Also, Ian Graham, said the data nerds at Liverpool saw the return on investment in wages (for LFC proven players) is much higher than the return on investment in transfers. So paying Trent 2 years wages rather than sell him & raise £50-100M to reinvest in transfers may well make financial sense
Can we draft some rough numbers here to demonstrate?
For example, He likely gets paid UK180,000 a week or UK9.6 a year. That's 20M.
Let's say he would want what UK400,000 a week, 20, 800,000 a year. 41M over two years, 104M over 5 years.
In the last 2 years, Club have saved 20M in ages, for an asset they could have sold for 70M plus?
But we didn't need to pay anything to replace, because we have Conor?
So why not get a fee?
Or are we replacing a guy needing 100M in wages over 5 years with a guy who will be good for say 40M in wages over 5 years.
What am I missing here? @Beamrider