In part 2 of this new series analysing Tom Hicks' recent statement, I look at his contentious transfer spending claims: did Liverpool really have a net spend of £150m under Hicks and Gillett?
CONTRADICTION?
In his recent interview with Sky Sports, Hicks stated the following:
"We spent over 300 million dollars gross on players, about 150 million net on players, but you never hear that in the media; it always kind of disappears in all the noise and anger. ".
Seems clear enough. However, later in the same interview, Hicks says this:
"We spent 300 million pounds on players. 150 million net are the ones we would sell. I think, I don't know, second highest in the league at the time, or third"
So: is it dollars or pounds? Hicks contradicts himself but it's probably just confusion on his part; I do not think he's lying. I personally think he meant pounds, not dollars, and here's why:
1. Immediately preceding his statement about '300m dollars', he referenced the '270 million dollars' he and Gillett had put into the club:
"George and I have put in $270m into the club. We spent over 300 million dollars gross on players, about 150 million net on players"
Hicks was in a 'dollars' frame of mind, so he said dollars. A simple mistake.
2. The actual figures in dollars are so removed from what Hicks suggests (i.e. the figures are actually much higher), that I cannot believe he meant dollars.
3. Hicks illustrates his confusion with the financial aspects of transfers at another point in the interview, where he states:
"We spent 300 million pounds on players. 150 million net are the ones we would sell""
Clearly, Hicks makes the mistake in thinking that the amount recouped for players = net spend. That's incorrect. Net spend = Gross Spend minus Money Recouped. With this in mind, it seems likely that he would be capable of making more innocent mistakes, such as the dollar/pounds contradiction about. Not that it matters - using Hicks' figures, net spend would be 150m over 4 financial years anyway (300m - 150m)
I thought it was best to get these issues out of the way first, so I'll be proceeding on the basis that Hicks meant pounds, not dollars.
IMPORTANT NOTES
I apologise if the following is a little confusing, but to create an accurate picture of transfer spending under Hicks and Gillett, it's important to deduct sales that took place before they arrived, and include all purchases/sales up to the point that the left the club.
1. Hicks and Gillett bought the club on the 6th February 2007. For accounting purposes, LFC's financial year runs from 31 July - 31 July. Thus, any players bought/sold between 31 July 2006 and 6 February 2007 should not be included in this analysis.
2. Several players were sold between 31 July 2006 and 6 February 2007; Two were purchased. I've included details of these a little further down the article.
3. The transfer spending figures for 2007-2009 are recorded in the club's accounts. Unfortunately, accounts for 2009-10 have not been released yet. Having said that, the purchases/sale price figures for the following are included in the 'Post Balance Sheet Events' section of the 2009 Accounts:
* Albert Aquilani + Sotiris Kyrgiakos (Bought for a combined 20.4m)
* Xabi Alonso, Andrea Dossena + Andrei Voronin (Sold for a combined 29.7m)
4. For the purposes of this article, I've compiled the purchase/sale prices for players bought/sold during 2009-10 financial year from the next best source: The official LFC website.
5. As per point 2 above: Between July 2006, and February 2007, the following players were sold:
* Barragan, Traore, Mellor, Kromkamp, Kirkland (Combined 4.5m)
* Darren Potter £525k
* Stephen Warnock £1.5m
TOTAL: £6.5m
I've deducted this amount from the 'recouped ' section for 2006-7 (see table below).
6. As per point 2 above: Between July 2006, and February 2007, the following players were purchased:
* Dirk Kuyt - 10m
* Alvaro Arbeloa - 2.5m
I've deducted this amount from the 'Gross spend' section for 2006-7 (see table below).
7. Including the players referred to in point 3, here are the figures I compiled from LFC.tv for transfers conducted from 31 July 2009 until NESV took over:
Transfers In
* Albert Aquilani + Sotiris Kyrgiakos - £20.4m
* Jonjo Shelvey - £1.7m
* Ayala - £160k
* Raul Meirelles - £11.5m
* Paul Konchesky - £3.5m
* Danny Wilson - £2m
* Christian Poulsen - £4.5m
* Brad Jones - £2.3m
Total Gross Spend: £44.36m (22.6 = RB | 21.7 = RH)
Transfers Out
* Xabi Alonso, Andrea Dossena + Andrei Voronin - £29.7m
* Albert Riera £3.3m
* Diego Cavalieri £3m
* Krisztián Németh £1m
* Javier Mascherano £17.25m
* Lauri Dalla Valle £750k
* Alex Kacaniklic £750k
* Nikolay Mihaylov £1.5m
* Mikel Domínguez £2.6m
* Yossi Benayoun £6m
Total Recouped = £65.85 (31.2 = RB | 35.6 = RH)
TRANSFER SPENDING UNDER HICKS + GILLETT
Everything discussed above is reflected in the following table:
HICKS' CLAIMS: FACT OR FICTION
CLAIM #1: £300m spent on players
REALITY: £210m
Hicks falls short in his estimate here. However, he could be including ALL fees associated with transfers to arrive at the £300m figure, including the following:
* Contract extensions
* Signing-on fees
* Transfer taxes
etc.
This could conceivably take the figure up to £300m. If we're talking about transfer fees alone though, the figure spent (£210m) is nowhere near £300m.
CLAIM #2: £150m net spend on players.
REALITY: £198m recouped, but total net spend of £11.6m
As I argued earlier in this article, it's obvious that Hicks equates money recouped on players to net spend. With that in mind, Hicks basically states that £150m has been recouped on players. Well, the reality is that much more than that has been recouped.
However, Hicks' net spend figure is also £150m (£300m minus £150m), and with that he's way off the mark. The actual net spend figure under H+G is £11.6m.
VERDICT: Is Hicks lying?
I don't think so. He is either confused, and/or is using a different method of calculating his figures. The club's accounts don't lie. Here are snippets from the relevant accounts (bear in mind the deductions from the 2006-7 figure, as explained above):
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9
Of course, based on the figures, people could legitimately argue that Hicks is lying. However, the question once again is this: considering the context of his interview, was there a deliberate intention to deceive? I would argue no.
