Liverpool FC Forum

[bigmick]

That argument won't work cause then Rafa would have had 43.75 million less to buy new players for most likely.

So i totally disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean there - will you clarify?

I think he's being sarcastic mate. We're still in that "Alex Ferguson would win the title with Stoke" mode I think, although it is more sensible than his previous two.

No doubt sonner or later he'll just say what he actually thinks and then we can get down to discussing it if he's interested. For my part, I'm not really.

It seems to me that the arguements have mostly been done, and you either believe the manager is doing the best job possible or quite close to it with the resources at his disposal or you don't. He does, I don't, but that's cool.

[fivecups]

That argument won't work cause then Rafa would have had 43.75 million less to buy new players for most likely.

So i totally disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean there - will you clarify?

I think he's being sarcastic mate. We're still in that "Alex Ferguson would win the title with Stoke" mode I think, although it is more sensible than his previous two.

No doubt sonner or later he'll just say what he actually thinks and then we can get down to discussing it if he's interested. For my part, I'm not really.

It seems to me that the arguements have mostly been done, and you either believe the manager is doing the best job possible or quite close to it with the resources at his disposal or you don't. He does, I don't, but that's cool.

Right I think I understand what Penguin's saying.

I'm just looking for the best simple model for assessing the managers transfers. I understand that the equity from the sales of players who were at the club before Rafa joined was essential for buying the players we currently have. Thats why the figure should be included when we calculate Rafa's transfer spending. Gross spend close to £200million. Net spend around £80million. Equity from players already at Liverpool around £45 million. Overall Rafa's spent £125 million of LFC's money on transfers if a simplistic approach is taken.

Mick - completely agree that those arguments have largely been done. I do think however that it would be useful to gather as much objective information as possible - from reliable sources - and put it in this thread. There is such wide variation in the various figures quoted that it can be hard to draw accurate conclusions on different clubs spending. If we compile definite figures we can help sift through a lot of the rubbish thats quoted in the media.

[account deleted by request]

This is the full list from LFChistory.net that Flight linked. I'd be interested to hear Owzat's/ Saint/ Bab Bob's or anyone elses opinion on the fees, overall spent and recouped to see if we can get a definitive list. I know some of the fees are undisclosed which makes exact totals difficult but it would be useful for us to have as complete as list as possible.

The only definative list is the one I posted earlier, that comes from the Liverpool FC published Accounts.

There are no guesses in that,  but sadly it is always going to be at least 12months out of date. It also doesn't break it down into individual players but how much we actually spent on transfers in each financial year.

For me the argument doesn't have to be accurate to the nearest penny to hold water. To me its more an argument of what figures should be used rather than quibbling over whether a player cost £19million or £20million.

My view is that he has had sufficient funds,obviously we would all have liked him to have had more, no one is going to turn the offer of more money down!

I think the team he was left while not as strong as it might have been had a lot of quality players in it who actually HAD VALUE both as players and again when they were sold. This value should not be dismissed lightly. The fact that Rafa chose to sell them while other clubs chose to keep more of their players should not be used as a defence, it was Rafa's choice. Obviously after 4 or 5 years players will have to be replaced as they get older or as better players take their place but to dismiss their value is wrong.

If Rafa had sold Gerrard for example for £40Million to Chelsea should that just knock Rafa's spending down by £40million as a net figure would, or should some attempt be made to show that Gerrard was actually not a bad player and that when you sold him it wasn't just a gain of £40million but actually a loss of a good player as well. 

As I have said before, if a new manager came in sold Torres, Gerrard, Masch and Alonso for £150million and bought 4 cr@p players for £150million is it right that he can turn round and  say but these players cost nothing as my NET SPEND IS NIL. For me his spend would be 4 top class players or £150million.

To me the real answer of how much a manager has spent has to include a value for assets he had when he arrived as well, if we were to go down that route, so I personally don't really agree with using a net figure.

Gross spend to me is a more acceptable figure, it shows just how much money a manager has actually had available to buy players with.

At the end of the day all the tables, lists, financial accounts in the world will be meaningless anyway, as people will believe what they wish. If Rafa had spent £350million, some people would still believe he hasn't had enough, while others would believe if he had only spent £100million that should be enough to mount a title challenge.

My argument is that Houllier was picked because he supposedly had a good reputation of developing youth in France rather than needing large amounts money. Sadly that was to prove false.

Rafa was picked because it was thought he could win titles without needing huge amounts of transfer funds. Again that has proved false or maybe just impossible.

"Parry admits Liverpool had to appoint a coach with a track record of winning titles on limited resources when they sacked Gerard Houllier last summer."

My belief is that he has spent around £200million had the services of some extremly good players left to him by Houllier, and we have seen limited progression.

