In a bid to bring some clarity to the issue of Liverpool’s gross/net spending, I have examined the club’s financial reports for the last 20+ years in search of accurate, irrefutable figures. Although I will be looking at every manager’s spending from Graeme Souness onwards, I’ll start out of sequence with Gerard Houllier’s figures.
Just a few quick notes:
1. For accounting purposes, players are classified as ‘Intangible Fixed Assets’ in the club’s annual financial reports.
2. Under accounting requirements, the cost of acquiring a player’s registration includes:
* The transfer fee payable
* Any probable contingent amounts (i.e. Fees that may become payable/receivable in the future depending on certain conditions being fulfilled)
* Other direct costs such as transfer fee levy and fees to agents.
3. In the financial reports, the year runs from July to July, so bear that in mind when thinking about what players are included in each year figure. For example: Chris Kirkland was signed on the 31st August 2001, therefore his fee will be included in the 2002 annual report, not 2001.
4. Working out net gross/net spend by compiling a list of player bought + sold, and then adding up the figures is a waste of time. The majority of player transfer fees are not made public, and there is huge disparity in the reporting of transfer fees in the media. One source will say Torres cost 20m; another will say 26m etc.
The only way to be 100% certain of the gross/net spend figures is to use the official financial reports, which is what I have done. These reports are legal documents, and the club has a legal duty to include exact figures.
Using the reports removes the need to use individual figures because ALL fees are lumped together as one.
So, without further ado, here are Gerard Houllier’s gross/net spend figures:
Jaimie Kanwar
Just a few quick notes:
1. For accounting purposes, players are classified as ‘Intangible Fixed Assets’ in the club’s annual financial reports.
2. Under accounting requirements, the cost of acquiring a player’s registration includes:
* The transfer fee payable
* Any probable contingent amounts (i.e. Fees that may become payable/receivable in the future depending on certain conditions being fulfilled)
* Other direct costs such as transfer fee levy and fees to agents.
3. In the financial reports, the year runs from July to July, so bear that in mind when thinking about what players are included in each year figure. For example: Chris Kirkland was signed on the 31st August 2001, therefore his fee will be included in the 2002 annual report, not 2001.
4. Working out net gross/net spend by compiling a list of player bought + sold, and then adding up the figures is a waste of time. The majority of player transfer fees are not made public, and there is huge disparity in the reporting of transfer fees in the media. One source will say Torres cost 20m; another will say 26m etc.
The only way to be 100% certain of the gross/net spend figures is to use the official financial reports, which is what I have done. These reports are legal documents, and the club has a legal duty to include exact figures.
Using the reports removes the need to use individual figures because ALL fees are lumped together as one.
So, without further ado, here are Gerard Houllier’s gross/net spend figures:
Jaimie Kanwar
thanks Jamie for the info,
ReplyDeleteThere are two things which is still hurt me in regard to Houlliers transfers
1. not buying Anelka and getting Diouf
2. I heard that when Benitez got the job, he asked Parry to buy a young new star from Zaragoza called David Villa for 16 million , Parry said we cant as we had to honour Houllier promise to buy Cisse for 14 million
Can you imagine if we had Villa, Anelka, Gerrard, Torress and Maschrano in same team wow
one can only dream
I agree, letting Anelka go was a monumental mistake of epic proportions. When you say you 'heard' that Benitez asked Parry to sign Villa, where did you hear that? I personally do not think that's true, but yes, a team with Anelka and Villa would have been exciting.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting...
ReplyDeleteHowever it would not be as simple to compare like for like Houllier's spending to Rafa's for a couple of reasons.
a) The discounted cash flow or time value of money i.e. 17.5 Million 10 years ago is now worth 28 million if you consider a 5% WACC
b) The net spending of competition - How much are other clubs spending on transfers i.e. The highest fee paid for a player back in 1999 was Christian Vieri who cost 30 million.... The fee paid for Ronaldo was 80 million
c) The net spending as a percentage of total revenues i.e. LFC's revenues today are over 160 million. Back in 2004 this was only 91 million. So Percentage of Houllier spending "only" 6 million in 2004 was still in fact 6.5% of annual Revenue.
These points taken into consideration.... i'm sure you will find Rafa's Net spending chicken feed to that of Houllier's
to be fair the figures dont tell the whole story. i think that player prices have gone to silly levels. £80Million is just rediculous price to ask for and pay. How football clubs can even contemplate ever being called community or supporter led, when fans and supporters at all clubs dont have two pennies to rub together. now i am not saying that we should get money instead of giving it the manager, but i am sure you get what i mean.
ReplyDeleteI loved Ged, but he like Rafa, made mistakes, some big ones. But credit where its due, sami hyypia for his price was an absolute bargain in football terms. but so is torres in all honesty. as is agger who i rate very highly.
Oh the players we have missed out on. But i guess you cant win them all.
Peace
my son told me and he got it from some site recently. that might be not correct, i agree but the truth is Cisse was never Benitez signing as he inheritated that from Houllier.
ReplyDeleteNice try Hayth, but that explanation just doesn't wash.
ReplyDeleteIt is perfectly reasonable to compare Houllier and Benitez, and irrespective of inflation etc, Benitez has spent a hell of a lot more than houllier.
That last line is pretty ridiculous. A few points:
ReplyDelete1) You didn't include the Cisse transfer under Houlliers last year spend. Cisse was houlliers buy, thats an extra 14m to Houlliers net spend.
2) OFCOURSE Houllier would have spent less, he wasn't buying players when Chelsea and Man City were around. The price of players has inflated a ridiculous amount since 2001.
All in all - any comparison is ridiculous and i mean RIDICULOUS, but don't worry jaime, i know that doesn't suit your agenda.
It's reasonable if you take in those factors... You can't argue though that 10 million today is the same as it was 10 years ago as it's not. If it is.... you can give me 10 million today... and i'll give you back 10 million in ten years and we'll call it quits.
ReplyDeleteIt would be great if you could actually post what the official figures of Rafa's Net spending have been since he joined. There are a lot of numbers that have been doing their rounds on the net but most of them seem to have discrepancies... non more then the purchase of Aquallani.
The other point that would need to be factored in is the "Cisse factor" who obviously didnt appear on Houllier's books.... 14 million.
How can u imply that Houlliers net spend is 'chicken feed' compared to Rafas??
ReplyDeletehttp://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/sport/liverpoolbankmanager.pdf
well another argument in favour of Benitez is, under him liverpool has earned more cash, not only by selling players but also by doing better in european championship, for instance getting to final twice in 4 years has got more cash for the club.
ReplyDeletethe only year liverpool went into red(correct me if i am wrong) in their spending was last year and that was due to the debt interest.
Nice try Hayth, but that explanation just doesn't wash ,in your words to hayth valid points, shows how 1 eyed point of veiw about raffa,i dont always agree with raffa but for you to say wat gerard spent nearly ten years ago is the same value as raffa is spent now is ludicros,
ReplyDelete"Belive me, Houllier's spending is chicken-feed compared to Rafa Benitez. But that's another article"
ReplyDeleteHow much is the annual net spend of Benitez again? £18M? Before you compare the two managers spendings you have to take in regard the general inflation of transer fees of the past ten years. Which pretty much makes your remark look less clever.
These are accounting entries and not amounts spent. For example, the 'disposals' represent the amount of the 'intangible fixed asset' on the balance sheet being sold, not the amount of cash received. So if an asset (player) is released for nothing, but has £10 million on the balance sheet, it shows £10 million in the disposals - hence these figures mean nothing.