That is my OPINION. People remember what an opinion is, right? If people don't like my opinion then that's not my problem.
Hicks may have got his figures wrong but that doesn't change the fact that Rafa Benitez was given close to £200 to spend during H+G's reign (and close to £300m during his entire reign) and he wasted much of it on the likes of Keane, Aquilani, Babel, Riera, Dossena, Johnson, Lucas etc.
Imagine how good the squad would be now if the money provided to Benitez had been spent well...
That is another OPINION. Get over it already.
NB. Thanks to Gary - one of the site's regular commentors - for highlighting the fact that I'd missed out Kuyt and Arbeloa from my earlier calculations.
Jaimie Kanwar
CONTRADICTION?
In his recent interview with Sky Sports, Hicks stated the following:
"We spent over 300 million dollars gross on players, about 150 million net on players, but you never hear that in the media; it always kind of disappears in all the noise and anger. ".
Seems clear enough. However, later in the same interview, Hicks says this:
"We spent 300 million pounds on players. 150 million net are the ones we would sell. I think, I don't know, second highest in the league at the time, or third"
So: is it dollars or pounds? Hicks contradicts himself but it's probably just confusion on his part; I do not think he's lying. I personally think he meant pounds, not dollars, and here's why:
1. Immediately preceding his statement about '300m dollars', he referenced the '270 million dollars' he and Gillett had put into the club:
"George and I have put in $270m into the club. We spent over 300 million dollars gross on players, about 150 million net on players"
Hicks was in a 'dollars' frame of mind, so he said dollars. A simple mistake.
2. The actual figures in dollars are so removed from what Hicks suggests (i.e. the figures are actually much higher), that I cannot believe he meant dollars.
3. Hicks illustrates his confusion with the financial aspects of transfers at another point in the interview, where he states:
"We spent 300 million pounds on players. 150 million net are the ones we would sell""
Clearly, Hicks makes the mistake in thinking that the amount recouped for players = net spend. That's incorrect. Net spend = Gross Spend minus Money Recouped. With this in mind, it seems likely that he would be capable of making more innocent mistakes, such as the dollar/pounds contradiction about. Not that it matters - using Hicks' figures, net spend would be 150m over 4 financial years anyway (300m - 150m)
I thought it was best to get these issues out of the way first, so I'll be proceeding on the basis that Hicks meant pounds, not dollars.
IMPORTANT NOTES
I apologise if the following is a little confusing, but to create an accurate picture of transfer spending under Hicks and Gillett, it's important to deduct sales that took place before they arrived, and include all purchases/sales up to the point that the left the club.
1. Hicks and Gillett bought the club on the 6th February 2007. For accounting purposes, LFC's financial year runs from 31 July - 31 July. Thus, any players bought/sold between 31 July 2006 and 6 February 2007 should not be included in this analysis.
2. Several players were sold between 31 July 2006 and 6 February 2007; Two were purchased. I've included details of these a little further down the article.
3. The transfer spending figures for 2007-2009 are recorded in the club's accounts. Unfortunately, accounts for 2009-10 have not been released yet. Having said that, the purchases/sale price figures for the following are included in the 'Post Balance Sheet Events' section of the 2009 Accounts:
* Albert Aquilani + Sotiris Kyrgiakos (Bought for a combined 20.4m)
* Xabi Alonso, Andrea Dossena + Andrei Voronin (Sold for a combined 29.7m)
4. For the purposes of this article, I've compiled the purchase/sale prices for players bought/sold during 2009-10 financial year from the next best source: The official LFC website.
5. As per point 2 above: Between July 2006, and February 2007, the following players were sold:
* Barragan, Traore, Mellor, Kromkamp, Kirkland (Combined 4.5m)
* Darren Potter £525k
* Stephen Warnock £1.5m
TOTAL: £6.5m
I've deducted this amount from the 'recouped ' section for 2006-7 (see table below).
6. As per point 2 above: Between July 2006, and February 2007, the following players were purchased:
* Dirk Kuyt - 10m
* Alvaro Arbeloa - 2.5m
I've deducted this amount from the 'Gross spend' section for 2006-7 (see table below).
7. Including the players referred to in point 3, here are the figures I compiled from LFC.tv for transfers conducted from 31 July 2009 until NESV took over:
Transfers In
* Albert Aquilani + Sotiris Kyrgiakos - £20.4m
* Jonjo Shelvey - £1.7m
* Ayala - £160k
* Raul Meirelles - £11.5m
* Paul Konchesky - £3.5m
* Danny Wilson - £2m
* Christian Poulsen - £4.5m
* Brad Jones - £2.3m
Total Gross Spend: £44.36m (22.6 = RB | 21.7 = RH)
Transfers Out
* Xabi Alonso, Andrea Dossena + Andrei Voronin - £29.7m
* Albert Riera £3.3m
* Diego Cavalieri £3m
* Krisztián Németh £1m
* Javier Mascherano £17.25m
* Lauri Dalla Valle £750k
* Alex Kacaniklic £750k
* Nikolay Mihaylov £1.5m
* Mikel Domínguez £2.6m
* Yossi Benayoun £6m
Total Recouped = £65.85 (31.2 = RB | 35.6 = RH)
TRANSFER SPENDING UNDER HICKS + GILLETT
Everything discussed above is reflected in the following table:
HICKS' CLAIMS: FACT OR FICTION
CLAIM #1: £300m spent on players
REALITY: £210m
Hicks falls short in his estimate here. However, he could be including ALL fees associated with transfers to arrive at the £300m figure, including the following:
* Contract extensions
* Signing-on fees
* Transfer taxes
etc.
This could conceivably take the figure up to £300m. If we're talking about transfer fees alone though, the figure spent (£210m) is nowhere near £300m.
CLAIM #2: £150m net spend on players.
REALITY: £198m recouped, but total net spend of £11.6m
As I argued earlier in this article, it's obvious that Hicks equates money recouped on players to net spend. With that in mind, Hicks basically states that £150m has been recouped on players. Well, the reality is that much more than that has been recouped.
However, Hicks' net spend figure is also £150m (£300m minus £150m), and with that he's way off the mark. The actual net spend figure under H+G is £11.6m.
