“It is not, from my experience, meaning that you take the fee paid from the money not spent and the gap between that is the money available,” said the German. “I don’t think that is the case and it is not a problem.

“When there are the right players we will have a look. We are definitely still in the market watching and seeing what is going on and what we can do. We try to strengthen the squad, definitely, and that’s it.”

The willingness to spend such sums on one player does suggest that there is the flexibility there to compete in the market, but Klopp’s comments chime with the overall FSG approach of the right price for the right player. Liverpool weren’t willing to meet Southampton’s valuation of Lavia until it was too late, but for Caicedo the recruitment team decided it was a fee worth paying despite his tender years and limited experience from which to draw more cast iron guarantees on how it would all pan out.

The likelihood remains that the money is there for the right player, but that right player is likely someone like Aurelien Tchouameni. The argument could have been made as to why the club didn’t go all in for Jude Bellingham if they were so willing to spend £111m on Caicedo, but it isn’t just the transfer fee that has to be taken into account, the liabilities that the club must absorb such as wages and agents fees are also major considerations, as is the payment structure attached to any deal, something that is impactful to cash flow at clubs.

Speaking to the ECHO, Daniel Geey, sports lawyer and author of the books ‘Done Deal’ and his latest release ‘Building the Invisible’, said: “There are always different leaps in prices over the timing of things like instalment plans and what deals may be contingent upon. Transfer fees can often be dwarfed by the total liability a club undertakes through signing a player due to wages, agents fees and other things.

“Selling clubs typically want between 20 and 40% upfront, a lot of the time more than that. That’s the truth, and then the focus becomes how long it will take to get the rest of the money. It then becomes a cash flow issue for both parties.”

Liverpool’s willingness to go in for Caicedo was borne from positive discussions around payment terms to Brighton that were within what the Reds were willing to commit to from an accounting perspective. They also knew that while they were paying top dollar for Caicedo that the 21-year-old likely wouldn’t command the kind of wages that might be associated with such a spend, even though the demands would have been significant.

Ultimately, FSG have a track record of spending when they believe the player the club are signing will be transformational in terms of aiding on pitch success that yields greater revenues, as in the case of Alisson Becker and Virgil van Dijk, or that the player is an investment for seasons to come and has a high ceiling and big chance of a significant resale value.