Liverpool FC Forum

[maguskwt]

That's all well and good, but what has net spending ever actually meant? Yes we sold players, but they in turn had to be bought before they could be sold so the net profit or loss on those players could be reported, but the real figure that matters is what we spent on the current squad of players (or what the squad is worth) - and that figure is not far off £150m itself.

I mean think about it, we bought Skrtel for £6.5m and sold Bellamy for £7.5m. What does that mean? Nothing. Are the two transfers linked? In terms of the money from the sale going towards the purchase yet. We still had to spend the £6.5m to acquire Skrtel, it doesn't make Skrtel effectively net worth of -£1m. The £130m+ worth of players still had to be spent, even if we sold them we might get £150m, but we'd have to spend money to put a team out. The best figure is the worth of the squad because that shows a reasonable comparison of the relative strengths of each team. What money comes in or profit that we make has no bearing on results on the pitch, if you look at Wenger's net transfers you'll find him in credit by a lot. But the Arsenal squad still cost around £65m to build, you can't say they were given the players and £44m+

true enough Owzat... but if the board tells you, you have to sell in order to buy then that makes a difference isn't it? it makes it more of a risk... let's say we want to buy a winger next season... board says you have to sell kuyt for like 4 million or so to buy this 10 million rated winger... and so we sell kuyt... turns out the winger is like gonzalez. worst than kuyt on the wings! and we can never tell for sure whether a player can adapt to the premiership or not... and we just lost an ok striker-come-winger. so now who takes the blame for having a shitty squad? the manager...

on the other hand clubs like man u and chelsea, with money to burn buys freely... if the player cannot cope let him rot on the bench... only the best ones are played in the team... how many players does man u have on the bench now? hargreaves, nani, fletcher, park jisun, sometimes anderson, sometimes carrick...so many good but not brilliant players... and that is what money can get you... to select the very best out of the rest...

[god_bless_john_houlding]

just face facts is what you need to do leon.

[account deleted by request]

I read an article a while back about wages against turnover, and it was saying that all the "big four" try to keep wages to less than  60% of turnover. The mancs were top with about 55%, Arsenal were second with 58% then Liverpool with 62% and Chelsea with 65%.

No doubt Arsenal would probably be top now, as they have sold most of their top earners (Henry, Vieria, Pires etc) and now have a much higher income from their new stadium. The main reason that Liverpool were so bad is that although we didn't have many high earners (Gerrard) in comparison to the other 3,we had a lot more in the medium to high category than they had.(We were second at the time on turnover to the mancs) I would imagine we are even worse now?

[Leonmc0708]

just face facts is what you need to do leon.

Present me with some and I will; soft lad.

[LFC2007]

Money isn't an excuse therefore Reading should be challenging for the league title.

[Reg]

Strange how we havent missed Bellamy for a moment, he´s done sweet FA at West Ham yet we managed to sell him for a profit. Whew !

[hello_red]

I think that the facts are there for every body to see. I do think our lack of spending power does stop us from making that next step towards league success. I Think we need a couple of seasons of serious spending then I think we will win the league, and keep winning it much like our success in europe at the minute. Its all about experience.

[god_bless_john_houlding]

so Newcastle spending 50 million plus every year doesn't give them an advantage over us?

This is why money will never dictate who wins the league. Newcastle are the prime example of overspending and getting nothing for their rewards. Chelsea outspent United last year but it was still United's men who won the league or was I dreaming that? We outspent Chelsea this year...there summer signings consisted of Pizarro, Sidwell, Belletti and Alex around 10 million for the four, we doubled that alone in Torres. Then in January they brought in Anelka for around 15 million we spent more on Mascheranho. But it's still Chelsea who are clearly above us, with what people would say is a pretty average manager at best.

You lot are simplely blinded by this pathetic excuse that doesn't hold up. It seems that you like to only use it for Liverpool to make you're arguement hold truth but when it's proven other sides spend more than us and don't finish above us you have no answer. It's one rule for Liverpool and another for every other side is it? Everton who's highest transfer is 11 million for Yakubu finished above Villa, City, Newcastle and Pompey last season (without their record transfer Yakubu) despite being outspent by all four on a regular basis and Everton look like doing so again this season despite Villa, City, Pompey and Newcastle all getting new investors in recent years and Everton have to make do with that tight Kenwright.

