5/26/2010 01:09:00 pm

EXCLUSIVE: Rafa Benitez vs. Alex Ferguson - Transfer spending comparison (2004-2010)

How does Rafa Benitez's transfer spending between 2004 and 2010 compare to Alex Ferguson's spending over the same period?

This is the first article of a new 7 part series I'll be running over the next week, the aim of which is to:

1. Compare Liverpool's gross/net transfer spending with:
2. England's top clubs
3. During the reign of Rafa Benitez.

I'll be comparing Liverpool with each of the following:

* Man United
* Arsenal
* Chelsea
* Tottenham Hotspur
* Aston Villa
* Manchester City

The the seventh article of the series will include a side-by-side comparison of *all* 7 clubs together. The source of the transfer figures will be *in all cases* official club accounts.

SERIES GOAL


* To accurately report the gross/net spend of the UK's top clubs since 2004.

* To dispel the myth, exaggeration and misinformation surrounding the transfer spending of the UK's top clubs.

* To finally bring clarity and accuracy to this area so that future debates about transfer spending can be based in fact, not generalisation and biased opinion.

NOTES

* Liverpool and Man United have slightly different accounting years:

Liverpool: 31 July - 31 July
Man United: 30-June - 30 June

* I have omitted transfer activity (both teams) for accounting year 2009-10 as neither clubs' accounts for that year are available until 2011. Consequently, there is no way to be 100% sure about the figures.

* The transfers of both Cristiano Ronaldo and Xabi Alonso took place after their respective clubs' accounting deadlines, which is why they are not included here. I will update the transfer spending table when the 2009-10 accounts are released.

* This series is NOT an attack on Rafa Benitez. The comparisons to be undertaken are regularly requested by visitors to this site.

* These stats have never been compiled before online.

Rafa Benitez vs. Alex FERGUSON: 2004-2010

Photobucket

Jaimie Kanwar


 photo 300x250_zpsa820cc57.gif

SITE UPDATE: COMMENT POLICY
11 August 2014


Reasoned, adult discussion is the name of the game on this site, so please bear in mind the following when posting comments:

* ALL views are welcome, and if someone's football-related opinion doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what constitutes an LFC 'fan', then tough luck.

* Good-natured banter is fine, but posts containing personal insults, belittlement, sniping, deliberate antagonism etc (directed at fellow posters, players, managers, rival fans etc) will be deleted.


* Attack the argument, not the person. Repeat offenders will be banned.

* Posts moaning about 'negativity' will also be deleted. The aim of this site is 'critical realism about LFC', so please expect a critical/analytical approach, and be prepared to have your opinion challenged.

* Txt spk is outlawed. Please write in proper sentences, and avoid using abbreviations like LOL, PMSL etc.

* The site owner welcomes and encourages disagreement, but only if opposing views are presented in line with the guidelines above.


Ultimately, it's simple: be as vehement and passionate as you like, but please remain civil at all times. Thank you.


81 Comments :

Phil said...

No real surprise there. The only thing surprising is that - given the vastly superior squad Ferguson had in 2004, than Rafa did - Man U aren't further away from us in terms of quality...

mike said...

if Alonsos transfer hasn't been added into the figures how did we recoup 45.2 in the 08-09 season

fraggs said...

Might be good to include the number of players transferred in those figures, give us an idea of how much was spent per player

Jaimie Kanwar said...

It's not the 2008-9 season; it's the accounting year, which runs from 31 July to 31 July. Alonso was sold in August 2008, so his sale missed the deadline.  Details of his sale are included in the 'Post Balance Sheet Events' section, which records details of stuff that happened after the accounting deadline passed.

The recouped section of the report includes *everything* that was recouped for that accounting year, incuding payments from past transfers that were staggered/installement based etc.  That is why this method is the only accurate way to calculate net/gross spend: everything to do with the club's transfer spending is included for that particular year.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

If I could obtain accurate numbers I would, but it's difficult.  it would mean having to compile numbers from newspaper articles/fan sites, and I don't think that's reliable enough. Furthermore, it's practically impossible to find accurate dates for when certain players arrived and left, so it's hard to fit them into the correct accounting year.

if you think of any other useful additions/stats you'd like to see in the table, let me know, and I'll update the table with them (if possible).

scousejay said...

another thing to consider is we can go on all day who spent what. The fact of the matter is how much prize money has been won through winning titles cup etc... and I think you will find Fergy is in front. I hate to say that being a Lverpool supporter but I bet you its a fact.

arFeNo said...