VERDICT: Is Hicks lying?
I don't think so. He is either confused, and/or is using a different method of calculating his figures. The club's accounts don't lie. Here are snippets from the relevant accounts (bear in mind the deductions from the 2006-7 figure, as explained above):
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9
Of course, based on the figures, people could legitimately argue that Hicks is lying. However, the question once again is this: considering the context of his interview, was there a deliberate intention to deceive? I would argue no.
That is my OPINION. People remember what an opinion is, right? If people don't like my opinion then that's not my problem.
Hicks may have got his figures wrong but that doesn't change the fact that Rafa Benitez was given close to £200 to spend during H+G's reign (and close to £300m during his entire reign) and he wasted much of it on the likes of Keane, Aquilani, Babel, Riera, Dossena, Johnson, Lucas etc.
Imagine how good the squad would be now if the money provided to Benitez had been spent well...
That is another OPINION. Get over it already.
NB. Thanks to Gary - one of the site's regular commentors - for highlighting the fact that I'd missed out Kuyt and Arbeloa from my earlier calculations.
Jaimie Kanwar
It probably dropped to the next page. Only a certain number of comments stay on one page and due to the threaded nature of the comments, new comments can push old comments onto the next page.
ReplyDeleteI have wasted enough of my time on this site.
ReplyDeleteHi Jaimie. Ive obviously hit a nerve when Ive presented you with a more legitimate argument. I know how accounts work very well, Ive been dealing with them for years and your analysis is flawed. You havent responded to some of my earlier posts ?? Rafa wasnt given £200 mill to spend outright. He would not even have got a fraction of that if he didnt sell !!
ReplyDeleteJaimie, whats your view on the new owners meeting Spirit of Shankly?
ReplyDeleteOf course its important, because that's when Cheski got a huge boost in spending. Its the same for Manc. THe sheik is making a very sensible decision, given that the new rules come in soon. He may not be able to bankroll them later, but in making them a club full of expensive stars NOW, THEN THEY WILL ALWAYS BE TRADING AT THE TOP END OF THE PILE IN THE FUTURE. So buy ten Ronaldo's now, out of the blue, and then for the next ten years all you need to do is sell one Ronaldo and bring in another person for the same amount, or a couple for half the price. So of course its important to know what came first, because Chelsea and Manc can have a zero net spend, or even have a net income from player transfers and still able to buy the best players. Rafa's low net spend may be the same as for example Chelsea's low net spend, but the big difference is that he was making a team challenge above itself. But the net spend figure is important NOT in comparison to the Chelsea's and Mancs of the world, but to other aspirant top four teams such as Spurs. It shows that with a net spend of about £25m over four years Rafa was able to challenge for a top four spot, whereas teams such as Spurs etc have had much higher net spends to do the same thing, especially since they have been in the same level of the market: i.e. the less than £20m per player market.
ReplyDeleteBut all in all not a terrible piece of business: bought for £20m, sold six months later for perhaps a little less. So even though te Keene issue was a shambles, it doesn't suggest that Rafa spent huge and wasted the money. He recouped that money at least.
ReplyDeleteJaimie do your figures include the mass spending of the 2003/2004 season? If not then I would say something along the lines of aw's comment below yours. How can you compare LFC's spending to Chelea's when Chelsea had just spent over 100 mill on a dozen players before Rafa came?
ReplyDeleteI think most of us agree now, but at the time I think Rafa was just trying to keep the same balance in the team and hence replaced like for like with his limited budget - Kyrgiakos for Hyypia, Aquilani for Alonso, and instead of buying a striker, since funds were taken away from him he had to give Voronin another chance. He was supposed to buy a striker and a defender with (I seem to remember) appx 30+ mill budget AFTER the purchase of Johnson but, as we all know, this budget was taken away from him.
ReplyDeleteKanwar clearly doesn't like Benitez. Can't help wondering what he thinks about this website? Checkout the top 10! http://bit.ly/a8TH3i
ReplyDeleteI normally agree with a lot of the criticisms of Benitez but I would have to agree with Roddenberry on this one. From the way people speak on this matter they make it sound like he had 200m all in one go. You said it yourself that he had the money in his hands to SPEND and thats how it came across. I think thats why so many are sceptical of your comparisons with Chelsea and suchlike. Situations were different.
ReplyDeleteThe way I would put it is that Benitez could have done better in the transfer market on occasions for sure! However, my own view is that he had to go because he lost the dressing room not because of bad signings.
Otherwise I liked the article and in general I appreciate all the facts bring together and make available in one place on this site. :)
*you bring.
ReplyDeleteI can't type sometimes..
Wow with that attitude (which does seem to be your attitude by the way) we'd fire every single manager within a year or 2 at most, be it Mourinho, O'Neil, Fergussen, Wenger, Ancelotti.... I would hate to have you as my superior Jaimie :P. Your attitude is to judge solely on the bad!! Are you super perfectionist or what???!!!
ReplyDeleteHit s nerve? Hardly. Your point re the 200m is so redundant and irrelevant that I'm not going to waste my time arguing it. Yet another in a long line of lame excuses peddled by Benitez supporters. You're peddling a false argument; an utter fallacy. If you can't see that then that's up to you. The fact that put more stock in estimated figures compiled by a 'panel of experts' on tomkins' site than figures from the club's own account says everything about you. You're welcome to your delusions; I'll stick with reality thanks :-)
ReplyDeleteOh, and for the love of god, how many times must this point be repeated: the 6m a year net spend figure includes Hodgson's transfer activity, so it is NOT 6m a year for Benitez. Hodgson's figures have to be taken put to get Benitez's figures. Despite this obvious point, the pro Benitez brigade *still* insists on using the 6m figure for Benitez! Thus is another example of the dishonesty of Benitez's supporters.