ReplyDeleteYou should do article to dispel the myth that Benitez inherited a pathetic squad and has created one so much stronger now (obviously players now might be better in direct comparisons, but in comparison to the players of the day, the Owen that Benitez inherited was as good as Torres is now and Finnan was as good as Johnson is etc.)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, every manager that comes into a club feels that they need to put a stamp on the squad and totally revamp everything, which is the same that would happen if Benitez were to leave now - despite the fact that just like when Houllier left e, we just have a few gaps that need feeling, a bit of luck and some faith in developing the promising youngsters that we love stockpiling in the reserves (before they get loaned out to the likes of Crewe or Accrington Stanley as if that is going to help either the club or the player)
"<span>It is perfectly reasonable to compare Houllier and Benitez, and irrespective of inflation etc, Benitez has spent a hell of a lot more than houllier."</span>
ReplyDelete<span>
HUH? why so? why not compare shankly's spending to Benitez too?</span>
Jay read Carra's book and see what he has to say about the squad of 2004.... it's not a myth. The team Rafa inherited in 2004 was a complete mess.
ReplyDeletecorrect.
ReplyDeletein fact, the player's asset is ammortised over the life of the contract. So, if you bought a player for £10m on a 5 year contract, then after year 1, his asset value is £8m, Year 2 is £6m, etc. If you sell him, then the disposal is £6m (accounting wise) and you would take a gain/loss on the sale in the Profit and Loss statement.
Tony - these figures are taken from the club's accounts, so how can they be wrong?! They are not.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Cisse fee IS included in Houllier's net spend - it's in the 2003-4 figure.
In any event, I have not compared Houllier and Benitez. and I don't intend to. This is not why I'm doing this. I will put all the figures side by side in a table at some point but the point of doing this is putrely to clarify the figures, NOT compare in a like for like manner.
And when I said it was reasonable to compare Houllier and Benitez above I meant taking into account all the revlevant inflationary factors.
So people can stop turning this into Houllier v Rafa thing because that's not what it is.
inflaton!
ReplyDeleteWhen are people going to wake up? The Times article is absolute NONSENSE! it is not accurate at all, and uses guestimated figures that have been peddled by the media for years.
ReplyDeleteWhen I post Benitez's net spend, it will be based on what the club ACTUALLY spent and received for players - like Houllier's figures above, they will come direct from the club's end of year financial reports. Such figures are IRREFUTABLE. They are FACT and they are ACCURATE.
If you want to go on believing unverified figures from The Times then go right ahead.
I will reveal Rafa's net spend tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteAnd as I said above, I am not highlighting these figures to do a comparison between Houllier and Benitez. I am not going to pass judgment at all - I'm merely highlighting the figures to clear up inaccuracies, and for information purposes.
No. That is completely WRONG.
ReplyDeleteThe additions and disposal are actual figures spent and received. are you forgetting that Liverpool have to accurately account for the actual amount of money they have spent and received on players?!
I can't believe you are even arguing about this?! I've had these figures checked by an accountant, who has confirmed they are correct, and the interpretation of the accounts is correct.
The figures for Amortisation are treated separately in the club accounts.
Jamie....R u a liverpool supporter?? U sound like a manure fan!!!!
ReplyDeleteBy the way Tony Barrett is a very reputable journalist unlike the many pretenders out there!
Look forward to your accurate figures!
Navofarabia - if you want to live in denial that's your business. The Times' figures are inaccurate. Deal with it.
ReplyDeleteChicken feed? Remember Houllier had inherited youngsters like Owen,Gerrard,Fowler,Mcmanaman,Redknapp,Matteo,Carragher and Harkness. He also already had players like James,Friedel,Mcateer,Ince,Riedle,Berger and Murphy. The squad was already there. It needed just a few class additions, which to be fair to Houllier he brought in, Hyppia,Mcallister,Babbel and Hamman. The failure to bring in the best French players was his undoing, Anelka,Trezeguet,Henry,Pires,Petit,Thuram and Lizarazu. Instead we ended up with Diouf,Cisse,Traore,Diao,Biscan,Smicer and Xavier. His net spend over these years was in the top two, at the moment we have been taken over by, Man C,A.Villa,Chealsea,Sunderland,Tottenham and we are still behind Man U. Who next, Birmingham?
ReplyDeleteChicken feed? You obviosly havent heard of inflation, and football transfer fees over the last few years have been going up well above the inflation figure.
You should do article to dispel the myth that Benitez inherited a pathetic squad and has created one so much stronger now (obviously players now might be better in direct comparisons, but in comparison to the players of the day, the Owen that Benitez inherited was as good as Torres is now and Finnan was as good as Johnson is etc.)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, every manager that comes into a club feels that they need to put a stamp on the squad and totally revamp everything, which is the same that would happen if Benitez were to leave now - despite the fact that just like when Houllier left e, we just have a few gaps that need feeling, a bit of luck and some faith in developing the promising youngsters that we love stockpiling in the reserves (before they get loaned out to the likes of Crewe or Accrington Stanley as if that is going to help either the club or the player)
You have to provide an explanation for why. Hayth showed his reasoning, and you have to say why as well. ANyone can tell you that $5 today is not the same as $5 tomorrow. Why else does the transfer record keep on getting broken? Are you telling me Cristiano Ronaldo is better than Zidane, hence why Real paid more for him?
ReplyDeleteif you don't want this to be a Houllier V Rafa thing WHY did YOU comment "<span>Belive me, Houllier's spending is chicken-feed compared to Rafa Benitez. But that's another article ;) "</span>
ReplyDeletealso why refute <span>http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/sport/liverpoolbankmanager.pdf when the whole fan base KNOWS its true. </span>
Plus if its not then as suggested before I suggest you have a word with your sister site lfchistory.net - they actually suggest the same. but then they are without prejudice, desperate for hits to justify their existence.
there version is every bit as truthful as yours.
ReplyDeleteIf the results don't pick up considerably (I think results will inevitably become a lot better shortly, but doubt the performances will convince anybody that we're going to contend next season) for a decent league finish and Rafa is replaced, the players would let out their true feelings about the clubs state of affairs.
ReplyDeletehayth - It's a simple fact that Carra would not publicly have said that the club was in a 'complete mess' back in 2004 or if Houllier had remained in charge.
quote "<span>In any event, I have not compared Houllier and Benitez. and I don't intend to. This is not why I'm doing this. I will put all the figures side by side in a table at some point but the point of doing this is putrely to clarify the figures, NOT compare in a like for like manner. </span>
ReplyDelete<span>
<span>Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/12/exclusive-liverpool-fc-net-spend.html?#ixzz0Zn2mn9Jh"</span></span>
but now you are - make sure you use lfchistory,net fella.
Yes,you're right. My reply to Hayth was based on my own personal opinion. In any event, I do not intend - and never have intended - to compare Houllier and Benitez. Intend to compare Benitez with Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea over the last 5 years. I should have made that clearer.
ReplyDeleteNow can everyone stop with this Houllier v benitez stuff!
You should do article to dispel the myth that Benitez inherited a pathetic squad and has created one so much stronger now (obviously players now might be better in direct comparisons, but in comparison to the players of the day, the Owen that Benitez inherited was as good as Torres is now and Finnan was as good as Johnson is etc.)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, every manager that comes into a club feels that they need to put a stamp on the squad and totally revamp everything, which is the same that would happen if Benitez were to leave now - despite the fact that just like when Houllier left e, we just have a few gaps that need feeling, a bit of luck and some faith in developing the promising youngsters that we love stockpiling in the reserves (before they get loaned out to the likes of Crewe or Accrington Stanley as if that is going to help either the club or the player)
show your accountant the last two posts and see what he has to say and then get back to us.
ReplyDeleteOr just google 'gains or losses upon disposal of an asset under GAAP'
My chiecken feed comment was ill-advised, I agree, but I never intended to suggest I was comparing Benitez and Houllier.
ReplyDeleteAnd why is The Times article correct? Because it's 'The Times'?!
What is the source of the Times' figures?
And the whole fan base knows it's true? based on what exactly?
The Times, like everyone els4e, has basically scoured the net for figures - they have not got their figures directly from the club. individual figures would not be released anyway because they're confidential. This is where the annual reports come into play. Money spent and received by the club has be declared, thus the figures from the CLUB'S OWN ACCOUNTS supersede anything that is currently online.
Do you not get this?
Or are you suggesting that the LEGAL DOCUMENT the club has to file every year containing its accounts is somehow wrong, and The Times knows better?!
