LIES EXPOSED! Pep Guardiola EMBARRASSES Carragher😳 Klopp LIED🤥 Arsenal AGENDA STINKS🤢
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- Today's Sponsor is Field of Greens... go to the website📲- qrco.de/bekcY5 and use Promo code: Squad for 15% off and Free shipping.
Field of Greens is a organic greens blend contains 12 different vegetables, fruits, and herbs. some of the well-known greens like spinach, kale, and broccoli are rich in phenolic acids, carotenoids, flavanoids, glucosinalates, and vitamins - hqrco.de/bekcY5
Follow The Squad Here 📲 - qrco.de/beptYS
The Football Terrace is Part of GiveMeSport - www.givemesport.com/the-footb...
Ways to follow & support TFT:
👊Support The Football Terrace by becoming a member - / @thefootballterrace
✅The Football Terrace Notifications GC - t.me/joinchat/PFK9J0Idbjg5YWY0
🎙️- Podcasts here - podfollow.com/the-football-te...
🎮Twitch - / thefootballterrace
📳DISCORD Group: / discord and Support
📺Football Terrace Clips - / @footballterraceclips
💃TIKTOK - / thefootballterrace
🐤Twitter - / tfterrace
📷Insta - terryflewer...
📲Facebook - / footballterrace
The Orignal Multi Fan Podcast & Fan Channel's Weekly Podcast taking a detailed look at the Premier League's Top 6 Clubs. We delve into the latest news, match reactions & transfer rumours. We are famed for leaving no stone unturned and our motto is no echo chambers. All Reaction videos and views are opinions and not statements of facts #PremierLeague #TheTop6 - Спорт
I've enjoyed bantering Arsenal fans today as much as anyone but this whole thing with the 0-0 against City is bolloks. Arsenal took 4 pts from 6 against City this season with City taking 1 from 6. Arsenal did their job in head to heads against City this season. It's elsewhere thats cost them.
yeah the villa game
Villa (H&A), Fullham, Westham United, Newcastle (A) @Hamza-yu1ur
I disagree. City were dreadful before this and were there for the taking at the time. I go to most games. Our fans believed if Arsenal attacked our defence would crumble. I think they missed the opportunity to beat us. It might not seem like it now but our defence was all over the place. We knew after that game if we somehow win every game Arsenal.might slip up. It was a terrible title race for city fans so massive credit to Arsenal. Who missed a trick in not attacking us. They might have won 1-3
@@michellemaggs75but they weren’t dreadful against arsenal. They switched on knowing it was a title decider. If you watched the match it was a different city playing than the previous matches. EVERYBODY thought the way you thought, even arsenal fans, that it was arsenals best chance to win at the Etihad. But they are the champs for a reason.
@TK-tl6ci I know I was there. We know now that Arsenal had nothing to lose. Although it was the villa game at home that cost the title. As I've said I give massive respect to the Arsenal team for pushing us all the way. But the majority of the ,Arsenal fans gave city no respect and said all season we we wouldn't win it again. Now they are saying you will win it next season. They never learn. There are no certainties. If we were that good we would have beat you at home despite the bus parking. We were not good enough though. Which further emphasises you needed to win at city.
Arsenal shouldn't have dropped any points this season. Arsenal should have won all 38 games this season. If they won every game they would have won the league.
I just can't believe other teams and managers haven't sussed that out yet. It's so simple, you shouldn't drop any points at all against any team, win them all and NEVER have an off day, have injuries or feel tired. It's not rocket surgery, its football.
Every proper team needs to be getting 114 points! , can't believe Pep only got a 100 that time. Useless!
I bet half the likes you got were from people who didn’t pick up the sarcasm
Wtf is Rocket surgery??? 😅
😂😂😂
I know everyone is under performing
@AKking27 100% if we won the Games against Fulham, City, Liverpool and Villa we'd have had more points than City.
I'd say Arteta is kicking himself he didn't think of it.
And city didn’t even score against Arsenal this season
You lot saying Terry is an Arsenal fan is boring he talks facts and none of you lot like it
You only think that because he's backing Arsenal, you'd hate it if he was riding Spurs so hard for views
I agree
It's clear he bends over for arsenal to get the views and trigger people. He's a clever guy.
Go back to when we was worse, they all liked it and joined in on the fun even when Terry was a bit of a wasteman abt it as in agreeing with the dumb Chelsea fans thinking they're bigger which is not how football works. Ive been warching and reading these dumb naive fans comments and see how hypercritical they are. Its hilarious
@@AzzMilly he’s not clever that’s a certainty
i just checked how much Liverpool spent with Klopp and it says 850 m and they tell us Arsenal spent 700 m with Arteta ,these lads were telling us like they didn't spend more and no money ,i swear these Liverpool fans
Work it out klopp spent that much over 9 yrs . Arteta spent 700 mils in 4.5 years work it out.
@@tinamurphy3070liverpool agenda it is
@@tinamurphy3070 Now adjust for inflation as 4.5 years has changed the prices of players. For example when Klopp came in Mane and Salah were 30 million but today they would be 80 million.
@@tinamurphy3070 we'll come back in 4,5 years time then and we'll see how it goes
Klopp less than 90m a season. Arteta over 150m per season. Klopps a winner. Arteta is a failure 😂
Talking out of your arse again Terry 1 third of Chelsea and utd spend in last 8 years, behind arsenal and Tottenham also in spend. City spent a lot more aswell and won it all. You go on about the 4 peat, it would been a 6 peat only for lfc, you're welcome. Stop calling klopp a liar aswell.
