How does Rafa Benitez's transfer spending during his entire reign (2004- 2010) compare to Alex Ferguson's spending at Manchester United over the same period?
I recently posted an article focusing on Benitez's transfer spending stats, and predictably (and amusingly) the Pro-Benitez Net Spend Cult triumphantly focused only on net spend as an indicator of his transfer market success. They were overjoyed because the figures showed that Benitez's net spend over 6 years was only £10.5, which meant they could then go around saying things like the following:
"What an amazing manager! No wonder he couldn't compete - he only had £10.5m a year to spend! Benitex was obviously never given enough money to spend at Liverpool"
Such an irritating thought process!
Anyway, this comparison with Ferguson will illustrate once again how the net spend argument is a fallacious and meaningless way to judge transfer spending.
NOTES
1. Liverpool and Man United have slightly different accounting years:
Liverpool: 31 July - 31 July
Man United: 30-June - 30 June
2. Transfer spending is accounted for in club accounts and all accounts between 2004 and 2009 are available.
3. Unfortunately, the accounts for 2009-10 are not yet available for either club. Luckily, Benitez's transfers for that period are recorded in the 'post balance sheet events' section of the 2009 accounts. For Man United's transfers during the same period, I have gone to the next best source: the official United website, which is obviously a trustworthy source.
4. Benitez Transfers: 31/7/2009 to 31/7/2010
* Only transfers where an actual fee was received/paid included.
IN: Albert Aquilani, Sotiris Kyrgiakos, Jonjo Shelvey + Daniel Ayala - £22.6m
OUT: Xabi Alonso, Andrea Dossena, Andrei Voronin + Nikolay Mihaylov - £31.2m
5. Ferguson Transfers: 30/6/2009 to 31/6/2010
* Only transfers where an actual fee was received/paid included.
IN: Antonio Valencia + Gabriel Obertan - £22.6m
OUT: Cristiano Ronaldo, Frazier Campbell + Danny Simpson - £84.2m
6. Roy Hodgson's transfer spending is NOT included in the analysis. All his transfers (invliving actual fees) took place after the 31 July accounting deadline.
7. This particular comparison is regularly requested by visitors to this site. It is NOT an attack on Rafa Benitez (if it's an attack on anyone, it is the Net Spend Cult).
Rafa Benitez vs. Alex FERGUSON: 2004-2010
As you can see, these figures make an absolute mockery of the cretinous net spend argument:
* Over the last 6 years, United have a lower net spend than Liverpool (LFC: £10.5m | United £6.6m)
* According to the standard argument of Net Spend Cult (as repeatedly applied to Benitez), United have only actually spent £40m over 6 years, and £6.6m per year. I never knew a transfer spend of only £6.6m was needed to win three league titles and and the Champions League!
* How can United's success be possible?! Liverpool have a higher net spend, but according to the Net Spend Cult, Benitez was never able to compete/was never given enough money etc. If that's the case, then using that logic, United ALSO never had enough money to spend.
* Irrespective of net spend, United also have a much lower gross spend than Liverpool, which means in real terms, they've spent less on players over the last 6 years.
* Rather miraculously though, despite having a lower gross and net spend than Liverpool, United have been more successful. How can this be possible?! It's a miracle, surely?
Using the net spend argument as an indicator of a Manager's success in the transfer market is complete and utter nonsense, and anyone who uses it to the exclusion of other more valid arguments is - in my view - massively deluded.
Now - just watch the other excuses roll in:
* "But what about Ronaldo! His 80m fee skews the figures". Size of fee is irrelevant. If you take out Alonso's fee from LFC's figures then Benitez's net spend looks even worse.
* "But what about salaries - surely you have to include those"
* "But what about the money United spent before 2004"
* "But Benitez had bad owners to deal with"
and blah blah blah....
It is absolutely WRONG to argue - as the Net Spend Cult does - that Benitez was not given enough money. As this comparison with Ferguson shows, he WAS. Benitez spent much more than Ferguson over 6 years yet United outperformed Liverpool in the league time and time again.
Only someone completely divorced from reality would further argue that Ferguson has spent only £40m in the last 6 years/£6.6m per year, But this is precisely what the net spend cult argue when it comes to Benitez!
I now await the excuses and circular arguments that will inevitably be expounded by members of the Net Spend Cult.
NB. Not everyone who argues in favour of Net Spend is part of the Cult; only those who repeatedly come up with lame arguments/excuses to suggest that Net Spend is the only indicator of transfer market success.
Jaimie Kanwar
I recently posted an article focusing on Benitez's transfer spending stats, and predictably (and amusingly) the Pro-Benitez Net Spend Cult triumphantly focused only on net spend as an indicator of his transfer market success. They were overjoyed because the figures showed that Benitez's net spend over 6 years was only £10.5, which meant they could then go around saying things like the following:
"What an amazing manager! No wonder he couldn't compete - he only had £10.5m a year to spend! Benitex was obviously never given enough money to spend at Liverpool"
Such an irritating thought process!
Anyway, this comparison with Ferguson will illustrate once again how the net spend argument is a fallacious and meaningless way to judge transfer spending.
NOTES
1. Liverpool and Man United have slightly different accounting years:
Liverpool: 31 July - 31 July
Man United: 30-June - 30 June
2. Transfer spending is accounted for in club accounts and all accounts between 2004 and 2009 are available.
3. Unfortunately, the accounts for 2009-10 are not yet available for either club. Luckily, Benitez's transfers for that period are recorded in the 'post balance sheet events' section of the 2009 accounts. For Man United's transfers during the same period, I have gone to the next best source: the official United website, which is obviously a trustworthy source.
4. Benitez Transfers: 31/7/2009 to 31/7/2010
* Only transfers where an actual fee was received/paid included.
IN: Albert Aquilani, Sotiris Kyrgiakos, Jonjo Shelvey + Daniel Ayala - £22.6m
OUT: Xabi Alonso, Andrea Dossena, Andrei Voronin + Nikolay Mihaylov - £31.2m
5. Ferguson Transfers: 30/6/2009 to 31/6/2010
* Only transfers where an actual fee was received/paid included.
IN: Antonio Valencia + Gabriel Obertan - £22.6m
OUT: Cristiano Ronaldo, Frazier Campbell + Danny Simpson - £84.2m
6. Roy Hodgson's transfer spending is NOT included in the analysis. All his transfers (invliving actual fees) took place after the 31 July accounting deadline.
7. This particular comparison is regularly requested by visitors to this site. It is NOT an attack on Rafa Benitez (if it's an attack on anyone, it is the Net Spend Cult).
Rafa Benitez vs. Alex FERGUSON: 2004-2010
As you can see, these figures make an absolute mockery of the cretinous net spend argument:
* Over the last 6 years, United have a lower net spend than Liverpool (LFC: £10.5m | United £6.6m)
* According to the standard argument of Net Spend Cult (as repeatedly applied to Benitez), United have only actually spent £40m over 6 years, and £6.6m per year. I never knew a transfer spend of only £6.6m was needed to win three league titles and and the Champions League!
* How can United's success be possible?! Liverpool have a higher net spend, but according to the Net Spend Cult, Benitez was never able to compete/was never given enough money etc. If that's the case, then using that logic, United ALSO never had enough money to spend.
* Irrespective of net spend, United also have a much lower gross spend than Liverpool, which means in real terms, they've spent less on players over the last 6 years.
* Rather miraculously though, despite having a lower gross and net spend than Liverpool, United have been more successful. How can this be possible?! It's a miracle, surely?
Using the net spend argument as an indicator of a Manager's success in the transfer market is complete and utter nonsense, and anyone who uses it to the exclusion of other more valid arguments is - in my view - massively deluded.
Now - just watch the other excuses roll in:
* "But what about Ronaldo! His 80m fee skews the figures". Size of fee is irrelevant. If you take out Alonso's fee from LFC's figures then Benitez's net spend looks even worse.
* "But what about salaries - surely you have to include those"
* "But what about the money United spent before 2004"
* "But Benitez had bad owners to deal with"
and blah blah blah....
It is absolutely WRONG to argue - as the Net Spend Cult does - that Benitez was not given enough money. As this comparison with Ferguson shows, he WAS. Benitez spent much more than Ferguson over 6 years yet United outperformed Liverpool in the league time and time again.
Only someone completely divorced from reality would further argue that Ferguson has spent only £40m in the last 6 years/£6.6m per year, But this is precisely what the net spend cult argue when it comes to Benitez!
I now await the excuses and circular arguments that will inevitably be expounded by members of the Net Spend Cult.
NB. Not everyone who argues in favour of Net Spend is part of the Cult; only those who repeatedly come up with lame arguments/excuses to suggest that Net Spend is the only indicator of transfer market success.
Jaimie Kanwar
In fact, this will maybe give some indication of a managers relative success in the transfer market - considering a 1.8 ratio of transfer spending, what success is achieved. If this closes the gap (maybe lets base this on EPL points) then a manager has done relatively middle. If less points then poorly, if more poiints then exceeded expectation. Equally, if the points gap is closed with a less than 1.8 ratio, then a manager has exceeded expectation, and vise versa. Interesting!! Nice one Old Timer, I will mull over this for a while.
ReplyDeleteJamie, what is the relevance, in your opinion, of a teams ability to attract certain players? So, maybe a player is desired, but some teams can meet his terms and others not able to meet his terms. THis maybe also effects a managers ability to operate in the transfer market. Although I am not suggesting that LFC were not able to be competitive. I am just mulling over the whole issue of what makes a manager a success in the transfer market. Because my gut instinct is that Rafa was a great strategist in terms of formation etc, and had a plan when operating in the market. But I am also convinced that Liverpools lack of competitiveness over the last while is not just down to the manager. I think they have struggled to compete on many levels. Size of the stadium etc has also bee bandied about. Would be interesting, and make these discussions more useful, to try and think about what LFC need to do going forward
ReplyDeleteHi Jamie,
ReplyDeleteYou present statistics in a way to undermine Benitez. I guess your
facts are true about net spend, but when someone says take
ronaldo(clearly a one-off nonsene price) & alonso out of the equasion
you moan about rewriting the rules. When someone says Fergie had a
much better squad to build on 6yrs ago, you ignore that and stick to
your tantra of net spending blahblah. The problem with you is that you
try to look like the neutral guy with all the facts at your hand, but
it's clear that you have an agenda against Benitez and you grab every
chance that he wasn't good enough. That's your own opinion you are
entitled to it, but if you ask me you just ridicule yourself by trying
to look so clever and neutral etc. I read your posts quite often, but
I don't remember you writing too much positive facts about Rafa, even
though there are shitloads of stuff. The harder you try hiding behind
'your facts', the more biased you look like and you're loosing your
own credibility. I suggest you get off the anti-Rafa bandwagon because
you're going to loose most of your followers. Why do you hace to slate
Rafa all the time, when you could have plenty of option to do that
with Hodgson. Probably because everyone does that and you want to be
different? That will not make you authentic, you know that?