[bigmick]

This is the full list from LFChistory.net that Flight linked. I'd be interested to hear Owzat's/ Saint/ Bab Bob's or anyone elses opinion on the fees, overall spent and recouped to see if we can get a definitive list. I know some of the fees are undisclosed which makes exact totals difficult but it would be useful for us to have as complete as list as possible.

The only definative list is the one I posted earlier, that comes from the Liverpool FC published Accounts.

There are no guesses in that,  but sadly it is always going to be at least 12months out of date. It also doesn't break it down into individual players but how much we actually spent on transfers in each financial year.

For me the argument doesn't have to be accurate to the nearest penny to hold water. To me its more an argument of what figures should be used rather than quibbling over whether a player cost £19million or £20million.

My view is that he has had sufficient funds,obviously we would all have liked him to have had more, no one is going to turn the offer of more money down!

I think the team he was left while not as strong as it might have been had a lot of quality players in it who actually HAD VALUE both as players and again when they were sold. This value should not be dismissed lightly. The fact that Rafa chose to sell them while other clubs chose to keep more of their players should not be used as a defence, it was Rafa's choice. Obviously after 4 or 5 years players will have to be replaced as they get older or as better players take their place but to dismiss their value is wrong.

If Rafa had sold Gerrard for example for £40Million to Chelsea should that just knock Rafa's spending down by £40million as a net figure would, or should some attempt be made to show that Gerrard was actually not a bad player and that when you sold him it wasn't just a gain of £40million but actually a loss of a good player as well. 

As I have said before, if a new manager came in sold Torres, Gerrard, Masch and Alonso for £150million and bought 4 cr@p players for £150million is it right that he can turn round and  say but these players cost nothing as my NET SPEND IS NIL. For me his spend would be 4 top class players or £150million.

To me the real answer of how much a manager has spent has to include a value for assets he had when he arrived as well, if we were to go down that route, so I personally don't really agree with using a net figure.

Gross spend to me is a more acceptable figure, it shows just how much money a manager has actually had available to buy players with.

At the end of the day all the tables, lists, financial accounts in the world will be meaningless anyway, as people will believe what they wish. If Rafa had spent £350million, some people would still believe he hasn't had enough, while others would believe if he had only spent £100million that should be enough to mount a title challenge.

My argument is that Houllier was picked because he supposedly had a good reputation of developing youth in France rather than needing large amounts money. Sadly that was to prove false.

Rafa was picked because it was thought he could win titles without needing huge amounts of transfer funds. Again that has proved false or maybe just impossible.

"Parry admits Liverpool had to appoint a coach with a track record of winning titles on limited resources when they sacked Gerard Houllier last summer."

My belief is that he has spent around £200million had the services of some extremly good players left to him by Houllier, and we have seen limited progression.

Fantastic post mate and that's exactly how I see it as well. Obviously, as I'm getting a bit like a stuck record saying, some people don't see it that way and fair play to them.

Whatever anyone thinks, and whatever snyone's opinions are I hope we don't get a barrelload of complete over-reaction after the Man Utd game. That one match isn't going to change things too much in truth, and I hope people remember that.

[aCe']

One thing that isn't considered is which players the top four already had when Rafa arrived, to put into context what he took on.


EXISTING PLAYERS AT TOP FOUR CLUBS WHEN RAFA ARRIVED


ARSENAL

Almunia
Toure
Clichy
Eboue
Fabregas
Van Persie
Bendtner


CHELSEA

Cech
Carvalho
Terry
Ferreira
J Cole
Lampard
Drogba


MANCS

Ferdinand
O'Shea
Neville
Ronaldo
Giggs
Scholes
Fletcher
Rooney


LIVERPOOL

Carragher
Gerrard
Sami

I assume you mean are still at the same club that were when Rafa took over. That's Rafa's choice, personally I think he has got rid of a few he could have kept (Cisse, Pongolle and Warnock for starters). And a number weren't got rid of until last summer - Finnan, Kewell and Riise. It also ignores a few situations like the one with Owen, maybe that could have worked out better. Either way it gives Houllier a zero cost player in Owen, Rafa a -£8m "net" if you subscribe to that theorem!

Surely you judge property by what you own, you don't own a £200k house and say it is only a £50k house because you sold your £150k house to buy it! Even more so if you didn't buy the house you sold in the first place! That may be where the money came from, but if you sold that £200k house then you'd be looking at recouping around £200k for it so that is what it is worth. Same applies to players, how much Rafa got for Cisse, Owen, Riise, Finnan, etc has no bearing on what the current squad is worth.

We had a pretty large squad when Rafa arrived, in 1st team squad and saleable assets. Rafa loaned a lot of them out before eventually selling them off here and there.