Still white knighting, it's actually impressive.
When are you coming on?
@@Twizz_Star What's funny is he left up all the comments from the sapmmers but he hid prime's comment 😂 He hates being shown up 🤣
Prime delete it himself and lies. Its so mad.
@@Twizz_Starthe man’s whole life is a lie
Still hating from 8th. Have some shame
Terry you’re talking out your arse about Liverpool and spending. Saying they broke the British transfer record for a goal keeper and a CB. Yes they did - but they also sold Coutinho for £140 million so that transfer paid for those signings. It literally makes zero sense in what you are saying. Meanwhile city just spend spend spend and never sell superstars for big money.
You only listen to what you want to listen to...Klopp didnt say he didnt spend but he spent the right way and thats the liverpool way...Selling to buy and spending when necessary..
THE DAY I SPEND 100 ON A PLAYER THAT IS THE DAY I WONT BE A LIVERPOOL MANAGER... NEXT SEASON DOES IT LOL 😂
@@Karl_Grant246 pep said the same 2009 too
Meaning the issue of spending less or more is not here or there...@@andrewwright4195
@@andrewwright4195 We are not talking about Pep
Is this monkey see Monkey do??
Dropping 5 points to Fulham, dropping 6 points to Aston Villa, dropping 3 points to West Ham is hat cost Arsenal. They should have beaten Fulham and West Ham. Those 8 points would have easily won them the league. Criticising Arsenal for not winning at City is utter nonsense
I think Klopp is referring to the 115 charges when he mentioned other clubs overspending
U sure he is not referring to the 1.4bn liverpool have spent in last 10 seasons?
@@user-xw3vi4nk2y750 million arsenal and utd 2 billion
@@user-xw3vi4nk2y I am a Arsenal fan can you tell me how much money Liverpool made in that time???
@@1987simple1987 net spend clown spotted. 🤡🤡
@@user-xw3vi4nk2yman said 1.4 billion when it's actually 850m and in that time over 500m has been recooped in sales you sausage
Terry Terry Terry !
There's a difference between spending big and overspending
City never tried to win that game either. For Rodri to say what he did was kind of contradictory IMO
U never watched the game then 😂😂
Love how we have a weak mentality but we tied while they were the home team and had less shots on target. And they lost twice to us this year. What an idiot. Yeah you had a better season but that was idiotic.
@@EasyDeanyEW5 go celebrate the "we beat Man City twice" cup.. Wink wink.
@@charleyblack6796your mind is weak af
@@EasyDeanyEW5never won anything. Played for a draw at etihad. No champions plays for draws. All arsenal needed to do is what bayern leverkusen have done. Not like arsenal havnt done it before. The draw did nothing
laugh at Rodei mentality- same guy that blamed the length of the grass fir losing to Scotland even after he should have been sent iff that day for Spain😂😂
Rodris criticism of Scotland was very similar to this. He doesn’t like failing against deep blocks that are successful. He wants his opponents to open themselves up and roll over.
One of the inherent flaws of retrospective singularity analysis is that even if you accept the oversimplified explanation about that singularity, it’s never just THAT singularity but could apply to any number of other ones as well, thus it doesn’t come down to just that one occurrence anymore. Arsenal dropped points 10 times and you can arbitrarily select any one of those or any number of them, but they only work as singularities within the context of all of them and all the times they didn’t drop points.
Liverpool have spent loads of money, Klopp is taking crap
Yes. But they didn't overspend!
What's more dumb about Rodri's comments are the fact City failed to score a goal against Arsenal in the Premier League and they played for a draw at the Emirates. Guardiola made defensive substitutions so he wouldn't lose the game. He just doesn't like the fact that Arsenal aren't pushovers anymore, last season we were brave and went to the Etihad for 3 points and lost 4-1, this year we went there to 100% not lose as we only needed a draw anyway and we were the better team.
I don't like Rodri, I think he's a bit of a twat. How he talks about other teams, when they lost to Scotland he said the grass was too long and Scotland played dirty football, failing to mention he played for Athletico Madrid and the reason he's arguably the best midfielder in the world is because his best attribute is tactical fouling. How he talks after a bad game is embarrassing. I just don't think he's a very good sport, a bit like ten Hag
Everything you said is null and void because you said Rodri's best attribute is tactical fouling 😂
@@Rainer-mr it's a fact. He stops attacks at any cost
@@Ghfjgjggj123shdhfnfmdk What about his actual tackling? His passes? His durability? His IQ? His goal contributions? No it's his tactical fouling 😂
@@Rainer-mr his passing ain't that good, it's just stat padding whacking passes for no reason. His best ability is tactical fouls to stop counters, if it weren't for him City would concede a lot. His actual tackling is good, his durability is good, his IQ is good, his goal contributions are good but his best ability is tactical fouls
@@Ghfjgjggj123shdhfnfmdk Yep null and void
how do you know clubs don’t use NET spend ? tell us where you got that information from ?
The concept of "Net Spend" in football refers to the balance between a club's spending on new players (transfer fees paid) and the revenue generated from player sales (transfer fees received). On the surface, it appears to be a straightforward metric to gauge a club's financial efficiency in the transfer market. However, several factors make the idea of net spend somewhat misleading or a "myth" in the context of assessing a football club's financial health and performance. Here are some key reasons:
Wages and Contract Lengths:
Transfer fees are just one component of a club's expenditure on players. Salaries, signing bonuses, and agent fees also constitute significant financial commitments. A club might have a low net spend but could still be burdened with high wage bills, which impacts its overall financial health.
