Liverpool FC Forum

[kunilson]

and in that list, some of the buys were for future players....anderson, antwi etc. that could still pay-off

[destro]

He has spent roughly( without going into the undisclosed) 86 million with 41 million ( again without undisclosed) being made up from players being sold !.So hes actually spent 45 million since July 2004

Thats Rooney and Carrick or Schevchenko and John Obi Mikel, not that bad is it when you put it into context. He bought second maybe thrid choice players sometimes because he couldnt go for his first choice, to say he couldnt buy better because he wasted the money is ridiculous, what was he supposed to do-not buy anyone for 2 years so he had money to buy them later

[stmichael]

I'd be quite surprised if, over the course of the next three years, our average net spend per season is significantly higher than it has been over the past five. The only difference is that the spending will be "front-loaded" with most of it coming this summer. Moores wasn't in a position to make that amount of money available in one go, whereas Tom and George are.

[sundy]

George Gillett insists he and fellow owner Tom Hicks will give their full backing to Rafa Benitez's summer spending plans. 
Benitez revealed his intention for an overhaul during the aftermath of Wednesday night's Champions League final defeat to AC Milan.
 
Gillett said: "If Rafa said he wanted to buy 'Snoogy Doogy' we would back him. Rafa's feeling is we need more depth because of the rigours of the schedule to be competitive.
 
"In every sport I participate in there is a difference between a league season and the play-offs. That's where the genius of the manager is so essential and that's where Tom and I have to defer to his background and genius."
 
Benitez's plan for a summer shake-up has also been welcomed by club skipper Steven Gerrard.
 
He said: "We need to strengthen and bring some quality into the club. It will be an interesting summer."

Snoop doggy





:D

Looks like they are keen to live up to their word and back Rafa

[account deleted by request]

Another independant article

Published: 25 May 2007
After the pain came the blame. A warning about the future of Liverpool delivered by a manager whose reputation for invective is closer to Sir Geoffrey Howe than Sir Alex Ferguson. Rafael Benitez wagged a finger at Liverpool's new American owners yesterday and he set an ultimatum that they had to reform or die, to spend or fail. It was, among other things, a spectacular diversion.

Benitez was a manager aggrieved, still smarting from a defeat that he neatly rationalised as unavoidable given the players at his disposal. Having absolved himself of any of the blame, Benitez chose his moment to marshal his popularity among the supporters. He cast himself as the manager who had performed miracles on precious little resources, the master tactician who could not be expected to turn water into wine forever. It was part-excuse, part-threat but it was not an explanation for Liverpool's 2-1 defeat in Wednesday's Champions League final.

They lost that game because with Milan vulnerable, Benitez refused to let go of precepts that have served him so well over the years. He is undoubtedly a brilliant strategist, a man whose game of containment has had an astonishing effect against sides like Barcelona and Chelsea this year but, as time ran out on Wednesday, he was too reluctant to abandon it. Only with 12 minutes left did he finally introduce a second striker. And with two minutes remaining he was changing his full-backs. There was a bizarre futility in that last substitution of Alvaro Arbeloa for Steve Finnan that encapsulated the inert state of Liverpool for much of the night.

The culture of conservatism runs deep in Benitez. He is a measured, astute tactician who has taught his side to thrive in Europe a certain way. Against Milan, however, the context of the game was changing and the Italians were plainly struggling to find any real form. If being one goal down with 45 minutes remaining in a European Cup final cannot persuade Benitez that he needs more than one striker on the pitch then the question that begs itself is: what will? The Liverpool manager is a stubborn man of quiet conviction, and Wednesday told us once again that he does not make decisions in haste. He is detached from his players, a terse, obsessive character whose capacity for masking his own disappointment has rarely overflowed - until yesterday. He must have weighed his words carefully because laying the burden of expectation squarely at the feet of the club's new owners, was a move of some boldness. George Gillett and Tom Hicks are clearly enamoured of their manager - who would not be? - but equally they do not seem the type of businessmen to indulge him just because the court of public opinion tells them to.