FYI.. Just for facts...

Starting 11 for Liv at end of 03-04 season: Dudek, Carra, Hyppia, Riise, Finnan, Gerrard, Hamann, Kewell, Biscan, Heskey, Owen

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/team/squad?teamId=364&season=2003&cat=starts&cc=5901&leagueId=23&league=eng.1&seasontype=1

Man Utd Starting 11: Howard, Rio, Silvestre, Gary, O'shea, Phil Neville, Keane, Scholes, Giggs, Saha, Ruud

Now let the debate begin !!!

arFeNo said...

I would say the starting 11 of Liv squad is pretty much equal to Man Utd in terms of quality.. 

WazN said...

"Tansfer Spending"
Might want to spell that correctly.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Good spot.  Thanks.

Jojo said...

Here's all fergie transfers pre 2004
http://www.red11.org/mufc/alltransfer.htm

<span>

1987
<span>Jul Viv Anderson (FB) Arsenal (£250,000)
Jul Brian McClair (F) Glasgow Celtic (£850,000)
Dec Steve Bruce (D) Norwich City (£825,000)
<span>Jan Peter Barnes (F) Manchester City (£30,000)
Feb Mark Higgins (D) Bury (£10,000)
Aug Terry Gibson (F) Wimbledon (£200,000)
Aug John Sivebaek (FB) St Etienne (£220,000)
Aug Frank Stapleton (F) Ajax Amsterdam
Sep Gary Bailey (G) Contract cancelled
</span></span><span>

<span>
</span>
</span>
</span>
<span><span></span></span>
by manager (LFC)

http://www.lfchistory.net/transfers.asp

Red said...

Good article JK its interesting to look at the 30% more AF net spend and apply it to the league table LFC would have finished with 82 points a comfortable third which does prove that the greater the net spend the better the end result. Taking into consideration the stupid purchases made by both clubs. I wont say managers because i understand that Parry did do the Keane deal (Rafa said he would like him but was not involved in the transfer amount) AF has had as many failings both in cash and numbers terms in signing players as RB has. Still think it might be time for a change though.
You have disappointed me with your article today I thought you would write about David Moores open letter to the Times. Although I have read several articles written by you regarding the debt etc Moores seems to suggest that they have indirectly laden the club with debt which is against the agreements reached when the club was purchased. It is also worth noting from the article that the clubs professional advisors may have been wrong.
On a different matter but related I have just read an article where Price Waterhouse Cooper have valued the club at 400m and RBS are pressing for a deal to be done at £375m this is not in accord with Hicks latest we want 600m. Any thoughts JK

Nick said...

You might also want to use the term 2005-06, rather and 2004-05 twice, which is a confusing typo

Nick said...

You might also want to use 2005-06 rather than 2004-05 twice. (Typo)

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Thanks for your comments, Red.  I'm afraid I have to disagree with the net spend aspect of your argument - I don't see how having a higher net spend = more possibility of winning the league. Gross spend is more important - that is the actual amount of money *paid* for players at one time or another. That's the value of the players who came into the squad at the time.

The net spend argument doesn't wash - you're basically suggesting that Man U are better than us because they managed to recoup more money in sales (!).  How does one have anything to do with the other?!

The 78m United spent in 2006 has far more to do with their triple-title triumph that the money they made back during that period.

Hmmmm said...

please make sure that you net out the amortisations and also reflect the gains/losses on disposals. Also, make sure that they are accounted for in the same way in each club.

Nickname said...

JK, well done mate, this is the kind of article we like to see. Doesn't help the anti-Rafa Brigade though :)

Silage2000 said...

Another point worth looking at is how many players were bought and sold each season.
This will show the different situations ,in terms of squad strength, Rafa and Fergie were in with transfer budgets. In other words Rafa had to buy more players to rebuild LFCs 1sr team squad. While Fergie has been buying players 'worth' big fees (Berbatov, Rooney, Carrick etc)  and working on his youth system (Ronaldo, Anderson, Nani, Rossi, etc).

