Liverpool FC Forum

[account deleted by request]

Do you include money earned from cup competitions in that?
Or sales of merchandise, stuff like that?
The reason some spend more, is the revenue they have helps them.

Yeah mate , I think thats including everything....... CL, tv, sponsorship the lot. I think the only REAL difference a good season has to a bad one is in a good year we spend more on transfers...... in a bad one less, or maybe we just lose a little more money.

We had a very bad period under Houllier when with the huge squad and rising wages we were losing BIG MONEY. Since then although we have lost money its been more controlled, but now we are paying off huge interest payments as well, I think we could be seeing a return of those sorts of levels of losses....... or no transfers.

e.g. :-

Liverpool FC accounts show £33m loss
Jun 9 2008 by David Prentice, Liverpool Echo

LIVERPOOL posted a £33m loss in the year ending July 31, 2007 - according to accounts submitted to Companies House.

And the outlook for the financial future at Anfield is not likely to improve, piling even more pressure on the Reds’ co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

The first accounts submitted by Kop Football Holdings Ltd, one of Liverpool’s parent companies, revealed the loss.

The club’s £350 million loans will also have to be refinanced as early as January and the club must pay interest on a £64 million loan from Kop Football Ltd, its immediate parent company.

The accounts also reveal that the owners wrote off £10.3 million when they scrapped the club’s design for a new stadium after their takeover in February 2007 – and that the co-owners claimed more than £1.4 million in personal expenses in the seven months after their takeover.

While the figures make bleak reading, it is understood the loss will not affect Rafa Benitez’s spending power this summer.

A significant transfer fund for the manager was included in the club’s overall level of debt, allowing Benitez to still chase his major targets.

[dawson99]

Can we still sell Bruno Cheyrou or has he gone? That could make all the difference

[account deleted by request]

Can we still sell Bruno Cheyrou or has he gone? That could make all the difference

Selling Bruno Cheyrou wouldn't even buy one of your 3p dinners mate 

[bigmick]

It would be interesting to see such a table if it was over Rafa's reign S@int. My suspicion is it wouldn't look too healthy, but this over ten years thing just proves essentially that we've been poorly managed by a combination of Houllier and Benitez in comparison to Manchester United and Arsenal.

[account deleted by request]

It would be interesting to see such a table if it was over Rafa's reign S@int. My suspicion is it wouldn't look too healthy, but this over ten years thing just proves essentially that we've been poorly managed by a combination of Houllier and Benitez in comparison to Manchester United and Arsenal.

Safer this way Mick , get much less abuse when you can blame the problem on Houllier mate 

[bigmick]

Safer this way Mick , get much less abuse when you can blame the problem on Houllier mate 

Ah method in your madness S@int. I like it.

I was thinking about starting a thread about how far we've progressed after spending 150 million quid, and meticulously planning every detail over five seasons,  but didn't for the same reason.

I was going to talk about five years later our first choice right back (Alvarro Arbeloa) who despite undoubtedly being decent is no World beater. I was going to ask how he compared to Steve Finnan. I was going to enquire whether anybody rated the second choice right back (or indeed whether anybody had seen him play).

I was going to move onto our first choice left back, (Fabio Aurelio) who is ditto in terms of World beaterness. A mile better than Riise? you decide. Our second choice left back? After five years of improvements?

I was going to talk about our first choice right midfielder. I won't even go there. Left midfielder? Albert Riera. Second choice? You tell me.

Up top? Fernanado Torres. Brilliant player. Second choice? Third choice? Fourth choice?

God knows where we'd be if we had a stack of injuries.

We've bought a top goalie, a couple of decent centre halves, a couple of excellent central midfielders and a top striker.

The first choice players elsewhere are decent at the very best, and sub standard in some cases. The cover for most positions with the exception of centre half and central midfield, is absolutely atrocious.

It seems bizarre to me that a manager who goes on about using the squad has assembled such an unbalanced one, and one that so completely lacks options.

And yet we are in the presence of tactical genius 


DISCLAIMER- I do know of course that if Rafa had been allowed to buy his first choices, and not put up with the players which Rick Parry brought in for him it would be entirely different 

[Rush Job]

It should also be pointed out that 10 years ago the mancs were top and have more or less been there since, they havent needed a mass rebuilding program, just a couple of quality signings a season and if they dont work out it doesnt reallly matter because of the great squad they have to fall back on.

[bigmick]

It should also be pointed out that 10 years ago the mancs were top and have more or less been there since, they havent needed a mass rebuilding program, just a couple of quality signings a season and if they dont work out it doesnt reallly matter because of the great squad they have to fall back on.

I'm not sure who they had in the team ten years ago is entirely relevent to be honest Rushie. They'll have had to replace most of them by now, and so they have.

If you were to look at the players they had five seasons ago when rafa first arrived, they've had to replace most of them too. They've managed to do that for a similar if slightly less outlay to us, and their squad looks to me to be much the better of the two. That is true both in terms of quality and in cover.

When you really look at our squad, really look at it, I'd be surprised if anyone thinks we've got lots of quality throughout it. I'd be equally interested if people think it's a fair return either in terms of financial investment or in terms of time spent (five seasons).

People talking about a new manager often talk of upheaval, him having to bring his own players in etc  and they're right. Who's fault is that though?

We have a good goalkeeper, and being charitable an adequate replacement.

We have four good centre halves, one of which is going to need replacing soon and none of which is absolutely top drawer.

We have a right back who is adequate, and no realistic cover.

We have a left back who is adequate, and adequate/moderate cover.

We have an adequate left midfielder, and no realistic cover.

We don't have a right midfielder (other than the captain) who can play there in a 4-4-2. We have an adequate/ moderate option in a 4-5-1, and similar cover.