Benitez is at a critical point with his club of three years. English football is full of the careers of managers who believed that they could strong-arm their club's boards on the back of successful seasons. Some found themselves quietly shoved back into their places, others were gradually hustled to the exit. In recent years Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, even Gérard Houllier at Liverpool have discovered that trophies can allow you to ride the tide of public opinion for only so long.

It is a dangerous game. Benitez evidently feels that his record makes him untouchable for now and that it is the duty of the club to keep pace with his ambition. The heat is now on the club, which is evidently how the Liverpool manager wants it, although he cannot blame every defeat and setback upon the club's infrastructure. Even now it seems implausible that Liverpool will seriously compete with Chelsea and Manchester United in the transfer market - especially with a new stadium in the next three or four years.

Yesterday, Benitez hinted at delays and mismanagement in the signing of players, and stressed that he held Gillett and Hicks responsible for backing him with transfer money. He said a lot of things that will be used in evidence against him if he fails.

His transfer record has not been exemplary so far. Xabi Alonso, Jose Reina and Peter Crouch can be counted among his successes but a closer scrutiny of profit and loss tells another story. Benitez should try recouping his £4.5m when he sells Mark Gonzalez to Real Betis or reassessing the price of £9m for Dirk Kuyt. And will Gabriel Paletta ever be worth £2m again? Over the last two transfer windows Benitez has spent £18.3m on Kuyt, Jermaine Pennant and Arbeloa alone.

If his pursuit of a prolific striker is indeed a priority then even players like Samuel Eto'o and Fernando Torres will have to be persuaded that a 4-5-1 system in which Kuyt in particular has had to struggle alone can also suit them. Big name European goalscorers joining Liverpool may just consider themselves like a string quartet going on tour with Bob Dylan. A nice option to have but not guaranteed to be central to the action every night.

Benitez's words will have reverberated with Liverpool's new owners, they will surely be echoed by the fans but they cannot have sat easily with his players. They had barely been out the stadium 10 hours and already their manager had apportioned the blame. It was not him - with his 20-hour working days and unstinting devotion - whom he held responsible but a team of players that, he said in the nicest possible way, were not good enough.

Benitez will have to hope this brinkmanship really does open the door to a new side - now that his existing squad know exactly what he thinks of them.

Three years in the Red: How Liverpool's transfer record under Benitez compares to other major clubs

2004-05

Liverpool's major signings:

Josemi, Malaga, £2m

Garcia, Barcelona, £6m

Alonso, Real Sociedad, £10.5m

Morientes, Real Madrid, £6.3m

Total expenditure: £26m

Tot income from player sales: £11m

Net spending: £15m

Net spending for 2004-05

Chelsea £91m

Man Utd £26m

Arsenal £800,000 profit

2005-06

Liverpool's major signings:

Reina, Villarreal, £6m

Mark Gonzalez, Albacete, £4.5m

Mohamed Sissoko, Valencia, £5.6m

Peter Crouch, Southampton, £7m

Daniel Agger, Brondby, £5.8m

Total expenditure: £30m

Total income from player sales: £12m

Net spending: £18m

Net spending for 2005-06

Chelsea £35m

Man Utd £14m

Arsenal £10m

2006-07

Liverpool's major signings:

Bellamy, Blackburn, £6m

Pennant, Birmingham, £6.7m

Kuyt, Feyenoord, £9m

Arbeloa, Deportivo, £2.6m

Mascherano, West Ham, £1.5m*

Total expenditure: £29m

Total income from player sales: £16m

Net spending: £13m

Net spending for 2006-07

Chelsea £39m

Man Utd £4m

Arsenal £4m profit

Figures are approximate, based on published estimates with totals rounded up to nearest million

* though at end of 18-month loan deal, £18m fee will have to be paid to secure Mascherano's services permanently

[Pedro Maradona]

Published: 25 May 2007
After the pain came the blame. A warning about the future of Liverpool delivered by a manager whose reputation for invective is closer to Sir Geoffrey Howe than Sir Alex Ferguson. Rafael Benitez wagged a finger at Liverpool's new American owners yesterday and he set an ultimatum that they had to reform or die, to spend or fail. It was, among other things, a spectacular diversion.