Rafa's biggest buys have been Torres £22m, Aqualani £20m, Babel £11m, Alonso £10m,
Fergie's biggest buys have been Berbatov £31m, Rooney £27, Carrick £18m, Hargreaves £17.

Fergie's pending power has been huge compared to Rafa's.

Nickname said...

Again we disagree, if we take that season we can see that AFs transfer kitty was about 56.3m compared to RBs 15.6m, even though the gross spend were less than 10m apart. So to bring in as many players as Rafa wanted he had to sell more players leaving his squad potentally weaker. (presuming most managers spend their transfer budget)

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I see you conveniently missed Keane (20m) and Johnson (17m) from your list ;)

Nick said...

Hi,
I left a comment a few moments ago in good faith.
you have an error in your table, citing the 2004-05 season twice, instead of 2004-05 and 2005-06.
I guess it's a typo, but confusing nonetheless.
I pointed this out but you appear to have deleted my comment.
Why?
Nick

Hmmmm said...

before you have a go at me -- explain what the 17.1m is in the attached? You cant argue that it is 12.6m in agents fees? (29.7 - 17.1)...

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Thanks for that.  I saw it and made the correction, then deleted the comment as it has no further relevance to the topic. I left a comment saying thank you, but I deleted it for the same reason.  I'll be deleting your post and mine for the same reasons again in 5 minutes.

Nick said...

But your graphic is still faulty!

redfred said...

also missed out Ferdinand (30m), Nani (18m) & Anderson (18m) 

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Once again, Hmmm, you are attempting to muddy the waters.  The wording is in the future tense: the sales WILL result in profit etc.  The 17.1m is the profit made on the sales of Alonso, Voronin and Dossena *combined*, a figure that will be present in next years accounts.

I don't see what your point is.

redfred said...

and who could forget Veron @ £28m

Alan said...

one big ommission from that united team is a certain Cristiano Ronaldo who played something like 20 games that season....

Jaimie Kanwar said...

No it's not! refresh the page...

Nickname said...

I just refreshed and it still has it

sir bob paisley said...

Jaimie is never wrong!! how dare you!


500 Jaimie!

Max said...

So 2004-2009 in total Sir Alex (Net spent) 31.7mil more than Rafa.

2004-2009 in total Benitez (Gross spent) 61.50mil more than Sir Alex.

At the end of the day, whether Rafa recouped more money than Sir Alex is besides the point. The money Rafa recouped belonged to the club and Rafa spent again anyway. 

Gross = The total amount of money payed out by the club for each and every player. So you buy 10 players @ 10mil each = 100mil. 

Gross minus Recouped = Net
(Can somebody work out the Net spend on Torres?) 8-)  LOL!!!

Jaimie Kanwar said...

You're both right - sorry about that, and thanks for spotting the typo :)

Nickname said...

yeah but if i bought 10 players @ 10 mil each but sold 9 players @ 10 mil each, how much have i spent in real money (ie, how much difference will my bank account have less after all the transfer are done)?? (hint: it isn't 100 mil)

That is why net spend is important

red4life said...

Lets say you buy a player for 10mill. sell him again for 11mill then spend that money. Your gross spent is 21mill but you really only spent 11 mill. Therefor net spent actually shows the true numbers.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

No!  how much you spent originally is what matters because the pleyers bought with that money have the actual impact on the club. 

if you buy 10 players at 10m each, the questions you ask is: what specific, measurable impact did those players have on the team?  Was the original outlay worth it?  Did these players improve the team?

Just because you make money back on them when they fail doesn't make everything okay.  Their failure to make an impact is the problem; the benefit lost by the team due to buying the wrong players is what matters.

The net spend argument is ridiculous, and is used by people in the wrong way.

For example:

Team X spends 300m on players, but recoups 250m over the same period.  You cannot then (credibly) argue that the actual cost of the team was 50m (!)  It's just not true.