Sent from iPhone
On 21 Oct 2010, at 12:35, "Echo" <js-kit-m2c-1hn7v1urs4irl52f0uc21i0cqdvo1idcomnv6ei2qpffqaedhblg> wrote:
</js-kit-m2c-1hn7v1urs4irl52f0uc21i0cqdvo1idcomnv6ei2qpffqaedhblg>
Well said. It's true that G+H is confused over a lot of things and if they're not confused I'm sure they'll still be the owners of LFC (or whatever holdings it might be). Jamie, I have the tendencies to agree on your opinion and I do believe H+G made available money for transfer and that RB made quite a number of bad decisions in the transfer window. RB fans, get over it and stop blaming H+G alone. Just like football is a team game so is managing the club!
ReplyDeleteGood stuff Hallaj...tomkins writings and research are more credible than kanwar's. period. More fans should visit tomkin's site for fairer, clearer and more accurate reflections of our club.
ReplyDeleteClearly I was referring to Jimmy and not Hallaj for the good links to tomkin's site...guessed I'm as confused as Jaimie himself
ReplyDeleteRafa has just called me, after reading my comments he became vey upset just as both Yewo and Nickname are...
ReplyDeleteWhen I answered the phone I new it was him because he farted with the phone stuck up his bum in my ear without saying anything well not when it came to his ass speaking to me which was the only thing he could do while he was here and that is talk through his ass...
"You, on the other hand, either repeat what he says parrott fashion"As if I am the only person in the entire world that will share the same OPINION as Jamie has? Genius Yewo, genius... Shame, have my comments offended you? Like I said before Yewo, you are to much of a nice person for me...
ReplyDeleteCome on, he was only trying to speak in your language, and you won't even give him credit for that.
ReplyDelete@kanwar - In fact comparative reasoning is a highly regarded and widely used tool, especially when used to judge a hard to determine quantitive like a managers ability, because you have to look not only at the individual, but other things that affect the league in which he's working in.
ReplyDelete@TRHB
I'll name one flop for each manager whilst also asking in what year did Wenger last win anything.
Ferguson - Massimo Taibi
Wenger - Francis Jeffers
Mourinho -<span><span> </span></span>Mataja Kezman
Ancelotti - Alberto Gilardino
If you don't want people to respond, stop the facility to debate on your articles. I actually recognise several flaws in Rafa, but even despite those flaws he has the 3rd best win record of any Liverpool manager in the modern era (since 1900), better win percentage than Shankly in fact. When I look at his entire reign, it can be clearly delineated in to two halves, because of the way we operated financially after being taken over by Hicks & Gillett, who promised a lot & failed to deliver.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rafa joined us, our squad was poorer than what United, Arsenal & Chelsea had. He closed the gap, but never caught up, in the first half of his tenure & I always thought he overachieved with the squad he had. But then in those seasons, he used the money well, in both giving us a fuller squad & improving the 1st team
After the sale to the cowboys, our transfer policy changed substantially, lest not forget he wanted Alonso & Barry in the same team, as admitted by both Benitez & Alonso and although veering off topic slightly, even if he had wanted to replace Alonso, it was the managers prerogative, as Alonso's form had dipped - christ Lucas had 5 times as many assists as Alonso one league season. Unfortunately, instead of being able to invest in the squad, he had to piece meal it, players aged & he had to play with what (comparatively) small budget he was given, plus what he could raise from sales.
Again he has made mistakes, but alas that is human, but he went from manager to accountant, having to trade off here, to get a little their and it's not a fantasy game where players don't age, lose form etc,. He fought for & got control of, in his last season, the Academy set up, which he'd been seeding through out his tenure & has left us with the most promising bunch of kids in nigh on 15 years.
And there was more to just the management aspect, Rafa immersed himself in the club, the city & the fans. Some of the sung & unsung charity work he did around Liverpool is truly astonishing, both in terms of time & expense.
Rafa made mistakes, but any manager who has a better win ratio than Shankly (of which there are four) at our club, deserves a lot more respect than he gets on here.
I think you'll find that kuyt was signed in august 2006 and arbeloa was signed in jan 2007. Both fall into 2007 year end and both bought before h&g arrived. That's approx 12m that you'd need to take off the 69.9m. So that would mean £209m spent in h&g's tenure; 91m short of the magic £300m figure. Are you really trying to suggest that we spent 91m on agents fees, transfer levies and other contingent costs. That would be 33% of the 300m. Nonsense. Admit it jk h&g did not spend anywhere £300m. For someone who is so fond of facts there is a lot of supposition in this article.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that kuyt was signed in august 2006 and arbeloa was signed in jan 2007. Both fall into 2007 year end and both bought before h&g arrived. That's approx 12m that you'd need to take off the 69.9m. So that would mean £209m spent in h&g's tenure; 91m short of the magic £300m figure. Are you really trying to suggest that we spent 91m on agents fees, transfer levies and other contingent costs. That would be 33% of the 300m. Nonsense. Admit it jk h&g did not spend anywhere £300m. For someone who is so fond of facts there is a lot of supposition in this article.
ReplyDeleteDelighted you're not IGNORING me any more! I'm sure you're not the only person who shares an opinion with Jaimie. Doesn't alter the fact that you repeat everything he says "parrott fashion" without offering anything of your own into the debate (in my OPINION of course).