Benitez was a manager aggrieved, still smarting from a defeat that he neatly rationalised as unavoidable given the players at his disposal. Having absolved himself of any of the blame, Benitez chose his moment to marshal his popularity among the supporters. He cast himself as the manager who had performed miracles on precious little resources, the master tactician who could not be expected to turn water into wine forever. It was part-excuse, part-threat but it was not an explanation for Liverpool's 2-1 defeat in Wednesday's Champions League final.

They lost that game because with Milan vulnerable, Benitez refused to let go of precepts that have served him so well over the years. He is undoubtedly a brilliant strategist, a man whose game of containment has had an astonishing effect against sides like Barcelona and Chelsea this year but, as time ran out on Wednesday, he was too reluctant to abandon it. Only with 12 minutes left did he finally introduce a second striker. And with two minutes remaining he was changing his full-backs. There was a bizarre futility in that last substitution of Alvaro Arbeloa for Steve Finnan that encapsulated the inert state of Liverpool for much of the night.

The culture of conservatism runs deep in Benitez. He is a measured, astute tactician who has taught his side to thrive in Europe a certain way. Against Milan, however, the context of the game was changing and the Italians were plainly struggling to find any real form. If being one goal down with 45 minutes remaining in a European Cup final cannot persuade Benitez that he needs more than one striker on the pitch then the question that begs itself is: what will? The Liverpool manager is a stubborn man of quiet conviction, and Wednesday told us once again that he does not make decisions in haste. He is detached from his players, a terse, obsessive character whose capacity for masking his own disappointment has rarely overflowed - until yesterday. He must have weighed his words carefully because laying the burden of expectation squarely at the feet of the club's new owners, was a move of some boldness. George Gillett and Tom Hicks are clearly enamoured of their manager - who would not be? - but equally they do not seem the type of businessmen to indulge him just because the court of public opinion tells them to.

Benitez is at a critical point with his club of three years. English football is full of the careers of managers who believed that they could strong-arm their club's boards on the back of successful seasons. Some found themselves quietly shoved back into their places, others were gradually hustled to the exit. In recent years Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, even Gérard Houllier at Liverpool have discovered that trophies can allow you to ride the tide of public opinion for only so long.

It is a dangerous game. Benitez evidently feels that his record makes him untouchable for now and that it is the duty of the club to keep pace with his ambition. The heat is now on the club, which is evidently how the Liverpool manager wants it, although he cannot blame every defeat and setback upon the club's infrastructure. Even now it seems implausible that Liverpool will seriously compete with Chelsea and Manchester United in the transfer market - especially with a new stadium in the next three or four years.

Yesterday, Benitez hinted at delays and mismanagement in the signing of players, and stressed that he held Gillett and Hicks responsible for backing him with transfer money. He said a lot of things that will be used in evidence against him if he fails.

His transfer record has not been exemplary so far. Xabi Alonso, Jose Reina and Peter Crouch can be counted among his successes but a closer scrutiny of profit and loss tells another story. Benitez should try recouping his £4.5m when he sells Mark Gonzalez to Real Betis or reassessing the price of £9m for Dirk Kuyt. And will Gabriel Paletta ever be worth £2m again? Over the last two transfer windows Benitez has spent £18.3m on Kuyt, Jermaine Pennant and Arbeloa alone.

If his pursuit of a prolific striker is indeed a priority then even players like Samuel Eto'o and Fernando Torres will have to be persuaded that a 4-5-1 system in which Kuyt in particular has had to struggle alone can also suit them. Big name European goalscorers joining Liverpool may just consider themselves like a string quartet going on tour with Bob Dylan. A nice option to have but not guaranteed to be central to the action every night.

Benitez's words will have reverberated with Liverpool's new owners, they will surely be echoed by the fans but they cannot have sat easily with his players. They had barely been out the stadium 10 hours and already their manager had apportioned the blame. It was not him - with his 20-hour working days and unstinting devotion - whom he held responsible but a team of players that, he said in the nicest possible way, were not good enough.

Benitez will have to hope this brinkmanship really does open the door to a new side - now that his existing squad know exactly what he thinks of them.