What matters is how the 300m worth of players performed when they were at the club.  Were they worth it? Did the club benefit?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

All of the Man U figures you mentioned are media figures.  Those players probably cost less than that in reality.  Same goes for some LFC players.  The media reported that Alonso was sold for 30m,  but the actual amount is 24m.  The media also reported that we paid 10.5m for Alonso and 6m for Garcia, but the club accounts show that we bought Alonso, Garcia and Nunez for a combined total of 13m.

Yogi said...

Jamie doesn't this really suggest a step by step approach in trying to catch Man U, you buy a player who has the ability to boost you up a level, once he's got you there you can buy a better player. In an ideal world (Fergie's) you keep the player as a backup, however Rafa has had to sell. It's risky because one bad season with injuries to your special players and you're liable to finish 7th and they want to leave. Here we can see the strengths and weakness in Rafa Benitez, players are tools to do a job, they do the job get paid and you don't get blinded by a loyalty, even Lucas does the job Rafa wants. However by doing it this way, you'll never build up the close relationships that can sell a player to you like say Petrov to Martin O'Neill.

Nickname said...

But you have to subtract 250m worth of players from your squad to spend 300m meaning you only increase the worth of the squad by 50m. WEhat you suggest by only taking gross into account that you actually increase the value of the squad by 300m

So going back to 06/07 and assuming that both LFC and MANU had a squad value of 200m after the transfer dealings of that year RBs squad is worth 215.6m while AFs squad is worth 256.3m.

Even though RB spent only 10m less than AF that year, RB had to weaken his squad more to do it. That is why AF had more talent to call upon on the bench

But if we relate this to AF vs RB then

Nickname said...

oops. the last line can be deleted :)

Max said...

How ridiculous are your numbers and from what planet are you?

So you Spent 10mil Gross on the player sold him for 11mil Recouped which means your net spend is minus 1mil.

How you got to 21mil Gross spend is beyond logic... :-[

Net spend is a load of balls and you have no idea on how Rafa spent LFC's money do you?.

red4life, can you give me the Net spend on Torres? 

Jaime, I need to send red4life's figure to The Guinness World Book Of Records. I am sure they will want to add it to their collection!!! 

Red said...

Silly article. Man utd are now being run by business the same as us, but if you go back pre-Rafa years, Fergie was smashing transfer records in order to build the squad they had / have, which you surely have to take into account. The more intelligent way of looking at this is to also compare what Rafa's starting position was like versus a Man Utd squad that had already won numerous titles & were reaping the rewards of an effective scouting & youth system.

Nickname said...

I think you miss read, he said "then you spend that money" meaning in total you have only spent 10m but gross 21m

Moneybaby said...

So, since the figures you spend (gross) are the gross the actual impact on the club and, you claim, the most important barometer?

Last year Utd sold Ronaldo (world player of the year at the time) and replaced him with Valencia.

Are you saying an £18 million signing should be an improvement to the team, as it is taken on it's own merit due to the 'gross' infatuation.

Or would you concede (and i know you won't (as you will most likely delete)) that a weakening of the squad took place since their club clearly operated at a profit in that window.

Your adherence to this gross spend philosophy is laughable. Sometime it isn't 'groupthink', sometimes the majority are just right.

Max said...

Ok but explain why Crouch, Bellamy, Risse, Murphy, Keane, Warnock and others were sold and then we sit in a situation were Voronin, Dosenna, Degan, Lucas, Ngog & Insua who are not good enough to wear the red shirt get selected to play games. Your "however Rafa has had to sell" philosophy aint going to work here.

Didnt we have injuries to Stevie & Nando 08/09 too? Is it also their fault because of being injured again 09/10 that we ended up in 7th? Didnt we finish 2nd with those injuries in 08/09?

Come on Yogi, get realistic. Does it also help having one of the best preformers last season leaving the club and being replaced by a INJURED player and a RB that made our defence stable and replace him with Johnson at +- 5 times his price?

Red said...

JK We will have to disagree i think. Net spend is by far the most important figure not gross spend. Net spend shows how much is actually invested in the pursuit of glory. A manager or club will take into consideration a receipt for a player or players before deciding what if anything can be spent.

Gary said...

I looked into this and up to the January 2010 transfer window, Rafa has bought 77 players, however this figure also includes youth players. I have written something about his transfers which I may send to.