PS - now that I've cleared up the chicken feed issue, any further posts mentioning it will be deleted.
ReplyDeleteIt's not MY version of the truth! Do you not understand the concept of Official club financial reports?! Do you not understand that the club's end of year financial report is legal document containing accurate figures?! I have obtained the figures from the SOURCE! They cannot be disputed. I've3 even inclided snippets from the actual reports themselves at the bottom of the article.
ReplyDeleteYou should do article to dispel the myth that Benitez inherited a pathetic squad and has created one so much stronger now (obviously players now might be better in direct comparisons, but in comparison to the players of the day, the Owen that Benitez inherited was as good as Torres is now and Finnan was as good as Johnson is etc.)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, every manager that comes into a club feels that they need to put a stamp on the squad and totally revamp everything, which is the same that would happen if Benitez were to leave now - despite the fact that just like when Houllier left e, we just have a few gaps that need feeling, a bit of luck and some faith in developing the promising youngsters that we love stockpiling in the reserves (before they get loaned out to the likes of Crewe or Accrington Stanley as if that is going to help either the club or the player)
Exactly, Jay. The depth of denial runs ridiculously deep for some Rafa apologists. I agree with you, it is a complete myth that Benitez inherited a poor squad.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, irrespective of the strength of Houllier's squad, there is only one manager who has made us endure Liverpool's worst run in 50 years, and it is not Houllier. And if Benitez's squad is stronger than Houllier's, how come we've been on such a bad run.
*cue usual lame excuses*
-League is stronger now
-More money around
-It's not Benitez's fault
-It's everyone else's fault
-Not enough money to spend
-Benitez is the Almighty
Blah blah blah
LFCHistory is not the be all and end all of LFC stats!
ReplyDeleteAnd I will not be using LFC History because I have a better source: THE CLUB ITSELF. Do you not get that? You cannot argue against the club's own figures.
Everything on the web about net spend at the moment is WRONG.
No one has bothered to trawl through the accounts to get an accurate picture. Now, all the inaccuracy has become fact.
Not anymore.
It doesn't matter how far people are in denial, or what they want to believe, these figures are irrefutable fact. End of story.
I don't need to show the accountant the last two posts because those posts display a profound misunderstanding of football accounting.
ReplyDeleteAs I said above, Amortisation is dealt with separately by the club accounts, and that is generally the case for all club accounts.
You should do article to dispel the myth that Benitez inherited a pathetic squad and has created one so much stronger now (obviously players now might be better in direct comparisons, but in comparison to the players of the day, the Owen that Benitez inherited was as good as Torres is now and Finnan was as good as Johnson is etc.)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, every manager that comes into a club feels that they need to put a stamp on the squad and totally revamp everything, which is the same that would happen if Benitez were to leave now - despite the fact that just like when Houllier left e, we just have a few gaps that need feeling, a bit of luck and some faith in developing the promising youngsters that we love stockpiling in the reserves (before they get loaned out to the likes of Crewe or Accrington Stanley as if that is going to help either the club or the player)
Mo - EVERY Premiership team has received more money since Rafa arrived, making the Premiership the richest league in the world (and obviously a more viable destination for top talent than it had been previously for any team other than Man U) due to the TV money that has poured into the British game.
ReplyDeleteFortunately for Rafa, his arrival also came shortly after UEFA had opened up the Champions League to underachievers, meaning that he could come fourth in the League as Houllier and Evans would have, but be rewarded for this with a place in the new money spinning Champions League - usually as a favorite due to the aforementioned money that had come into the English game...
<span><span>"EDIT: Just to avoid confusion: I am NOT planning to compare Houllier with Benitez when it comes to spending. I will compare Benitez's spending with that of Man United, Arsenal and Chelsea."</span></span>
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to honouring that comment?
I will be posting tha article later in the week. First, I am going through the net spendds for Souness, Evans, Houllier and Evans. Then I will compare Rafa with United/Arsenal etc.
ReplyDeleteOh dear....Jamie, you clearly have no idea about accounting. Why do you say 'that is completely wrong' when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about? You do try to present your opinions as those of an expert though.
ReplyDeletebtw, I am a chartered acountant!
feel free to critsize me for being boring!
Sounds like total rubbish to me. Villa was sold to Valencia for 8M in 2005. In the same summer we signed Crouch for 7M
ReplyDeleteWe'd already signed Morientes for 6.5M. As usual Rafa got it wrong and spent his budget badly.
The times figures are totally wrong. That is beyond doubt.
ReplyDeleteWe have spent far more than they and the likes of tomkins try to pretend. The figures from official accounts i've seen are WAY higher than the press reported figures. So unless you're accusing the club of breaking the law please shut up and stop posting total rubbish here.
Are you retarted? No they are not accurate or truthful in any way. GET OVER IT. You're an embarasment to liverpool fans.
ReplyDeleteBenitez has spent much more that that because the club's official accounts show it. What part of that don't you understand?
I'm confident Jamie is going to show this so wake up mate or continue making a complete fool out of yourself.
More garbage. We have NOT been overtaken by Sunderland, Villa or Tottenham. In the 5 YEARS that Benitez has been here we have comfortably outspend all of those clubs. And our Wage bill is nearly twice as high as those 3 clubs so don't even go there.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're doing is idiotically comparing spending over the last18 months as it suits you're argument. Using that moronic logic Sunderland, Villa And Spurs have also overtaken Utd and Chelsea as they're spending is higher than those 2 clubs in that period. I suppose you think Villa and Spurs are a bigger club than Man U? They must be as they have "overtaken" them in "net" spending terms. The logic your using is simply retarded
Of course Inflation applies but that applies to all clubs not just us. So what do you propose to adjust the figures of all clubs downwards or is it just us that has this exception? As Jamie has pointed out repeatedly it's not about Houllier v Rafa, it's a simple comparison of figures from official accounts. And even adjusted for Inflation it is UNDENIABLE that Benitez has spent a lot of money. That is actually what all your waffle is designed to cover and it's laughably pathetic.
Jeez, the lengths you sheep will go to try and make excuses for this manager is incredible. I'm sure you are preparing mor flimsy excuses for later this week, when i'm certain Jamie is going to show you how much money this manager has wasted on players. It's far more than you think so i look forward to laughing at your next attempt to clutch straws lol.
You were all very happy to have Diouf & Cisse at the time. Best African player and best stricker in the French League. What quality has Benitez brought? Torres & Mascherano.
ReplyDeleteGreat Club, great coach but poor interpersonal skills when the chips are down.
PS. Don't forget Houllier took over £10 MILLION for himself and his staff when he was 'sacked'. That's why he will never forget Liverpool!
this is silly while the acounts do give an accurate account of the in's and out's of that year, we all know that football deals are not always done over one year!! for example if you look at this years accounts they will show we paid 5million for aquilani as his payment was spread over a number of years, but we received 30 million for alonso as this was paid upfront. so looking at the accounts it would show rafa has a net profit of 25million which we know is not true!!
ReplyDeleteso unless you have a full working file for the accounts and have full details of how every deal was done (i'm guessing you don't) the accounts don't tell the full story
kanwar you are a fucking wank*r
ReplyDeletekuntwar you are a wank*r
ReplyDeletejk you are full of shit
ReplyDeleteChampions League winners, Champions League runners up, FA Cup Winners and a higher points tally then when we last won the league in 1990. After all of that in his first three years he should have been given a war-chest that would have allowed us to push on and truly compete without the need for tactical miracles he has become famous for.
ReplyDeleteHe hasn't spent the cash that two CL Final appearances in three years deserves and I reckon we've felt that this year with a few injuries. Players signed as future prospects/squad players have had a more significant role in the team than he intended.
Shanks once said about refs that they understand the rules but not the game. I have similar feelings towards this article.
Please read the article properly: The cost of aquiring a player's registration includes any <span>probable <span>contingent</span> amounts (i.e. Fees that may become payable/receivable in the future depending on certain conditions being fulfilled)</span>
ReplyDeleteYou state "We all know that football deals are not always done over one year!!"
