Arne Slot

[Buzzo]

As an aside, we’ve been unlucky with Isaks injury and stats don’t back up him being injury prone.

Newcastle
25: 42
24: 40
23: 27

Sociedad
23: 2
22: 41
21: 44
20: 45

So other than the season where he transferred to Newcastle he has made 40
appearances each season.

[rudedog]

Last three season (not including this one):

• 24/25 – Groin injury: 5 days out (1 game missed)
• 24/25 – Hamstring injury: 4 days out (1 game missed)
• 24/25 – Broken toe: 34 days out (7 games missed)
• 23/24 – Groin injury: 25 days out (4 games missed)
• 23/24 – Groin injury: 31 days out (8 games missed)
• 22/23 – Thigh problems: 107 days out (17 games missed)

He’s still missed 38 games (203 days) with 6 separate injuries over the space of three seasons

[Exiled_red]

You're trying to make the point that we shouldn't have signed Isak and improved the squad instead.

But there's no evidence that we would have. We signed Isak on the last day of the window. It wasn't an either or scenario.

We had money after Isak to sign players and still do. The issue is we're light in defence, Isak doesn't really come into this discussion.

I think this depends how you look at it the club would have been confident long before the last day of the window that Isak would have been coming in. It is true that they still had some money given they tried to sign Guehi, but the budget was still finite they would have 'put aside' the Isak money when they thought a deal was possible earlier in the window. If it had been really apparent early or in the middle of the window that Isak wouldn't happen would they have used that money for another forward or in other areas of the squad is unclear, would they have spent it in the summer or held on a bit to see if Isak had become available a year later or what who knows?

The club are very particular about the type of deals they do and in getting the right players so who really knows what would have happened.

IMO if we were going with a proper #9 we couldn't only have one available we had to give ourselves options, Isak was the first choice clearly, but it was easier to bring in Ekitike first, had we signed Isak first would we have gone for Ekitike as well? Who knows? I suspect that we signed Ekitike because we didn't think Isak was gettable at that point and we needed a CF, when Isak became available we moved for him too.

Our approach can work well in waiting for the right player (e.g. VVD) but I do fear the lack of a balanced squad and activity in January this year could cost us a CL place which I think would make this coming summer's recruitment a hell of alot harder, or to be honest could completely **** it up because the players we want would probably also have offers from CL clubs.

[baitman]

Last three season (not including this one):

• 24/25 – Groin injury: 5 days out (1 game missed)
• 24/25 – Hamstring injury: 4 days out (1 game missed)
• 24/25 – Broken toe: 34 days out (7 games missed)
• 23/24 – Groin injury: 25 days out (4 games missed)
• 23/24 – Groin injury: 31 days out (8 games missed)
• 22/23 – Thigh problems: 107 days out (17 games missed)

He’s still missed 38 games with 6 separate injuries over the space of three seasons

And legs like twiglets, no beef.

[Buzzo]

5 days out and 4 days out? Surely that’s just being rested.

3 months out once and a month 3 times over 4 years. Thats probably not all that bad these days imo. One for a break which you can’t do much about.

Hes still averaging 40 games per season over that period.

[labourRed]

I think this depends how you look at it the club would have been confident long before the last day of the window that Isak would have been coming in. It is true that they still had some money given they tried to sign Guehi, but the budget was still finite they would have 'put aside' the Isak money when they thought a deal was possible earlier in the window. If it had been really apparent early or in the middle of the window that Isak wouldn't happen would they have used that money for another forward or in other areas of the squad is unclear, would they have spent it in the summer or held on a bit to see if Isak had become available a year later or what who knows?

The club are very particular about the type of deals they do and in getting the right players so who really knows what would have happened.

IMO if we were going with a proper #9 we couldn't only have one available we had to give ourselves options, Isak was the first choice clearly, but it was easier to bring in Ekitike first, had we signed Isak first would we have gone for Ekitike as well? Who knows? I suspect that we signed Ekitike because we didn't think Isak was gettable at that point and we needed a CF, when Isak became available we moved for him too.

Our approach can work well in waiting for the right player (e.g. VVD) but I do fear the lack of a balanced squad and activity in January this year could cost us a CL place which I think would make this coming summer's recruitment a hell of alot harder, or to be honest could completely **** it up because the players we want would probably also have offers from CL clubs.

I'm all for giving the suits a kicking, but if the Guehi deal went through and Leoni not had his horrific injury we'd be in much better shape defensively (i know there are other areas we could strengthen).

You mention a finite budget but those financial twitter fellas reckoned we still had about 200m plus after the Isak deal, so money isn't the issue here. There is a fair amount of conjecture sure, but there are no noises from the club that there is no money, and as you point out we had the deal in place for Guehi at £35m.

[Charly]

Thst 200m doesnt make sense to me. We made a big loss the season we brought in the new midfielders. With the costs spread out im not sure the extra £40m a season plus wages is affordable on that.