Hi Jamie,
ReplyDeleteYou present statistics in a way to undermine Benitez. I guess your
facts are true about net spend, but when someone says take
ronaldo(clearly a one-off nonsene price) & alonso out of the equasion
you moan about rewriting the rules. When someone says Fergie had a
much better squad to build on 6yrs ago, you ignore that and stick to
your tantra of net spending blahblah. The problem with you is that you
try to look like the neutral guy with all the facts at your hand, but
it's clear that you have an agenda against Benitez and you grab every
chance that he wasn't good enough. That's your own opinion you are
entitled to it, but if you ask me you just ridicule yourself by trying
to look so clever and neutral etc. I read your posts quite often, but
I don't remember you writing too much positive facts about Rafa, even
though there are shitloads of stuff. The harder you try hiding behind
'your facts', the more biased you look like and you're loosing your
own credibility. I suggest you get off the anti-Rafa bandwagon because
you're going to loose most of your followers. Why do you hace to slate
Rafa all the time, when you could have plenty of option to do that
with Hodgson. Probably because everyone does that and you want to be
different? That will not make you authentic, you know that?
BTW
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Jamie Kanwar and The Roy Hodgson Brigade use the same ISP address!
This is just getting embarrasing....having visited this site over the past few weeks and read the articles written by Jaimie, I'm finding there is nothing of substance offered other than wave after wave of anti Benitez critisism and arguing technicalities of somantics. I'm guessing (maybe wrongly) that this is designed solely to create traffic.
ReplyDeleteAnother angle on Alonso situation, can Jaimie possibly remove the blinkers for a moment? Weeks before he left
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/5578084/Xabi-Alonso-warns-that-tax-will-drive-top-players-away.html
Most important quote
"Of course we footballers think about it; we are not stupid, we keep an eye on it," Alonso said. "When you see your contract down by 30 per cent you cannot be happy. I cannot do anything – it must be Gordon Brown or David Cameron
Is it possible that part of his motivation was simply to earn more money? And that it's very convenient to totally blame Rafa
Rafa did "discover" him and give him the platform to showcase his talents, is there any credit due at all?
And almost triples his money on him
Not always black and white Jaimie
As usual, converstaion ends when the contributor shows some intelligence and accounting knowledge
ReplyDeleteCome on Jamie...
ReplyDeleteYou know the Ronaldo sale distorts the figures big time. Had Rafa sold Torres to City for £70M (yes they would pay that if they thought they could get him) then Liverpools net spend would be minus.
You are comparing Apples with Oranges to make your point, which i dont think is fair,
1. Rafa never had a lump sum of £200M to invest
2 Rafa had to sell to buy - YOU CANT IGNORE THIS FACT
3. The difference in quality of the 2 squads from the point of Rafa starting, meant that if Rafa had 20 million to invest, he would need to spread that across the recruitment of 4 or 5 players, Fergie would only need to spend that on 1 world class player - Again this makes a MASSIVE difference and you must know that??
Be fair mate
Jamie
ReplyDeleteYou are comparing apples with oranges and you know it.
1. The Ronaldo figures affect the net spend figures big time. Had Rafa sold Torres to City for £60M (he had the chance) then his net spend would be minus
2. Rafa never had a £200M lump sum- he had to sell to buy and you know this makes a big difference
3. The difference in quality of the 2 squads, from the point that Rafa started meant that if Rafa had £20M to invest, he would need to spread that across 4 or 5 and players, whereas Fergie could buy 1 player for the same cash
Because everything is so black and white to you, Im sure you think your figures prove that you are right and everybody else is wrong, but to be fair you have to take into consideration other factors that are important to the overall debate
<span><span>Am curious as to your mental age?
ReplyDelete</span></span>
<span></span>
Its a bit dishonest to make a straight comparison with Man U given the core of their current squad were in place in 2004 - Rio Ferdinand cost 30m pre 2004 and Christiano Ronaldo was also there but subsequently sold for 80m. There's a straight 110m swing in your numbers that could be classed as abnormal items. Any other comparison has to recognise that Rafa's Gross spend will be quite high as Rafa rebuilt the side from scratch with only 2 players he inherited still playing first team football.
ReplyDeleteThe real comparison has to be net spend per player but also the number of players brought in. There was a bigger need for rebuilding at Liverpool and much of Utds current squadwere bought pre 2004. $10m net spend per annum hardly looks like rebuilding as that wouldn't buy you much. The bigger issue is that the net spend in the last 2 seasons was negative for Rafa but averaged 20m per year for Fergie excluding Ronaldo. Liverpool dont have the luxury of selling Torres with a Rooney in the wings. Why? Net spend on players and freedom to choose who to spend the limited cash in the end. He was pressured to make rash decisions with limited cash and gambled at times as a result. Keane a prime example.
Were Liverpool and Man Utd on an equal footing in 2004?
ReplyDeleteI think not, United had almost 20 years of stability nd Liverpool had been teetering from one false prophet to the next, post Kenny, so therefore it is difficult to give any real credence to the conclusions of this painstaking analysis
Even with Man Utd's so called golden generation (seemingly a once off bumper crop from their academy) in situ they had still spent VAST sums of money in the years previous to 2004
Man Utd were light years ahead of us so this comparison is poppycock
Yup Jaimie, RB should spend lesser than SAF between 2004 - 2010, forget about Alonso, Luis Garcia<span> and</span> Crouch, because we can win Champions League and FA cup without them, forget about Torres or Mascherano, because we can qualified for Europe without them, probably win the league if not for all those big money spending by RB...Because we have great players like TRAORE, DIOUF, DIAO, CHEYROU, KEWELL, BISCAN, BAROS...we should keep them in the team, it was all RAFA mistake, is that what you want to hear????
ReplyDeleteJudging from the many posts you written, i know you dont rate Rafa Benitez. Look at this article, if you agree it's make sense to compare Ferguson/Rafa this way after reading comments from the others, i have nothing to say.
ReplyDelete<span>The following FACTS remain...
ReplyDelete1. Rafa wasted money over a six year span and when he left he never improved on the squad he took over.</span>
<span>
Every single top flight manager has 'wasted' money in the last 6 years. But the squad thing is highly debatable. Taking into account the aging process & form, only four players from the 2003-04 squad I'd even consider having in our current squad, 2 are still here, Gerrard & Carragher, I'd have Sami Hyppia here as back up, but I understand his reasons for leaving and John Arne-Riise, but only because I don't rate Koncheskey and Aurelio is Mr Glass.</span>
<span>2. Rafa is not hear anymore. <img></img> </span>
<span>Didn't know he'd gone deaf.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>3. Now Roy is the battering ram for those who cannot fault Rafa. </span>
<span>
I found faults with Rafa, I've said as much in previous posts. You seem keen enough to 'over-expose' Rafa's faults, aren't people who find Roy much inferior entitled to do the same?
</span>
<span>4. Rafa WON nothing in his last 4 years. </span>
Liverpool are only 1 of 4 clubs currently in the Premiership who have won anything in the last 5 years, including the much heralded Wenger.
<span>
5. Most of Rafa's followers have stated that he overachieved but then also call him a tactical genius? <img></img> </span>
Isn't over-achieving the result of his tactical prowess?
<span>
6. He made an ass out of himself in the media and tried to make an ass out of Sir Alex but got served his own tripe on a plate at the end of 08-09.
</span>
And yet he used media stats & facts to attack Mr Ferguson (no one that duplicitous deserves the 'title' and I use that on a few personalities who aren't fit to wear their honour), it was called a rant, which by definition is described as a violent outburst, when he was calm, rational and talking about facts. I wasn't surprised by the xenophobic reaction in the press whatsoever, though I was surprised by a Man United fan who said, he got that spot on, but he'll be destroyed in the media for it.
<span>
You know what 6 are enough, my fingers are getting tired typing about Rafa.
The only thing I need to know is that he is GONE and will NEVER return. <img></img>
<span>
</span></span>
When are we comparing Fergurson's first 6 years vs. Rafa's first 6 years, trophy & points wise?
ReplyDeleteOut of the big 4 transfers you listed and without the benefit of hindsight, only 1 of those concerned me slightly on purchase and that was Aquilani, who is currently pulling up trees in Italy again and if a fool wouldn't say keeping him & not signing Poulsen wouldn't have been a better option.
ReplyDeleteMind you hindsight is 20/20.
Out of the next six you list, Dossena had broken into the national side & had been voted into the Scudetta team of the season just before we signed him , Riera was a gamble in my eyes as well, one that failed to pay off, Lucas was a winner of the Golden Ball in South America and was a storming player for Gremio, Pennant I've never rated, but he fooled that genius Wenger once as well, Kromkamp seemed like a stop gap sining from day one, and so it proved & Morientes was a class act, who unfortunately didn't adapt in this country.
Mind you, hindsight is 20/20 isn't it.
Again, gross on it's own,out of context is pointless. Like I've said before 1 pope in 265 has been a woman, inferring that women can become popes. Means nothing when not in context though, does it.
ReplyDeleteYou're only interested in Benitez's performance as manager. So how DO you rate the manager with our 3rd best win ratio in modern football (since 1900)?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't make you right either and I am willing to be proved wrong, as I think anyone who believes themselves 100% right are 'dangerous', but nothing you've said so far has dissuaded me yet, mainly because each time, you take individual areas out of context and I've examined the figures, the position the club was in, other clubs, earning potential and come to the conclusion, which if proved wrong, I may be willing to change, that Benitez is a great manager, despite his flaws.
ReplyDelete* Over the last 6 years, United have a lower net spend than Liverpool (LFC: £10.5m | United £6.6m)
ReplyDelete* According to the standard argument of Net Spend Cult (as repeatedly applied to Benitez), United have only actually spent £40m over 6 years, and £6.6m per year. I never knew a transfer spend of only £6.6m was needed to win three league titles and and the Champions League!
Jaime, judging from your quotes and United with a more established squad, this article really make no sense. It's like comparing a married couple with a house of 17 yrs with a newly wed couple buying a resale house with not enough $$ to renovate into what they want and have to do it in a course of 6 yrs.
* According to the standard argument of Net Spend Cult (as repeatedly applied to Benitez), United have only actually spent £40m over 6 years, and £6.6m per year. I never knew a transfer spend of only £6.6m was needed to win three league titles and and the Champions League!
ReplyDelete* How can United's success be possible?! Liverpool have a higher net spend, but according to the Net Spend Cult, Benitez was never able to compete/was never given enough money etc. If that's the case, then using that logic, United ALSO never had enough money to spend.
* Irrespective of net spend, United also have a much lower gross spend than Liverpool, which means in real terms, they've spent less on players over the last 6 years.
* Rather miraculously though, despite having a lower gross and net spend than Liverpool, United have been more successful. How can this be possible?! It's a miracle, surely?
I know you are proving a point that Rafa Benitez spent more, but when u considered Ferguson already have an establish squad and with your quotes above, to me imo you are just trying to have a dig at Benitez or his supporters with an unbelievable comparison, even a neutral could say it doesnt make sense and suspect you had an agenda against Benitez.