The length of player contracts affects how transfer fees and wages are amortized over time. Clubs might pay large fees for players but spread these costs over several years, affecting financial statements differently than net spend figures suggest.
Player Development and Youth Academies:
Clubs investing heavily in youth development might have lower net spends due to promoting players from their academy rather than buying new ones. This investment often goes unrecognized in net spend calculations.
Selling academy graduates can generate significant revenue, lowering the net spend but potentially not reflecting the actual investment in developing these players.
Revenue Generation:
Clubs with higher commercial revenues, matchday incomes, and broadcasting rights deals can afford higher net spends without jeopardizing their financial stability. Net spend doesn't account for the differing revenue streams and financial health of clubs.
Clubs in different leagues or those with different market sizes have varying capacities to spend. Comparing net spends across clubs without considering their revenue potential can be misleading.
Depreciation and Amortization:
The accounting practices around player transfers, such as amortization (spreading the cost of a transfer fee over the duration of the player's contract), affect how financial figures are reported. Net spend does not consider these accounting nuances, which can make a club's spending appear different from its actual financial impact.
Timing of Transactions:
The timing of player purchases and sales can distort net spend figures. A club might appear to have a high net spend in a particular transfer window but may balance this out over several windows. A single snapshot of net spend does not provide a comprehensive view of a club's transfer strategy.
Hidden Costs and Financial Management:
There are various hidden costs involved in transfers, including agent fees, legal costs, and performance-related bonuses, which are not reflected in net spend calculations.
Clubs may also engage in complex financial arrangements such as third-party ownership, buy-back clauses, and loan-to-buy deals, which can obscure the true financial picture.
Strategic and Competitive Factors:
Clubs might adopt different transfer strategies based on their competitive needs. Some clubs might prioritize short-term success with high spending, while others focus on long-term stability and gradual improvement.
The competitive environment of different leagues and the club's position within that environment (e.g., fighting for the title, avoiding relegation) can influence transfer spending patterns, making net spend an incomplete measure of strategic success.
In summary, while net spend provides a simple and easily understood metric, it oversimplifies the complex financial landscape of football clubs. It fails to account for numerous factors that influence a club's financial and competitive position, thereby making it a somewhat mythic measure of financial health and transfer market efficiency.
Its a myth because Arsenal is second or third in that chart and Liverpool is 9th behind West Ham and Villa. And yeah City is 6th
@@TheFootballTerrace It is absolutely hilarious how clueless how to the fact that you are pointing out how City and especially Chelsea's spending is actually way way way way higher than people think they are or what they look on paper.
City are the ones paying the dodgy backroom deals like making say their City Manager an owner in some company in Dubai or stuff like that. City is the one who is splashing money on things like Haaland's father and probably have a job for Haalands father ready for him down the line. CITY ARE THE ONES TRYING TO HIDE THE REAL NET SPEND and real GROSS SPEND. Why the hell would Liverpool want to do that when they are American business men trying to extract money from the club, not lose money by dumping money in there.
Is Liverpool signing players for 10 years deals or some accounting trick like that as Chelsea does, no.
Are Liverpool paying extremely high wages like the other clubs do, no they don't.
All the stuff you are mentioning is pointing out how City and again, especially Chelsea are spending way much more money than the books are showing to avoid FFP. Liverpool has absolutely 0 reason to want to do that.
Terry really got his assistant to write him a whole essay just to say "I don't understand net spend".
@@jonb3150clubs can't amortise for more than 5 years. We still give 7 year deals let that sink in!!. The 7 year contracts are way bigger than your jealous brains can think of.
Terry, Man City's INITIAL SPENDING, INITIAL FOUNDATIONS is what made them what they are today. Klopp ONLY spent money Liverpool made from sales, it's not even on the same level. Your squad cost comparison is flawed because most of the Liverpool's players cost this much because he developed them to raise their value. Man City buys ready made players, the don't cost a lot because Pep made them better, THEY WERE ALREADY VERY EXPENSIVE.
Salah costs crazy money because of Klopp, Trent Alexander Arnold costs ridiculous money now BECAUSE Klopp made him better, Robertson costs good money because Klopp made them better, that's why their squad value is this high.
Walker was expensive already, Gvardiol is expensive because he was the best defender in the world according to some analysts when they brought him, Haaland one of the best strikers in the world.
There is no comparison between the conditions under Klopp works and under which Guardiola works.
Arteta strengthened Man City and weakened Arsenal when he signed the injury prone clowns Zinchenko and Jesus for 80m
Under Klopp the wage bill went up 79%.
here we go terry the school teacher knows better then everyone 🤦♂️🤦♂️
Worked in a bank with dyslexia lol guys been full of shit from if came from judo class🤣🥱
@@Blucifah so rude bro
@@BlucifahTrying to make a name for yourself by disrespecting someone else
The guys disabled lads, we all know these kind of guys that make up full life stories from their couch
@@john9226 You would know.
You are wrong Terry, you talking about couple last years not like 10-15 years. If we really want go check the total spending and net spending , which is relevant for building club success. You will surely find out huge difference of City and Liverpool and other clubs.
That's why City is charged those breaching the rules from longer periods because that's how you build with money the basic foundation for success.
Obviously they were comparing the teams when Pep and Klopp were here. Net spend is pretty useless cause it leaves out other factors.