Squad When Rafa Took Over

GKs (3) : Dudek, Kirkland, Bernadi

CBs (4) : Hyypia, Henchoz, Medjani, Whitbread

FBs (5) : Finnan, Warnock, Riise, Traore, Vignal

MF (11) : Gerrard, Hamann, Kewell, Smicer, Diao, Murphy, Potter, Le Tallec, Cheyrou, Diarra, Biscan

CFs (6) : Owen, Cisse, Pongolle, Mellor, Baros, Diouf

Quite a bumper squad to start with by any standard, I haven't included arguable cases like Welsh, Partridge and Otsemobor (not sure if Babbel was ever an option for Rafa if he was still here) And it was a good enough starting platform to win a European Cup with - with a few signings. Even Houllier wants some credit for Istanbul 2005.

Signed 04/05 : Alonso, Luis Garcia, Nunez, Josemi (Summer) and Pellegrino, Carson and Morientes (January)

Is a side of Dudek, Finnan, Warnock/Riise, Carragher, Hyypia, Diouf/Smicer, Kewell, Gerrard, Hamann, Owen and Cisse such a bad starting XI?

The unfortunate thing was a lot of the other players were terrible, I said elsewhere that we had a good side but Houllier bought badly latterly and we ended up with Biscan, Traore, Cheyrou, Le Tallec, Diao, Medjani and rubbish like that. If they'd all been snips it wouldn't be so bad, didn't Houllier get wrapped up in buying "the next Henry", "the next Vieira", "the next Zidane", "the next Desailly" ? Problem was the players he bought were French, but that's where the similarity ended.

this is an excellent post right here...

basically sums up what i've been trying to say for quite some time now...

We did NOT need to sell all the players we had just to go out and buy more sh!t spending millions in the process....

2004 till today.. the progress that we've made (if there was any) is at best, disputable...

To clear things up... im not saying we had a brilliant squad of world beaters who would have won us the league without breaking a sweat, im just saying maybe instead of rebuilding the side from scratch, we should have built on what we already had (which was a champions league winning side lets make no mistake about it)...

every year its the same story... we're close, a few signing away, then we go out and change the whole look of the team by selling players we shouldnt sell, and more importantly uying players we didnt need/ wouldnt have needed if things were done the right way from the start...

why did we need to sell the likes of warnock, sinama, cisse, finnan, murphy, sissoko, Bellamy ?

surely if we hadnt we wouldnt have NEEDED the signings of Dossena, lucas, Voronin and the likes... you get the picture...

too many unneeded transfers for my liking i guess..

and the buys arent that much better than whats being sold in most cases... only cost more...

Heres an interesting question to you all... if you were to pick a realistic starting 11.. or lets make it even more interesting lets pick an 18man squad with all the players Rafa's had available to him since he took over...at the level that they're playing at TODAY.. who would be in it...

mine would look a little something like this...

Reina (6)
Finnan
Aurelio
Carra
Hyypia
Mascherano(17)
Alonso(10.7)
Cisse
Gerrard
Riera (8)
Torres (20.2)

At a total cost of (61mill)

subs:

GK
Warnock
Agger (5.8)
Sissoko (5.6)
Murphy
Bellamy (6)
Crouch (7)

total cost (24.4mill)


thats around 85 mill in total spending.. not NET SPENDING...

and that side looks alot better than the 200mill+ side we have atm... i understand some of the players wanted to leave and it wasnt upto Rafa to decide them leaving or staying but you could quite easily replace them with other players we had in the side yet for some odd reason decided to get rid of... S.Pongolle ?

[aCe']

This is the full list from LFChistory.net that Flight linked. I'd be interested to hear Owzat's/ Saint/ Bab Bob's or anyone elses opinion on the fees, overall spent and recouped to see if we can get a definitive list. I know some of the fees are undisclosed which makes exact totals difficult but it would be useful for us to have as complete as list as possible.

The only definative list is the one I posted earlier, that comes from the Liverpool FC published Accounts.

There are no guesses in that,  but sadly it is always going to be at least 12months out of date. It also doesn't break it down into individual players but how much we actually spent on transfers in each financial year.

For me the argument doesn't have to be accurate to the nearest penny to hold water. To me its more an argument of what figures should be used rather than quibbling over whether a player cost £19million or £20million.

My view is that he has had sufficient funds,obviously we would all have liked him to have had more, no one is going to turn the offer of more money down!

I think the team he was left while not as strong as it might have been had a lot of quality players in it who actually HAD VALUE both as players and again when they were sold. This value should not be dismissed lightly. The fact that Rafa chose to sell them while other clubs chose to keep more of their players should not be used as a defence, it was Rafa's choice. Obviously after 4 or 5 years players will have to be replaced as they get older or as better players take their place but to dismiss their value is wrong.

If Rafa had sold Gerrard for example for £40Million to Chelsea should that just knock Rafa's spending down by £40million as a net figure would, or should some attempt be made to show that Gerrard was actually not a bad player and that when you sold him it wasn't just a gain of £40million but actually a loss of a good player as well. 