Then don't visit this site then! Stop complaining and just visit a different site. In fact, I'll make it easy for you: You're banned. I'm sick of posters like you who bitch and moan about the articles on this site. If you don't like it, leave.
ReplyDeleteSimon - should I just stay online 24/7 and wait by the keyboard to answer every single comment? I cnanot respond to every comment. Some people make the same arguments, so if 5 people make the same point, I'lll respond to one post, not 5. The comment thread is not just about me; other people can respond too.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that post is irrelevant to the argument being made, which is: using net spend as an indicator of a manager's success in the transfer market is nonsense.
If you post any further snide comments like this in future I'll just delete them.
No - Tevez was on loan. His loan period ended when he left United. The transfer fee paid by City went to MSI, not United.
ReplyDeleteAlonso is stating something that is self evident here. Does he specifically state that he wanted to leave for tax reasons? In his earlier comment, he specifically states that Benitez's actions meant it was 'time for a change'.
ReplyDeleteYou are trying to force his comment to have the meaning you want it to; the comment I've used speaks for itself and requires no forcing or manipulation.
Alonso also said this:
<span>"For me it is important to have players in a team who complement one another," he added. Sometimes the 11 best do not make the best 11. You have to have players with different qualities"</span>
Using your logic:
Is it possible that part of his motivation was simply to play in a team where the player compliment each other?
Great - let's use that as the reason he left now.
Steve - Why don't you lear to read properly?
ReplyDeleteMy comment says: Response of Benitez fans who refuse to enter into civilised debate<span>
</span>
That is not ALL Benitez fans; it is quite clearly a subset i.e. fans WHO REFUSE TO ENTER CIVILISED DEBATE.
Yes - members of the Net Spend Cult *are* idiots, and I make no apology for that criticism. Members of any cult are idiots.
ReplyDeleteHey aw - I agree with you re 2008-9; good starting 11 but poor squad depth, as evidenced by the following season. I agree with you that United just maintaining, but I disagree about Liverpool having to rebuild. When benitez took over, there were lots of good players in the squad. It's a myth (IMO) that he was left a poor squad. The following were available to him:
ReplyDeleteHyypia, Henchoz, Dudek, Carragher, Gerrard, Hamann, Finnan, Riise, Baros, Cisse, Kewell, Warnock, Baros, Smicer etc
Yes, there were some duff players too (Diao, Biscan, Traore etc) but to argue that the above group of players needed rebuilding is just not true.
Look who Benitez added in his first year:
Josemi
Nunez
Garcia
Alonso
Pellegrino
Morientes
Only two of those 6 players were successful; the strength of Houllier's squad propelled LFC to CL. Benitez takes credit too, but a team that needs rebuilding does not win the CL.
That's right - just kep the baseless excuses coming.
ReplyDeleteYou see - you're making the mistake of thinking that I'm trying to change your mind. I'm not. I just state my views. People will make up their own minds, which is the way it should be.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you and every other Benitez supporter competely misinterprets the article. You're so obsessed with defending your deity that you cannot see the wood for the trees.
ReplyDeleteThe point is to illustrate how using net spend as an indicator of transfer market success is nonsense. This is why - in the article - I said it would be silly to suggest that Ferguson has only spend 6.6m a year since 2004.
That's the point: if we use the argument of Benitez's supporters on Ferguson then it all falls apart. 'Ferguson only had 6.6m a year to spend! That's not enough to compete! Ferguson was never given any money to spend!'
The insanity of the net spend argument in a nutshell.
This article is pointless because we have had this discussion a million times! WE ARE NEVER GOING TO AGREE! Some people believe in Net spend, some people believe in Gross spend, some believe in both and some are just happy they can read. Can we just let it go?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you look at the average Net spend of SAF over his whole career at UTD (taking inflation into account) and then we can see how much it costs to take a rubbish team to the top of the prem. I would be the first to admit that SAF has done well over the last 6 years with a very low net spend but we have to remember that UTD started from a different position than LFS 6 years ago.
Of course we can not massage the figures by removing the Ronaldo transfer this would be just plain stupid and unfair.
NET spend just shows how little actually money was put into Liverpool on a yearly basis. City's owner has just gone past the 500m mark investment in the club and that took them to where we were 2 years ago. To succeed in this league you need money (NET spend) and that is something we never had under H+G
Hi, ive been reading these articles for ages. I personally think that ths article proves nothing at all. Its obvious to everyone that Fergie had a much better squad in place. To catch up with Utd it wouldve taken a lot more money. However, to Benitez's credit he managed to almost win the title 2 seasons ago. The thing ive understood from it all is that unfortunately there are ppl that just didnt like Benitez. Jamie from your arguements/articles posted, u seem to be rather then provide information, u seem to bring anti Rafa stuff altogether. Now u too have to understand Rafa will ALWAYS be held in high esteem by fans who recognise that he did well with what he had. Not disputing the fact that he made mistakes, because who doesnt. For this site to be a good read, Jamie u need to get over the Benitez issue. Pls m8. Its bad enough he tried his best, he did well, okay he lost his way and we've got a new manager. But pls DONT continually analyse him and discredit it him. He was OUR manager. WE should back him. He has ALWAYS backed up and stood up for Liverpool.
ReplyDeleteI so much agree with Jaimie, RB should have managed the funds properly. How could you dismantle the team that won the champions league with the excuse that you are building? Part of being a good manager is to look at the prevailing situation and manage around such...thats why we call them managers. All he could have done was to make two or three good additions to the squad he inherited and after six years we could be having a very powerful squad. He inherited a champions league winning team and he left a relegation team. FACTS.
ReplyDeleteYou're missing my point which is that Ferguson had the benefit of Tevez's services for two seasons included in your analysis, without that player's value manifesting itself anywhere in the numbers you use to draw your conclusion. I'd also recommend that you read all of the accounts from which you derive your information. Had you done so you'd have noticed that both clubs' 2004-2005 accounts begin on 1 August 2004 - it appears that United changed their accounting reference date somewhere in the period - so your analysis on United runs for 71 months while that for Liverpool runs for 72 months which means that it is not a like for like comparative.
ReplyDeleteIt also shows that just using gross is just as ridiculous, without putting it in context.
ReplyDeleteWhere's the £25.6m fee in 2004-5 for Rooney in your figures?
ReplyDelete<span>Rafa picks up a squad which is not quite the same level than United, that’s why prior to his arrival, Liverpool never really have much success against United, & plenty of times, when facing Man U during old times, the Red Devils has Liverpool defending desperately starting from the first whistle. However, Rafa did ensemble a team, & build a better foundation to compete with very little funding. Guys like Morientes, Torres, Masch, Alonso, Reina, & even Garcia, are pretty good. Although his latest Italian import was never used for whatever reason, that guy is probably better than all new purchase additions combined from Roy Hodgson. Rafa isn't perfect, he didn’t always makes the best choice, but this is not a buffet, he can’t takes whoever, he likes, he is not the only bidder, & there are calculative risk, you have to analyse when you are under fund, & somehow, you win some & lose some, its pretty normal. The Net spend is like comparing Apples and Oranges, the amount is not significant.<span> </span>Face it, Rafa's squad has proven to be able to beat United, & Chelsea, & retake Europe by storm, & able to compete in PL, those are the facts, & its not a one time fluke, he has done it pretty much throughout his tenure, & only under his last season, where many players are injured, Liverpool drops out of the top 4. His tactics are not always good, & sometimes alienated players, due to his ever-changing rotation policy, but under full strength, Gerrard & Torres link up is a masterpiece, & Masch & Alonso turns Liverpool into a much effective team. Also RB clearly made players better, guys like Gerrard, Alonso, are prime examples, & he was able to turn Masch from a prospective midfielder to a world class player, & even Maradona gives him the armband for his national side. Oh, Benayou was another good example, he has improved so much under Benitez, no wonder Chelsea wants him. Under Rafa's management, Liverpool turns into a more attractive team to watch, than his predecessor, who have to rely on less creative tactics. As we all witness under Rafa's guidance, he makes the team more organized in movements, rather than the Quarterback Widereceiver aerial approach. When Liverpool won the CL, under a previous acquired squad, which seems no match against AC Milan, he was able to orchestrate a comeback from an impossible 3 nil down, against a team that can turn the Reds inside out, by daring enough to take out more from the already fragile defense, in return for a more creative attacking side. I highly doubt other managers will have guts for this, they may well just continue throwing long balls to the front to hope for touchdowns, & play further back, hoping the opponents will not make the score 10 nil, in order to save face. Rafa goes all out, against an opponent who clearly dominates in every position, including the clock, & he manages to steal the trophy too. Lets take a look at Roy, who was adored by the PL community, which includes Fergie, he was a brilliant backwards coach, which allows him to turn Liverpool from a team to be fear from, to a team that can be humiliated by lower league, & he rewrites the new page of attacking approach by letting the opponents to do whatever they like, & asks his team to sit back & enjoy the humiliating experience, teams including Northampton, & Blackpool have enjoyed swinging at Liverpool. As you can see, despite only a few games managed under this guy, this Brit is awesome, he brought in players who don't chase the ball, or don’t want to touch the ball.<span> </span>So, [...]
ReplyDeleteJaimie am I right in remembering that you said you were legally trained a while back? I am legally trained and I say this because your reasoning and style remind me of a court room battle between two sides arguing the facts.
ReplyDeleteAnyway back to what I was going to say, you are 100% correct if we take the figures in isolation. In fact there is no argument to be had if you just take the figures of RB an AF at the exact same point and check the average spend. Nobody here can argue that taking the figures in isolation means you cannot correlate net spend to success. However, is that not a flaw to the conclusion as there are some basic assumptions of overall squad value and quality from the point the figures are assessed?
Clearly as you agree as well as the general consensus that the two squads were vastly lacking in quality, there is also then the missing facts of the boardroom and political struggles that prevented harmony at LFC. All the factors in isolation do not make a reason for failure or lack of progress but put together and viewed as a whole and I believe that they great a mitigation against overall achievement.
The point of spending Jaimie, again no arguments that RB was provided actual hardcore money to purchase the likes of Torres and Mascherano et al, again though it was based on a a plan and that is why gross and net I think play a part in judging how much actual backing the owners of a club are giving. Your article shows that LFC owners clearly could not or would not give the type of financial backing required and neither could the Glazers. The ambition of spending was based upon recouping money. I also believe it is futile to say AF only looks good because of Ronaldo sale. The fact here is he bought him for £12m nurtured him and sold him on for a profit and that is hats off to him just like RB has done with some signings e.g. Alonso and AW at Arsenal.
RB did as well as the circumstances allowed and Jaimie if you have the time and resources what I would like to view is spending against the likes of Spurs and Sunderland and Aston Villa over the same period. There is no point in looking at Man City just yet I think.
By the way I am enjoying the debate
If it's a myth that he was left with lots of poor players explain this: why were so many of Houillier's buys subsequently unseelable. there were many players who had to be sent on loan before we could finally get them off our books because no one seemed to want to buy them. I'm thinking of Le Tallec, Sinama-Pongolle, Diao, Cheyrou, Diouf. I might add that none of these players has achieved anything since.