Hmmmm said...

another comment didnt make it (tech issues at my end).

Just before the posting above, I had put a posting to point out, as i have done before, that you need to adjust the disposals for the amortisation charges and reflect the gains/losses on disposal. I *believe* that you agreed with this when i posted last time.

In addition, you should make sure that the accounting policies of each company are the same (or not) or even across years.

As for muddying the water - not really. I am trying to make sure that the facts are straight

Kanwar knows nothing said...

The whole of the british media know what H&G have done to this club yet you still try and justify them and use your hatred of Rafa to focus on instead of attacking the real killers of our club, there is a debate on Talksport right now with real journalists, why don't you phone up and debate it with them? 
 
Bet you won't because you'd rather sit on your own little blog and delete peope's comments that you don't agree with. 
 
Your the laughing stock of ALL the Liverpool forums, no wonder sportingo got rid of you!

Jaimie Kanwar said...

1. Accounting policies are the same across the board.

2. Amortisation charges etc are included in the overall disposals figure.  The breakdown of amortisation costs etc is included in the same section.

Hmmmm said...

1. No - incorrect. That is the purpose of Note 1 in any accounts (titled "Accounting Policies")

2. No they are not - we covered this before.

3. Gains on disposal is still key.

I told you before, I have had this reviewed by an exeperienced qualified chartered accountant from a big 4 accounting firm. 

Your call if you want to ignore it.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I can't be bothered to debate this issue with you Hmmmm - you are wrong.  That's all there is too it.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Hmmm - We're going to have to agree to disagree.  You are not going to derail my attempts to bring clarity to this issue.

RedJohn40 said...

You guys are just looking at the situation in different ways to argue different viewpoints.

Those in camp A) prefer to use gross spend to show that Rafa has spent money badly. Of course we would probably all agree that he could have spent some of that money better, but then the same could be said of every manager. These people are simply saying that they think our manager should have got a higher percentage of transfers ‘right’. In an ideal world this would be nice, but since two of the best managers in the world in Fergie and Mourinho have shown similar, if not worse judgement in the transfer market in terms of purchase price compared to impact on the pitch, I believe it is unfair to judge Benitez by such high standards.

Those in camp B) use the net spend argument to say that while Rafa has spent £260m, a far smaller percentage of the talent that money purchased has been available at any one time, because we have had to sell many of them in order to raise the funds to buy other players (if we didn’t HAVE to sell them, why would we? And why have we been so cash-strapped for the last 18 months outside the money raised from sales?).

As someone pointed out, Fergie can often afford to buy a better player AND retain the services of the one he is replacing as backup. Kinda like what would have happened if we could have held on to Bellamy/Crouch as backup for Torres.

Both arguments illustrate valid points. Neither is ‘pointless’ or ‘redundant’, it just depends on how you want to look at things.

My opinion is that Rafa has a reasonable record in the transfer market, and I wouldn’t be able to argue comprehensively that it is far better or worse than the likes or Mourinho or Fergie et.al. Unfortunately, ‘reasonable’ isn’t good enough for our situation, but I see little evidence that others could do much better.

The difference in my mind is that we don’t have the same privileges as some other clubs, yet we are still expected to compete with them on a level playing field (unless we're playing at Wembley!). For that reason I prefer to emphasise net spend as I believe it paints a better picture of how we are disadvantaged.

Yogi said...