@@jgooner894 can you explain other factors? Net spend is everything you need to know, cos it is the fact how much you buy and sell players. City has been good of selling lately. But if we look Peps first years when he bought every defenders around 50mil. And you can go check transfermarkt every spendings of the years and City had so much bigger spends, and wages.
@@jgooner894 there was many flops pep bought with high money for defence in the early years
@@jgooner894 also Liverpool never had the highest salaries, maybe only the year that they paid lots of bonuses for winning champions league, but every year Man United, Man City had the highest wage bills by far, and Arsenal was third, and Chelsea fourth. I have check all every year. And Liverpool made highest profits of the years.
@@jgooner894 last 10 years spent transfers Chelsea 2,37billion, Man United 1,79 billion, Man City 1,79 billion, Arsenal 1,38 billion, Liverpool 1,22 billion FACTS
Tbf 4 years ago stones was pretty average, average did start poorly but laporte was very good so I would say at that point in time carragher wasn't too far off the mark
Liverpool have the eighth highest net spend below west ham and are sixth on transfer spending. Plus we don't have a sugar daddy owner like city or chelsea
You are owned by billionaires. They have been spending and will continue to spend as you don't have coutinho to sell anymore. Your new coach will struggle meaning you will spend more. Todd boehly bought kids and I hate it
@@josephjohn907 you're hoping the New coach struggles but still that doesn't mean FSG will spend. They expect the club to be self sustained.
In fact we only bid for caicedo because we sold Henderson and fabinho to Saudi for 90 of the 111m.
@@geraldngundo1193 you have no choice but to spend big because you are going through a transition. Klopp spent 9 years so you will go through what united, Arsenal and Chelsea faced. Slot will struggle regardless and the struggle will necessitate buying expensive players. You will go through tough times so buckle up.
@@josephjohn907 clearly you have not been paying attention to FSG modus operandi. Only Daniel Levi at spurs is more tight fisted.
The concept of "Net Spend" in football refers to the balance between a club's spending on new players (transfer fees paid) and the revenue generated from player sales (transfer fees received). On the surface, it appears to be a straightforward metric to gauge a club's financial efficiency in the transfer market. However, several factors make the idea of net spend somewhat misleading or a "myth" in the context of assessing a football club's financial health and performance. Here are some key reasons:
1. **Wages and Contract Lengths**:
- Transfer fees are just one component of a club's expenditure on players. Salaries, signing bonuses, and agent fees also constitute significant financial commitments. A club might have a low net spend but could still be burdened with high wage bills, which impacts its overall financial health.
- The length of player contracts affects how transfer fees and wages are amortized over time. Clubs might pay large fees for players but spread these costs over several years, affecting financial statements differently than net spend figures suggest.
2. **Player Development and Youth Academies**:
- Clubs investing heavily in youth development might have lower net spends due to promoting players from their academy rather than buying new ones. This investment often goes unrecognized in net spend calculations.
- Selling academy graduates can generate significant revenue, lowering the net spend but potentially not reflecting the actual investment in developing these players.
3. **Revenue Generation**:
- Clubs with higher commercial revenues, matchday incomes, and broadcasting rights deals can afford higher net spends without jeopardizing their financial stability. Net spend doesn't account for the differing revenue streams and financial health of clubs.
- Clubs in different leagues or those with different market sizes have varying capacities to spend. Comparing net spends across clubs without considering their revenue potential can be misleading.
4. **Depreciation and Amortization**:
- The accounting practices around player transfers, such as amortization (spreading the cost of a transfer fee over the duration of the player's contract), affect how financial figures are reported. Net spend does not consider these accounting nuances, which can make a club's spending appear different from its actual financial impact.
5. **Timing of Transactions**:
- The timing of player purchases and sales can distort net spend figures. A club might appear to have a high net spend in a particular transfer window but may balance this out over several windows. A single snapshot of net spend does not provide a comprehensive view of a club's transfer strategy.
6. **Hidden Costs and Financial Management**:
- There are various hidden costs involved in transfers, including agent fees, legal costs, and performance-related bonuses, which are not reflected in net spend calculations.
- Clubs may also engage in complex financial arrangements such as third-party ownership, buy-back clauses, and loan-to-buy deals, which can obscure the true financial picture.
7. **Strategic and Competitive Factors**:
- Clubs might adopt different transfer strategies based on their competitive needs. Some clubs might prioritize short-term success with high spending, while others focus on long-term stability and gradual improvement.
- The competitive environment of different leagues and the club's position within that environment (e.g., fighting for the title, avoiding relegation) can influence transfer spending patterns, making net spend an incomplete measure of strategic success.
In summary, while net spend provides a simple and easily understood metric, it oversimplifies the complex financial landscape of football clubs. It fails to account for numerous factors that influence a club's financial and competitive position, thereby making it a somewhat mythic measure of financial health and transfer market efficiency.
I think klopps message about not spending is a dig at city tbh
We (Arsenal) got beat 4-1 at Man City. Last season. So this season we learn our lesson, change our game to get a fantastic point and that’s a bad thing???
Let’s not forget we played city 3 times this season and they never beat us.
Think that’s the real reason Rodri is pissed. They won the league but they never beat us.
He's won the league u melt doubt he's gonna lose sleep over bottlers
They never beat us Chelsea but it means feck all they walked away with the title to be the best u have to beat the best in that 1 specific moment that counts!
Total 2 days have pasted haven’t heard a single word about city’s historic 4 peat, I miss rivals winning and actually not being able to get away from it.