ReplyDeleteI dont know the answer but you would need to get Sir Alex Ferguson's average annual net spend over the whole period that he has been manager of ManU.
ReplyDeleteAdjust for inflation a little then a real comparison could be gained.
Any chance?
I said it before -your work is agenda based......if you look at the swiss ramble as an example of how to do a good piece on footie financals- start with info-end with conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you wouldnt like this post and will just delete it.
A sugestion-cut back on the quatity of your work and up the 'kwality'
"they didn't fight public battles continuously to the detriment of the club's name; or alienate countless players; or waste tens of millions of pounds on dross; or blame everyone else for their mistakes; or refuse to accept responsibility for their actions; or endlessly engage in public politicking; or infuse a victim complex into the club."I think you could almost apply this word for word to both Alex Ferguson and Mourinio. And they'e not too bad.I think you do have a problem with people lauding Benitez. I think you are the one who should accept that most of us like him and what he did and will accept his faults and don't want to constantly engage in this critique of him, which as I've pointed out time and again is quite unsighted when you consider he's been our best manager for 20 years. What's the point? Are we saying someone else would have done better given his gross spend? Is that the ultimate point. I get lost in the point of it all. If so are are suggestying MoN would have done better tan Beitez in the 6 years? Please what is the ultimate point?
ReplyDeleteRead the post properly - united's accounting year runs from 30 June to 30 June. Rooney was paid for before 30 June 2004, thus his figures are included in the accounts for 2003-4.
ReplyDelete<span><span>
ReplyDeleteJaimie, you really are a special kind of fool. As many other people have pointed out, there's absolutely no basis for excluding transfers from before 2004. As someone who seems to take pride in thorough statistical analysis, it's a schoolboy flaw in your argument to which none of your responses carry any weight. Our most expensive centre-back of all time cost £6m (Skrtel). United's cost £28m (Ferdinand). Why on earth wouldn't you include the headstart that a manager has in having already established, at great expense, a title winning squad?
Secondly, one of the golden rules of data analysis is that you exclude outliers that can skew the final result i.e. the sale of Ronaldo.
Lastly, I think it may be mentioned elsewhere on this thinly disguised Man United vehicle, that transfer transactions are not a particularly reliable indicator of where a club should be in the league - but expenditure on salaries is. Read up on Stefan Szymanski, a renowned world expert in football economics and professor of economics at Cass Business School, and you'll see an almost direct correlation between league position and a club's wage bill. Where do Liverpool sit on size of wage bill? 5th. Benitez overachieved.
</span></span>
If I buy a plot of land right next door to a mansion, I spend thousands of pounds just for the underground services, footings, and ground floor to be constructed whilst the mansion next door has only spent a couple of hundred pounds replacing curtains etc. Does this mean my house should be better than next door because I have spent more money in the last twelve months? Rafa was trying to build from the very bottom whilst Fergie's was already built!!
ReplyDeleteHi Jamie
ReplyDeleteI think the only way you can judge Rafa's transfer spending is to compare the squad he inherited to the squad he left us with, only then will you be able to judge if he has spent well and got value for money ........
If I buy a plot of land right next door to a mansion and over the course of the next year spend thousands of pounds for underground services, footings, and ground floor to be constructed whilst the house next door only spent a couple of hundred replacing curtains etc. Should mine be the better house because I have spent the most money in the last year? Rafa was building, Fergies is already built!!
ReplyDelete<p><span><span>Actually I find that the whole argument is pointless.</span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span>Let me quote you an example…..</span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>You own a 20 years old sports car.</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>You need to spend lots of $$ to repair and upkeep the car.</span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>Your neighbour owns a brand new sports car.</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>He only needs to spend on routine maintenance, eg oil / filter change etc.</span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>Does that mean your neighbour is better because he has less running cost??</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Or you are stupid because you spend so must just to keep the car running and you are useless because you lost in a race with your neighbour?? </span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>So it is pointless to argue about any more. Your article only shows that RB got very little to spend during his time and it shows that what a lying S.O.A.B that Tom Hicks is. (he claims that 300m was spent on players, 150m net)</span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>I think a better comparison will be pool vs chelsea</span></span>
</p>
Jamie - you are never going to get the Pro Rafa lobby to agree he had a poor track record in the transfer market. If you want facts then just look at the squad he left you with, and that is despite buying and selling half a dozen or more players each season.
ReplyDeleteHis transfer dealings were the reason Liverpool went downhill after he won the CL with Houlliers team.
He should only have been replacing players with better players each season, not just buying and selling in the hope it would all work itself out.
You will see, under a decent manager you will perform better in the transfer market but it will take a few more years before you end the trophy drought caused by Rafa (was it five years without a trophy when he left? Compare that to Houllier's reign)
Jamimie, Does it really matter who spend more? You have to realised Man utd only need to spend less because they already have a good squad whereas Benitez had to start from scratch. Imagine if Alex was in Rafa shoes, he would demand more than that. So your comparison is invalid to me and only wanted to blame on Rafa. Give it a break Jaimie, we all know how much you hate Rafa. I never see you make any comment on the current manager. FACT!!! the current manager is sh-t and need to be replace very soon or else we will be fighting for relegation and then come next year, no good players will want to sign for Liverpool. You should address more on the current situation such as should we trust roy with January transfer fund? I know i wouldnt because he would buy all the British sh_t plyers such as luke young, Carlton cole...etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to know and hopefully Jamie could provide this information is what in what relation did rafa have to spend in regards to the clubs income?
ReplyDeleteFor example if rafa was only given 10% to spend on players from the clubs income then you have an argument that rafa was right and he was not given enough money, however if he was given a large % from the clubs income to spend on players then what more do you want?
My own opinion is that rafa wasted a large majority of the money he was given.
Its been reported (again I hope Jamie can give the correct figures here) that he signed approx 96 players in his 6 years in charge.
That is a hell of a turn of players over considering that most of these players are no longer at the club.
Also are you honestly telling me that we didn't have any youth players who were not as good as Lucas, Deggen, etc etc
For me Rafa did a lot of good at the club however he also did a lot of damage, left the club with no second striker, no natural wingers, no left backs of any quality and a weak squad.
Can I just ask why the manager of Inter Milan's spending is being compared with the manager of Manchester Utd?
ReplyDeleteBenitez is no longer here - both those for and against him just need to let go. Move on and deal with the now because what difference does it actually make endlessley debating him and what he spent/didn't spend?
The author of the article really seems to dislike him - and that's up to him but why constantly write articles about a guy who is at another club?
I look forward to the articles about Roy Evans spending against Ferguson to show how badly Evans managed Liverpool, because that'll make a big difference to Roy Hodgson's Liverpool...
I've never subscribed to the 'net spend' as a conclusive argument
ReplyDeleteJamie, I don't know why you continue to harp about Benitez?!? He is gone now, you got your wish... so let it rest mate!
ReplyDeleteNow we have Roy, enjoy the ride. Do you think that he will do better than Benitez?
I hope so for Liverpool's sake, for I support liverpool not the Liverpool manager.
But if you think the change was made for the better, you will be deluding yourself mate.
When Purslow sacked Benitez and appointed Roy, it was a big mistake.
In life, you change something for something better... not for worse. Otherwise you have to face the consequences... and that's what we will do if Roy stays till the end of the season.
As a Liverpool fan it pains me to have to pay some respect to what Fergie has achieved in some 24 years at Utd in buildng several different teams. However some FACTs as I see them, which I don't see are in disagreement from reviewing <some> of the above comments:
ReplyDelete1) Fergie had a far better squad in 2004 than Rafa inherited
2) Fergie spent more than Kenny Dalglish in Fergie's first 5 seasons (and won nothing, or very little (give me a break I'm on my lunch but pretty sure this is accurate).
3) The above does not determine who the better manager of the 3 is but does I think at least indicate the benefit of having an established/decent team to begin work with and bar some exceptional initial capital investment (chelsea, city) how difficult it is to bridge the gap - 6-10m net/gross spend whatever the difference is probably isn't going to cut it
Not a fact, but my view is that Rafa did do a fair bit of 'trial by error' for problem positions, but this was partly a function of being given 'limited' (oh no here we go!) transfer funds year on year with which to play catch up on Fergie. By this I mean that when you need a right winger before the start of the season to complete your squad and of comparable quality to ronaldo of utd, its probably a fairly safe assumption that Benitez's first choice wasn't Jermaine Pennant. However Pennant was a function of having £7m to spend on a winger (contrast this to city who have £30m to spend on a winger that can't even get onto the pitch). As such, Benitez had to make do with the money he was given (whether more or less than utd it was probably still never enough to bridge the gap imo) and made a pretty good go of it until the owners decided to make a profit in the last two transfer windows to help service £30m of annual interest payments and he decided to leave for Inter. Having said that we ran Utd close for the title and still have some top quality players in the squad. I'm optimistic that despite a slightly less talented manager in Hodgson (no disrespect to Hodgson I just really rate Benitez) we'll be there again soon through a combination of LFC improving on the pitch (and increasing its commercial/ own TV rights income off the pitch) and Utd coming back down to Earth under the weight of the circa £80m annual interest payments. YNWA
</some>
The change *was* made for the better - you're just thinking too short-term. The long term success and prosperity of LFC required Benitez to leave as manager, and H+G to leave also. It's only 4 months into RH's reign - there's no point looking at how things are NOW. A long view needs to be taken. It's the next 3-4 years that matter. not the first season after an entire regine change.
ReplyDeleteRH is here for this season only. He'll be gone next summer (mark my words), and then the real progress can begin.
Shankly is no longer here; Dalglish left years ago - should we cease to discuss/analyse their reigns too? oh, I forgot: analysing history is something the human race never does. Who cares about history, right?
ReplyDeleteAnd stop making the false accusation that I don't like Benitez. Sorry, but with all due respect, that is the simpleton's POV; and you are clearly not a simpleton.
I have *never* attacked Benitez in a personal manner. Everything I ever say about him is solely connected to his management of LFC. Just because I make light of his transfer record doesn't mean I dislike him.
I will continue to loook at LFC's history, including the reign of Benitez. if you don't like that, tough. Don't come on this site and complain that I'm analysing LFC history. Just don't come here if you don't like that.
But how come you come to the conclusion that Benitez had to leave for the prosperity of LFC? In my opinion, Benitez made mistakes, but one thing that stood out from his reign is that he was the only one fighting in the supporters' corner. The others on the board were all looking after their own purse instead for the good of the club.
ReplyDeleteHe also gave the money to the people of Liverpool... the same money that we was paid to leave by the snakes that we had in the board!!