[heimdall]

so Newcastle spending 50 million plus every year doesn't give them an advantage over us?

This is why money will never dictate who wins the league. Newcastle are the prime example of overspending and getting nothing for their rewards. Chelsea outspent United last year but it was still United's men who won the league or was I dreaming that? We outspent Chelsea this year...there summer signings consisted of Pizarro, Sidwell, Belletti and Alex around 10 million for the four, we doubled that alone in Torres. Then in January they brought in Anelka for around 15 million we spent more on Mascheranho. But it's still Chelsea who are clearly above us, with what people would say is a pretty average manager at best.

You lot are simplely blinded by this pathetic excuse that doesn't hold up. It seems that you like to only use it for Liverpool to make you're arguement hold truth but when it's proven other sides spend more than us and don't finish above us you have no answer. It's one rule for Liverpool and another for every other side is it? Everton who's highest transfer is 11 million for Yakubu finished above Villa, City, Newcastle and Pompey last season (without their record transfer Yakubu) despite being outspent by all four on a regular basis and Everton look like doing so again this season despite Villa, City, Pompey and Newcastle all getting new investors in recent years and Everton have to make do with that tight Kenwright.

Have you forgotten to take your pills today, you are speaking cr@p on almost every single thread at the moment.

You have to look at the value of the squad as a whole not how much was spent last season. The squads for Man Utd and Chelsea are worth quite a lot more than ours, and certainly more than Newcastles. I wasn't actually aware that Newcastle had been spending so much money but then they have been blighted with a succession of fecking awful managers, and that is probably a bigger factor in how they are!

Having said all that I think lack of money is used a bit too often as an excuse for Bentiez but you have to be realistic and admit that Chelsea and Manure have spent far more than we have in recent seasons. I also have a feeling that Arsenal will be buying big this transfer season as they are making a sh1tload of money from increased gate receipts this year.

This is why it is so damned important to get an owner who can plough some proper money into the club for a new stadium and also new quality players, plus in my opinion a better manager.

[god_bless_john_houlding]

so Newcastle spending 50 million plus every year doesn't give them an advantage over us?

This is why money will never dictate who wins the league. Newcastle are the prime example of overspending and getting nothing for their rewards. Chelsea outspent United last year but it was still United's men who won the league or was I dreaming that? We outspent Chelsea this year...there summer signings consisted of Pizarro, Sidwell, Belletti and Alex around 10 million for the four, we doubled that alone in Torres. Then in January they brought in Anelka for around 15 million we spent more on Mascheranho. But it's still Chelsea who are clearly above us, with what people would say is a pretty average manager at best.

You lot are simplely blinded by this pathetic excuse that doesn't hold up. It seems that you like to only use it for Liverpool to make you're arguement hold truth but when it's proven other sides spend more than us and don't finish above us you have no answer. It's one rule for Liverpool and another for every other side is it? Everton who's highest transfer is 11 million for Yakubu finished above Villa, City, Newcastle and Pompey last season (without their record transfer Yakubu) despite being outspent by all four on a regular basis and Everton look like doing so again this season despite Villa, City, Pompey and Newcastle all getting new investors in recent years and Everton have to make do with that tight Kenwright.

Have you forgotten to take your pills today, you are speaking cr@p on almost every single thread at the moment.

You have to look at the value of the squad as a whole not how much was spent last season. The squads for Man Utd and Chelsea are worth quite a lot more than ours, and certainly more than Newcastles. I wasn't actually aware that Newcastle had been spending so much money but then they have been blighted with a succession of fecking awful managers, and that is probably a bigger factor in how they are!

Having said all that I think lack of money is used a bit too often as an excuse for Bentiez but you have to be realistic and admit that Chelsea and Manure have spent far more than we have in recent seasons. I also have a feeling that Arsenal will be buying big this transfer season as they are making a sh1tload of money from increased gate receipts this year.