ReplyDeleteYou're saying that the Alonso interview a few weeks ago was a lie then, Alonso lied when he said he went back to Spain because that is where he wanted to raise his family.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that kuyt was signed in august 2006 and arbeloa was signed in jan 2007. Both fall into 2007 year end and both bought before h&g arrived. That's approx 12m that you'd need to take off the 69.9m. So that would mean £209m spent in h&g's tenure; 91m short of the magic £300m figure. Are you really trying to suggest that we spent 91m on agents fees, transfer levies and other contingent costs. That would be 33% of the 300m. Nonsense. Admit it jk h&g did not spend anywhere £300m. For someone who is so fond of facts there is a lot of supposition in this article.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that kuyt was signed in august 2006 and arbeloa was signed in jan 2007. Both fall into 2007 year end and both bought before h&g arrived. That's approx 12m that you'd need to take off the 69.9m. So that would mean £209m spent in h&g's tenure; 91m short of the magic £300m figure. Are you really trying to suggest that we spent 91m on agents fees, transfer levies and other contingent costs. That would be 33% of the 300m. Nonsense. Admit it jk h&g did not spend anywhere £300m. For someone who is so fond of facts there is a lot of supposition in this article.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that kuyt was signed in august 2006 and arbeloa was signed in jan 2007. Both fall into 2007 year end and both bought before h&g arrived. That's approx 12m that you'd need to take off the 69.9m. So that would mean £209m spent in h&g's tenure; 91m short of the magic £300m figure. Are you really trying to suggest that we spent 91m on agents fees, transfer levies and other contingent costs. That would be 33% of the 300m. Nonsense. Admit it jk h&g did not spend anywhere £300m. For someone who is so fond of facts there is a lot of supposition in this article.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that kuyt was signed in august 2006 and arbeloa was signed in jan 2007. Both fall into 2007 year end and both bought before h&g arrived. That's approx 12m that you'd need to take off the 69.9m. So that would mean £209m spent in h&g's tenure; 91m short of the magic £300m figure. Are you really trying to suggest that we spent 91m on agents fees, transfer levies and other contingent costs. That would be 33% of the 300m. Nonsense. Admit it jk h&g did not spend anywhere £300m. For someone who is so fond of facts there is a lot of supposition in this article.
ReplyDeleteJaimie will ignore this post because he won't want to admit to the implications of the answer
ReplyDeleteWhat manager hasn't made a loss on a player at some time?
Chelsea took massive hits on Veron, Shevcenko and Crespo within a year of signing them
Because they are not run as a sensible business they could splurge money on whoever they wanted
To compare Liverpool's gradual improvement of a bad squad over years to chelsea's 1 month splurge is ridiculous in the extreme, even if similar net spend figures over a longer timeframe
How can anybody compete with that?
I ramble on about tactics on forums, I've covered this before - this is part of my response to people calling for a 4-4-2 with a simple pass and move philosophy:
ReplyDeleteTraditional 4-4-2 is best played rigid (no overlapping runs, players encouraged to hold shape etc) and works alright for teams with limited skill levels. We're a highly skilled team though and would be wasting our levels of fitness by playing rigid not to mention it would be an entire shift in gameplay and A LOT of our personnel.
"Well what about a fluid 4-4-2?" It creates massive holes in our defensive game allowing teams a lot of space on the ball. Our defenders aren't the quickest either, so we're vulnerable on the counter especially against fast teams. To offset the amount of time they're on the ball, we could play with a high defensive line which works perfectly with Reina in his sweeper-keeper role. With a 4-2-3-1 you can afford to play with a high defensive line (this is important due to Reina's role-although recently he's actually just been a brilliant traditional GK) with the assurance you will have ample players in defensive positions to track inrushing midfielders on the opponent's counter.
"Well, what about our attack?" The 4-4-2 closes down some good passing angles if it's too flat, if it's staggered you may as well split midfield into offensive and defensive units, which is what we've done. The 4-2-3-1 is a more attack oriented variation of the 4-5-1(which is actually an offset 4-4-2 if attacking down a wing or a 4-3-3 if attacking down the middle) that doesn't rely on a target man for goals but relies on the pace and dynamism of the more advanced players. It also allows you use a deep lying playmaker in the "Xabi Alonso" role along with a destroyer in the "Mascherano" mould without rigidly tying down either of them into the "Makelele" as is typical of any of the 4-1-X-X based combinations.
Playing a 4-2-3-1 means essentially we don't talk in thirds of the pitch, we talk in quarters of the pitch. A fluid 4-4-2 would have six to eight players playing in the same third of the pitch but with our 4-2-3-1, there's at least six players in each quarter of the pitch and allows for far smoother roaming.
The 4-4-2 is the most balanced formation that makes good use of the wide areas of the pitch [of which we have no designated wingers] and works quite well when you have 2 fast wingers [we don't] who are also good crossers of the ball it is however conservative [see: hopes of attacking football] and doesn't make allowance for exceptional players [I'd call Torres exceptional] in either defensive or offensive roles for either your team or your opponent and is often useless against a 4-1-X-X based formations where the other team basically refuses to play and put most of their players behind the ball unlike the 4-2-3-1 where players can move around, probe, switch play around and find gaps in the opponent's defensive setup.
The 5-3-2 or 3-5-2 depending on how you look at it (do you class the Johnsons and Aurelios are defending wingers or attacking fullbacks), is a pretty good system and thrives of hard work. It will fall to pieces otherwise, that being said: I don't believe the squad we have at our disposal is good enough for it, the first XI is almost close to perfect for it.
Merits of playing a left footer on the left are obvious, crosses are easier to whip in and faster players can beat their man easier this way. All depends on how good the person is at cutting in. Look at Robben/Messi etc. You KNOW they're going to cut in, but they're still effective at it time and time again. Babel on the other hand, not so much, would much prefer to see him played on the right.
Well it's not just me. Fabio Capello seems to agree, but that's neither here nor there. How have we benefited from it you ask? Last season when we finished 7th we created more total chances with the majority coming from down the right flank than we did the season we finished 2nd. Long story short, the differences between Arby and GJ are: Arby is better defensively but when he does get forward and cross the ball in (which he does less than GJ), he was usually more composed in finding players to utilise these crosses. GJ whips in far more crosses at a higher % completion rate but not as many have been direct assists.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your other article with "facts", the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" comes to mind. It is NOT a logical way to debate the merits/lack of merits of Johnson. Don't let facts get in the way of a good GJ bashing though.
Lucas is one of the most intelligent players and if you actually watch the guy instead of slating him and saying OMFG it's Lucas Sidewalker, you'd notice he's very similar to the way Gareth Barry/Nigel De Jong do a whole lot of passing backwards and sideways at Man City. The idea isn't so he can brag to the other lads in the dressing room about how he was the number #1 passer on the OPTAstats index, the idea is clear: Defense through denial of possession. If they don't have the ball, they can't score. Also, shifting the play around sideways is a means of trying to open up space as the opposition moves around to follow play. He's not this brilliant creative output that will replace Xabi but he's not playing the same role as Xabi. Creativity and dynamism is left to the 3 attacking midfielders, Lucas is actually a superbly intelligent player but sadly, technically quite awful. He's a good 'cog in the wheel' type player as opposed to the wow he amazes me everytime he touches the ball kind of player.