You are the best football commentator I know. Balanced. Insightful. Rational. In simple terms, you're one of very few analysts that actually use their brains.
What a stupid comment... drawing away at City? No. Going to City and getting a draw, against THAT team, is always a good result.
This league was lost to Fulham, Villa, and West Ham, particularly Fulham and West Ham, because those could have been expected wins.
Villa not so much because Unai Emery has been brilliant, making that a much more slippery banana peel.
Agreed. I would even say we should’ve beat Spurs at Emirates as well
Spot on. People focusing on the Villa game because it's the most recent is so simplistic and also undermining how good Villa have been this season. The Fulham and West Ham game (the latter especially given just how many chances we had!) were the games which hurt us the most. At the end of the day the table doesn't lie and City were just too good for us.
What do you mean by "THAT" team? Are you trying to insinuate that Arsenal don't have one of the best teams in the world?
@Rainer-mr I'm not insinuating anything. Arsenal have a phenomenal team and, as a 40-year Gooner, I'm incredibly proud of them. "THAT team" is referring to City and the absolute monster that they are.
@@deaconpimp Oh you mean the City team that are considerably weaker than other City teams?
I don't know why people are not talking about refree mistakes. Liverpool vs city doku's foul pen not given despite being redcard offence
Arsenal lose title on a Sunday following Saturday Utd lose fa cup hard week for Tel both his teams missing out
He is not United fan, just pretending to be one
This guy is hurting..it's clear a arsenal fan rite infront of us
That your brain is allergic to logical conversations makes you an excellent fan of your club
Clubs with the most money have always won throughout history. Even the glory days of United. Can’t really see how what Klopp has said is wrong. (Only team that didn’t have money and won was Leicester 2016). If you think them City figures are correct, they’ve pulled the wool over your eyes too. Haaland cost city more than 50m, but that’s just what the books say.
Man City parked the bus at the emirates for 2 years running for a jammy win and lost this season.
At least Richard Keys is talking about something other than where Arteta stands.
If we gonna look and see where Arsenal drop point and lost the league saying it was a city match, it’s just naive. What about the one point we got out of the possible 12 in the Fulham and Aston Villa games?
He is correct in that EPL is a spending sport ... the big clubs feed off the smaller clubs
Terry has lied. Says Liverpool haven't spent less than rivals, then says Liverpool are 3rd spenders behind City and United. Botty in public again
Arsenal more than liverpool over last 5 years
@@andrewwright419510
It's not about Arsenal spending in the last 5 years. It's about the narrative that Liverpool don't spend, they were underdogs and had a shoe string budget is ridiculous. Liverpool broke the record transfers for GK, Central Back and Striker (I might be wrong with the ST). But this notion that Liverpool don't spend is a ridiculous rhetoric. If was Aston Villa or Crystal Palace or West Ham that's understandable. All the Big 6 now (including Newcastle) have no excuse about not spending.
@@yimnatawandanyikaThat is a strawman argument made by Terry that you back up. Klopp is obviously comparing to his rivals. Why would he do otherwise? Klopp knows Lpool spend. But they spend less than Man City and Real Madrid whom have been their biggest rivals in CL and League.
Its mental Rodri said that because didn't they lose at the emirates, where was the mentality then?
Terry you are very very wrong, that's your Lpool hate getting in your way of judgement. Stick to your Arsenal agenda
Did Arsenal win Terry?
Please don't tell me that it was not bottled. Because it's narrow margins almost makes it worse.
Terry, earlier this season we want to buy Bellingham and Caicedo, but we can't compete with clubs that has bigger pockets than us. We even have Chelsea mocking us and saying we will never beat them in a cash battle during transfers.
We only spend on what revenue we can receive. You say you don't use net spend. Maybe you should start considering using that. For instance, if I want to buy Mbappe, we will need to sell at least 2 or 3 of our star players before we can spend big.
There's a difference between spending big and overspending! 🤫
You could've saved a lot of time filming this video and just said "WELL, AKSHUALLY" 😂
Youre talking facts here terry, all clubs that win spend massive amounts
Compare Pep and Klopp in spending then Pep has speng on top of a much better team to begin with and he has never had to sell to get funding from his owners to buy. Klopp has had to sell to get funds to buy to build from a team that was far weaker than Man City when he arrived. Huge difference! Huge! Liverpool still spend a lot compared to other clubs obviously, but this is not what Klopp talks about. He compares with Man City cause they are his biggest rival in his time in England.
Rodri is a legend in his own head. In his moment of "triumph" all he can do is make derogatory comments about Arsenal. What a tw@t.
If I recall correctly, Rodri tried to cripple Odegaard in an international match. Says everything about the cynical obsession at City and the lengths they will go to to "win".
What is the point of the 115 financial irregularities because it makes no difference. Forest and Everton were punished. City? Hmmm ... 🤔
Terry come on stop it you know out of all the top 6 teams we spent the least from all
The graphic of Pep vs. Klopp is a lie.
Man City have hidden wages & transfer costs in there numbers & off-books projects.
A great number of the true charges against them should have included this. 1 example? Erling Haaland. On a reputed £1m-a week (net) that is a complicated & convoluted combination of image rights, wages, bonuses, etc. Some of which are not with Man City but with affiliated firms (Emirates and a dozen others!)
That is the challenge when your competing against a nation state actor. They have almost unlimited resources & can funnel them in 100x different ways to beat the 'rules' and frameworks. Plus, they can pay huge bribes & inducements.