How do we know that? Where is you evidence for that, or did you just pull that contention out of the air?
kanwar i see u didnt answer the guys question when asked are u man u fan?...i actually have it on very good authority that you are a man u fan, why wud anybody belive u.
ReplyDeleteAre you Jamie in disguise?
ReplyDeleteYou must be Jamie in disguise
ReplyDeleteGood article, Jamie. Agree that comaring spending figures between GH vs. RB is not justified given player wages / transfer fees have been significantly inflated
ReplyDeleteI know such data might be too difficult to get. But in case you have similar spending figures on other EPL teams during Houllier era (i.e. 1998-04), that'd be great. At least, if you have any idea where LFC is ranked in terms of gross / net spend from 1998-04 vs. other EPL teams, that would be very very helpful.
please Jamie no more of these articles! look at what you've done, theres fans all over the place with ripped nighties and more questions than thier little brains can handle. i know we cant debate the last game(s) but how about the type and length of anfields grass....
ReplyDeleteStop being so blinkered and narrow minded.
ReplyDeleteRead page 14 of the latest filed accounts, there are two important statements:
"The costs associated with the acquisition of players' registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets. These costs are fully amortised in equal installments over the period of the players' contracts...."; and
"The profit or loss on disposal of a player's registration is calculated as the difference between the transfer fee recovered/receivable less the net book value at the date of sales and less any direct costs of the transfer...."
SO THE DISPOSAL FIGURE REPRESENTS THE BOOK VALUE OF THE PLAYER AT THE TIME OF THE DISPOSAL. AND THE BOOK VALUE EQUALS THE INITIAL COST MINUS ANY ACCUMULATED AMORTISATION. ANY DIFFERENCE IS RECORDED AS A GAIN/LOSS ON DISPOSAL AND WILL BE EXPENSED IN THE YEAR (I.E. RECOGNISED IN THE INCOME STATEMENT)
so the 'money recouped' column can <span>only</span> be correct if every sale equalled the book value of the player at the time of sale. Which I very much doubt.
Jamie, Is Kop Holdings a UK registered company or a Delawere company? If offshore then why do they need to produce public accounts? Or are you saying that you have a rat in the LFC accounts department???
ReplyDeleteLook forward to your figures mate....All LFC fans this is the time to get behind the manager and the team more than ever....we have a top quality manager and no-one was complaining 6-7 months ago when we tharshed Real Madrid and Man UTD amongst others!
If we let go of Rafa he will only end up at the biggest club in the world...Real Madrid!
Fergie had similar problems during his reign ...I bet those manure fans still feel like idiots!
Jamie
ReplyDeleteis there a way to generate the income figures since 1998?
it would be intresting to see how LFC income has varied in relation to TV money and prize money especially. This would indicate how sustainable LFC's transfer policy has been.
YNWA
Jesus christ - you juust do not understand, do you? Stop embarrassing yourself.
ReplyDeleteThere is more than type of account figure in the report - there is the profit and loss sheet, but there is also an individual breakdown of figures.
Also, in every report, there are snippets of tranfer fees paid and received, and if you do a rough analysis of all the players bought/sold for any given year, the figures still add up.
Once again, I have had the figures checked by an accountant who specialises in football accountancy. Furthermore, one of my sources at the club who actually helps compiled Liverpool's annual reports also confirms my figures.
I cannot be bothered to justify myself further to someone who is clearly interpreting the figures incorrectly.
The figures are correct. Deal with it.
Just one final point on this: Disposals (i.e. transfer fees received) =
ReplyDeleteNet book value + Amortisation. Example: 2008 report states:
"Player intangibles have increased from to 129.7 from 100m. This is a result of player aquisitions offset by the net book value of disposals of 8.1m and amortisation of 32.5,m"
So:
Players bought = 70m
players sold = 8.1m + 32m = 40m
Total money recouped = 40m
Looking at the players we sold during that year, that figure adds up perfectly. The point is, however LFC choose to break down the cost and whatever labels they use, the END RESULT IS STILL REFELCTIVE OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SPENT AND RECEIVED.
Hey there - Yes, I can do that. I'll have a look at the figures and post them in the next couple of days.
ReplyDeleteThen please explain the £21.6m of "Profit on the disposal of players' registrations" (p.6 of the accounts for "The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited)
ReplyDeleteHey Jaimie, just a cautionary note. When you come to look at Rafa's figures from the accounts. I do not know, but suspect, that players at contract renewals get a signing on payment (+ agency fees). These would I believe also be included within the intangible assets of the balance sheet.
ReplyDeleteI have nothing to back this up other than a gut feel but it may be something you can ask of someone before you publish. If I'm correct then I would suggest that Rafa's 'renewal fees' would be substantially higher than Houllier's. Yes I know you're not comparing them (but it's gonna happen ;) )
If you get the answer I'd be interested to know.
That is profit only - that's after all expenses/costs have been removed. That figure does not represent the pure cash received for the transfer. To illustrate how incorrect this is, consider all the same figures from 2003-2008 (from the same column):
ReplyDelete03-4 - 415k
04-5 - 12.667
05-6 - 6.216
06-7 - 6683
07-8 - 21.613
if that was correct, that would give us a TOTAL net spend between July 2003 and July 2008 of: 47,594, and an average net spend of 9.5m a season.
Clearly this is wrong!
Just looking at the players we've bought and sod during that time proves it's wrong.
And, as I've repeated already, the correct figures are the figures I have highlighted.
Hi Taf - signing on fees are included in the Profit and Loss section. I've included a screenshot of the guidance section from the report below:
ReplyDeletewe know because details of the aquilani deal were released by roma, which clearly show the deal would take place over a number of years!!
ReplyDeletebusinesses compile their accounts in ways that are f<span style="">inancially</span><span style=""> </span><span style="">or strategically beneficial for them!! it may suit them to pay in stages sometimes, it may suit to pay all at once sometimes and sometimes the other club will dictate how payment occurs. THIS IS WHY ACCOUNTANTS ARE PAID SO MUCH.</span>
<span style=""></span>
<span style="">WE DO NOT KNOW HOW THESE ACCOUNTS WERE COMPILED (unless you have access to H&G's accountants??) so all you are showing us is numbers on a page and making assumptions about what they represent.</span>
*shoots self*
ReplyDeleteOne step ahead Jaimie! Be interesting to see Rafa's figures.
ReplyDeleteThis has to be the most mind-boggling stupid post I've ever seen on this site. It is futile debating this issue with someone like you as you just don't get it.
ReplyDeleteRe Aquilani - I'm well aware that his transfer will be paid in stages; however, football transfer guidelines (which are accepted and implemented by most, if not all, clubs) stipulatethat the cost of aquiring a player's registration will INCLUDE<span> any probable <span style="font-style: italic;">contingent</span> amounts (i.e. Fees that may become payable/receivable in the future depending on certain conditions being fulfilled)</span>
This has been confirmed by Deloitte (link in the article), an in the club's reports, this is also confirmed. So,Aquilani's total fee will be included in the next annual report (18m), and as usual, there will be a little section detailing the exact amount that will become payable over the next year.
Jaimie.
ReplyDeleteI am not being obtuse here, but I think you might have been mis-informed.
The gains (or profits) on the disposal of an asset (i.e. player's registration) is recorded in the Profit and Loss statement (not sheet) when the proceeds from the sale of the asset exceeds to book value of the asset. A loss is recorded when the opposite happens.
And the book value of a player's registration (intangible asset) is the cost of the acquisition minus the accumulated amortisation
This is just straightforward accounting.
Consequently, if you use the disposal figures in the Intangible Asset note, then you are just recording the net book value of the players that have been sold and will not account for any gains/losses on disposal. As a result, the labelling is incorrect, even if the the figures have been transcribed correctly.
Rafa's net spend is not that bad to be honest. The gross spend is quite large though, and that's the bone of contention for me. It's all well and good recouping money for players, but if the *right* poayers have been bought as part of the original gross spend then things might have been different.