Three years in the Red: How Liverpool's transfer record under Benitez compares to other major clubs

2004-05

Liverpool's major signings:

Josemi, Malaga, £2m

Garcia, Barcelona, £6m

Alonso, Real Sociedad, £10.5m

Morientes, Real Madrid, £6.3m

Total expenditure: £26m

Tot income from player sales: £11m

Net spending: £15m

Net spending for 2004-05

Chelsea £91m

Man Utd £26m

Arsenal £800,000 profit

2005-06

Liverpool's major signings:

Reina, Villarreal, £6m

Mark Gonzalez, Albacete, £4.5m

Mohamed Sissoko, Valencia, £5.6m

Peter Crouch, Southampton, £7m

Daniel Agger, Brondby, £5.8m

Total expenditure: £30m

Total income from player sales: £12m

Net spending: £18m

Net spending for 2005-06

Chelsea £35m

Man Utd £14m

Arsenal £10m

2006-07

Liverpool's major signings:

Bellamy, Blackburn, £6m

Pennant, Birmingham, £6.7m

Kuyt, Feyenoord, £9m

Arbeloa, Deportivo, £2.6m

Mascherano, West Ham, £1.5m*

Total expenditure: £29m

Total income from player sales: £16m

Net spending: £13m

Net spending for 2006-07

Chelsea £39m

Man Utd £4m

Arsenal £4m profit

Figures are approximate, based on published estimates with totals rounded up to nearest million

* though at end of 18-month loan deal, £18m fee will have to be paid to secure Mascherano's services permanently

some hard reading there, definately not very pro-benitez article but makes some good points. Rafa has thrown down the gauntlet to the new owners, next season could make or break the benitez reign at anfield. I dont think it is all about transfers though, Rafa is looking long term in relation to what he wants from the academy, the buying of promising players from around the world etc.
Buying the top players (short-term solutions) is what managers seem to get judged on rather than the longer term issues i.e. setting up the academy, nursing through young talent etc. I hope benitez gets the chance of seeing through his long term vision of liverpool and he doesnt get sacrificed because of a big money transfer that doesnt work out.
we dont want to end up like newcastle who always look for the short-term fix and just buy in players who may o may not work out, there is no future in running a club that way.......

[Sabre]

I don't know what's the paper who write this, but some comments

They lost that game because with Milan vulnerable, Benitez refused to let go of precepts that have served him so well over the years. He is undoubtedly a brilliant strategist, a man whose game of containment has had an astonishing effect against sides like Barcelona and Chelsea this year but, as time ran out on Wednesday, he was too reluctant to abandon it. Only with 12 minutes left did he finally introduce a second striker. And with two minutes remaining he was changing his full-backs. There was a bizarre futility in that last substitution of Alvaro Arbeloa for Steve Finnan that encapsulated the inert state of Liverpool for much of the night.

So this journalist, whoever he is, explains that Rafa lost the game because he refused to let go the precepts that served him well during years, and defines game of containment to the formation he played.

Well, Alex Ferguson didn't refuse to his precepts in San Siro and wasn't able to make a bloody goal and was spanked 3-0 in San Siro. You can look Rafa's game as containment game, or you can look at it as an effort to control the middle of the pitch and avoid being outnumbered. Rafa's proven how containment formation is that when he spanked 4-1 Arsenal at Anfield.

And FWIW, Rafa has reached the final of the Champions League, where as Sir Alex Ferguson didn't.

And let's look at the Champions, Milan AC, a great team too with 7 CL cups. One striker or two? So, what the fúck is talking about this journo?

The culture of conservatism runs deep in Benitez. He is a measured, astute tactician who has taught his side to thrive in Europe a certain way. Against Milan, however, the context of the game was changing and the Italians were plainly struggling to find any real form. If being one goal down with 45 minutes remaining in a European Cup final cannot persuade Benitez that he needs more than one striker on the pitch then the question that begs itself is: what will?

Again, playing 2 strikers didn't serve very well the other semifinalist, who also conceded 2 goals at home, which is a major trouble when you want to have the slighest chance to go through.