'It is absolutely WRONG to argue - as the Net Spend Cult does - that Benitez was not given enough money. As this comparison with Ferguson shows, he WAS. Benitez spent much more than Ferguson over 6 years yet United outperformed Liverpool in the league time and time again.<span>'</span>
ReplyDeleteThink whatever you like, comparing two manager's spending and ignoring that one of them has been there, spending money, for nearly twenty years before the other is just plain stupid. Just because you say it doesn't matter doesn't mean you are right. United had a complete squad before Rafa arrived, a squad that finished above Liverpool in the league the season before. IT IS A VALID REASON. They were not starting on the same level, to suggest they were is ignorant
Benitez spent 289m on players, and we're supposed to believe that wasn't enough? How much IS enough? 400m? 500m? 1bn?!
ReplyDeleteYes, Ferguson spent money prior to 2004, but Benitez spent 54m more over the last 6 years than ferguson. Did Benitez make this 54m count when it came to competing with United? NO. He wasted it on Keane, Aquilani, Dossena, Pennant, Lucas etc (amongst others).
Alex is there for an decade before rafa came in charge for LFC. Alex build the team and he did not want to spend more than rafa. Rafa on other hand is want to build the team in which he failed. thats it
ReplyDeletehe was the only one fighting in the supporters' corner. The others on the board were all looking after their own purse instead for the good of the club. He also gave the money to the people of Liverpool... the same money that we was paid to leave by the snakes that we had in the board!!
ReplyDeleteI'm sory Ronald, but there is just no point discussing this issue with someone who thinks like this. It's an exercise in futility. You're entitled to your opinion, and I respect it, but in my view, you show signs of being brainwashed when it comes to Benitez.
Hi Jag - Thanks for your comments. Yes, I am legally trained, which - as you note - is probably why I'm so focused on facts.
ReplyDeletethere is also then the missing facts of the boardroom and political struggles that prevented harmony at LFC. All the factors in isolation do not make a reason for failure or lack of progress but put together and viewed as a whole and I believe that they great a mitigation against overall achievement.
I can see that argument but I don't subscribe to it. Boardroom turmoil is a convenient excuse for underachievement on the field. it should not be used as a reason; even Dalglish and Rush have stated this publicly, and they would know what does/does not afect players.
And what about 2008-9? Where was the impact of the boardroom struggles then? Did it take a year off? No one was complaining when we finished second. However, as soon as we finish 7th it's suddenly the fault of Hicks, Gillett and boardroom struggle.
Your article shows that LFC owners clearly could not or would not give the type of financial backing required and neither could the Glazers.
This is just not true. How is 289m and an average gross spend of 48m a year not being financially backed?! How much more should Benitez have had...? 400m? 800m? How much more until people start saying 'well actually, he was given lots of money'.
This again is why the net spend argument is nonsense. Take the 289m, for example. if Benitez had only recouped 150m instead of 226m, LFC's net spend would be 23m a year. That still wouldn't change the fact he'd ultimately had 289m to spend.
The net spend figure is dictated by how much money is recouped. That's it. So, we're supposed to believe then that the measure of a manager in the transfer market is based solely on how much he recoups in player sales?!
Is that what transfers are all about....recouping money? What about buying the right players? Spending wisely on players who actually improve the team? Are these things not more important when examining whether a manager has been a success in the transfer market?
Basically, anyone who expounds the net spend theory is basically saying that recouping money is the most important thing. It is not.
RB did as well as the circumstances allowed.
So it's circumstances that are to blame for 86m being wasted on Keane, Aquilani, Johnson, Dossena, Lucas, Pennant and Babel? Could it not be that Benitez just bought the wrong players?
Jaimie if you have the time and resources what I would like to view is spending against the likes of Spurs and Sunderland and Aston Villa over the same period.
I've already done comparisons with Villa and Spurs for 2004-2009 - click on the 'gross/net spend' link in the label cloud on the right of the page.
kanwar works for some toss wank . mr fukin 2007 suddenly here I am a liverpool fan . It was the leeches that set him up . Ask him to prove hes not . Most fans ignore him
ReplyDeleteMy God! Will you guys never give it a rest? Living in the past? It's more like you live in the Middle Ages - Wouldn't be at all surprised if all this is still written with the use of a quill pen!
ReplyDeleteGet a life, and leave what's done as done. Move on to something that is RELEVANT!!
Blindside
The point is analysis and deconstruction of LFC's transfer history. There is no accurate, fact-based analysis anywhere on or offline; I thik this kind of analysis is needed. That means I will be doing extensive further analysis of Benitez's transfer spending compared to all top clubs. And the same will apply to Hodsgson, as soon as I have the relevant accounts.
ReplyDeleteKanwar.This article is like ' Table does not lie ' argument. Actually both teams weren't on an equal footing.Even if the dark forces at our top end be discounted, the FACT is that we fought at a discount for stars but they fought at a premium. Berbetov 30 million, Rooney 30 million, Hagreaves 20 million = Ronaldo 90 million Torres 20 million Keane 18 million Aquilini 17 million = Alonso 35 million. This is the flaw in your statistics.
ReplyDeletePS: I have no time for a debate gbye
Actually What you should have done is you should've taken the weighted average Net spent of each year added to the preceeding year. For example, Rooney for Manu 6 years= 30*6= 180 million Torres for liverpool 20*4=80 million.
ReplyDeleteHi Jamie, I agree that Rafa was not always successful in the transfer market, in my opinion because he was obsessed with formation and churned through lots before he hit on the one he needed for his system. Hence the CL - IMO a strategists victory, with a squad that was not rubbish, but certainly beat some way better squads along the way. I guess the question is, assuming Houliers squad was pretty OK, but LFC were still not challenging in the EPL - how then to shift up a gear? I guess it appears that Rafa was convinced that challenging for the top, and consistently getting into CL was the way forward, and building the squad depth would follow from that. Hence how stretched LFC were, even in getting to second spot.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I think that Hodgson's current side (minus some of his own purchases) are also way better than the relegation zone - although I agree a new manager needs time.I just don't really see Woy as the best fit for us.
<span>Transfer mistakes and plops go with the territory. For Keane, Dossena, Lucas and Johnson you will find Verson, Kleberson, Bartez, Djembe-Djembe and Furlan. Moreover, if Johnson is a flop after less than a season and a half, where would you rate Berbatov (31 million) and Nani (19 million) after the same time period?. Also by comparison, in terms of both output and money recouped benitez’s failures are pretty much dwarfed compared to Schevchenko and del Horno (I was lazy, I’m pretty sure that there are more to add to the Chelsea flop equation). This however, is the issue. A richer team has a greater margin of error. A Liverpool manager has to get it right more often than a ManU or a Chelsea manager.</span>
ReplyDelete<span> </span>
<span>You are asking a very good question, how much in enough? Being the Jew that I am I will have to counter that with a question - enough for what? Winning the title against Ferguson and Wenger? The figures will have to be Chelseaesque. Another 54 million over 6 years is not that much. I also this that this misses the big picture.<span> </span>Throughout its existence, the EPL was never won by a team that was not either the richest team or the team ranked no. 2 on the wealth chart. <span> </span>The closest to break this rule were United last season ( 1 point from 1<sup>st</sup> place) and Liverpool in the season before that <span> </span>(4 points from 1<sup>st</sup> place). Is that shear coincidence? </span>
I am not a fundamentalist Rafa loyalist, I can see big errors he made over the years, both tactically and in purchases. However I do have a problem with all the crap that is spewed about him on Sky and the xenophobic way they and the wider media have mocked him for years
ReplyDeleteWhy is everyone obsessed with the idea that Net Spend is novel or trivial? Surely it makes sense that it is quite difficult to quickly overhaul a squad when you must also sell at the same time, and that the Net Spend figure helps highlight this
Jaimie will never acknowledge that Chelsea's £200 million splurge on top class talent gives them a huge edge versus a drawn out £200 million gross spend by Liverpool over whatever timefram, afterall they were on a similar footing just before Abramovich arrived
Jaimie will never acknowledge that Man Utd's spending versus Liverpool's spending in the stated timeframe is extremely difficult to interpret given Man United's previous decade of success, so we were not on an even footing at the beginning of the timeframe
Jaimie claims to encourage "critical realism" and debate. There is never a debate here. This is Jaimie's tiny corner of the world we all found from a link on www.walkon.com and where we are dictated to and then slapped down for daring to disagree
Jaimie, you are obviously smart, functionally succinct in gathering data and dedicated to what you do, but fairly interpreting the data is where you fail. Can you possibly open your mind to a single debate without immediately pre judging the exact make up of the person. They must be a Rafa worshipper or they are in Net spend cult or they are SoS
Maybe you want to make it in journalism and are following the <span><span>Bill O'Reilly model. People who support his view fawn to him, people who oppose his views watch to see what tripe he's coming out with next. What O' Reilly does is not journalism, it is right wing rhetoric</span></span>
OK that's me done with this website for a while
Hopefully The Liverpool Red Sox will rise from the ashes and I'll check back in then
"Liverpool are only 1 of 4 clubs currently in the Premiership who have won anything in the last 5 years, including the much heralded Wenger." It still does not change the FACT that Benitez WON NOTHING in his last 4 years at Anfield...
ReplyDeleteNow I have the pleasure of telling you that YOU ARE WRONG :-D <span><span>Chelsea 1-2 Tottenham – 2007/2008 Carling Cup Final</span></span>
Explain why H+G gave Rafa a 5 yr contract? You have stated the change was for the better.
ReplyDeleteKonchesky for Insua?
Poulsen played instead of Lucas?
J.Cole replaced with Benanyoun?
<span>I understand what you are trying to do JK but by choosing Man Utd, a team which was already in a stronger position, your comparative anaysis is flawed from the outset and this is why people continue to argue with you. In my opinion a better comparable for 2004-2010 would be Tottenham, as they spent a similar amount of money and recouped a similar amount and we were both teams that were not close to winning the league. In that period Spurs had a higher gross and net spend but we were a more successful team. However this comparison would also flawed because you could tell me that Houllier spent more money than Spurs during his tenure and that </span><span>Liverpool</span><span> were in a better starting position than Spurs, just in the same way that people are telling you that Man Utd had a better starting position than </span><span>Liverpool</span><span>. What I'm basically saying is that these comparisons don't mean anything without a more detailed analysis. </span>
ReplyDelete<span> </span>
<span>I think one of your posters, aw, hits the nail on the head when he says that we should be looking at what the money has been spent on rather than the amount of money spent. I completely agree with him. </span>
<span> </span>
<span>If we look at Rafa's transfers I think we can put them into 3 categories: £0-10m, £10-20m and Plus £20m. NB - I am only looking at players who I believe were specifically bought for the first team squad, not youngsters i.e. under 18 years:</span>
<span> </span>
<span>Firstly I think we can all agree that like any other investment, a transfer is a risk. You could pay a lot of money and it not work out, i.e. Robbie Keane, Shevchenko, Veron. I think we can all agree that it in most cases it is likely that a player costing between £0-10m is either a) not very good, b) good but old, c) young with potential or d) your scouts are doing an amazing job and have picked a player under the radar who is quality. We can also probably agree that £10-20m is where you tend to get proven good players. You're paying more money so you expect quality in most cases. However because the transfer market has become so inflated even in this category you cannot guarantee quality. And over £20m you are more than likely getting a class player. </span>
<span> </span>
<span>Rafa's £0-10m - </span><span>Josemi, Nunez, Luis Garcia, Morientes, Carson, Pellegrino, Zenden, Crouch, Reina, Sissoko, Fowler, Kromkamp, Agger, Martin, Bellamy, Gonzales, Palletta, Aurelio, Kuyt, El Zhar, Arbeloa, Benayoun, Lucas, Voronin, Leto, Plessis, Intandje, Skrtel, Dossena, Cavalieri, Ngog, Degen,<span> </span>Riera, Kyrgiakos, Rodriguez (35 players)</span><span></span>
<p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>Looking through that list and you can see there are a couple of great players, some are good players but equally there are some duff players. I want you to judge them for yourselves, but even the most critical of Rafa will see that there are some quality players in that list. Is it such a bad strike rate in the transfer market? What it shows me is that Rafa can obviously pick a good player as is shown by that list, but what it also shows is that when you are buying from the bargain bucket you are bound to pick a few bad players. [...]