ReplyDeleteIf we had, for example, not bought Keane, Babel and Dossena, then that's almost 40m of the gross spend that could have been spent better. Imagine if that 40m had been spent on the right players...
Are we in the business of recouping money or spending it properly in the first place?
Hmmm - I'm sorry, but when it comes to football accounting, you are wrong. And the proof that you are wrong is the example I provided in my earlier post (which you have conveniently ignored: Using your interpretation of the figures, LFC's 5 year net spend between 2003 and 2008 would be as follows:
ReplyDelete03-4 - 415k
04-5 - 12.667
05-6 - 6.216
06-7 - 6683
07-8 - 21.613
TOTAL net spend: 47,594m
AVERAGE net spend: 9.5m
This is completely wrong, and I don't see how you can credibly argue otherwise! Net spend of 9.5m a season?! It doesn't compute. Why? Becuase it is not accurate.
Can you not see this? Are you going to ignore this point further?
My figures have been checked (and the reports themselves examined) by an accountant who specialises in football accounting. The figures have also been independently examined by one of my sources at the club, someone who is in a position to know how the club's finances work.
Furthermore, the figures I've presented actually match the incomings/outgoings of the club during the periods concerned.
The figures I've highlighted here are quite clearly correct.
Lets not forget Houlier had Essien on his books but could not get a work permit. We missed out on a genuine world class player there and instead ended up with Salif Diou.
ReplyDeleteTrue that 40m to aquire Augero would have been well spent! Shame the owners won't let him spend that kind of money anymore. If we are stuck with Rafa then the owners should respect his and Purslows requests for top talent but I don't even think Rafa's has requested to buy any top talent as he thinks the current squad is capable. I think he is trying to adopt a Wenger's principles but with Bentiez's game plan / tactics its going to be a long reign! :(
ReplyDelete"it is a complete myth that Benitez inherited a poor squad."
ReplyDeleteMyth?
Name one player who was able to deliever 10 + league goals on regular basis. One. Can you?
But forget Owen: Rafa didnt inherited Owen he inherited 8mil pounds :)
Hi Jaimie,
ReplyDeleteI see you seem to have changed your tone over net spending, as we have had several debates over it. I like how you have now come out with Rafas net spend is not that bad, and it will be interesting to see what it actually is.
Im not here to argue but i will say its unfair to say what if we spent properly in the 1st place. I think its an area which is too difficult to predict, especially with foreign players adapting to the prem + some players are better when theyre the big fish in the small pond soo to speak.
I mean Babel at the under 21 championships was player of the tournemant and looked like a world beater, he has obviously failed to live up to the hype here at lfc. Keane was a proven premiership striker yet failed at anfield and seemingly has gone off the boil now at spurs. Dossena being an italian international and as most italian international defenders they usually prove to be class although we seem to have got a dud.
I think signings are easy to judge on hindsight.
Anyway going back to the net spend, i cant wait to compare utd and chelsea's in particular because neither really had to sell to buy and i believe in my opinion that is what benitez has had to do to get the players to compete with them. So any argument about squad depth is due to the fact rafa had to sell to buy.
I know your stating the figures from times are wrong but if theyre almost right then the fact over the last 2 years we sold to the same value as we have bought, increases my belief that benitez has done a great job. (obviously not inc this season, which has been a disaster)
They can be wrong because almost all transfers are broken up over a number of years. So accounts after Houllier was sacked would still have his signings included.
ReplyDeleteThere's no breakdown of what you've posted, just totals - so can't really stand up to scruitiny.
Rossi - I have not changed my stance on net spend. When evaluating how well a manager used transfer funds, net spend is irrelevent, which has always been my argument.
ReplyDeleteThe fallacy here is that many people use net-spend as the absolute way to gauge how good someone is in the transfer market. I think this is wrong. How a manager spends the gross amount he receives is what matters.
When Benitez, Houllier or whoever is given X amount to spend, what they recouped has nothing to do with HOW they spend that money.
No one forced Benitez to sign Dossena, keane and Babel; he had money to spend and he bought them. Net spend had nothing to do with the veracity of those decisions.
Similarly, no one forced Houllier to buy Diouf; he bought him because he wanted to, and net spend had nothing to do with it.
It's interesting to see where/how money was recouped, but in many cases, money recouped is just rectifying a mistake.
Example: Robbie Keane.
Benitez bought him for 20m.
According to Liverpool's report for 2008, the club received 12.8m in 'guaranteed fees ' for him (that figure also includes the money we received for Steve Finnan, so it's not clear how the individual figures break down.
Anyway - that's an 8m loss for that financial year. The ony reason he was sold is because it was a mistake to buy him in the first place. It's good money got recouped, but the recouping only happened as a result of a transfer mistake.
We should be in the business of spending the money we DO have wisely. We shouldn't be in the business of endless transfer mistakes, and then celebrating these mistakes under the guise net spend, which is exactly what fans are doing.
I have not ignored it. The issue is that your understanding of financial statements is incorrect. Consequently, your example, and its interpretation, was fundamentally wrong.
ReplyDeleteLook. This is just accounting. There is nothing 'magical' about football accountancy.
Let me make this easier for you.
If you buy a player for £10m in cash on a 5 year contract, then his registration will increase the asset register by £10m (i wont use debits/credits here as it gets confusing).
In year 2, the company will amortise £2m against this and the book value of the player is now £8m and £2m is expensed in P&L.
At the end of year 3, you sell the player for £13m. At this point in time, his net book value is now £6m and it will be registered as a disposal of £6m (or £8m minus £2m for the amortisation).
However, since you sold him for more than £6m, you will register a profit on disposal of £7m and this is recorded in the profit and loss.
So in your analysis, are you trying to portray the £6m or £13m. Right now you are saying the £6m IS the £13m.
(and this also ignores the cash flow impact, as some deals are paid over the life of the contract, e.g. Aquilani)
You can just ignore the Houllier v Benitez stuff can't you? Or better still just delete it!
ReplyDeleteOne more question, how does the £21.6m and the £8m tie in together, using your interpretation? Remember that amortisation is a NON-CASH item.
ReplyDeleteI see the point and the logic but as Rossi says hindsight is a wonderful thing. We all know that all managers make transfer blunders. But as I have said in the past excluding Babel, Dossena and Keane (who was sold back) Rafa has performed well in the transfer market and bought some exceptional players (Torres, Reina, Masch, Agger, Johnson, Alonso etc.).
ReplyDeleteThe Keane argument is a bit of a misnomer given the money raised back was never re-invested in the squad, to the best of our knowledge. So you're left with Babel and Dossena. Are we saying that 2/3 bad buys make Rafa a bad judge of transfers, especially given the value increases we would expect from Torres, Reina, Masch etc?
I am interested to see the figures (although you should really make a note that this year's accounts (not published yet) should show a profit on player transactions - which will dramatically affect the averages), but if the aim is to bring Rafa's transfer dealings into question I think you're 'barking up the wrong tree'. :)
No, Hmmm - you are still wrong, for the same reasons I have explained above. I can no longer be bothered to debate this issue with you. You are wrong, that's all there is too it. And the figures prove you are wrong: you are proposing that between 2003 and 2008, Liverpool had an average net spend of 9.5m a year. Even with a rudimentary understanding of how transfers work, this figure is wildly inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it doesn't surprise me you would cling to that and make this argument, after all, an annual net spend figure of 9.5m looks better for benitez than 19m.
If you want to keep thinking that way - or if it brightens your day to believe such figures - then good for you :)
They are amounts spent! Jesus, do you not understand that the club has to accurately account for the exact amount of money spent and recouped?! Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteOh and, while I realise you're not comparing RB and GH, you may want to consider what GH's net spend got us. While he made good signings like Hyypia, McAllister, Hamann, Henchoz etc. let me give you some other names...
ReplyDeleteMeijer
Traore
Arphexad
Biscan
Diouf
Diao
Cheyrou
Cisse
Now if RB bought players like that (as I have said filling a squad with average/able players - some god awful) this would be a different post!