Degen whether you like it or not, was a class act in the Bundesliga and so was Voronin. Neither translated their successes over here (hell, not even close - would've loved for EITHER of them to replicate even half of what they did over there, but alas it wasn't to be), although I think Degen might have a physio ward named after him.
Roddenberry you goose it's vitez :P
ReplyDeleteMy God, Jaimie has actually made a point in a vaguely reasoned and intelligent way. That is very unusual for this site. Usually he is just an ignorant fascist who is not interested in genuine debate. He has one rule for his 'guests' about polite behaviour and a totally different one for himself. As soon as someone starts to win an argument, which given how crazy his own arguments are happens all the time, he bans them or else waits until they've obviously stopped participating to answer them. This means that this site is not a forum for debate it is just a forum for a sad little man to play power games. Oh please, please don't I'm not going to be banned, am I? I'm going to join the boycott of this pathetic site and go to places where genuine discussion is allowed. I advise you all to do likewise. Lets have genuine debate not Jaimie meglomania.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lfchistory.net/ - do your own research. I'm not even a journalist and I done the research, what's your excuse for not doing it?
ReplyDeleteAgain I refer you to ^. After the initial splurge on players when the Americans came, there's never been a decent sum of money to bring in another player or two without most of that being raised from accumulation of player sales.
Yes, we lost £8m on Keane (of which £4m will be returned back to us through various clauses over time) but he recognised his mistake and tried to fix it, he's not perfect - hell no manager is.
Again, I've done MY research, do your own.
Well Woy's spent £48m according to accounts and managed to drop us 12 places, there's some food for thought for you. You sure you still don't want to talk net spend?
If Benitez is cold-hearted what do you make of the dressing room rift that's happening these days? What's that?
http://www.lfchistory.net/ - do your own research. I'm not even a journalist and I done the research, what's your excuse for not doing it?
ReplyDeleteAgain I refer you to ^. After the initial splurge on players when the Americans came, there's never been a decent sum of money to bring in another player or two without most of that being raised from accumulation of player sales.
Yes, we lost £8m on Keane (of which £4m will be returned back to us through various clauses over time) but he recognised his mistake and tried to fix it, he's not perfect - hell no manager is.
Again, I've done MY research, do your own.
Well Woy's spent £48m according to accounts and managed to drop us 12 places, there's some food for thought for you. You sure you still don't want to talk net spend?
If Benitez is cold-hearted and alienates players what do you make of the dressing room rift that's happening these days and people that are considering their futures? What's that?
In before you post "Proof Please".
Was Benitez here in 2003-4? NO. This is yet *another* lame excuse used by Benitez's supporters! You willl use anything you can to muddy the issue. If Chelsea had not spent big before Benitez came, you would find something else to use.
ReplyDeleteBenitez DID NOT recoup the money; that suggests he got the whole 20m back. Liverpool lost 8m on the deal, yet typically for blinkered Benoitez apologist, you condone the loss.
ReplyDeletePrecisely, Anteater. People come out with this sort of stuff all the time as if they are plugged into Benitez's thought process, when in resality, it's all made up.
ReplyDeleteYes, Hicks hater, you are banned. And you know why, You can go and spout your ignorant bile elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI'll say this again: I don't give a damn if people have a problem with my views. I couldn't care less if people 'don't like me' If people do not like this site it's simple: DON'T VISIT. If no one decided to visit this site it would make no difference to me - I don't write to appease or pander to people - I write what I think.
I will not allow the comments section of this site to turn into a free for all of hurling insults and snide/derogatory remarks. People who can construct arguments in the preoper manner are welcome; people who can't will have their comments deleted. And anyone who can't hack that can go elsewhere.
Oooh - now people will moan about my manner; how I come across as some kind of 'dictator'. Tough luck. It is what it is. I'm not changing, and anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to visit this site.
No, Simon. I'm not respnding to this post because I'm not getting into the neverending circular argument perpetuated by Benitez apologists. If it's not one excuse, it's another. It's always someone elses's fault; it's always something else causing the problem; every other team always has an advantage somehow; and once one point is addressed, another lame excuse advanced. It's like religious people defending their deity; no matter what argument is advanced, some other desperate, barely related counter argument will be invented. I'm not wasting my time with that anymore.
ReplyDeleteGet off your high horse, Dj. That is not research; that is your OPINION on someone else's research, and research is based on media published figures.
ReplyDeleteYes, we lost £8m on Keane (of which £4m will be returned back to us through various clauses over time)<span></span>
Unbelievable. How do you know that '4m will be returned' to the club?! Where is your proof? This is exactly what I'm talking about re blinkered Benitez apologists - they will make things up and grasp at straws in their bid to defend their deity. And you even have the chutzpah to triumphantly claim you've done your research. What we know for a FACT is that LFC made an 8m loss on Keane. Show me evidence that 4m more will be recouped. The accounts do not reflect this.
That's right, just ignore the facts as spoken by Alonso himself in an interview over 6 months ago:
ReplyDelete<span>"There have been a lot of rumours but as I`ve said before, it was a professional relationship. I have always tried to do what he asked me to do on the pitch. When the birth of my child happened, I had to take a decision to be with my family because it was an important moment. <span>
"Last summer when the club proposed that I had to be sold to buy new players it was a difficult moment and decision to accept;</span> but I accepted it as a professional. <span>That moment changed my mind, from that moment it was time for a change".</span></span><span></span>
As a result of Benitez's appalling treatment of him as tried to get Garether Barry, Alonso decided he had to leave.