<span>I understand what you are trying to do JK but by choosing Man Utd, a team which was already in a stronger position, your comparative anaysis is flawed from the outset and this is why people continue to argue with you. In my opinion a better comparable for 2004-2010 would be Tottenham, as they spent a similar amount of money and recouped a similar amount and we were both teams that were not close to winning the league. In that period Spurs had a higher gross and net spend but we were a more successful team. However this comparison would also flawed because you could tell me that Houllier spent more money than Spurs during his tenure and that </span><span>Liverpool</span><span> were in a better starting position than Spurs, just in the same way that people are telling you that Man Utd had a better starting position than </span><span>Liverpool</span><span>. What I'm basically saying is that these comparisons don't mean anything without a more detailed analysis. </span>
ReplyDelete<span> </span>
<span>I think one of your posters, aw, hits the nail on the head when he says that we should be looking at what the money has been spent on rather than the amount of money spent. I completely agree with him. </span>
<span> </span>
<span>If we look at Rafa's transfers I think we can put them into 3 categories: £0-10m, £10-20m and Plus £20m. NB - I am only looking at players who I believe were specifically bought for the first team squad, not youngsters i.e. under 18 years:</span>
<span> </span>
<span>Firstly I think we can all agree that like any other investment, a transfer is a risk. You could pay a lot of money and it not work out, i.e. Robbie Keane, Shevchenko, Veron. I think we can all agree that it in most cases it is likely that a player costing between £0-10m is either a) not very good, b) good but old, c) young with potential or d) your scouts are doing an amazing job and have picked a player under the radar who is quality. We can also probably agree that £10-20m is where you tend to get proven good players. You're paying more money so you expect quality in most cases. However because the transfer market has become so inflated even in this category you cannot guarantee quality. And over £20m you are more than likely getting a class player. </span>
<span> </span>
<span>Rafa's £0-10m - </span><span>Josemi, Nunez, Luis Garcia, Morientes, Carson, Pellegrino, Zenden, Crouch, Reina, Sissoko, Fowler, Kromkamp, Agger, Martin, Bellamy, Gonzales, Palletta, Aurelio, Kuyt, El Zhar, Arbeloa, Benayoun, Lucas, Voronin, Leto, Plessis, Intandje, Skrtel, Dossena, Cavalieri, Ngog, Degen,<span> </span>Riera, Kyrgiakos, Rodriguez (35 players)</span><span></span>
<p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>Looking through that list and you can see there are a couple of great players, some are good players but equally there are some duff players. I want you to judge them for yourselves, but even the most critical of Rafa will see that there are some quality players in that list. Is it such a bad strike rate in the transfer market? What it shows me is that Rafa can obviously pick a good player as is shown by that list, but what it also shows is that when you are buying from the bargain bucket you are bound to pick a few bad players. [...]
<span>Verson, Kleberson, Bartez, Djemba-Djemba, Forlan, Carrick, Hargraves, Anderson, 14 keepers brtween the great dane and Var dar Sar. Man U have also sold or loan out over 60 players in the 6 yrs Rafa was there. most never made first team... If Ferguson is such a genius, why is this?
ReplyDelete</span>
We couldnt have been brainwashed if the OWNERS GAVE RAFA A 5YEAR DEAL. There must be something he is doing right... NO? :( These are shrewd businessmen... they just dont handout 5 yr contract to a useless manager... do they? I believe I sent you the comments of H+G when the contract was issued last yr.
ReplyDelete<p><span>£10m-£20m - Alonso, </span><span>Babel</span><span>, Mascherano, Aquilani, Johnson and Keane</span><span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span>Again I will allow you judge them for yourself. This is a trickier bracket to analyse because you would expect a better quality of player for the price paid but that is not always the case. In my opinion Keane is the only out and out failure. Aquilani is difficult to judge because he was injured for so long and we didn't see the best of him. This can be blamed on Rafa because he bought an injured player but as he said when he bought him, he bought him for 5 years not 5 months. Johnson splits the fans. He is good going forward like the modern day fullback should be but he is suspect at the back but again he is not a complete failure in my opinion. </span><span>Babel</span><span> has so much potential but as he is showing under Roy as well as Rafa he is not fulfilling that potential. So again he was not a bad buy in my opinion but a buy that hasn't fulfilled its potential and that is as much down to the player as it the manager. </span>
</p><p><span>Above £20m – only one – Torres – undoubtedly a quality, world class player.</span>
</p><p><span>So of the 41 players bought by Rafa 35 of them are valued between 0m and 10m. What this tells me is that more often than not we were buying from the bargain bucket and as most intelligent football fans will know; when you're buying at that end of the market you will get players that aren't very good, its hit and miss. You may get lucky and get a Vidic but then again you may get Dossena (both £7m).</span></p>
<p><span>More often than not, when you spend above £10m you know you are buying some quality, and so I want to make some comparisons with the teams around us in Rafa's last season; how many players above £10m did they each have in their squads and the total amount spent on these players? (NB. These figures are taken from one source so I don’t know whether they are all completely accurate but it serves the purpose for this exercise) </span><span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span> </span><span></span>
</p><p><span>Liverpool</span><span> – </span><span>Babel</span><span>, Mascherano, Aquilani, Johnson, Torres – 5 players £93m</span><span></span>
</p><p><span>Man Utd – </span><span>Valencia</span><span>, Berbatov, Nani, </span><span>Anderson</span><span>, Hargreaves, Carrick, Rooney, Ferdinand – 8 players £167.5m</span><span></span>
</p><p><span>Man</span><span> </span><span>City</span><span> – Barry, </span><span>Santa Cruz</span><span>, Tevez, Adebayor, Toure, Lescott, Bridge, Bellamy, De Yong (Jo, Robinho on loan) 9 players £160m (11 players if you include Robinho and Jo £210.5m)</span><span></span>
</p><p><span>Chelsea – Zhirkov, Boswinga, Anelka, Malouda, Mikel, Essien, Carvalho, Drogba, Ferreira, Lampard – 10 players £171.5m</span><span></span>
</p><p><span>Spurs – Gomes, Keane, Defoe, Palacios, Pavlyuchenko, Bentley, Modric – 7 players £94.6m</span><span></span>
</p><p><span>Arsenal - Vermaelen, Arshavin, Nasri – 3 players £40.8m</span><span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>Again I am not going to judge the quality of the individual players. You may argue that Rafa has bought badly or for the wrong positions and that is your opinion. What this shows me is that we don’t seem to have the spending power to compete with other teams as can be seen above: we only had 5 players in our squad above £10m. Why is it then that some of our supporters expect us to finish above the likes of Man Utd and Chelsea when they have spent a lot more on individuals and have more players in their squad who are proven quality (as shown by their costs). Right now we don’t even have the spending power of Spurs and </span><span>Man</span><span> </span><span>City</span><span> so is it surprising they finished above us? And Arsenal is a different situation altogether; Arsene doesn’t spend money as he has his “youth project”.<span> </span></span><span></span></p>
<p><span>I’m sick of hearing all the comments about buying so many players, spending £280m, gross/net figures, bad buys etc. I’m sick of hearing about people talking about players like Dossena, Voronin, and Degen when the amount spent on all three was £7m. What did you expect for a grand total of £7m, the likes of Evra, Eto’o and Boswinga?? If you do then clearly your have no concept of reality. If you want quality players you have to pay the money for them. And as I have shown above we are behind the likes of Man Utd, </span><span>Chelsea</span><span>, Spurs and </span><span>Man</span><span> </span><span>City</span><span> in spending power for attracting the real proven quality players. </span><span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span><span> </span></span></span>
</p><p><span>So the whole gross/net spend argument is a waste of time. Spurs have spent a similar amount to us since 2004 and what do they have to show for it; a league Cup and a 4th place. We won the CL, FA Cup and were in the CL every year under Rafa. Who is more succesful? Gross and net spend tells you nothing. The difference now is that Spurs have the spending power to buy better, more expensive players as is shown above; they have more players in their squad who are in the 10m+ brackets. But even they aren't able to compete with Man Utd, </span><span>Chelsea</span><span> and </span><span>Man</span><span> </span><span>City</span><span> who have regularly spent £20m plus on players. We have done it on and Spurs have never done it. They may do soon as they are in the CL. </span><span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>Is this Rafa's fault? We don't know for sure. It is clear that Rafa was given money but was he given <span>the right money for the right players</span>? The facts above would state no; a majority of his buys were in the 0-10m bracket. If you could afford a Porsche would you buy a Skoda? It is entirely possible that he asked the owners for money for certain players but was told that only a certain amount was available. In which case he would have to go for the cheaper option. </span><span></span>
</p><p><span><span><span> </span></span></span>
</p><p><span>The reality of the situation is that we are not able to compete with transfers. He was given money but was he really able to compete in getting the best players. I don't think he was. If Rafa was regularly spending over £10m on a player and those players were failing then there would be a concern about his judgement of players but considering he has only allowed to spend that sort of money on 7 occasions I think he has done ok - Torres, Macherano, Alonso - undoubted successes, Keane and possibly Aquilani as failures and Johnson and Babel as unfulfilled potential. </span><span></span></p>
As a Fan all I care about is winning! Whether the net spend is £10 million a year or £100 million a year doesnt matter. Benitez is and always be a Winner. Just take a look at what he did at Valencia. You forget his record for wins was really good at LFC.
ReplyDeleteBenitez Won the CL,Won FA Cup, Won Community Shield, Runners up in CL, Runners Up in Premier League (same points as what Chelsea won the League with Last year which everyone lauds due to their scoring record).
You have to spend to win which is a fact in the modern era of EPL. Look at Inter Milan and Chelsea who have also spent big to become winners. All teams buy bad signings but when spending big, you are most liklely buying a good talent rather than an untested player who is likely to fail.
If Rafa had money at Man City he would have won everything just like Mourinho at Inter.