If eliminating Chelsea and Barcelona won't convince the journalist that they should respect a lil bit more a manager who won it in 2005 and reached another final, then I don't know what will.

The bold highlighted text is a valiant effort on literature, but doesn't explain why playing that formation is conservative football wise. Some people should realise why their prejudiced football wasn't able to win a champions league since ages ago.

If his pursuit of a prolific striker is indeed a priority then even players like Samuel Eto'o and Fernando Torres will have to be persuaded that a 4-5-1 system in which Kuyt in particular has had to struggle alone can also suit them. Big name European goalscorers joining Liverpool may just consider themselves like a string quartet going on tour with Bob Dylan. A nice option to have but not guaranteed to be central to the action every night.

Rafa has played 2 strikers most of the season, and he decides to use the 4-4-1-1 with an attacking midfielder (the 4-5-1 is another thing) and this journo assumes that's going to be the normal formation of next season. Ah, well.

Either this journo hasn't seen Liverpool's season, or he's utterly biased. And then again, a 4-5-1 can make you champion of Europe, so there's no point to insist it's not a valid system. And the 4-5-1 can produce 3-0 and 4-1 results so there's no point in saying it's defensive or negative.

You can play a 4-4-2 if you wish, like Liverpool did in Chelsea away game, but if the forwards do not get service you can lose the match and not score. We played a 4-4-2 in Chelsea home game, so there's no point in saying Rafa sticks to 4-5-1 neither.

Benitez's words will have reverberated with Liverpool's new owners, they will surely be echoed by the fans but they cannot have sat easily with his players. They had barely been out the stadium 10 hours and already their manager had apportioned the blame. It was not him - with his 20-hour working days and unstinting devotion - whom he held responsible but a team of players that, he said in the nicest possible way, were not good enough.

Maybe some of us will echo Rafa's words, as I think he's right and makes more sense than most journos when he talks about football. But I can't help noticing how what the journos write it'ss also echoed by many fans. Especially when they assume some formations are 'negative' as an universal truth.

It's fair criticism though to say the words are harsh towards the current squad. In my book, you should never slag the squad, because those are the ones who can bring you glory. I mean publicly. In the dressroom you have to be hard enough.

I was sad in the nineties when I saw where LFC was. And it seems to me some journos are not happy with LFC being up there again. The same bloody journos that spoke of the big 3, 3 years ago, now are asking Rafa to win both the Champions League (which is something Chelsea and Manchester rarely do) and the league (which we've been without it for ages).

I admit I'm biased to Rafa, he has put LFC in the peak of Europe again and that biases me. But then, I can see a bias too against Rafa and I'd say LFC in some journos. Especially the ones coming from London.

[account deleted by request]

Only with 12 minutes left did he finally introduce a second striker

While I don't agree with a lot of the article, I think he was meaning continuing to play 4-5-1 until late in the game (12 mins to go) was the problem, not starting the game 4-5-1

[Sabre]

I think that's a fair criticism, but debatable. In my view LFC played better in the first half than Milan. But an error of Xabi who should know what the attacking mids seek for, when they reach the box in Spain and Italy, gave them a foul. (Kaka dived, yet, Alonso was too naive there)

Of course if the people assume that what's LFC doing is negative and conservative, then it's normal to criticise not to bring another striker. We brought it in, and they scored, the final was over. So it's all very debatable. But then, that's a fair criticism because nobody knows what would have happened if Crouch entered the game before.

About the Arbeloa incoming to the game, I don't think Rafa brought him in because he thought he'd change the game. It's common knowledge in football than when a player is knackered he's changed, and I think that was the case.

In the part he talks about signing ups figures, I haven't analysed it, I'd like to read other poster's opinions about it, if you're so kind.

[LFC2007]

First things first, egyptian Liverpoolian

You are a LEGEND.



With regard to Rafa, If those quotes are true then it is a little disconcerting, but it is just a mark of the man's ambition.

His desire to succeed at Valencia was not matched by an adequate transfer budget. The situation he was in with Valencia could be compared to the one now in some capacity, we are competing in a transfer market with Man Utd and Chelsea, Valencia were with Barca and Madrid.