http://www.youtube.com/v/_A-9D3uDtP8&feature" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="170" height="140
Fair enough, it's your website and I can understand that it's monotonous to argue same point over and over. But I am not a fanatasist when it comes to Rafa
ReplyDeleteYour posts provoke debate and I guess by riling Benitez fans you get a good ding dong of a battle going here
Rafa had major flaws, and with a heavy heart i accepted that he had to go. We were dropping fast, he couldn't / wouldn't adapt to the fact that his zonal marking (amongst other failing tactics) had become easy to expose after an early few successful years, players were turning against him. He had become increasingly embittered in his opposition to the owners (further ingratiating himself to hardcore fans and strengthening his position) and flagrantly defied them at every turn, perhaps trying to force them to sack him so he could preserve his legacy with the fans, his time was up
Was Rafa a control freak? Don't think so. Media suggests he was by trying to control everything, academy etc. He just wanted to be in control of his own destiny, Sir Alex controls everything at Man U i'm sure
I just don't that it's fair to compare Rafa's situation to some of his rivals, financially speaking, and also the battering he took in the media was driven in part i feel by the resentment felt throughout the game by the number of foreign managers in the English game
We hoped Rafa was the next Messiah, but just as Houllier did, he fell short
Hodgson is not the next Shankly, neither is Rijkaard and neither is Martin O' Neill. I don't know who will be, maybe Ian Holloway could do something. It sounds bizarre but if he could instill the same confidence and self belief in Liverpool players as Blackpool lads we would be world beaters. None of our players were encouraged to express themselves under Rafa, but there are hints that Roy may allow them to do so. Especially with starting Shelvey last night
Financially speaking, we have been pissing against the wind since all seater stadia were introduced and Man Utd had the good fortune to be located somewhere that allowed constant expansion
We also lagged far behind in commercial activity, something that has improved greatly under H&G, a positive contribution from them
I don't want to have to look for excuses for why we haven't won stuff for 20 years but there is one glaring incident. Hillsborough robbed us of 96 fans, King Kenny and ultimately our innocence. Football quickly moved on and we were still reeling from the shock of that fateful day
Souness ripped what was left of the heart of the club out and we are where we are nown as a result
I respect that you want to give Roy time, I would too but just feel that if there is not 4 points from next 2 games he's gone. It may already be too late for him now
My, and many other's, point about Rafa not having 200 million lump sim to splurge on a rake of big stars has to be relevant, would Chelsea have been instantly transformed otherwise? You don't have to answer it but I'm sure that you privately recognise it's importance
An interesting thought would be the following
Rafa and Mourinho joined Liverpool and Chelsea respectively in early June 2004
In another scenario, Rafa goes to Chelsea, has the big splurge and Mourinho comes to us and spends gradual fashion
Would the difference in points have been so vast?? No way, Jose would have had Liverpool right up there because he is a man manager and can get the best out his players. His players love him and he is a phenomenon. He would have been the new Shankley for sure
Ultimately, Rafa did the best he could in sometimes testing situations and restored our pride with a shock 2005 CL. He will always be revered at anfield for that
Those figures are actually a few million off but either way it's certainly close enough to form an fairly accurate opinion and you can deduce when the spending took place. The Guardian, Mirror, Telegraph and BBC all reported that there were between £3m-4m worth of add-ons to come back to Liverpool after the Keane transfer.
ReplyDeleteI had a copy of the accounts a few months back in a H&G folder on my computer, thankfully that saga is now closed and there wasn't a chance in hell I wanted to see anything to do with them, I took great pleasure in deleting them (I'll be honest, I'm not wasting a few more $ or £ to re-download them).
We can create an estimate that's close enough or widely enough accepted and draw a conclusion from there or you could wait for the accounts and try and pick the numbers apart there and working out another way you could write a piece while also taking a cheap shot at Rafa - personally, I think your time would be better spent WATCHING the games or at least LEARNING a little bit about tactics because I could've written a better piece criticising Glen Johnson that was purely about his footballing abilities.
It hurts you that he's a good coach/manager, it speaks volumes about him that he's moseyed on into the current treble holders, while Hodgson is struggling to keep afloat after a investment into the squad. What's Hodgson's excuse for spending £30m (conservative estimate too) and dropping the team 12 places from what was considered a disaster last year while simultaneously playing the worst football I've ever seen LFC play in my life and managing to be the biggest fuckwit I've ever seen in press conferences? It's ok I know the answer "he's only been in charge 3 months, Rafa had six years" - correct. Doesn't excuse the fact that this is comfortably a top half team under a competent manager.
When accounts are released you'll actually find it's close to £48m has been spent and you can quote me on that (sign-on fees, agent fees etc are all included).
Lets pretend just before Rafa arrived, Liverpool purchased Ronaldo and Rooney, in addition to the squad he inherited - just 2 players. Do you think the squad would be in the same shape today? Seriously, stop doubting my intelligence and stop making me doubt yours. You are stubborn, but sometimes you really should try to see reason. I will not use "ANYTHING" to muddy the waters, it's pure logic.
ReplyDeleteYewo
ReplyDeleteThis is why I say you are too much of a nice guy for me...
<span><span>The Roy Hodgson Brigade</span><img></img></span> says:4 days ago, 07:06:27 PM<span><span>“</span></span>Jaime, please dont forget to explain the difference between NET & SPEND when you release your Article on how Rafa spent LFC's money!!!
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/debunking-liverpool-fc-myths-no-8-top.html#ixzz136cPUnFz
<span><span>Paul</span><img></img></span> replies:4 days ago, 10:38:20 PM<span><span>“</span></span>My goodness you and you NET & SPEND!!!!!! I buy a computer for 400 pounds, sell it for 450, buy another for 500 and sell it for 550, then buy another for 600 pounds. I have a computer worth 600 pounds and in essence I spent 500 on it. How can you come tell me that I spent 1500 pounds and that is what counts!!!!! I spent friggin 500 NET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/debunking-liverpool-fc-myths-no-8-top.html#ixzz136d5fRNl
<span><span>The Roy Hodgson Brigade </span><img></img></span> replies:3 days ago, 01:17:55 AM<span><span>“</span></span>And you want to use pennies and compare it to millions?
ReplyDeleteWe arent talking about buying a computer Paul. We are talking about the utter shite that walks onto the pitch on matchday. What someone like you refuses to understand is that Million upon Million was spent by Rafa from the Moores days until his depature.
You buy a player for 10mil, sell him for 12mil then buy another player for 14mil.