This is why it is so damned important to get an owner who can plough some proper money into the club for a new stadium and also new quality players, plus in my opinion a better manager.

I'm not denying United and Chelsea have outspent us. What I am saying those is that doesn't excuse fighting for fourth with sides who have spent nowhere near as much as us.

It seems people only use money as an exucse for us not winning the league. Well I don't. I use it as a rule for everything for every side and that's why it doesn't hold truth because there are many sides throughout football who are winning titles without spending as much as others.

My example is Mr Benitez at his old club Valencia. Now I don't know the ins and outs of spanish football but I can safely assume that Valencia didn't spend as much as Barcelona and Real Madrid over a sustained period of time yet they won the league over there twice. United and Chelsea spend more than us but we're nowhere to be seen. (this may be a bit unfair because I'm the biggest critic for saying what works in spain doesn't always work in england but you get the point)

Just to back it up though I'll move onto my favourite subject at the moment, Bristol City. They are in a divison with QPR who are now owned by a man richer than Ambrovich. They are in a divison with Watford, Sheff Utd and Charlton who all pretty much kept the sides from the prem with one or two leaving. They are in a division with Ipswich who were given 12 million to spend during January. They are in a division with Wolves who are probably the biggest side outside the prem and finally they are in a divison with WBA who are the second biggest spenders this year outside the prem (second to QPR) but Bristol City with little finance, a tiny ground and a manager who's been at the club for two or three years are top of the lot. So again I ask and still wait for an answer that holds truth for every club...why does the money issue only exclude Liverpool from not winning the league?

One more point I'd like to make, everyone is saying about Chelsea this and Chelsea that, well unless I watch a different Liverpool side to rest of you, I saw Liverpool dominante 180 minutes against Chelsea this year in the league.

Money helps, I'm not disputing that, but it's not the reason we're so far behind. Money can't buy pride, hunger and passion nor can it buy consistancy and they are the things that will win titles. Obviously you have to some quality in your side, which we do, but without the hunger to win and the consistancy to win reguarlly you won't win a thing even with a squad that costs 500 billion.

[maypaxvobiscum]

This is why money will never dictate who wins the league. Newcastle are the prime example of overspending and getting nothing for their rewards. Chelsea outspent United last year but it was still United's men who won the league or was I dreaming that? We outspent Chelsea this year...there summer signings consisted of Pizarro, Sidwell, Belletti and Alex around 10 million for the four, we doubled that alone in Torres. Then in January they brought in Anelka for around 15 million we spent more on Mascheranho. But it's still Chelsea who are clearly above us, with what people would say is a pretty average manager at best.

are u deluded? its chelsea. a team of superstars. they are expected to be at the top with the players they not only bought this season but also from the previous ones. and with the money they spent, its expected that they give a better title challenge to the gooners and scums unlike us. you clearly contradicted yourself here. are you on drugs or what.

[nobybob]

150 million is still 150 million whether we've brought in £1 or 1 billion back in return. 150 million is more than enough to have a side capable of challenging. I more than most hate the arguement of money. It grinds on me so much when people say "we need an open cheque book to win the league" IMO we don't. We've seen so often that we can spend less on players and get better buys. Torres cost us less than Shevchenko, Drogba or Rooney yet it's Torres who has scored the most. Reina cost less than Cech and again IMO Reina is the better keeper. Agger cost less than Carvalho, Gallas, Vidic and Ferdinand and I think he's as good as any in the league. Mascheranho and Alonso cost less than Carrick and Hargreaves or Essien and Mikel and I'd take our two central mids all day over any other. This is where I don't see how people moan so much about the "lack" of funds Benitez has had.