As I have said before, if a new manager came in sold Torres, Gerrard, Masch and Alonso for £150million and bought 4 cr@p players for £150million is it right that he can turn round and  say but these players cost nothing as my NET SPEND IS NIL. For me his spend would be 4 top class players or £150million.

To me the real answer of how much a manager has spent has to include a value for assets he had when he arrived as well, if we were to go down that route, so I personally don't really agree with using a net figure.

Gross spend to me is a more acceptable figure, it shows just how much money a manager has actually had available to buy players with.

At the end of the day all the tables, lists, financial accounts in the world will be meaningless anyway, as people will believe what they wish. If Rafa had spent £350million, some people would still believe he hasn't had enough, while others would believe if he had only spent £100million that should be enough to mount a title challenge.

My argument is that Houllier was picked because he supposedly had a good reputation of developing youth in France rather than needing large amounts money. Sadly that was to prove false.

Rafa was picked because it was thought he could win titles without needing huge amounts of transfer funds. Again that has proved false or maybe just impossible.

"Parry admits Liverpool had to appoint a coach with a track record of winning titles on limited resources when they sacked Gerard Houllier last summer."

My belief is that he has spent around £200million had the services of some extremly good players left to him by Houllier, and we have seen limited progression.

Fantastic post mate and that's exactly how I see it as well. Obviously, as I'm getting a bit like a stuck record saying, some people don't see it that way and fair play to them.

Whatever anyone thinks, and whatever snyone's opinions are I hope we don't get a barrelload of complete over-reaction after the Man Utd game. That one match isn't going to change things too much in truth, and I hope people remember that.

yep.. have to agree with saint on this one....

we've wasted too muh time and money going around in circles ( hey there GYBS, it all makes sense to me now  )...

basically i see what has been achieved in the transfer market since Rafa took over as a dissapointment to say the least...
not good nough and its about time we start doing things in a different manner...

[fivecups]

For me the argument doesn't have to be accurate to the nearest penny to hold water. To me its more an argument of what figures should be used rather than quibbling over whether a player cost £19million or £20million.

My view is that he has had sufficient funds,obviously we would all have liked him to have had more, no one is going to turn the offer of more money down!

I think the team he was left while not as strong as it might have been had a lot of quality players in it who actually HAD VALUE both as players and again when they were sold. This value should not be dismissed lightly. The fact that Rafa chose to sell them while other clubs chose to keep more of their players should not be used as a defence, it was Rafa's choice. Obviously after 4 or 5 years players will have to be replaced as they get older or as better players take their place but to dismiss their value is wrong.

If Rafa had sold Gerrard for example for £40Million to Chelsea should that just knock Rafa's spending down by £40million as a net figure would, or should some attempt be made to show that Gerrard was actually not a bad player and that when you sold him it wasn't just a gain of £40million but actually a loss of a good player as well. 

As I have said before, if a new manager came in sold Torres, Gerrard, Masch and Alonso for £150million and bought 4 cr@p players for £150million is it right that he can turn round and  say but these players cost nothing as my NET SPEND IS NIL. For me his spend would be 4 top class players or £150million.

To me the real answer of how much a manager has spent has to include a value for assets he had when he arrived as well, if we were to go down that route, so I personally don't really agree with using a net figure.

Gross spend to me is a more acceptable figure, it shows just how much money a manager has actually had available to buy players with.

Cheers Saint - that's an excellent illustration of why NET spend is not the right figure to be used, as you've shown before. Net spend doesn't account for the loss of equity that was in the club before  the new manager took over.

I don't think that Gross spend is the right figure to use either though. In your example the gross spend would be £150 million. I'd argue that the right figure to use would be net spend plus loss of equity from the club from before the manager took over - in your example that, again would be £150 million (or as you say the loss of 4 players). The net spend is £0 which is clearly rubbish.

If I extend your example and say that the new manager sold 4 players from the original squad for £150 million and bought 4 for the same amount - gross spend £150 million. He then realised he bought rubbish but was lucky enough to get rid of them for £150 million. He then bought 4 new players, but again wasn't happy so he repeated the cycle selling them and buying 4 more. Now, his gross spend is £450 million and his net spend in £0. Overall he's lost 4 players who were there before he came and gained 4 new ones. I don't think it's fair on him to say that he's spent £450 million adding those 4 players to his squad. No doubt some would argue he's spent nothing bringing those players in but that doesn't make sense. In actual fact he's cost the club £150 million - his net spend PLUS the loss of equity that was there before he came. I think that's the best figure to demonstrate the managers transfers.

Of course it does seem like strange management - and there are unquantifiable factors such as the upset to the team from continuously changing the squad - thats one of the problems of the so called scatter-gun approach but I think it makes more sense than either net or gross spend. It might be difficult to compare Rafa's numbers to other managers - im not sure if Owzat or someone would be able to do that.