But for me the comparison finishes there. We have new owners who are prepared to back the manager in the transfer market so we can compete with Man Utd and Chelsea. At Valencia the relationship between Rafa and the club's hierarchy stagnated, he saw little opportunity to take the club any further without significant investment, and he moved on.

We are at a similar crossroads this summer in terms of investment, the only difference being, the new owners have the funds and have publicly expressed their desire to compete with Manure and Chelski both in terms of short term spending and long term development i.e. revenue sources.

The new owners want to match Rafa's ambition and by all accounts have a very open/business like relationship.

In terms of his spending up until now, I don't think you can criticise his signings too much. As redtrader pointed out, he has been settling for 3rd or 4th choice players instead of bringing in his top targets.

We have been signing a level of player one below that of Manure and Chelski, e.g. with Pennant, Gonzalez, Bellamy, Crouch etc.

That is not to say you can't buy players for £6-7m who are just the quality required, but they are usually young players who show signs of becoming top class and are harder to find. Now we may be able to sign players at the next level, in the £10-15m bracket per player. Manure and chelsea have had the ability to add players costing £15-30m for individual positions each season, players with real quality.

That is what we have not had under Rafa so far.

I just hope that we can get a finger out and be first to sign our number 1 targets sooner rather than later. That means Rafa, Rick and co. will have to be on their phones pronto during the next few weeks, even if they're supposed to be on hoiday.

The Distin situation was something that worried me a little, if it is true, then I would have thought our targets would have been confirmed and ready to make the first move instead of making late bids for players.

[Pedro Maradona]

thats the trouble with playing with so much emphasis on tactics, if it works and you win you are seen as a genius, if it doesnt and you loose you look foolish and everyone has an opinion on where you went wrong. If for example inzaghi hadnt got a poxy goal off his arm in the first half and liverpool at the very worst werent chasing the game in the second half and say went on to win on penalties rafa would again be lauded as a tactical genius and this journalist wouldnt have been writing this article.....

[Paul C]

There have been a few occasions where we've been all set to try and sign a player, but we've had to wait while Parry or whoever gets back off their f*cking 3 week holiday. It's pathetic, really, and I commend Rafa for finally bringing it to light.

Surely your Chief Executive should holiday AFTER he's acquired the services of the club's targets, not while negotiations are being undertaken? FFS - it's akin to Gerrard f*cking off to Dubai for nearly a month in the middle of November.

The fact is, had the club moved quicker, we'd probably have had Simao, Alves, Vidic, etc, etc, signed up long before the Scum, Sh*tski, etc even knew about them. As it is, our dithering means our rivals can nip in and steal Rafa's targets.

Shocking, really.

Exactly how I feel Lando, I've always said that the board aren't cut throat enough prime examples are the Gerrard and Owen situations, other clubs don't fook around like we do when they want something done.

[account deleted by request]

I thought Rafa got his tactics spot on, a poor (lucky) goal changed all that. My only criticism is he should have made his changes earlier in the second half. Maybe with hindsight I would have kept Mascherano on and brought off Riise or Alonso as well.

Rafa is a stubborn manager (usually a good thing)but he does seem very reluctant to change things quickly enough when things go wrong.

[Pedro Maradona]

I thought Rafa got his tactics spot on, a poor (lucky) goal changed all that. My only criticism is he should have made his changes earlier in the second half. Maybe with hindsight I would have kept Mascherano on and brought off Riise or Alonso as well.

Rafa is a stubborn manager (usually a good thing)but he does seem very reluctant to change things quickly enough when things go wrong.

i agree but its all very high risk, it didnt come off coz of freak goal that shouldnt have been. Plan A was working until then, Plan B didnt work as we cudnt break down milan, mascherano was taken off and Kaka set up the second. Rafa cud have went with 2 up front but then again its all hyperbole and people like me and that journalist giving our two pence worth...

[NiftyNeil]

Rafa's made some good points in his rant, but it should of been done in private.
If he's got a problem with Parry, he should speak to the new owners, not to a journalist. It does the club no good to air our dirty laundry in public.