Jamie
I'll answer your points one by one
Crouch was sold because he refused to sign a new contract, yes you'll say play 2 up front but Rafa Benite is a 4-2-3-1 man and Crouch isn't in the same class as Torres.
Bellamy was most likely sold due to disciplinary reasons, you can't go round whacking teammates with golf clubs. Shame as I like Bellamy.
Warnock for me wasn't good enough I'd loved him to have made it. The fact remains that Leighton Baines is a better left back. I wouldn't like to rule Insua out just yet, yes he's had a poor season but he showed promise before this year, is it one bad season or his level? Riise was done with us by the time we sold him. While he was once very good the fact remains he'd lost his zest when we sold him.
Murphy, sorry don't you remember the disgusting treatment he got against Southampton in January 2002? Danny was one of those players who wasn't quite up to it at our level and the players who came in where he played, Xabi Alonso and Luis Garcia were better players
Dosenna (Drossena) Degan, Voronin and N'gog were never good enough to play for us. Lucas has improved and you could see from the Europa League he's better as a box to box midfielder. He could if given the freedom to do so prove to be an effective player, will Rafa do so? It's doubtful.
Jamie your slating of my comment that Rafa had to sell to buy the superstars doesn't stand up. To buy these players we had to pay big money, some have worked some didn't but we had to balance the books so you either buy the Torres and Mascherano's of this world or you don't. If you don't you're stuck with the early days of Rafa's reign, when we never looked like title contenders.
The amount of time Torres spent injured last year compared to this year is considerable, he even played while nowhere near fit this season. And while I'm not sure about Gerrard's time out, one thing is for sure in 08/09 Gerrard played Stevie G in 2009/10 he played like Stevie Me. I don't care about England and the World Cup (I'm Welsh) I'm a red, a 4th generation kopite and nobody is bigger than Liverpool. Gerrard needs to realise that as his attitude stunk this season, and not for the 1st time in his career either. As for Alonso and Aberloa both wanted to go and their sales affected us, the latter far more than the former for me as we had a headless chicken so far out of position it killed Carra, it was noticeable how more comfortable we were defensiely without him in the team. That wasn't surprising as we knew Johnson's record, the same could be said of Aqua, if you're injury prone in Italy then God knows you're going to get hurt here. At the end of the day you talk about being realistic. I am Rafa has stuffed up in many areas, he annoyed Alonso and it cost him, in annoying Alonso he probably annoyed Aberloa again we lost. His signings last summer seemed rushed or ill judged. Why didn't we go for Sneijder? Why was Keane bought? Let's say we disagree about that, I still think if your manager wants a player you sign him and Barry was a higher priority for Rafa than Keane. In the end we were lucky to offload for the small loss we did. Personally I'd have rather Rafa had left for Juve as the press are out for blood and he's unlikely to win them round now. But if people think Rafa is the reason we're in this position then we'll never get anywhere. A new manager may paper over the cracks but the real problems will remain.
Yogi
New item from Max on EXCLUSIVE: Rafa Benitez vs. Alex Ferguson - Transfer spending comparison (2004-2009) | Liverpool-Kop
Ok but explain why Crouch, Bellamy, Risse, Murphy, Keane, Warnock and others were sold and then we sit in a situation were Voronin, Dosenna, Degan, Lucas, Ngog & Insua who are not good enough to wear the red shirt get selected to [...]

Brando said...

Nearly all the players sold you listed wanted regular 1st team football and Rafa couldnt guarantee that.

Crouch was behind Torres

Warnock was behind Risse, who was then behind Aurelio, dossena and Insua as backup.

Murphy was behind Sissoko, Alonso, Gerrard and now Masch.

I am sure Rafa would have liked to have held onto some of these players longer, as well as Hyppia, alonso and Arbelloa but in nearly every case the player wanted to move, wanted 1st team football or ( at least in Bellamys case) had to be sold to free up money to buy better.

Yes they would have been pretty good back up but that is all they would have been IF everyone had stayed fit.

longchalk said...

every one knows max weve had to sell so many players - reason mostly due to money(remenber weve not had a lot ) also these players want regular games,so they will not warm the bench you silly fool!
perhaps a few have left and we shud have kept them same for many other clubs, yet u as usuall  you band it all together to mushroom it into a bigger problem.
crouch and bellamy wanted regular footie,rissa was he ever that good think not.
keane never cut it the shirt - look at his efforts since he just flopped, 
if some of the names u mention go - yet we get the likes of toress,riena,agger,etc.. so be it. they are the calibre we need more of.

oh yes and max stop taking people points out of context - when i refer to ferguseon as tactically nieave its obvious im refering to his performance in european champs league.
get it right fella your already a laughing stock on here

Carl said...

Please use paragraphs.  I'm sure you have something useful to say but when presented with a whole block of text, I just skip it.

Paul said...