[Penguins]

This is the full list from LFChistory.net that Flight linked. I'd be interested to hear Owzat's/ Saint/ Bab Bob's or anyone elses opinion on the fees, overall spent and recouped to see if we can get a definitive list. I know some of the fees are undisclosed which makes exact totals difficult but it would be useful for us to have as complete as list as possible.

The only definative list is the one I posted earlier, that comes from the Liverpool FC published Accounts.

There are no guesses in that,  but sadly it is always going to be at least 12months out of date. It also doesn't break it down into individual players but how much we actually spent on transfers in each financial year.

For me the argument doesn't have to be accurate to the nearest penny to hold water. To me its more an argument of what figures should be used rather than quibbling over whether a player cost £19million or £20million.

My view is that he has had sufficient funds,obviously we would all have liked him to have had more, no one is going to turn the offer of more money down!

I think the team he was left while not as strong as it might have been had a lot of quality players in it who actually HAD VALUE both as players and again when they were sold. This value should not be dismissed lightly. The fact that Rafa chose to sell them while other clubs chose to keep more of their players should not be used as a defence, it was Rafa's choice. Obviously after 4 or 5 years players will have to be replaced as they get older or as better players take their place but to dismiss their value is wrong.

If Rafa had sold Gerrard for example for £40Million to Chelsea should that just knock Rafa's spending down by £40million as a net figure would, or should some attempt be made to show that Gerrard was actually not a bad player and that when you sold him it wasn't just a gain of £40million but actually a loss of a good player as well. 

As I have said before, if a new manager came in sold Torres, Gerrard, Masch and Alonso for £150million and bought 4 cr@p players for £150million is it right that he can turn round and  say but these players cost nothing as my NET SPEND IS NIL. For me his spend would be 4 top class players or £150million.

To me the real answer of how much a manager has spent has to include a value for assets he had when he arrived as well, if we were to go down that route, so I personally don't really agree with using a net figure.

Gross spend to me is a more acceptable figure, it shows just how much money a manager has actually had available to buy players with.

At the end of the day all the tables, lists, financial accounts in the world will be meaningless anyway, as people will believe what they wish. If Rafa had spent £350million, some people would still believe he hasn't had enough, while others would believe if he had only spent £100million that should be enough to mount a title challenge.

My argument is that Houllier was picked because he supposedly had a good reputation of developing youth in France rather than needing large amounts money. Sadly that was to prove false.

Rafa was picked because it was thought he could win titles without needing huge amounts of transfer funds. Again that has proved false or maybe just impossible.

"Parry admits Liverpool had to appoint a coach with a track record of winning titles on limited resources when they sacked Gerard Houllier last summer."

My belief is that he has spent around £200million had the services of some extremly good players left to him by Houllier, and we have seen limited progression.

Well, I would always have to disagree with you on the value of the squad rafa inherited Saint. For me it was really poor and going nowhere fast.
And my 2nd belief is that players are always worth what others are willing to pay for them.
If Baros for example was worth 10 million we would get 10 million.

I have already discussed in previous threads that Houiller had done jack **** the last 2 years to improve the team at all and bought ****poor players at inflated prices.
And the squad had many aging players around 30 which meant their value was low and that they needed replacement pretty soon. And no, Murphy was never title winning material, and never will be even if some might have liked him.
Just name one player that has left us that has gone to show his class in another team. Noone, cause they left us for a reason, NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

Ok, I can buy the argument that those 43,75 million should be included in the spend. BUT...
That mean Rafa has a net spend of 125 million and has got us:

Reina, Masch, Alonso, Torres, Arebeloa, Benayoun, Babel, Kuyt
and the rest of the squad.
I would say u pay for what u get and I would say that for 125 million you would not get much better!

I rather we have the players Rafa has brought us than 125 million and not a single player besides Gerrard and Carra.

Well, maybe everyone will have to realize sooner rather than later that winning a championship with 30-50% less than your rivals is a dream today, no matter who is in charge.
But I am sorry here for trying to be realistic.

My belief is that Rafa has still has only had 125 million to
spend on a whole new squad becuase he could not have spent those extra 75 million without selling first!
And my belief is that Houllier left us in a heap of trouble taking the team down the abyss in his last 2 years and left us with
an aging, thin, poor squad with players that no other teams
would touch forcing us to sell Houlliers rejects at a big loss.
That is my belief.

[Penguins]

One thing that isn't considered is which players the top four already had when Rafa arrived, to put into context what he took on.