You now own a player which cost you 14mil not minus 2 mil and neither did you pay positive 2mil for the player which you sold (that is if you understand what I am saying)
Lets work it out
minus (subtract) 10 mil Bought - money payed out
plus (add) 12mil sold - money received
minus 14mil bought - money payed out
difference - minus 2 mil
Go to your local accountant (a real one though) and take my figures and ask him to work out for you how much money was spent 1. buying a player 2.selling that player and 3.buying a new player.
If my calculations are correct when running a business then it will be as follows in order for your books to balance...
Subtract 10mil money payed out
Add 12mil money received
Subtract 14mil money payed out
Difference minus 2 mil
On my books it will reflect that I spent 24mil on player purchases the total money I payed out, recouped 12mil on sales the total money received back and made a loss of 2mil but Now I am sitting with an asset of 14mil which is the new player.
If you suggest that you spent minus 2mil your NET figure on a player that actually cost 14mil then you might as well run for the hills because the first person who will be knocking on your door is your nearest debt collector.
Now I can do a full detailed breakdown as an example on how much you would have paid for a full squad but honestly it will be a waste of time.
Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/debunking-liverpool-fc-myths-no-8-top.html#ixzz136dbjx8f
<span><span>Yewo</span><img></img></span> replies:3 days ago, 01:58:31 AM<span><span>“</span></span>The reason the NET arguments are valid is because it allowed the manager to try and "trade up" with players. If, for example, the manager was allowed to spend £10m on a player and then subsequently sold him for £20m and went on to replace him with a player that cost £21m then the overall outlay to get that player is 11m. You have effectively got a £21m player for £11m. You couldn't argue that it would be good business.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to try and say we made a profit on every player and "traded up" every time but that's the rationale behind the argument.
Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/debunking-liverpool-fc-myths-no-8-top.html#ixzz136eMj4U1
Now Yewo...
ReplyDeletePlease come with a valid argument or other wise reply with a comment that will say...
<span><span>Yewo</span><img></img></span> replies:Today, 01:23:15 AM<span><span>“</span></span>Delighted you're not IGNORING me any more! I'm sure you're not the only person who shares an opinion with Jaimie. Doesn't alter the fact that you repeat everything he says "parrott fashion" without offering anything of your own into the debate (in my OPINION of course).
Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/tom-hicks-interview-analysis-part-2-did.html#ixzz136fZGmy3
Sorry Mate
ReplyDeleteDo you also have the phone stuck up you bum?
Jaimie's famous delete button came in handy for the comment posted underneath this one!
ReplyDeleteAh, are you saying that Rafa had ti sell to buy, because that's what Alonso is stating - and lest not forget, this was the second time we'd try to get Barry in which Benitez was informed he'd have to sell to buy, because we had a debt to pay. The first time we went in for Barry, we were not looking to off load Alonso, as he himself stated 2 weeks ago, the 2nd time though, we were having to sell to buy, as Alonso points out in his interview. The second time was also after Alonso had had 2, by the standards he had set, poor seasons. Drop of form is a valid reason to look for a replacement, even Alonso acknowledged that in the TV interview. In fact, the much derided Lucas ended up with 5 times as many league assists as Alonso during one of those seasons.
ReplyDeleteAlonso said in your article - I wanted to be with my family, which for a Spaniard is a generational thing, not just a family unit - he wanted to go home. And then you blow your Benitez didn't have to sell to buy theory out the window when you quote I had to be sold to buy new players.
And again, after one poor season, we've gotten rid of a manager who had the 3rd highest win % of all our managers, better than Shanks who is 5th on the list. One poor season and his record showed he deserved at least a chance to put it right. Now we have a manager with 1 league win in 8 and a smattering of wins against weak teams in the Europa League.
If we'd got someone better than Rafa in, I might not be so pissed off, but we've got a manger who has an abysmal away record in the Premiership & has only once in his career had a win percentage of over 50% with a club, including clubs in which he was winning titles with in Scandanvia.
Hi all, enjoy this. By E2K at RAWK
ReplyDelete<span><span></span></span>http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=257840.360
I LOVE THIS PART.....
<span><span>"Well I’ve got a shocking admission, Rafa is partially to blame for Hodgson looking so bad – he gave him an impossible act to follow. And it’s the act we’re still remembering every bit as much as the man.”</span></span>
Erudite comeback, but I'm guessing you just can't get a signal.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the current situation about Roy: do you think he should stay, leave, when should he go(if you want him to), who would you have to replace him, what do you think our best line-up is, and what transfers/positions need to be bought/strengthened?
ReplyDeleteMy brother was at the press conference when that question was asked and heard Benitez's reply. He was asked about guaranteeing 4th. Again I ask you, how would you have replied, confidently with a yes, no comment ( criticized by the press) or no (heavily criticized by the press).
ReplyDeleteYou've mentioned one big loss, before him the most money he'd lost on a player was Morientes and your figures are inaccurate, but you'll say they are not, so we'll agree to disagree. Every manager makes mistakes in the transfer market, how many attempt to rectify their mistakes as quickly a Benitez did? And Keane is a sore point, Rafa agreed to sign him after being his other target had fallen through, which wasn't true, so yet again Rafa was left with his 2nd choice, which occurred all too often under the frauds H & G.
ReplyDeleteI admire your work but for you to not take into account the depth of chelsea, man utd sqaud before rafa came in is unforgivable. Rafa had to come in a build a squad from scratch bar gerrard and carragher. HE was very astute in the market okay he made mistakes but who doesnt, but overall, reina one of the best goalkeepers on the world, torres well turned him into top 3 strikers in world, mascherano, gerrard turned him into a goal scoring machine (sorry didnt buy him but improved him), alonso (dotn need to say anything) had to sell him he wanted to leave, aquilani is a good palyer yes brought him for under 20m, based on potential, buying Glen was a gamble but was best right back in england at the time, perhaps not buying GJ and AQ and buying a support striker was better but yes mistakes but again not perfect, we were always linked with top players but didnt have the cash, remember vidic, evra, berbatov, alves, simao all top players we wanted.
ReplyDeleteA valid argument for what? All I see here is some older posts that you've copied...what is the point you're trying to make?
ReplyDelete