Love to be wring though.

Regardless, we still sold two centreback in a summer where we needed to increase numbers.

We also kept hold of Endo who Slot doesnt rate when wevrealky need cover for Grav, especially if he is a backup centreback.

Im worried if Gomez and Konate are both missing at the weekend

[labourRed]

Thst 200m doesnt make sense to me. We made a big loss the season we brought in the new midfielders. With the costs spread out im not sure the extra £40m a season plus wages is affordable on that.

Love to be wring though.

Regardless, we still sold two centreback in a summer where we needed to increase numbers.

We also kept hold of Endo who Slot doesnt rate when wevrealky need cover for Grav, especially if he is a backup centreback.

Im worried if Gomez and Konate are both missing at the weekend

I didn't bother looking it up but here are some details. Tldr, we're in very good shape financially. More info on our cash facility here if you can abide the ads: https://www.rousingthekop.com/2025/1...ash-explained/

Key Details on Liverpool's PSR Position:
Total Headroom: Various estimates place the headroom between £100m–£153m, with reports in July 2025 suggesting the club could potentially spend over £200m–£500m in a transfer window while remaining compliant, due to the amortisation of fees.

Positive Position: Unlike many, Liverpool boasted a positive PSR position of £48m before considering the £105m allowable loss, per The Swiss Ramble.

Revenue & Sales: Increased commercial income, Champions League revenue, and profits from player sales (e.g., academy players) have bolstered this position.

As of late 2025, reports indicate Liverpool continues to have "acres of headroom" even after summer spending, supported by FSG's financial management and a £350m revolving credit facility.

[rudedog]

5 days out and 4 days out? Surely that’s just being rested.

3 months out once and a month 3 times over 4 years. Thats probably not all that bad these days imo. One for a break which you can’t do much about.

Hes still averaging 40 games per season over that period.

Just looking at his total games played only tells part of the story though.

In the three years before we signed him, he missed a total of 202 days through injury. This is 18.5% of the total time - 202/(365*3).

With an expensive signing, it’s about the overall risk. The more you spend on a single player, the more you would want to manage that risk.

I think spending £130m on a player who has been injured for around 20% of the total available time (across those three years) is a significant risk. The fact he had not trained for months before we signed him should have been added to the risk column also.

Maybe ‘injury prone’ was the wrong term to use as that seems something that isn’t really defined, but I hope the above clarifies my original point better.

[Exiled_red]

I didn't bother looking it up but here are some details. Tldr, we're in very good shape financially. More info on our cash facility here if you can abide the ads: https://www.rousingthekop.com/2025/1...ash-explained/

Key Details on Liverpool's PSR Position:
Total Headroom: Various estimates place the headroom between £100m–£153m, with reports in July 2025 suggesting the club could potentially spend over £200m–£500m in a transfer window while remaining compliant, due to the amortisation of fees.

Positive Position: Unlike many, Liverpool boasted a positive PSR position of £48m before considering the £105m allowable loss, per The Swiss Ramble.

Revenue & Sales: Increased commercial income, Champions League revenue, and profits from player sales (e.g., academy players) have bolstered this position.

As of late 2025, reports indicate Liverpool continues to have "acres of headroom" even after summer spending, supported by FSG's financial management and a £350m revolving credit facility.

There is a difference between PSR headroom and having the money/being willing to spend it. The budget available and the PSR headroom aren't the same thing. PSR imposes a an upper limit on spending if you have the money

[labourRed]

There is a difference between PSR headroom and having the money/being willing to spend it. The budget available and the PSR headroom aren't the same thing. PSR imposes a an upper limit on spending if you have the money

Well, yes, i understand that.

What i'm pointing out is there is little argument for not having the availability to spend. Willingness is a whole other thing and not something that can be quantified on a spreadsheet or a football forum.

[vlahka]

How come it was ok to overpay for isak but not for Guehi. If we had offered more the owner would have told his manager to shut up and they'd have sold, because money is always a prime factor. Its all fine and dandy to say you are after the right player for the right price. But sometimes you need to spend more on the right player. We did it for VVD. We did it for a few. Should have done it for him as well. Honestly even at 50mill I'd consider it a steal. We could have just kept Nat and not had any problems ever again for the next decade. But seems people in charge cant tell a world class defender when they see him single handedly get you into the champions league. Mbappe rolling in his grave at big Nats treatment.

[Daniel 7]

Let's just hope we're not reaping what we sowed when we sold Torres to Chelsea for that then record transfer fee, knowing we definitely had the better end of that deal with him being past his peak after spells of injury

[BobTheCharmer]

I'm convinced the players are largely ignoring Arne right now. He was going mad towards the end to slow it down. Instead we're putting in corners trying to score more.

[peterbread]

The atmosphere sounded great on TV and I feel like they fed off of that and just let go and played with real intensity.

Newcastle’s approached definitely helped and there was a lot of space for Wirtz and Ekitike to exploit.