EXISTING PLAYERS AT TOP FOUR CLUBS WHEN RAFA ARRIVED


ARSENAL

Almunia
Toure
Clichy
Eboue
Fabregas
Van Persie
Bendtner


CHELSEA

Cech
Carvalho
Terry
Ferreira
J Cole
Lampard
Drogba


MANCS

Ferdinand
O'Shea
Neville
Ronaldo
Giggs
Scholes
Fletcher
Rooney


LIVERPOOL

Carragher
Gerrard
Sami

I assume you mean are still at the same club that were when Rafa took over. That's Rafa's choice, personally I think he has got rid of a few he could have kept (Cisse, Pongolle and Warnock for starters). And a number weren't got rid of until last summer - Finnan, Kewell and Riise. It also ignores a few situations like the one with Owen, maybe that could have worked out better. Either way it gives Houllier a zero cost player in Owen, Rafa a -£8m "net" if you subscribe to that theorem!

Surely you judge property by what you own, you don't own a £200k house and say it is only a £50k house because you sold your £150k house to buy it! Even more so if you didn't buy the house you sold in the first place! That may be where the money came from, but if you sold that £200k house then you'd be looking at recouping around £200k for it so that is what it is worth. Same applies to players, how much Rafa got for Cisse, Owen, Riise, Finnan, etc has no bearing on what the current squad is worth.

We had a pretty large squad when Rafa arrived, in 1st team squad and saleable assets. Rafa loaned a lot of them out before eventually selling them off here and there.

Squad When Rafa Took Over

GKs (3) : Dudek, Kirkland, Bernadi

CBs (4) : Hyypia, Henchoz, Medjani, Whitbread

FBs (5) : Finnan, Warnock, Riise, Traore, Vignal

MF (11) : Gerrard, Hamann, Kewell, Smicer, Diao, Murphy, Potter, Le Tallec, Cheyrou, Diarra, Biscan

CFs (6) : Owen, Cisse, Pongolle, Mellor, Baros, Diouf

Quite a bumper squad to start with by any standard, I haven't included arguable cases like Welsh, Partridge and Otsemobor (not sure if Babbel was ever an option for Rafa if he was still here) And it was a good enough starting platform to win a European Cup with - with a few signings. Even Houllier wants some credit for Istanbul 2005.

Signed 04/05 : Alonso, Luis Garcia, Nunez, Josemi (Summer) and Pellegrino, Carson and Morientes (January)

Is a side of Dudek, Finnan, Warnock/Riise, Carragher, Hyypia, Diouf/Smicer, Kewell, Gerrard, Hamann, Owen and Cisse such a bad starting XI?

The unfortunate thing was a lot of the other players were terrible, I said elsewhere that we had a good side but Houllier bought badly latterly and we ended up with Biscan, Traore, Cheyrou, Le Tallec, Diao, Medjani and rubbish like that. If they'd all been snips it wouldn't be so bad, didn't Houllier get wrapped up in buying "the next Henry", "the next Vieira", "the next Zidane", "the next Desailly" ? Problem was the players he bought were French, but that's where the similarity ended.

this is an excellent post right here...

basically sums up what i've been trying to say for quite some time now...

We did NOT need to sell all the players we had just to go out and buy more sh!t spending millions in the process....

2004 till today.. the progress that we've made (if there was any) is at best, disputable...

To clear things up... im not saying we had a brilliant squad of world beaters who would have won us the league without breaking a sweat, im just saying maybe instead of rebuilding the side from scratch, we should have built on what we already had (which was a champions league winning side lets make no mistake about it)...

every year its the same story... we're close, a few signing away, then we go out and change the whole look of the team by selling players we shouldnt sell, and more importantly uying players we didnt need/ wouldnt have needed if things were done the right way from the start...

why did we need to sell the likes of warnock, sinama, cisse, finnan, murphy, sissoko, Bellamy ?

surely if we hadnt we wouldnt have NEEDED the signings of Dossena, lucas, Voronin and the likes... you get the picture...

too many unneeded transfers for my liking i guess..

and the buys arent that much better than whats being sold in most cases... only cost more...

Heres an interesting question to you all... if you were to pick a realistic starting 11.. or lets make it even more interesting lets pick an 18man squad with all the players Rafa's had available to him since he took over...at the level that they're playing at TODAY.. who would be in it...

mine would look a little something like this...

Reina (6)
Finnan
Aurelio
Carra
Hyypia
Mascherano(17)
Alonso(10.7)
Cisse
Gerrard
Riera (8)
Torres (20.2)

At a total cost of (61mill)

subs:

GK
Warnock
Agger (5.8)
Sissoko (5.6)
Murphy
Bellamy (6)
Crouch (7)

total cost (24.4mill)


thats around 85 mill in total spending.. not NET SPENDING...

and that side looks alot better than the 200mill+ side we have atm... i understand some of the players wanted to leave and it wasnt upto Rafa to decide them leaving or staying but you could quite easily replace them with other players we had in the side yet for some odd reason decided to get rid of... S.Pongolle ?

How can you say that Ace?

U trully believe the progress we have made with the squad is disputable at best? 

I guess I am preaching for deaf ears when you believe the team that rafa took over was something to build a foundation
on... 
Built on what we already had...
Champ winning side?
Sigh. So that is why Houllier never reached beyond the quarter
finals....