Rafa has recouped a hell of a lot more also Jamie.
ReplyDeleteThere are no breakdowns in the club's annual reports either. I guess the actual reports must be wrong, eh?
ReplyDeleteThis year's accounts will probably not show a profit on transfers because the 20m of the transfer budget used for player extensions will (I'm led to believe) be included, which makes Purslow's statement that Benitez spent 20m more than he recouped make sense.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Rafa recently, net spend was 0, but he did not take into account the extra 20m for extensions.
No. I have not said that the profit on disposal is a net spending figure. Where did I say that? Read my posts!
ReplyDeleteI am saying that the disposals figures that you use are not representative of the proceeds made from the disposals.
SamSamire - "name one player who was able to deliver 10+ league goals on a regular basis. One"
ReplyDeleteI'll give you three! (which beats the three that we have now in Torres, Gerrard)
The highly rated Cisse was just arriving when Benitez arrived and had consistently delivered goals throughout his career previously, albeit in another league
Harry Kewell had proven himself as one of the best wingers in the league, capable of delivering goals as well as assists
And of course, Owen was still a LFC player when Benitez arrived - regardless of whether his contract was expiring in a year or not Benitez still had the player at his disposal.
Alongside them were Baros who had a bigger reputation than any of our young forwards at the club now, Sinama Pongolle who had as much talent as any of our youngsters at the club now and Mellor who was banging in goals for fun for the reserves, much like Nemeth was before the injury
Whether these players did deliver or not is another matter entirely, but these were all clearly capable of delivering 10+ league goals and it was up to Rafa to get it out of them.
Is that a change from earlier then? You seemed to think that player extension were dealt with solely through the P&L.
ReplyDeleteI was referring only to signing-on fees. Take a look at the earlier comment - I included an image relating specifically to SO fees.
ReplyDeleteHow can net spend be irrelavent, when transfer funds are made up of sales? At the end of the day he wouldnt have been able to buy players to the amount of 290m if he hadnt had sold 150 mill of players. So it becomes completly relevant, especially when you compare to the likes of utd and chelsea. The problem is i know arsenal include contract extentions to their budget or so iv heard, but do utd and chelsea?? Utd and chelsea havnt had to sell to buy thats the point im making therefore rafa hasnt got the luxury of keeping a decent player for example bellamy as back up coz he will have had to sell to buy someone else. Thats just to do with the whole thing about squad depth - pundits love to come out with hes spent 200 mill yet past the first 11, theres not enough quality there, thats when i think net spend becomes completly relevant but as always this is just my opinion. :)
ReplyDeleteSorry just realised you said net spend irrelevant when judging how well hes spent. MY BAD
ReplyDeleteI kind of agree to a certain degree, about rectifying a mistake but then again that mistake might not mean a mistake to the extent of say Diao 5 or diouff 11, Bellamy i think would have been a good squad player as an example or Sissoko who was sold because we had Gerrard, alonso, mascharano and just bought lucas and at the time we were playing 442 meaning only 2 places not 3 as we have now with gerrard in the whole. I would love to have sissoko now, him n masch as the def mids. I think theres a few who we would have loved to have kept but due to our own transfer budget, the fact that they were in demand at the time and could command a decent fee would have forced RB's hand. Bellamy for example we bought for around 6 and sold for around 8, so he made a profit and could then buy with that 8 mill someone who in RB's opinion could do a better job whereas the likes of utd and chelsea and in particular chelsea could buy say ferrera the right back for 12 mill, then when he was deemed not good enough they bought bosingwa for 18m or something like that but could still keep the other, thats the diff for me, they then had two 10m+ fullbacks in there squad. Same thing on the other side of defence they bought Wayne Bridge then when he decided he wasnt good enough they got del horno and although they sold him, they then got Ass hole i mean Ash cole, so again two 10m+ fullbacks. whereas in our fullback area we have got 2 freebies ie degan, aurelio and then 2 who we have spent money on. Utd last season bought 2 serbs 1 called tosic, for a combined fee of 16 mill, these 2 lads cant even touch the 1st team, we couldnt spend that for reserves, Nani and anderson who are both squad players cost 17 and 21m respectively. Whereas our squad we have 1.5m striker as backup to torres. Before anybody swipes at me and says he didnt have to spend 18m on johnson for example a few years ago people were complaining that we didnt buy enough quality players, who were proven instead RB bought 3/4 players for 5m, when he does start paying for quality the argument is then, why do we not have much of a squad
ReplyDeletehow do you know that the cisse amount is included in the Houller figures if you stated in your comments that the annual amounts only shows total and not individual costs.
ReplyDeleteThere are no breakdowns in the club's annual reports either
Read more: <span style="color: #940f04;">http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/12/exclusive-liverpool-fc-net-spend.html#ixzz0ZtmkI7Ss</span>
Cisse was bought on the 1 July 2004. Reports run from 31-July to the 31 July, therefore Cisse's fee would've been inclided in the 2003-4 report.
ReplyDeleteIf it wasn't, then his fee would've been included in the 'post balance sheet events' section. It wasn't, therefore we can conclude with 100% certainty that Cisse's fee was included in the 2003-4 report.
Also, if you look at Houllier's spending for 2003-4 the figures fit.
I dont care about reputation.
ReplyDeleteOwen wasnt inherited by Rafa. I'm not going to dispute this. If you know facts you know Owen wasn in Rafa disposal.
Baros could deliver? He was in PL for 5 seasons - never delivered more than 10. How can you claim he could? The proof is in the pudding.
Cisse could deliver 10? Are you kidding? Even Sunderland didnt want him. His best record for us was 7 goals. 10 for Sunderland. And they didnt want him when they were struggling for a decent forward.
Kewell could deliver more than 10? Any proof? Sinama Pongoll? The same player who scored for them 5 goals in 30 games last season?
Indeed fire power any other top 4 team envied us.
Do you claim any of players you mentioned would find a place in MU/Arsenal/Chelsea in 2004? Why they didnt go to good clubs then? Why they were sold to second/third string clubs?
Time heals all wounds. You forgot how embarrasing we were in 2003/2004.
I dont care about reputation. It is not about what we thought. Now we know we were wrong when we hoped the players you mentioned are top4 quality.
ReplyDeleteOwen wasnt inherited by Rafa. I'm not going to dispute this. If you know facts you know Owen wasnt in Rafa disposal. He didnt want to play for us and was sold.
Baros could deliver? He was in PL for 5 seasons - never delivered more than 10. How can you claim he could? The proof is in the pudding.
Cisse could deliver more than 10? Are you kidding? Even Sunderland didnt want him. His best record for us was 7 goals. 10 for Sunderland. And they didnt want him when they were struggling for a decent forward.
Kewell could deliver more than 10 for us? Any proof? The same Kewell who scored 3 goals in 2005/2006 playing in 27 games? Sinama Pongoll? The same player who scored for Atletico Madrid 5 goals in 30 games last season?
Indeed fire power any other top 4 team envied us.
Do you claim any of players you mentioned would find a place in MU/Arsenal/Chelsea in 2004? Why they didnt go to good clubs then? Why they were sold to second/third string clubs?
Time heals all wounds. You forgot how embarrasing we were in 2003/2004.
Bikram - Zidane was bought by Real in the twilight of his career with little resale value, whereas Ronaldo is 24 and whether we like him or not, he is producing on a par with the greats that have come before him and has accomplished more in his club career already than Zidane had before he joined Real...
ReplyDeleteI know that's verring off of the point of anything but just wanted to make the point...
SamSamire - unfortunately you seem to be incapable of following the argument through. You asked which players had proven capable of scoring 10+ goals a season back in 2004, which I did.
ReplyDeleteFor you to then apply facts from later seasons thereby invalidating the argument, as none of these events had already happened back in 2004. At this point everybody was optimistic as Owen, Kewell and Cisse had still proven in recent times that they were capable of delivering 10+ goals a season, were we not?? The fact that they did not was not predetermined and you can not apply facts from 5 years in the future to state what they were capable of back then.