Hmmm you've always made it obvious you think that way and I can see some validity to thinking that way, but you have take net spend into account as well! IMO net spend is more important. The way you're thinking is e.g. You say Rafa has spent 69mill on 9 strikers. (Owen (-8) + Cisse (-6) + Baros (-6.5) + Voronin 0 (-1.8) +  Kuyt 9 + Bellamy 6 (-7.5) + Crouch 7 (-11) + Keane 19 (-16) + Ngog 1.5 + Morientes 6.3 (-3) + Torres 20 + Jovanovic 0) I say he's spent (net) 9 mill on Torres (26), Kuyt (29), Ngog (21) and Jovanovic (29), in replacement of "Owen"(31) Cisse(29) and Baros (29). In other words, IMO it is irrelevant to see who he has purchased and for how much, what's relevant is the result i.e. he spent a mere 9mill to replace his depreciating (ageing + IMO rubbish) assets with what we have now. What difference does it make that he spent 19 mill on Robbie Keane? He's not in our squad today, so what do I care? What I care is where the 16mill he was sold for is, and why we haven't replaced him with another striker. I'm not saying I don't care he's made a loss on Keane, but you win some you lose some, we lost 3 mill on Keane made 4 mill on Crouch. I'd rather he bought and failed than didn't buy at all, to succeed you have to take chances, spend some money, do what it takes. If you fail, move on to the next until you succeed. Torress wasn't a sure thing, he was a 20mill risk that paid off - no risk no reward.

Paul said...

P.S. I was talking to Jaimie Kanwar not the guy nicknamed Hmmmmm :D

Samsamire said...

Good job again.

Thank you Jaimie for providing the data. We'll have good factual base for our  debates. Keep going.

Red said...

but jk its only your opinion that gross is more important in the view of many the net is far more crucial as it represents the actual investment in the team.

BigJohn said...

When all said and done RB  has wasted a fortune, end of story. I think the fact he sold Arbeloa for penuts and paid 18mill for Glen Johnson sum up how good a manager he is when it comes to the transfer market.

Max said...

How could you have spent gross 21mil? You paid 10mil for the player and that is that. Gross is the total amount paid out by the club. If you paid 10mil Gross and sold the player for 11mil Recouped you cant add 10+11 to make your gross 21mil.

You have paid 10mil which is you gross spend. If you cannot understand that then go to a financial institute in order to have somebody explain that to you.

It is like buying a car for Gross 10mil. If you sell it for Selling price 11mil, how much did you pay for it?

The answer is Gross 10mil.

10mil Gross minus 11mil Sold = 1mil profit.

What both you and red4lidfe are implying is that you are adding the Gross (what you paid) + the recouped (amount the player is sold for) 11mil to give you a gross of 21mil? Neither of you shuold be let near a financial institution. End of.

Max said...

Jaimie

I think you should write an article on a detailed explanation of Gross, Recouped & Net in order to show red4life & Nickname how the clubs money has been spent by Rafa.

Jamie remember to add pictures too, just incase they cant understand your writing either.

RC said...

Arbeloa had only a year left ion his contract and was leaving either way , wanted to leave the season before but Rafa convinced him to stay with a guarantee he would be sold the next season .And we paid less than we sold him for so bought him for even less peanuts,

As for Glen that was his value which Chelsea are willing to pay even if over inflated by about £5m imo , people moan about not getting our No 1 target because we didn't stump up the extra £3m+ and when we do they moan , either way been owed £7m by Pompey played a part as at the time a lot knew the financial difficulties Pompey were in and there was a chance any money owed to other teams could be not paid if they were put into Administration or only part played , so imo that also played a part in the clubs thinking .

Any way i still think we will see the best of Glen next season and Aquilani and there values will be justified easily ..

Imo Rafa has done well in the transfer  window still feel we will also get more money back on Keane and at most we will lose about £3m at the most.And any players we have made a loss on hasn't been drastic imo.
Plus Torres +£50m Reina +£14m  Agger +£5-10m Alonso +£18-£20m Masch +£12-17m ............

guest said...

one thing that hasnt been mentioned is that utd's wage bill is close to twice that of liverpool, this makes a huge difference when comparing comparative spending power. this also applies to chelsea though not arsenal

Mark said...