JK I couldn't put the whole post in one as it only allows 5000 characters. Can you sort it out your end?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree, Rafa was trying to build the squad from youth upwards, while at the same time try to balance his first team. With backroom staff being taken from him and a lack of transfer funds, the position of the first team faltered. If given another season or two we would have seen the fruits of Rafa's work with the kids. Don't forget he was anticipating a restriction on foriegn players in the EPL too.
ReplyDeleteNo the net figure is not meaningless... The reason we had problems is lack of quality in our squad. correct?
ReplyDeleteIf you are trading no one care how many trades you did. THE FOCUS IS ON P/L. if you wish do 100 trades, if you like do 5 traders, you boss ll ask you what is your P/L for the day...
The owners of the clubs do recognise, Rafa is working with very little investment and he relied on trades more as far as they are concerned little is coming out of their pocket and Liverpool is qualifying for CL yr in yr out. The revenue is servicing the clubs liabilty hence WHY HE WAS AWARDED A 5YR CONTRACT. They new he was buying poor players as that is the budget, You are not going to buy Villa, Eto and Lahm on a £20M budget, you are going to buy the pennant, dossena etc. If you are thinking person, you ll noticed Rafa bought 5 players over 15M namely Torres, Keane, Masherano, Johnson, Aquilani. Torres, Masherano are proven, Aquilani is also proving his worth in Juve, Johnson was bought for that price cos he is English (Carrick, Hargrave,SWP, Milner, etc were all overpriced), He is good but overpriced, just like any English man. Keane I LL ADMIT IS A BAD BUY. What does that tell me... When Rafa is trusted to buy a player over £15M he ll get it right 4 out of 5 times... You can say the same for Ferguson and Jose.... They got it wrong SEVERAL TIMES. The owners recoginse this and gambled on Rafa with a new contract, unfortunately he got a lot wrong in the lower end... As I have shown you.. The "great FERGUSON" that you worship, shipped out over 60 players out on loan or sold over 5 yrs.... why is this..? cos they all make mistakes,
In your opinion who is a great manager and could you confirm there net spend during their reign including their success in the CL/EPL in last 10 years?
ReplyDeleteIs Houlliers success in 2001 better than CL/Fa Cup Benitez won?
Only four tems have won the EPL in last 20 years. Does that make all the other managers crap?
Current biggest spenders are Man City and Spurs. Have they done any better than Benitez success at LFC in his first two years?
ReplyDeleteHey gary - unfortunately, I can't change the 5000 limit at the moment, so your post will have to stay spread over multiple entries. It's on my list of things to change though.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points as usual :) I will respond when I have more time later.
Hey gary - unfortunately, I can't change the 5000 limit at the moment, so your post will have to stay spread over multiple entries. It's on my list of things to change though.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points as usual :) I will respond when I have more time later.
I disagree. Judgement is KEY...I thought you ll trade players for improvement.
ReplyDeleteWell
Konchesky for Insua is hardly an upgrade. (Blackburn goal this weekend was a cross from the left back AGAIN)
Poulsen is NO better than young Lucas. Poulsen is bought for £4.5M (Lucas is 5M).
Aquilani was shipped out and playing some of his best football this season, why buy a Raul and not spend that money on a striker?
You are hired as a manager to make decisions. His decisions are VERY POOR.
OK... Lets have it. To win the league, we needed DEPTH and QUALITY.
ReplyDeleteWhat is DEPTH? What is QUALITY.
I ll define both. Depth is ADDING to your playing squad. NOT trading your playing squad. Rafa was trading.
QUALITY is buying the BEST of the BEST. Rafa bough ONLY 5 players above £15M in 6 yrs... ( How many did Chelsea and MAn U bought? )
That is not QUALITY. HE NEVER HAD THE MONEY. COMPREHEND??
Jammie why dont you support man united. You have nothing good to say about Rafa. Everytime I have been on this site your article surrounded around Rafa. Its guys like you that got Rafa out of Liverpool. You are just like the sports commentators constantly trying to influence the football fans. The ones that normally have a below par football IQ. I hope I live to see the day of Rafa's return!
ReplyDeleteRemind me: how many trophies has Ferguson won with United?
ReplyDeleteYour argument has no merit. it doesn't matter how many mistakes *successful* managers make because their trophy count speaks for itself. Football is about winning trophies; Ferguson may have made transfer mistakes but that hasn't stopped him winning countless titles and two Champions League trophies.
If benitez had won the league then some of his transfer flops would be excused too because he would have succeeded despite his mistakes.
You fu.cking d1ckhead bell-end stop writing expansive concise replies to yourself you sad, angry little fu.ckup. Give the job up and go and wash the dogsh1t off your nan's fan.ny..
ReplyDeleteWhat I find laughable on reading through your replies is that they are all worded in the exact same style as your writing, only sympathetic to your 'cause'. How very sad and pathetic Jaime, you are a hoax and a deluded one at that.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find laughable on reading through your replies is that they are all worded in the exact same style as your writing, only sympathetic to your 'cause'. How very sad and pathetic Jaime, you are a hoax and a deluded one at that.
ReplyDeleteYou've already proven that Rafa's overall net spend was <£30m, and you wonder where the money came from for all those players you name...? I'm sure I'm not the only one whose palm is being introduced to his face, Jaimie.
ReplyDeleteYou really are ill-informed at times Jaimie. Rafa didn't get involved in negotiations, he simply named the player he wanted (as do most managers) and the board offered what they felt was a fair price. Alves is a perfect example of a relatively unknown (outside of Spain) player who Parry was sadly not clever enough to rate at £12m+. Any more wrong rebuttals you'd like correcting?
ReplyDeleteReally great analysis Gary. Totally agree that Liverpool have punched below their weigh transfer wise for a number of seasons now. What's interesting is that if you look at the premier league table bar the first and second seasons LFC finished above Arsenal in 3rd place which i believe tallies with the quality of the squad. The season before last where we came second was a massive over achievement and without adequate funds to purchase a striker alongside aqualini and johnson it was always going to be difficult.
ReplyDeleteIMO Hodgson has no excuses for LFC poor start. Rafa in his first season came fifth despite having no experience of the premier league and poor english and in my opinion a poor squad. However given the dominance of Man City and the fact that Totenham have spent money and strengthened its entirely possible that we can't come fourth but we should not be in the relegation zone and RH must take responsibility for LFC's poor start. The quality of the squad may not be good enough to get into fourth place (although if we spend in Jan we may have a chance) but it is good enough to be beating blackpool, everton, birmingham etc.
RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
JAMIE, RAFA HAS LEFT
ReplyDelete<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
WHERE'S RAFA? I HATE HIM SOOOOOOO MUCH!
ReplyDelete<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE</p>
ReplyDelete<p>RAFA HAS LEFT, JAMIE
ReplyDelete</p>
Great points Gary agree completely that LFC have underspent transfer wise during Benitez's reign. The reasons for this are clear we didn't have a rich sugar daddy like Chelsea or a genius manager like Wenger who really can discover and nurture talent without spending money. ManU in 98 extended the capacity of their stadium to well over 60k seats giving it the biggest capacity in the PL for years Manu have been run like a proper business (unlike LFC) generating massive amounts of revenue that could be invested in players. Of course this changed a bit when the glazers bought the club and Ambrovich bough Chelsea but by then Manu had a fantastic squad and only needed to tweak it by buying the occasional big time player.
ReplyDeleteI'm so fed up of people blaming RB for the poor state of the squad. RB in his first season with little english and no experience of the PL managed to come fifth and win the CL with a similar quad to what RH inherited in fact the squad was weaker since RB didnt have torres. RH has no excuses! yes I except that with Man city throwing money around and Totenham spending massively under Rednapp we cannot expect to come fourth (despite you arguing in a previous article jamie that we would because like in previous years a poor season is always followed by a good one!) however the squad is more than capable of being in the top 6.
What is interesting is that just like in RB final year when he was unable to buy a striker to take the pressure of Torres RH has also been unable to purchase a striker despite selling Mascharano for 22m a poor sale imo given that he cost 17m and is one of the best defensive holding midfield players in the world.
To be fair its not Roy's fault I personally blame the previous board. If you are going to sack RB then you have to be sure that you have viable good quality candidates. I don't think the board considered carefully enough whether they would be able to approach the right candidate and this was clear when Dalgleish who was supposed to be leading the process put himself forward for the job because he didn't think the list of candidates were good enough.
<span>Great points Gary agree completely that LFC have underspent transfer wise during Benitez's reign. The reasons for this are clear we didn't have a rich sugar daddy like Chelsea or a genius manager like Wenger who really can discover and nurture talent without spending money. ManU in 98 extended the capacity of their stadium to well over 60k seats giving it the biggest capacity in the PL for years Manu have been run like a proper business (unlike LFC) generating massive amounts of revenue that could be invested in players. Of course this changed a bit when the glazers bought the club and Ambrovich bough Chelsea but by then Manu had a fantastic squad and only needed to tweak it by buying the occasional big time player.
ReplyDeleteI'm so fed up of people blaming RB for the poor state of the squad. RB in his first season with little english and no experience of the PL managed to come fifth and win the CL with a similar quad to what RH inherited in fact the squad was weaker since RB didnt have torres. RH has no excuses! yes I except that with Man city throwing money around and Totenham spending massively under Rednapp we cannot expect to come fourth (despite you arguing in a previous article jamie that we would because like in previous years a poor season is always followed by a good one!) however the squad is more than capable of being in the top 6.
What is interesting is that just like in RB final year when he was unable to buy a striker to take the pressure of Torres RH has also been unable to purchase a striker despite selling Mascharano for 22m a poor sale imo given that he cost 17m and is one of the best defensive holding midfield players in the world.
To be fair its not Roy's fault I personally blame the previous board. If you are going to sack RB then you have to be sure that you have viable good quality candidates. I don't think the board considered carefully enough whether they would be able to approach the right candidate and this was clear when Dalgleish who was supposed to be leading the process put himself forward for the job because he didn't think the list of candidates were good enough
<span></span></span>
<span>Great points Gary agree completely that LFC have underspent transfer wise during Benitez's reign. The reasons for this are clear we didn't have a rich sugar daddy like Chelsea or a genius manager like Wenger who really can discover and nurture talent without spending money. ManU in 98 extended the capacity of their stadium to well over 60k seats giving it the biggest capacity in the PL for years Manu have been run like a proper business (unlike LFC) generating massive amounts of revenue that could be invested in players. Of course this changed a bit when the glazers bought the club and Ambrovich bough Chelsea but by then Manu had a fantastic squad and only needed to tweak it by buying the occasional big time player.
ReplyDeleteI'm so fed up of people blaming RB for the poor state of the squad. RB in his first season with little english and no experience of the PL managed to come fifth and win the CL with a similar quad to what RH inherited in fact the squad was weaker since RB didnt have torres. RH has no excuses! yes I except that with Man city throwing money around and Totenham spending massively under Rednapp we cannot expect to come fourth (despite you arguing in a previous article jamie that we would because like in previous years a poor season is always followed by a good one!) however the squad is more than capable of being in the top 6.