We have three top class central midfeilders, and one adequate (being charitable again) cover.

We have one top quality striker and no realistic cover.


We have nobody, nada, coming through who you think "feck me I can't wait to see this fella next season".


The squad and team needs significant investment, regardless of who is the manager. Is it reasonable after 5 years and 150 million quid toexpect us to be in a better place? I think it is, yes.

[JoeTerp]

BigMick I think it is different.  It seems like every summer we try to address 4 or 5 problems at once every summer, whereas if you already have a good team that slowly leaves and is replaced overtime, you can solve one exit with one big entry.  With the pressure to make the top 4 and do well in the CL in every year in order to keep the money coming in, it sort of forces Rafa to try and fix the whole team at once, hence spreading around the cash and buying a lot of mediocrity.  I (would like to) think that Rafa would have done much better if you gave him that 140 mill or whatever 5 years ago and told him this is all you will get for 5 years, and you have to win the league title at least once in those 5 years. I would have guessed that he would have bought more young, big time players all at once and have them grow into the team together, then once he thought he was close, buy those 3 or 4 key role players of really solid ability with prem experience to put the whole package together.

[account deleted by request]

BigMick I think it is different.  It seems like every summer we try to address 4 or 5 problems at once every summer, whereas if you already have a good team that slowly leaves and is replaced overtime, you can solve one exit with one big entry.  With the pressure to make the top 4 and do well in the CL in every year in order to keep the money coming in, it sort of forces Rafa to try and fix the whole team at once, hence spreading around the cash and buying a lot of mediocrity.  I (would like to) think that Rafa would have done much better if you gave him that 140 mill or whatever 5 years ago and told him this is all you will get for 5 years, and you have to win the league title at least once in those 5 years. I would have guessed that he would have bought more young, big time players all at once and have them grow into the team together, then once he thought he was close, buy those 3 or 4 key role players of really solid ability with prem experience to put the whole package together.

While that may be true Joe, remember Liverpool finished 2nd when that list started...... the mancs were 3rd! So we wern't exactly miles behind them mate.

[Bam]

It would be interesting to see such a table if it was over Rafa's reign S@int. My suspicion is it wouldn't look too healthy, but this over ten years thing just proves essentially that we've been poorly managed by a combination of Houllier and Benitez in comparison to Manchester United and Arsenal.

Safer this way Mick , get much less abuse when you can blame the problem on Houllier mate 

[Owzat]

Club        No. of managers      Net Spend      Pts Won   Pts/£m

Blackburn          5                    £0.5m        341         682
Arsenal             1                    £22m         522         23.2
Bolton              4                    £19m          328        17.3
Fulham             5                    £19m          293        15.4
Everton            1                    £25m          369        14.8
The Mancs        1                  £101m          544          5.4
Villa                 4                   £64m          347           5.4
Boro                2                   £62m          306           4.9
Newcastle       10                  £69m           336          4.9
Liverpool       2                 £117m          456           3.9
City                 4                 £101m          312           3.1
Spurs               7                 £113m          342            3.0
Chelsea            4                 £300m          540            1.8


Just covers the clubs that have been in the top flight since Moyes took over at Everton. Same with all the figures.

Newcastle 10 managers! Arsenal only spent £22m net in 7 years!


All details ripped from TLW from an article in the Guardian.


If you don't like stats it might be best to just move on to another thread.

Just goes to show all the hot air about not having as much to spend as the mancs is just that - hot air. Wenger never has had anything like the money to spend and has done more in the few titles he has won than bigger spenders.

Don't necessarily agree with net spends mind. When did Smeegel take over at the bitter pit down the road? I assume Wenger's sale of Anelka for £22.5m more than he bought him for taints the figures which is my (previous) point entirely. What the squad cost is the comparison point, doesn't matter how little you've spent net, it's how many millions worth of players you have to put on the field.

Chelsea's figure just puts Jose into perspective though. Let's see him in charge of a team that isn't the biggest (spender) in whichever league

[Owzat]

Safer this way Mick , get much less abuse when you can blame the problem on Houllier mate 

Ah method in your madness S@int. I like it.

I personally blame Souness, took a title contending Liverpool who, when Dalglish left, were top of the pile and reigning champions, brought in garbage and we've been looking up at the mancs ever since. Evans did a reasonable job without the funds the subsequent managers have squandered.

I think Rafa and Houllier have both been guilty of wasting millions and hiding behind 'five year plans', having the previous manager (used) as an excuse, when the fact is if they were clever like Wenger they'd have won the league. That said, if Wenger came here he'd probably just try to win the league the hard way and sell of Gerrard and Torres and bring in fantastic kids so the team does indeed do it the hard way. We fell away last season before Arsenal did, they spend less money than we do so the superior spending of rivals is not really a viable excuse. Arsenal won the league unbeaten before Jose arrived, were they outspending the mancs and Chelsea then?!?!?!? 

[account deleted by request]

Personally I have always favoured gross spends when it comes to deciding how well or how poorly managers have done in the transfer market. If we sold Gerrard for £40million and bought Kuyt for £50million, using net terms Kuyt has only cost us £10million, when infact he has cost us £10million PLUS a world class player. (extreme example I know )

But a less extreme example would be Riise and Dossena. On paper using NET Dossena has only cost £3 million but in effect he has cost us £3million PLUS a versatile if underperforming Riise.


Which is why I tend to use GROSS rather than net most of the time.

[GYBS]

How many players has rafa bought with his money comapred to say man utd or chelsea ? yeah the amount maybe the same but i bet the amount of players is more than double due to taggert having a solid squad to add too with expensive signings where as rafa has had to build a brand new squad bar three players .