When it comes crashing down for city it will be glorious .. that ffp trial will hit like crack i cant wait 😂
Eish when was Carra spewing such nonsense?😮
It's a bad terrible take the team was built over years...our wages have gone up for sure.....but we don't rotate players enough to keep wages down...look at the few years we bough 1 to 2 players
Terry, your analysis is top notch. I can't believe they pay a bunch of bias pros to do punditry is crazy... I actually think they do it on purpose to get a reaction from fans. We shouldn't be listening to them
Everyone so happy arsenal didn't win the league but then see the fans are happy n already looking forward to next season n then they get salty again 🤣
Rodri is talking absolute BS. Does he not remember when City came to the Emirates last season (they beat us 3-1) and played 5 at the back, Bernardo Silva playing LB and shadowing Saka, and sitting back with very little possession???? He forgot that
You completely got it wrong, Klopp is saying we spend what we earn and alot from player sales along the way. Citys success is clearly built on a throne of lies.
Sky Sports put up a graphic when showing the "Pep-Klopp Rivalry", recently, and it also showed Net Spend among other things.
City: 510m
Liverpool: 346m
First of all, Liverpool's Net Spend is inflated due to the Coutinho deal - under normal circumstances/any other club would have higher Net Spend given Liverpool's spending. More around the 380-400m ball park
But even if you ignore that inflation, City have spent ~47% more. But they have won _twice_ as many major trophies (14 vs 7) and _six times_ as many PL Titles (6 vs 1)
The concept of "Net Spend" in football refers to the balance between a club's spending on new players (transfer fees paid) and the revenue generated from player sales (transfer fees received). On the surface, it appears to be a straightforward metric to gauge a club's financial efficiency in the transfer market. However, several factors make the idea of net spend somewhat misleading or a "myth" in the context of assessing a football club's financial health and performance. Here are some key reasons:
1. **Wages and Contract Lengths**:
- Transfer fees are just one component of a club's expenditure on players. Salaries, signing bonuses, and agent fees also constitute significant financial commitments. A club might have a low net spend but could still be burdened with high wage bills, which impacts its overall financial health.
- The length of player contracts affects how transfer fees and wages are amortized over time. Clubs might pay large fees for players but spread these costs over several years, affecting financial statements differently than net spend figures suggest.
2. **Player Development and Youth Academies**:
- Clubs investing heavily in youth development might have lower net spends due to promoting players from their academy rather than buying new ones. This investment often goes unrecognized in net spend calculations.
- Selling academy graduates can generate significant revenue, lowering the net spend but potentially not reflecting the actual investment in developing these players.
3. **Revenue Generation**:
- Clubs with higher commercial revenues, matchday incomes, and broadcasting rights deals can afford higher net spends without jeopardizing their financial stability. Net spend doesn't account for the differing revenue streams and financial health of clubs.
- Clubs in different leagues or those with different market sizes have varying capacities to spend. Comparing net spends across clubs without considering their revenue potential can be misleading.
4. **Depreciation and Amortization**:
- The accounting practices around player transfers, such as amortization (spreading the cost of a transfer fee over the duration of the player's contract), affect how financial figures are reported. Net spend does not consider these accounting nuances, which can make a club's spending appear different from its actual financial impact.
5. **Timing of Transactions**:
- The timing of player purchases and sales can distort net spend figures. A club might appear to have a high net spend in a particular transfer window but may balance this out over several windows. A single snapshot of net spend does not provide a comprehensive view of a club's transfer strategy.
6. **Hidden Costs and Financial Management**:
- There are various hidden costs involved in transfers, including agent fees, legal costs, and performance-related bonuses, which are not reflected in net spend calculations.
- Clubs may also engage in complex financial arrangements such as third-party ownership, buy-back clauses, and loan-to-buy deals, which can obscure the true financial picture.
7. **Strategic and Competitive Factors**:
- Clubs might adopt different transfer strategies based on their competitive needs. Some clubs might prioritize short-term success with high spending, while others focus on long-term stability and gradual improvement.
- The competitive environment of different leagues and the club's position within that environment (e.g., fighting for the title, avoiding relegation) can influence transfer spending patterns, making net spend an incomplete measure of strategic success.
In summary, while net spend provides a simple and easily understood metric, it oversimplifies the complex financial landscape of football clubs. It fails to account for numerous factors that influence a club's financial and competitive position, thereby making it a somewhat mythic measure of financial health and transfer market efficiency.
@@TheFootballTerrace I totally agree/understand.
But it's a commonly used metric. _Especially loved_ by Liverpool fans around 2019 when their net spend was so much better than City's and were talking about it every day.....these days no one talks about net spend anymore bc City are 6th or 7th in the past 5 years.
Still numbers that are worth mentioning (in addition to all the other numbers and things already mentioned in the video)
City sponsors are mostly Saudi Arabian companies who own them. So their income generated is questionable
He said overspent very clearly he clearly says he spent what we have an we're not up for ffp charges
I think what Klopp is trying to say is that even though they do spend a lot. They don’t usually bring in top level players….
They spent a lot for Nunez. Spent a decent bit for macalister. And other players as well. But none of them were the type of players Liverpool needed to get to the next level this year!
They’ve honestly never signed a top top player recently
I'm disappointed we didn't win, but the way these pundits talked about us all season and now makes me wanna scream. We just must get it over the line to shut them and these other trash-talking rivals up. Big up to you, Terry, for trying to be balanced.
Klopp - "We have the same problems spending like everyone else."
