NET SPEND since Klopp arrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

do as I did.... search and you will find out, but as indicated one alone Virgil Van Dick cost was 75 million thus already over your claim of 68, maybe you are not good with numbers 555

Sorry but that doesn't work for me. If you state something as a fact then back it up with your source reference so it can be checked otherwise it's just your opinion or <deleted>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Sorry but that doesn't work for me. If you state something as a fact then back it up with your source reference so it can be checked otherwise it's just your opinion or <deleted>.

did you read post #10..... maybe you should

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Sorry but that doesn't work for me. If you state something as a fact then back it up with your source reference so it can be checked otherwise it's just your opinion or <deleted>.

Looks like one is speaking in gross spend and the other in net spend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

did you read post #10..... maybe you should

You're quoting an AVERAGE ("approximately £405m on players spread out over six transfer windows (around £67.5m per window)". 

 

Did you read the website Bob mentions (always a great source), maybe you should, which will give close to exact figures on spending, not average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...