So you must therefore think rafa has done amazingly well in the transfer market, as he has managed to buy better players than Chelsea and manure for less money than they spent. I agree overall he has done a great job but he must now be given the money to buy the couple of world class players that are still missing from our almost complete jigsaw.
As for what has happened at Newcastle, well it proves one thing as far as i am concerned , its not JUST about having the money but also how well you spend it if you are to achieve success:;):

[scientist]

What does money guarantee in football? There are arguements and counter arguments galore but the plain fact is that we have bought poorly. Rafa has 'spent' the funds he has on a lot of poor players. Giving Rafa £100 million would be absurd and would certainly not bring us closer in my view. His tactics are failing miserably and he has an inability to motivate players for the premiership coupled with his obsession for rotation and Europe.

The major factor that clearly makes him a strong contender to keep his job is his European record. A defeat to Arsenal could end all optimism that is surrounding us at the moment. That UTD performance and defeat demonstrated that we are a million miles away from them. They beat us in second gear and would have won regardless of the idiot Mascherano.

We have not beaten teams like Wigan, Birmingham, Luton, Man City, Reading, West Ham, Villa this season and that to me is the major concern. A lot of fans are reeling out the argument that if a few of our draws were wins we would be closer? If we were good enough those draws would be wins, no ifs, no buts.

Do we play good football now? That is what I would like to hear some views on. Why is it that we are so technically inferior to UTD and ARSENAL?

[god_bless_john_houlding]

150 million is still 150 million whether we've brought in £1 or 1 billion back in return. 150 million is more than enough to have a side capable of challenging. I more than most hate the arguement of money. It grinds on me so much when people say "we need an open cheque book to win the league" IMO we don't. We've seen so often that we can spend less on players and get better buys. Torres cost us less than Shevchenko, Drogba or Rooney yet it's Torres who has scored the most. Reina cost less than Cech and again IMO Reina is the better keeper. Agger cost less than Carvalho, Gallas, Vidic and Ferdinand and I think he's as good as any in the league. Mascheranho and Alonso cost less than Carrick and Hargreaves or Essien and Mikel and I'd take our two central mids all day over any other. This is where I don't see how people moan so much about the "lack" of funds Benitez has had.

So you must therefore think rafa has done amazingly well in the transfer market, as he has managed to buy better players than Chelsea and manure for less money than they spent. I agree overall he has done a great job but he must now be given the money to buy the couple of world class players that are still missing from our almost complete jigsaw.
As for what has happened at Newcastle, well it proves one thing as far as i am concerned , its not JUST about having the money but also how well you spend it if you are to achieve success:;):

I've admitted many times that Benitez has brought some great players to this club. He's also bought alot of and wasted alot of the 150 million he's been given. To many players who "promised" but didn't deliver.

For him to bring in Agger for less than most centre halves in the top four, I think is his greatest peice of buisness in terms of money and reward.

As for the other fella who said I'm deluded, well how? Just because I don't buy into the money arguement because I know it's 75% bollox. So what if Chelsea have spent how much they want on whoever they want...what does that get you? That gets you a squad of players, not necessiarily a squad of champions. Money can't buy pride, passion, hunger or consistancy. Those four things cannont be bought and are essential if you're going to win the league. We have no pride, passion or hunger at times. If we did we wouldn't drop points at home to Wigan and we all know that we're the most uncosistant side in the league and these things can't be bought. So again so what if Chelsea have spent x amount, it's proven that money alone doesn't buy you success.

[LFC2007]

Of course, money cannot gurantee you success, whoever said it could?

The amount of money a club has to spend is however a key factor of success, as it generally determines the level of quality you are able to sign. In turn, that level of quality at one's disposal is often crucial in determining who wins the league. Attacking talent and flair players, players who open up teams and score goals are the types of players who define winning a league. Those types of players, more often than not, cost significant amounts of money (in the £10m+ bracket). In a couple of instances we've missed the opportunity to sign top quality through dilution- going for the option and a young prospect i.e. Benayoun and Babel. Other than that, Rafa's transfer record has been good given the constraints on the job. It's certainly no coincidence that all but Arsenal who have won the Premier League since its inception, have invested massive amounts on players.

Only Arsenal have really bucked the trend vis-a-vis transfer spending:success ratio, even still - they're yet to win the league during the Abramovich induced era.

It's a key factor that influences the level of success a club has.

Only a complete and utter f*cking numpty would try and argue otherwise.