Oh how FFP has come back to bite those clubs who petitioned for it the hardest. Karma is a wonderful thing. It was all good when the established clubs had the concentration of gate receipts and TV money but now it's being spread around and it's effecting them too.
Isn’t the issue that nobody believes Citeh expenditure figures…?
This dude is hurting 😂😂😂
City and the other clubs are crapping themselves for next season
I have great respect for you Terry but you do everything in your powers to defend Arsenal and shit on other clubs whenever you can.#myopinion😊
Any excuse to shit on Klopp one last time eh Tel. He said himself they spent what they had if they spent anymore than we would be in the same conversations as city. He did what he did correctly and in a lawful way
100% he's a man-child!
I understand your need to keep Klopp's meat in your mouth, but you're missing the point. He's saying that the amount spent isn't that far off from City. Whether he was following the law or not is irrelevant.
Liverpool fans like yourself need to get rid of that victim mentality.
Correct @@patrickyoung2235
@@y2k42y2k42Says the victim himself
I'm a Man city fan, I just have to subscribe to this channel because of Terry's unbiased views and opinions (even being a man united fan)
Terry in the case of arsenal you are on arsenal fan
Listening to terry talking football is like watching live football🤦🤦🤦wot a brilliant man,deserve to wark for sky sport news or super sport news
Football has become less about the game and the players and more about finances,referees and stats..
Boys, simple!!! We need to go invincible, take the title and shut the criticism DOWN
I mean for a guy that likes to boast about not getting out-debated or outsmarted, he's done a brilliant job of creating a strawman from what klopp actually said and then confidently debating that. Terry mixing up fan banter with what the manager is actually saying is why he'll continue to boast no one will ever catch him out on BS. Not to mention anytime he mentions Utd spending he always adds the clause "not well spent though" to soften any criticism utd deserve for their spending.
City only won because the FA refused to investigate the 115 charges against them, had they received the same treatment like Everton and Nottingham forest, Arsenal would have lifted the cup!
That's because they don't have proof and City are innocent cry more 🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈
??? Epitome of talking out of your arse. The FA has nothing to do with it; the PL investigated & charged them before Everton or Forest; it's not their fault that more charges take more time to process.
Who told you that? Your uncle Fred and his wife Rose?
They would've just bottled it to Liverpool instead 😂😂
There is an ongoing investigation my friend
VAR is the major decider why city won the league, I don't care what anyone says, but this season, VAR as help city more than any of the top 3. But am very sure if Arsenal gets a 20+ goal striker next season they would win the league.
Pep inherited messi, eniesta and xavi. Had best players in the world.
Went to bayern. Best club in Germany. Best players
Goes to man city. Richest club in the world and just won PL.
lets see Pep manage a club with no financial backing. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Terry is never wrong ask his hair piece
Why do you have to do Klopp dirty like that in the thumbnail?
When isn’t he gritting his teeth?
Terry’s edited his face and made him look ridiculous like he does to everyone in his thumbnails now, except for Arteta
@@z-rex6068 bingooo. another indicator
@@kudos4201 Indicator of what?
@@z-rex6068 that he's shilling arsenal
Won the European cup and in that summer Liverpool spent £10 million. You love research, do some
Facts
Terry has become a ful blown arsenal fan it’s strange he defends them so much
And that makes you shit in your pants all day 😂
Iam still trying to fathom the Arsenal hate...even terry catching strays in the comments for being objective. The amount of shameless salt and dead banter iam seeing by rivals on panels is crazy. You can tell majority of rivals have been in pain and had to wait for gane 38. Its sickening
I don't know how you can compare Liverpool to Man City? or 115FC. How many charges are Liverpool facing? You are comparing the official published results not the underhanded dealing that has and still goes on a 115FC. Tell me how many bad VAR/Ref decision went against 115FC this season? How many? The Premier League is bought and paid for by Etihad Airways. Finally, there were more people watching Liverpool say goodbye to the legend that is Jurgen Klopp than people watching 115FC lift another cup. And the viewing figures arn't even close. 70% higher for the mighty LFC and Klopp.
No it's not a lie Terry. Compared to Man Utd it's a shoestring budget
Terry chatting sh!t about Liverpool, what a shock, hed back Arteta saying it tho 😂😂
The concept of "Net Spend" in football refers to the balance between a club's spending on new players (transfer fees paid) and the revenue generated from player sales (transfer fees received). On the surface, it appears to be a straightforward metric to gauge a club's financial efficiency in the transfer market. However, several factors make the idea of net spend somewhat misleading or a "myth" in the context of assessing a football club's financial health and performance. Here are some key reasons:
1. **Wages and Contract Lengths**:
- Transfer fees are just one component of a club's expenditure on players. Salaries, signing bonuses, and agent fees also constitute significant financial commitments. A club might have a low net spend but could still be burdened with high wage bills, which impacts its overall financial health.
- The length of player contracts affects how transfer fees and wages are amortized over time. Clubs might pay large fees for players but spread these costs over several years, affecting financial statements differently than net spend figures suggest.
2. **Player Development and Youth Academies**:
- Clubs investing heavily in youth development might have lower net spends due to promoting players from their academy rather than buying new ones. This investment often goes unrecognized in net spend calculations.
- Selling academy graduates can generate significant revenue, lowering the net spend but potentially not reflecting the actual investment in developing these players.
3. **Revenue Generation**:
- Clubs with higher commercial revenues, matchday incomes, and broadcasting rights deals can afford higher net spends without jeopardizing their financial stability. Net spend doesn't account for the differing revenue streams and financial health of clubs.