Secondly, I did not state that Baros or Pongolle had proven that they were capable of scoring more than 10 goals in the Premiership - I said that they were promising youngsters at the time, with greater reputations than our top youngsters at the moment possess. It was up to Benitez to get the most out of these players and obviously he did not.
In regards to Owen, he wanted to leave but the player was still at the club when Rafa arrived. It was up to him whether he risk keeping the player for a year to try to prove that the club could match his ambitions and losing the player on a free transfer if he failed, (not an undisputed fact admittedly, but I am pretty sure that Owen would have resigned for Liverpool if we had won the League, FA Cup and European Cup treble) or to just recoup whatever money he could.
SamSamire - unfortunately you seem to be incapable of following the argument through. You asked which players had proven capable of scoring 10+ goals a season back in 2004, which I did.
ReplyDeleteFor you to then apply facts from later seasons thereby invalidates the argument, as none of these events had already happened back in 2004. At this point everybody was optimistic as Owen, Kewell and Cisse had still proven in recent times that they were capable of delivering 10+ goals a season, were we not?? The fact that they did not was not predetermined and you can not apply facts from 5 years in the future to state what they were capable of back then.
For this reason I did not include Gerrard in the list as although already a world class performer, at that point he had not proven that he could score 10+ league goals on a regular basis.
Secondly, I did not state that Baros or Pongolle had proven that they were capable of scoring more than 10 goals in the Premiership - I said that they were promising youngsters at the time, with greater reputations than our top youngsters at the moment possess. It was up to Benitez to get the most out of these players and obviously he did not.
In regards to Owen, he wanted to leave but the player was still at the club when Rafa arrived. It was up to him whether he risk keeping the player for a year to try to prove that the club could match his ambitions and losing the player on a free transfer if he failed, (not an undisputed fact admittedly, but I am pretty sure that Owen would have resigned for Liverpool if we had won the League, FA Cup and European Cup treble) or to just recoup whatever money he could.
SamSamire - unfortunately you seem to be incapable of following the argument through. You asked which players had proven capable of scoring 10+ goals a season back in 2004, which I did.
ReplyDeleteFor you to then apply facts from later seasons thereby invalidates the argument, as none of these events had already happened back in 2004. At this point everybody was still optimistic about the potential of the Owen, Kewell and Cisse, were we not?? The fact that they did not achieve up to expectations was not predetermined and you can not apply facts from 5 years in the future to state what they were capable of back then.
For this reason I did not include Gerrard in the list as although already a world class performer, at that point he had not proven that he could score 10+ league goals on a regular basis.
Secondly, I did not state that Baros or Pongolle had proven that they were capable of scoring more than 10 goals a season - I said that they were promising youngsters at the time available to back up those 3 proven scorers that I had listed, with bigger reputations than our top youngsters at the moment possess. It was up to Benitez to get the maximum out of all of these players and obviously he did not.
In regards to Owen, he wanted to leave but the player was still at the club when Rafa arrived. It was up to Rafa to choose between risk losing the player on a free if he fails to prove to Owen that the club could match his ambitions (not an stated fact admittedly, but I am pretty sure that Owen would have resigned for Liverpool if we had won the League, FA Cup and European Cup treble) or just letting the player go immediately to recoup whatever money he could. Tough choice to make, but the choice was there all the same.
First general notice: you really forgot how embarrasing we were.
ReplyDeleteLet me remind you few stats.
2002/2003. We scored 61 goals. Michael Owen scored 19. Rest of the team: 42.
2003/2004. We scored 55. Michael Owen scored 16. Rest of the team: 39.
Our last season: we scored 77. Torres:14. rest of the team: 63.
Even now - during worst Rafa season, the season he has to improve to keep his job - we score 2 goals per game.
Now let get back to your names.
You named Cisse. Do you really insist he was able to deliver? How can you tell he was able? Any facts backing your opinion? At the time I believed he will deliver but time proved me wrong.
You named Kewell? Do you really insist he was able to deliver? How can you tell he was able? Any facts backing your opinion? I believe he wasnt. At the time I believed otherwise but time proved me wrong.
Your Owen argument made me smile. Treble to resign Owen :) ... Quite probably he would resign if UFO landed at Melwood and the Martians forbide him to go to Real. We can bring more very unlikely scenarios, cant we?
The truth is: he could sign a contract and include buy-out option (as he did with Newcastle). He could even name clubs he would like to be allowed to talk with if they want him. He could do many many different things... But he just wanted to go. Keeping him would sabotaging LiverpoolFC. In Owen Rafa inherited a saboteur not a usefull player.
The bottom line is: any player you mentioned wouldnt be on radar any other top4 club in any other major league - nevermind Premier League.
(BTW how come you just named Nando and Gerrard in Rafa's team? Last season Dirk scored 12 - a proof he can score. Benayoun scored 8 playing many games from bench.)
ok facts - Cisse had just come off a season scoring 26 league goals, following seasons of 14 and 22 goals. Therefore I can say he had proven that he was capable of scoring 10+ goals a season on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteKewell was one of the top wingers in the league, and a proven premiership goalscoring midfielder, scoring 14 league goals in his last season at Leeds and 8 goals in an injury interrupted season before that, before scoring 7 in his first at Liverpool. Therefore I think that it is safe to say that he had proven that he was capable of delivering 10+ goals a season on a regular basis.
Owen had scored at least 16 league goals in his previous 4 seasons, so he had proven that he was capable of scoring 10+ league goals a season. Regardless of any personal circumstances with him wanting to leave because he didn't think that the club could match his ambitions or whatever else, he WAS still under contract at the club when Rafa arrived.
For you to say that those 3 players wouldn't have been on the radar of any other big clubs IN 2004 is ridiculous. Benayoun, Kuyt and even Gerrard wouldn't be on the radar of any major clubs in 5 years, and there's no knowing what will happen with Torres either, so we can only make judgements on the information that was available back then, without applying future knowledge. The simple fact is that you requested 3 Liverpool players capable of scoring 10+ goals on a regular basis IN 2004 and that is what I identified.
(btw I was supposed to name Kuyt, when I said 3 for this year's team but mistakenly left the name out. On the point of Benayoun though, you said players that could score 10+ on a regular basis. Benayoun has not done this once.
Also, you say that the players wouldn't be on the radar anywhere else, but in 2004 Baros, Pongolle and Mellor were just as highly touted if not more than N'gog, Nemeth and Pacheco are now, in 2009)
ok facts - Cisse had just come off a season scoring 26 league goals, following seasons of 14 and 22 goals. Therefore I can say he had proven that he was capable of scoring 10+ goals a season on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteKewell was one of the top wingers in the league, and a proven premiership goalscoring midfielder, scoring 14 league goals in his last season at Leeds and 8 goals in an injury interrupted season before that, before scoring 7 in his first at Liverpool. Therefore I think that it is safe to say that he had proven that he was capable of delivering 10+ goals a season on a regular basis.
Owen had scored at least 16 league goals in his previous 4 seasons, so he had proven that he was capable of scoring 10+ league goals a season. Regardless of any personal circumstances with him wanting to leave because he didn't think that the club could match his ambitions or whatever else, he WAS still under contract at the club when Rafa arrived.
For you to say that those 3 players wouldn't have been on the radar of any other big clubs IN 2004 is ridiculous. Benayoun, Kuyt and even Gerrard wouldn't be on the radar of any major clubs in 5 years, and there's no knowing what will happen with Torres either, so we can only make judgements on the information that was available back then, without applying future knowledge. The simple fact is that you requested 1 Liverpool players capable of scoring 10+ goals on a regular basis IN 2004 and I identified 3.