No credit to Rafa for working a miracle. Traore really is a world beater. My fault...

In 2004 we we a heck of a lot more far away than a couple of signings from a title winning team.
Why is Murphy, Cisse etc etc playing where there are and performing the way they are if they are good enough to win the title with?
Why weren't they worth 10 million+ when we sold them. Teams should flock to get them....

Why did we sell the likes of of warnock, sinama, cisse, finnan, murphy, sissoko, Bellamy ?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH. simple really even if it is hard to swallow.
And why was they then bought in the 1st place?
Simple. Let's take Pennant as an example.
Summer 06. We need a right mid since we had noone.
And no, you must concentrate on the season ahead so we can't save the money and wait for next season.
Rafa wanted Alves. Was not alllowed the money to get him.
We still had to get a right winger. Pennant was not really good enough, but financial restraints made him a decent stop gap for a season or 2. Such inconvieniences is not something
rednose or Chelski's managers has to deal with.

And Sissoko? Does people forget fast or what?
He was ****poor from March till November that year
and we had to sell him. Cissé? U mean the one trick pony?
And u manage to pick Dossena, Lucas and Voronin when those are Rafa's least successful buys.

Dossena was a miscalcultion. He thought about bringing more offense into the team and could not afford top class wingers.
So he tries to get some offensive minded fullbacks in Dossena and Degen. So it hasn't turned out well, but the total loss will be minimal. And at least he tried it out.
Lucas must be doing something right to be in the brazil team and selected the best player in the brazilian league.
If it doesn't work out there are many italian teams ready to take him so it would not make a financial loss.
Voronin cost nothing and we needed striker cover for nothing since we had little cash(just like it is now with N'gog) and we might make a profit for him this summer.

Sure Rafa has made unneeded transfers. EVERYONE DOES!
Once again Rafa is not allowed to make mistakes.
His small mistakes dwarves those of Fergie and Mourinho but since they got more than twice the founds nooone cares since they win the title.

Sigh. Nice of you to not pick Skrtel who always plays, Cisse who is half the player Benayoun is.

Sigh. It is a 125 million squad and not a 200 million squad.
Problem with Crouch, Pongolle etc is that they wanted regular 1st team football, something we couldn't give them. I also think they could have stayed but respect their decision.

But like I said, if you don't want rational explanations and is just bitter that the **** is taking title no 18, then fine.
But there is noone, for all his warts, that would do a better job with what he has been given than Rafa Benitez.

Yes, I desperatly want to win the league, more than anything else but I can also see where and when credit is due.
And Rafa has earned my respect even if I pull my hair out
at some of his decisions.
Give Rafa the backing as our rivals, or even close, and I would get dissapointed if we wouldn't win.
Until then I am delighted that rafa has put us on the map in Europe again, getting in world class players in the team again when supported finacially like Torres and Masch.

[account deleted by request]

If the team Houllier left was as poor as you say how was it possible to win the Champions league with 9 players from it and reach the final of the League cup, even accepting that probably the second best player from that Houllier team was sold (Owen)without even making any contribution.

That 7 of those same "poor players" plus Hamann (making 8)then went on to also win the FA cup the following season, suggests that maybe they wern't quite as poor as some may think.  Especially since the more of those players to have been sold the less we have won, and 5 out of the 6 goals we scored in those finals where scored by players at the club before Rafa came. (7 out of 8 if you include the Super cup)

The problem when working out just how much a manager has inherited and spent is that a lot of the values become arbitrary. For example Hyypia is an excellent player who I am sure everyone would agree has more than played his part in any success we have achieved. Yet if he was sold now his value would be £2million or so. Similarly with Hamman who was allowed to leave for free. How much would they have been worth when Rafa took over?

So to argue that you always get what a player is worth is wrong imo, you always get the amount that that player is worth at that moment in time when he is sold. Hamann 5 years ago was worth more than nothing surely? Alonso's value has probably fluctuated from £12/14million up to maybe £18million before settling back at around £16million. Which value is he worth ?

I.E. Dudek when Rafa came might perhaps have been worth £3million, the fact we got NOTHING for him when he left was not a true value of his worth both as an asset and as a player, as we allowed his contract to run down.

The only good thing is that the longer a manager is at a club the more players will reach the end of their particular road and leave for nothing, so Fergie who has seen players such as Keane already leave for nothing will have to watch as other once priceless jewells such as Scholes and Giggs depart the scene for nothing, having to spend huge amounts if he wants to replace them with similar quality.

So should we then penalise a manger that gets full use out of a player, but gets little for him at the end of his career rather than a manager that sells a player at or near his peak? We are not a selling club, so imo the only true way to judge would be to set an arbitrary figure for the squad he took over and then reassessing it at a moment in time.