I see Hicks has promised substantial transfer funds? Maybe all this is smoke and daggers and saying that we have no money will mean prices aren't inflated when we come to buy which means we get great prices and top quality players.

I reckon with this in mind we might have a net transfer fund of £50-60m.

Cant wait for summer.

Oh look...... a flying pig.

Hicks = moron.  

Anfield81 said...

Erm...

I wouldn't say they were equal at all Arfeno, Ferdinand £30m was the then BTR (British Transfer Record), Ruud was a £19m buy, Ronaldo £12m, Keane, Scholes & Giggs were arguably among the best midfielders in the Country.

United's squad had much more depth than our own and was indeed much stronger.

Anfield81 said...

Max, Jaimie has put in time and effort with this assessment so please DO NOT as you always do turn it into a Pro/Anti Benitez slugfest, it's getting very boring!

Why for gods sake does everything have to turn into a Benitez debate? If you've nothing to add to the debate other than using every article to bash Benitez then don't bother commenting, you're only adding fuel to the fire which turns ALL of these articles into a pissing contest.

Anfield81 said...

Max, Jaimie isn't an accountant (not a dig by the way) so what you're asking of him will simply be how he interpretes the data as a unqualified public eye.

You could ask many people on this forum to do the same and they'd probably all arrive at varying conclusions.

What I will say is this, only salesmen are interested in Gross figures, businessmen care only about the bottom line - NET costs/spend/profit.

Max said...

Me turn it into a Benitez debate?

FFS Read the HEADING, what does it say? Am I the only one that is mentioning Rafa's name?

And you are right Jamie does put plenty time and effort into this site, no shit. Yet we still have those who argue when he lays down the facts and try to bend the truth. So please dont come tell me that I am turning these articles into a pissing contest.

Try a better line next time Anfield81. Is that your seat number?

Max said...

Anfield81

If you cannot see that I am being sarcastic about asking Jaimie to explain Gross,Recouped and Net then maybe you shouldnt reply to my comments.

Problem is that we have people that leave comments like red4life and nicname who dont have a clue about Gross, Recouped and Net.

Go look at page 1 to my replies with red4life & nickname. Maybe then you will understand...

RC said...

But saying we will have a substantial transfer budget is saying we have money not we don't ...

Think with the club up for sale and this could take imo 6-12 months  , they need to keep the club competitive and attractive to a new buyer and try and keep us in the top which imo was always there target and winning the league would be great but not imperative.And with  our net spend for July 08 -July 09 at -£6m  from the last accounts and id say July 09-present quite low  and City Spurs and Vila now in the mix for a top 4 finish , they need to invest to protect their investment even if up for sale ......

At a Guess i expect to see £15m-30m put in to the transfer kitty but how much will be spent on Agents fees Increase in wages etc nobody knows ..

Just have to wait and see ...

Brando said...

sorry but isnt that what all the people that say Rafa has spent 300m on players do?

That is they just add up all the players he has ever bought and come up with one huge figure without taking into account that he used the money from selling one player to buy another?

or am i missing something?

sir bob paisley said...

You can keep deleting my posts but i won't go away Jaimie :*

gbgb25 said...

Interesting post, but I'd rather you didn't delete comments that debated the issue, which is acceptable under the conditions of your site. I came back to comment on the inflation aspect and noticed that they are all missing. I felt that it was a fair argument and highlighted that it was not an apples to apples situation.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

No valid comments have been deleted. \The only comments that get deleted are those that contravene the comment policy.

Mind your own business. said...

And the ones which expose your arguments as rhetorical tosh, of course...

ashley said...

Read the post more carefully. He clearly states in the post that you <span>Lets say you buy a player for 10mill. sell him again for 11mill <span>then spend that money"</span><span> So you have 10 + 11 = 21 gross spend when you have only actually spent 10 mill of hard cash from the owners pocket. Surely you can get your head round that. </span></span>

Niall said...

Excellent article, finally bringing some clarity to the matter. It must be said to those who point out that Fergie has spent big more than Rafa (Ferdinand, Berbabtov, Rooney etc.) , this is true but Rafa has spent far more in and around the 10 million mark on extremelly average players who have failed to deliver. I think this is obvious from the figures too.

Post a Comment