- Clubs in different leagues or those with different market sizes have varying capacities to spend. Comparing net spends across clubs without considering their revenue potential can be misleading.
4. **Depreciation and Amortization**:
- The accounting practices around player transfers, such as amortization (spreading the cost of a transfer fee over the duration of the player's contract), affect how financial figures are reported. Net spend does not consider these accounting nuances, which can make a club's spending appear different from its actual financial impact.
5. **Timing of Transactions**:
- The timing of player purchases and sales can distort net spend figures. A club might appear to have a high net spend in a particular transfer window but may balance this out over several windows. A single snapshot of net spend does not provide a comprehensive view of a club's transfer strategy.
6. **Hidden Costs and Financial Management**:
- There are various hidden costs involved in transfers, including agent fees, legal costs, and performance-related bonuses, which are not reflected in net spend calculations.
- Clubs may also engage in complex financial arrangements such as third-party ownership, buy-back clauses, and loan-to-buy deals, which can obscure the true financial picture.
7. **Strategic and Competitive Factors**:
- Clubs might adopt different transfer strategies based on their competitive needs. Some clubs might prioritize short-term success with high spending, while others focus on long-term stability and gradual improvement.
- The competitive environment of different leagues and the club's position within that environment (e.g., fighting for the title, avoiding relegation) can influence transfer spending patterns, making net spend an incomplete measure of strategic success.
In summary, while net spend provides a simple and easily understood metric, it oversimplifies the complex financial landscape of football clubs. It fails to account for numerous factors that influence a club's financial and competitive position, thereby making it a somewhat mythic measure of financial health and transfer market efficiency.
Terry ( non bias Man U fan against Liverpool # Irony ) Show me the clip were Klopp said he worked on a shoe string , and didn`t spend much , he said he`s got to compete with teams that spend more than Liverpool owners , HHHMMM Agenda ..
The winner they scored against Everton should've been disallowed 🥸🥸
I blame this guy's ex... she's the 1 who turned him into an arsenal fan😂😂😂😂... where is that girl by the way.. what's her name again
Jess at sheknowsarsenal, she is delusional
@kudos4201 😂😂 that's her!! Jess!! Lol
Carragher is waffling
Arsenal wrre wxpected t lose all the remaining 8matches but lost only 1; were 3rd favourites 2 after Pool an Richy with the latter having the odds on betting winners favourite of round 65-67% So u cant lise what you were never favourites to win
Klopp didn't say that
Was that good City mentality what caused them to lose at the Emirates?
Terry again with the waffles, klopp is speaking relatively. Compared to Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester city, arsenal even Tottenham. Liverpool have spent less. Check the figures, and not talking about net spending. That's why the midfield was dysfunctional last season because no money was being spent to refresh it. You brag of being fair and ask other to be fair. Why aren't you objective and stop looking at situations in Manchester United tinted glasses.
Not true.
@@TheFootballTerrace let's agree to disagree
Take a breath terry...Man City's defence is the weakest link...dont u know that🤔
By the way Arsenal next year are appointing u as their liaison officer...dont worry abt their nett spend🤣
@Terry you boost Arsenal way to much you may as well change the name of your channel to the Arsenal channel or AFTV 2 lol it’s a joke
ive called this guy out my friend. you arent alone
@@kudos4201let him talk about Arsenal his right...if talking about Arsenal is bringing more money to my Channel I will talk about them much...even if am not a fan
Terry Why is nobody talking about Chelsea cheating by selling their training ground to themselves by twice its value? its been reported in the media.
Because EVERY CLUB does it CLOWN. Pitch ownership and Club two diff things use common sense.
He spoke about it on some straight facts episodes.
@King_Dice9X no they don't
@@emnvl_ I missed it thank you do you know what one?
@@Karl_Grant246 no they dont
Liverpool have not spent big compared to the rest of the so called big 6
said nobody...
Wage bill for 23/24 season
1. Manchester United - £205,756,000
2. Manchester City - £200,668,000
3. Arsenal - £166,036,000
4. Chelsea - £155,324,000
5. Liverpool - £136,240,000
7. Tottenham - £117,520,000
6. Aston Villa - £117,000,000
8. West Ham United - £95,316,000
9. Newcastle United - £84,500,000
10. Everton - £78,978,000
Evidence that spending money doesn’t guarantee you finish top. Just ask Man utd 😂
95 % of his subs are Arsenal fans, he just getting paid 😅
He is not a chequebook manager because he spends more than anyone else, that would just make him stupid, he is a chequebook manager because he gets his ideal choices all the time , which is impossible in an organic environment, he has never worked with a side which never knew how to win a title akin to Jose at Chelsea.
No one is questioning Guardiola's process as a manager, his trophy cabinet is testament to that, however he has never faced a scenario where he has to settle for a second choice in my opinion, City is basically a lab experiment of how an ideal club would operate, zero financial risk, and a perfect operational and executive teams.
Sound jealous who u supported
@@dameionhall6475 The problem is both the critics and the apologists of Man City are so polarised that the beautiful football we witness will go unnoticed among critics, that is just unfortunate, Pep is the best manager in the world there is no question about it, however the reason he landed in Manchester City is just because he saw potential in a project which was built on aggressive investment which inadvertently led to regulation breaches, nobody is questioning the accomplishment, the process is just not as organic as Liverpool or Manchester United is all that I am debating.
Terry football youtube channel is by far the best in the world,he speaks only sense