Rafa took over a despirited team, not a poor team. The squad had weaknesses but also some excellent players. Dudek ,Hyypia, Hamann, Finnan, Carra , Gerrard, Riise, Baros, Kewell, Pongolle, Owen, Kirkland ,Warnock.  I think without doubt they would ALL GET IN OUR SQUAD TODAY.

They had just come fourth in the league, with a manager that had lost a lot of their belief and a team that was totally despirited. So they can't have been that bad can they ? Or perhaps the Liverpool side that finished 4th last season was equally poor and despirited? 

No imo the only way to give a reasonable assessment of how much a manager has spent is to take the gross cost of his spending and accept that bad buys will be included even if he ships them out early. I accept fivecups example, but cannot think of a way to avoid it. I also believe the real cost of a bad buy is not only how much you lose when you sell him, but the time lost, the points lost and the opportunity to buy another player is lost as your money is tied up in the bad buy. 

As I said before people will make their own judgement calls no matter what figure is finally accepted anyway.

How much is Reina worth for example. £6million? £10million..... £20million. The only time you will really know is when and if he is ever sold. Always accepting that price is not only based on how good they are, but their age, the length of their contract , how many clubs are interested at that particular moment in time and whether the player wants a move or not in the first place.

No, I will stand by my gross spend as being imo the best measure, accepting it has flaws and that it will always be open to further interpretation.

As for transfer fees, we paid originally £10.5million for Alonso, but we also agreed to pay further payments up to £14.5million. Which figure should we use? Similarly with Torres we paid over £20million initially, but with clauses that can increase up to £27million.

Keane we sold for a figure anywhere between £12million and £16million depending on if you include the clauses or not. Its all open to interpretation.

I am sufficiently satisfied to say we have spent around £200million gross give or take 10% and that I think we have had sufficient funds to have mounted a title challenge, whether that sum be £180million or indeed £200million+. If anyone wishes to use other figures or indeed has other opinions thats fine too.

If Rafa had been given much more surely we would have been accused of buying our success in the same way that Chelsea have anyway, and no one wants that ...... do they ?

[Flight]

If the team Houllier left was as poor as you say how was it possible to win the Champions league with 9 players from it and reach the final of the League cup, even accepting that probably the second best player from that Houllier team was sold (Owen)without even making any contribution.

The same team that finished 30 points off the top of the Prem.


And that wasn't underperforming, that was about the right level for that same team, without Owen.

[Flight]

Thomkins got the figures wrong in that article; he has apologised for it.

Sorry mate, I meant this bit.

Ah ok mate. Its in his blog this week. He took 100 off 180 and came up with ... 120. 

[Flight]

Heres an interesting question to you all... if you were to pick a realistic starting 11.. or lets make it even more interesting lets pick an 18man squad with all the players Rafa's had available to him since he took over...at the level that they're playing at TODAY.. who would be in it...

mine would look a little something like this...

Reina (6)
Finnan
Aurelio
Carra
Hyypia
Mascherano(17)
Alonso(10.7)
Cisse
Gerrard
Riera (8)
Torres (20.2)

At a total cost of (61mill)

subs:

GK
Warnock
Agger (5.8)
Sissoko (5.6)
Murphy
Bellamy (6)
Crouch (7)

total cost (24.4mill)


thats around 85 mill in total spending.. not NET SPENDING...

and that side looks alot better than the 200mill+ side we have atm... i understand some of the players wanted to leave and it wasnt upto Rafa to decide them leaving or staying but you could quite easily replace them with other players we had in the side yet for some odd reason decided to get rid of... S.Pongolle ?

Finnan is well past it mate; he is playing really rubbish now at his new club. Sami is a legend (and still here) but he is 36 this year.

Cisse is nowhere near good enough for us - Jones is starting for Sunderland ahead of him.

Didi, Murphy, Pongolle and Crouch all wanted to leave and asked to, for first team football.

[account deleted by request]

If the team Houllier left was as poor as you say how was it possible to win the Champions league with 9 players from it and reach the final of the League cup, even accepting that probably the second best player from that Houllier team was sold (Owen)without even making any contribution.

The same team that finished 30 points off the top of the Prem.


And that wasn't underperforming, that was about the right level for that same team, without Owen.

Yep we finished 15 points behind the mancs, 4 years and  almost £200million later and we finished 11 points behind the mancs ........ progress eh?

Always remembering that 7 of those "poor players" also played a major part in our best ever points total under Rafa and our best ever league position under Rafa. 

Hyypia 36 league games
Carra   36
Cisse   33
Finnan 33
Gerrard 32
Riise    32
Kewell 27


So one might very well ask, apart from winning the Champions league and the FA cup, getting our best ever points total and best ever position in the league ........ what did Houlliers players ever do for us. 

[account deleted by request]

Didi, Murphy, Pongolle and Crouch all wanted to leave and asked to, for first team football.

Murphy never asked to leave mate, he was devastated when he was told he was no longer wanted.