What is interesting is that just like in RB final year when he was unable to buy a striker to take the pressure of Torres RH has also been unable to purchase a striker despite selling Mascharano for 22m a poor sale imo given that he cost 17m and is one of the best defensive holding midfield players in the world.
To be fair its not Roy's fault I personally blame the previous board. If you are going to sack RB then you have to be sure that you have viable good quality candidates. I don't think the board considered carefully enough whether they would be able to approach the right candidate and this was clear when Dalgleish who was supposed to be leading the process put himself forward for the job because he didn't think the list of candidates were good enough.<span>
</span></span>
<span>Great points Gary agree completely that LFC have underspent transfer wise during Benitez's reign. The reasons for this are clear we didn't have a rich sugar daddy like Chelsea or a genius manager like Wenger who really can discover and nurture talent without spending money. ManU in 98 extended the capacity of their stadium to well over 60k seats giving it the biggest capacity in the PL for years Manu have been run like a proper business (unlike LFC) generating massive amounts of revenue that could be invested in players. Of course this changed a bit when the glazers bought the club and Ambrovich bough Chelsea but by then Manu had a fantastic squad and only needed to tweak it by buying the occasional big time player.
ReplyDeleteI'm so fed up of people blaming RB for the poor state of the squad. RB in his first season with little english and no experience of the PL managed to come fifth and win the CL with a similar quad to what RH inherited in fact the squad was weaker since RB didnt have torres. RH has no excuses! yes I except that with Man city throwing money around and Totenham spending massively under Rednapp we cannot expect to come fourth (despite you arguing in a previous article jamie that we would because like in previous years a poor season is always followed by a good one!) however the squad is more than capable of being in the top 6.
What is interesting is that just like in RB final year when he was unable to buy a striker to take the pressure of Torres RH has also been unable to purchase a striker despite selling Mascharano for 22m a poor sale imo given that he cost 17m and is one of the best defensive holding midfield players in the world.
To be fair its not Roy's fault I personally blame the previous board. If you are going to sack RB then you have to be sure that you have viable good quality candidates. I don't think the board considered carefully enough whether they would be able to approach the right candidate and this was clear when Dalgleish who was supposed to be leading the process put himself forward for the job because he didn't think the list of candidates were good enough.<span>
</span></span>
<span>Great points Gary agree completely that LFC have underspent transfer wise during Benitez's reign. The reasons for this are clear we didn't have a rich sugar daddy like Chelsea or a genius manager like Wenger who really can discover and nurture talent without spending money. ManU in 98 extended the capacity of their stadium to well over 60k seats giving it the biggest capacity in the PL for years Manu have been run like a proper business (unlike LFC) generating massive amounts of revenue that could be invested in players. Of course this changed a bit when the glazers bought the club and Ambrovich bough Chelsea but by then Manu had a fantastic squad and only needed to tweak it by buying the occasional big time player.
ReplyDeleteI'm so fed up of people blaming RB for the poor state of the squad. RB in his first season with little english and no experience of the PL managed to come fifth and win the CL with a similar quad to what RH inherited in fact the squad was weaker since RB didnt have torres. RH has no excuses! yes I except that with Man city throwing money around and Totenham spending massively under Rednapp we cannot expect to come fourth (despite you arguing in a previous article jamie that we would because like in previous years a poor season is always followed by a good one!) however the squad is more than capable of being in the top 6.
What is interesting is that just like in RB final year when he was unable to buy a striker to take the pressure of Torres RH has also been unable to purchase a striker despite selling Mascharano for 22m a poor sale imo given that he cost 17m and is one of the best defensive holding midfield players in the world.
To be fair its not Roy's fault I personally blame the previous board. If you are going to sack RB then you have to be sure that you have viable good quality candidates. I don't think the board considered carefully enough whether they would be able to approach the right candidate and this was clear when Dalgleish who was supposed to be leading the process put himself forward for the job because he didn't think the list of candidates were good enough.<span>
</span></span>
<span>Great points Gary agree completely that LFC have underspent transfer wise during Benitez's reign. The reasons for this are clear we didn't have a rich sugar daddy like Chelsea or a genius manager like Wenger who really can discover and nurture talent without spending money. ManU in 98 extended the capacity of their stadium to well over 60k seats giving it the biggest capacity in the PL for years Manu have been run like a proper business (unlike LFC) generating massive amounts of revenue that could be invested in players. Of course this changed a bit when the glazers bought the club and Ambrovich bough Chelsea but by then Manu had a fantastic squad and only needed to tweak it by buying the occasional big time player.
ReplyDeleteI'm so fed up of people blaming RB for the poor state of the squad. RB in his first season with little english and no experience of the PL managed to come fifth and win the CL with a similar quad to what RH inherited in fact the squad was weaker since RB didnt have torres. RH has no excuses! yes I except that with Man city throwing money around and Totenham spending massively under Rednapp we cannot expect to come fourth (despite you arguing in a previous article jamie that we would because like in previous years a poor season is always followed by a good one!) however the squad is more than capable of being in the top 6.
What is interesting is that just like in RB final year when he was unable to buy a striker to take the pressure of Torres RH has also been unable to purchase a striker despite selling Mascharano for 22m a poor sale imo given that he cost 17m and is one of the best defensive holding midfield players in the world.
To be fair its not Roy's fault I personally blame the previous board. If you are going to sack RB then you have to be sure that you have viable good quality candidates. I don't think the board considered carefully enough whether they would be able to approach the right candidate and this was clear when Dalgleish who was supposed to be leading the process put himself forward for the job because he didn't think the list of candidates were good enough.<span>
Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/rafa-benitez-vs-alex-ferguson-transfer.html#ixzz13UtcjwUa</span></span>
Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs & Man United - that's four clubs isn't it? I said 1 of 4 currently in the Premiership in the last 5 years. You know 4 don't you? That was how many European Cups we had before Rafa.
ReplyDelete<span>
ReplyDelete<p>Wayne Rooney arrived at Manchester United on the 31st of August 2004.
</p></span>
I'm not brainwashed Jamie, these are FACTS. Tell me something I exagerated in my previous post? Ask the Hillsborough Support Group about Rafa, Ask the Marina Dalglish Cancer Support group about Rafa. And you tell me I'm brainwashed. These acts of kindness by Rafa are set in stone! Maybe you're the brainwashed one Jamie. I don't know where this antagonism against Rafa and the truth comes from... maybe it's something personal?!?
ReplyDeleteYou really thin Hodgson is a long-term solution? Short-term, stop-gap at best, in no ways a good enough manager. Even when he was winning titles in Scandanavia, he's only ever had one club with a higher winning percentage than 50% - 50% in the Premier League is just about good enough for Europa League, not forward progrssion at all. Even Souness never made me feel this way. Hodgson's off the pitch attitude is just as worrying & at least he'll escape you warped stats gaze, as I doubt he'll be here in January and you've already stated you won't judge him until then.
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me as to what lengths people will go to to make an axcuse for Benitez.He had plent to spend he just didn't spend it very well.
ReplyDeleteFor those moaning about the squads in 2004 what abouthe squads in 2005? Ours won a CL.it can't get better.What did United win? So which squad should have been added to and pushed on from there?
Spot on, this about sums it up for me!
ReplyDeleteWith the much heralded Wenger as you say it makes it 5.
ReplyDeleteSo you are wrong again. :-D
Yeah, Berba is a TERRIBLE player, he just scored 3 goals against you lot..
ReplyDeletethe 2nd goal was so lazy and poor..
Firstly,an interesting and well researched article . Most main and respected media
ReplyDeletegroups that waddedinto the debate have more or less confirmed the article above.
Rafa had the money to spend but he spent it on players that were not liverpools standard. Becos of him also liverpools young brit youngsters who were shunted aside have left the club.This man has done some good for the club but his overall contribution has damaged the club terribly.Setting back whatever rebuilding Houllier had done.If u want to take a bet ,he will damage Inter Milan as well.
Picking a fight with Fergie ,make sure u do it well , like Morinuho or Arsene did,bloody the fellow. Dont tell lies and look like an idiot doing it.Cos thats what he did and sparked this stupid debate ,that turn him into a liar and embaressed the club.
One day the fans will realise how much damage he has done,until then repeating what u say and closing your ears might help,for u rafa lovers.good luck.
Hatreds aside, do liverpool fans actually generally believe Benitez to be a good manager during his time? For all the spending Benitez did do you not realistically question the team Hodgson inherited?
ReplyDeleteHatreds aside, do liverpool fans generally realistically believe Benitez was a good manager? Surely some of the blame vented at the 'yanks' must also be aimed towards him- you have to question the team Hodgson inherited?
ReplyDeleteGreat article.... i'm sorry so many people can't actually see what you are trying to say!!! let's move on Benetiz is history now, we cannot keep denying that Utd have been better in recent years. AND SPENT LESS than Rafa....TImes will change i hope soon... but just denying them makes no sense
ReplyDeleteHow so? 7th place was bad management from Rafa, the team he had was mostly the same that almost won the league and had great european success. You mancs called him out over it just like everyone else. What then do you suppose Liverpool fans will make of Roy leading us into the bottom 3? Absolutely terrible. I know you mancs give rafa lot of stick but you can't have it both ways. Whatever Rafa's fault it certainly has nothing to do with our current position in the table.
ReplyDeleteFact is, you cannot take the Ronaldo fee from the equation. Much as I can't stand Ferguson, you would have to credit him with making the player so valuable in the first place. And also keeping the team competitive after they sold him. It seems as if we missed Alonso more than they missed Ronaldo.
ReplyDeleteReally Jaimie, that article is an interesting yet deliberately twisted account of events. You do, as others have said, avoid confronting the fact that all new managers at big clubs get given a pot of cash to spend. You also ignore the fact that Liverpool were getting closer to the top of the tree when Rafa was able to utilise a resonable net spend (the first few years). That funding then got cut and Rafa had to cut down the squad size. Fergie already had a title winning team when Rafa turned up and has been able to adopt a replacement strategy. Rafa had been asked to improve the squad up to a title winning standard. It was going well despite not spending much more than Fergie ... right up until the purse strings were cut.
ReplyDeleteThe Johnson deal was indeed also forced upon him as Portsmaouth owed LFC money from the Crouch transfer and the only way to get money back from the south coast club was to take one of their assets.
I think you need to stop telling others to shut up and grow up, since you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
He was saying that the much Heralded Wenger was one of those 'not' to win anything in the last five years. They haven't won anything for six years in fact. So you are the wrong one matey.
ReplyDeleteAs a United fan I am blown away to see a rational, well thought through argument about Rafa and his ridiculous transfer policy. I also love a LFC fan acknowledging the Net Spend Cult. Also, why doesn't anyone mention your constant turn over of players? Or a complete inability to know anything about strikers, other than just letting Torres do his thing - something that took no managerial skill at all, as most of his goals were from instinct and not tactics.
ReplyDeleteTHIS WRITER JAIMIE KANWAR IS A COMPLETE BELL END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteAGREE WITH U TOTALLY KRAKEN !!!!!!!! ANYBODY BUT THIS GUY CUD REALISE THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!