(btw I was supposed to name Kuyt, when I said 3 for this year's team but mistakenly left the name out. On the point of Benayoun though, you said players that could score 10+ on a regular basis. Benayoun has not done this once, so we do only have 3 proven 10+ goalscorers in the team at present also)
Also, you say that the players wouldn't be on the radar anywhere else, but in 2004 Baros, Pongolle and Mellor were just as highly touted, if not more, than N'gog, Nemeth and Pacheco are now, in 2009)
Cisse scored his goals in French league. His next seasons proved he was unable to score in prem. Voronin scored 15 goals for Bayern (2004/2005) and 11 for Hertha last season (in just 20 games). Are you telling me he is able to score 10 in prem? Benayoun scored 16 for Maccabi Haifa in 1998/1999, 19 in 1999/2000 and 13 in 2000/2001 - yet you refuse to use the same measure to accept him as able to score 10+ in prem (and rightly so).
ReplyDeleteKewell - yes, he has one goalscoring season. Was it a fluke or his regural ability? For me it's a fluke. Dirk scored 12 twice in 3 seasons and most likely will score more than 10 this season as well ( he plays horribly but he scored 5 already havig a lot of defensive duties). Injury proneness is part of ability of scoring 10+ a season on regular basis.
Owen.
"he WAS still under contract at the club when Rafa arrived.".
Would you consider Owen as 'inherited' player if his contract was due to expire 10 days after Benitez arrival?
Yes officially he was in ours books but in fact he was gone already and was unavailable for Benitez. I'm more interested in reality not in papers. If you are going to count Owen as inherited by Benitez the same way as other players - I give up. I'm not going to continue. Lets agree to disagree.
"For you to say that those 3 players wouldn't have been on the radar of any other big clubs IN 2004 is ridiculous"
Probably its my poor English - not my native language as you already noticed, didnt you? - but I'll try to explain my argument better.
In 2004 Rafael Benitez inherited two players who would interested one or more other top4 teams if made available by Liverpool FC: Hyypia and Gerrad. Players you mentioned would be a huge downgrade on what all our rivals have had already or was going to buy next month. I hope it's clearer now: the players you mentioned were not top4 quality.
This season we have:
Gerrard (any t4 club)Torres (any t4)Reina (any t4)Benayoun (MU)Johnson (any top4 - Chelsea and MU for sure)Mascherano (Arsenal and MU - I'm not sure about Chelsea as they have Essien)Agger (probably Arsenal - but i dont inssist)
Our squad is much more able to compete for honors - which of course underlines Rafa's faults. This team should do much much better. We are underperforming and it is manager's fault - especially defence and set pieces.
Cisse scored his goals in the French league because that was the only league he had played in! Benitez inherited him as a proven scorer from another league and decided to stick him out on the wing more often than not, and the player suffered a terrible injury which ruined him. So yes, I stick by the assertion that in 2004 he was still a player capable of 10+ goals a season, but for whatever reason it did not happen for him and his career derailed. If he had played for a few seasons in the Premiership before joining Liverpool and not seen as his scoring numbers translate (as you point out happened with Benayoun) then I would have used those Prem numbers, but you can only base your assumptions on what has already happened. Clubs now wouldn't look at Cisse expecting him to score 25 goals a season because that was a long time in the past and not following his current trend. Nor would clubs look at Gerrard expecting him to average around 4 goals a season as that is not his current trend.
ReplyDeleteHarry Kewell scored 10+ league goals in 2 of his last 4 seasons before joining Liverpool, and 8 in the other injury interrupted season (27 games) before scoring 7 in his first season at Liverpool. That makes him a proven 10+ scorer right?
Owen was not unavailable to Benitez - he chose not to use him in Champions League games to preserve his registration for potential buyers and keep his price higher. Your argument is like saying if a new manager arrives in the transfer window, with Mascherano wanting to leave but still under contract, that Mascherano is unavailable to him. Doesn't make any sense right? (I know that it is a different transfer window but the same principle applies)
Players you mentioned would be a huge downgrade on what all our rivals have had already or was going to buy next month. I hope it's clearer now: the players you mentioned were not top4 quality.
ReplyDeleteYou're failing to look at this from a perspective of 2004! The players may be better now, but back in 2004 these were top 4 quality players!
For their dayOwen < Torres (Torres is lauded as among the best 3 strikers in the world, but Owen was also regarded as one of the best around)
Gerrard = Gerrard (scores more now, dominated games more before)Dudek < Reina (but Dudek was still a top 4 calibre keeper)Kewell > Benayoun (just because Kewell didn't go on to deliver like he could've/should've doesn't mean he wasn't a more talented player at that point in time)
Hamann > Masch (I honestly believe that Masch is over-rated and Hamann was under-rated, but some may disagree)
Finnan = Johnson (not as much flair or atleticism in the runs, but Finnan delivered a good ball and was very good defensively)Hyppia > Agger(I like Agger (more before the injuries) but Hyppia was with Campbell and Stam among the 3 most dominant centrebacks in the league)
That's just to illustrate the comparison between the players that you listed as Top 4 quality and how they compared with their 04 counterparts. The team is undeniably better now, but I just don't think that it's been as much a massive overhaul as ppl like to make ou,t, and there were pieces available back then just like there are some very good pieces available now...
Our Cisse assesment was wrong. We expected from him more than he could deliver. He was overated.
ReplyDelete"Clubs now wouldn't look at Cisse expecting him to score 25 goals a season because that was a long time in the past and not following his current trend."
It's not because of a 'trend'. Because of his ability.
"Nor would clubs look at Gerrard expecting him to average around 4 goals a season as that is not his current trend."
It's not because of his current trend. Its because of his current ability. He improved under Benitez who discovered Gerrard potential we never expected.
Kewell. It depends how you read 10+. In first post I said more than 10 :) He scored 34 goals in 4 season - hardly more than 10 a season on regular basis. Anyway I'll give you another way to check your staemnt. Lets imagine we didnd sack Houlier in 2004. Lets imagine you find (in 2004) a bet:
Kewell to score more than 10 league goals: 5/6 (For every 6 pounds risked you get 5 extra pounds if you win). Would you put your one month wage on this - knowing his true ability (it's important factor - you know how injury prone he is. You dont know if he gets injured but you know how injury prone he is)? Would you? And when we are at this: would you put the money on Cisse? I don't bet much and never high, but I wouldnt hesitate today if I get such odds on Torres or Gerrard.
Owen. My argument makes sense - for me at least :) . I'll expalin my point later. I have no time at the moment - buy I will reply to the rest of your posts on Sunday. Sorry for delay.
Continued.
ReplyDeleteOwen thing... His value for us was 8mil+Nunez. This much. Maybe 10% more if Parry would negotiate better. This is what inherited Benitez. No more no less. So I admit I exaggerated a bit saying he was useless. But I strongly insist he was much less useful for building a good side than any other player inherited. Which is easily measured by his market value.
Ok. We are in 2004. In which other top4 team would Hamman get in?
In which other top4 would Dudek get in?
In which other top4 would Finnan get in?
Cisse? Kewell (yes in 2003 he would get into MU, but then they bought Ronaldo and wouldnt need Kewell)?
They weren't top4 quality I'm afraid.
(As I stated before: Hyypia and Gererd would get in any top 4 in 2004. But I strongly disaagre that Gerrard 2003/4 = Gerrard 2009. He improved under Rafa massively and discovered abilities nobody expected he has.)
In my opinion you overate all this players but its opinion against opinion. There is another way to estimate resources inherited by Benitez.
2004: Lets imagine we made available on transfer market all our players. How much would we get? Now lets imagine MU/Arsenal/Chelsea did the same: how much would they get? Lets divide our team value by theirs: we'll get the parity inherited by Benitez.
2009: Lets do the same.
I'm genuinely interested in results of such comparision and maybe I will try to do it in my leisure time (it would be interesting subject for this site's host as well, dont you think so?). I suspect Rafa improved the parity significantly spending (net) not much more than Fergie and much less than Chelsea (and much more than Arsenal - tbf). It would be even more fair to add to the net spend wages and sign-on fees. All of them are managers resources allowing him to manage the team, aren't they?
Managers resources: team value in 2004 + net spend + wages.
And then we would be able to judge our manager fairly comparing this resources to our rivals.