8/05/2012 03:00:00 pm

LFC vs. Man Utd: 21 year Gross/Net transfer spend comparison (1990-2011)

In comparison with bitter rivals Manchester United, how much money have Liverpool FC spent on transfers during the Premier League era? For the first time ever, either online or offline, here are the club's gross/net transfer figures from 1990 until 2011. Be warned: it 'aint pretty!

NOTES

* The figures include all transfers up to and including Kenny Dalglish's activity in the transfer market.

* The figures come directly from Liverpool and Manchester United's official financial accounts, i.e. the only factual, irrefutable source.

* Adjustment for inflation is not necessary here. I am merely presenting the facts, not making a comparison between managers, or with today's monetary values. Inflation does not change the totals spent by each manager, or the amount paid out by the club for transfers at any given time.

LFC vs. MUFC: Transfer Spending 1990-2011 - Main Table

LFC vs. MUFC: Transfer Spending 1990-2011

LFC vs. MUFC: Transfer Spending 1990-2011 - Grand Totals

Liverpool vs. Manchester United - Transfer Spending comparison - 1990-2011 - Grand Totals

KEY POINTS

* Since 1990, Man United have spent 11% less than Liverpool on transfers but won 60% more trophies.

* Even in the 2000s, Liverpool have a higher gross spend than United.

* United's net spend is higher overall, but only by a miniscule amount.

* Gerard Houllier (£79m) had a higher net spend over 6 years than Rafa Benitez (£63m). According to the Net Spend Cult, this means that Houllier actually had more money to spend that Benitez (!). Clearly, such an argument has no credibility at all. (Benitez Gross spend = £289m. Houllier Gross spend = £147.2m. On what deluded plane must someone exist to argue that £147m is greater than £289m?!)

* Benitez has recouped the most money in players sales of all LFC's managers in the last 20 years.

* Available transfer funds have (inevitably) increased with each new manager.

* Since 1990, 45% of LFC's available transfer funds have been spent by Benitez.

* Despite only 18 months in charge (second spell) Kenny Dalglish spent close to 20% of LFC's available transfer funds for the last 21 years.

* Since 1990, 66% of LFC's available transfer funds have been spent by Dalglish and Benitez.

* Luckily, Graeme Souness only got his hands on 3.6% of the total transfer money provided to managers over the last 21 years :-)

Jaimie Kanwar





REMINDER: COMMENT POLICY

This is a site for reasoned, adult discussion. ALL views are welcome, and if someone's football-related opinion doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what constitutes an LFC 'fan', then tough luck. Posts containing personal insults, belittlement, sniping, deliberate antagonism, etc will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. Attack the argument, not the person. Ultimately, it's simple: be as vehement and passionate as you like, but please remain civil at all times.Thank you.

70 Comments :

Nev the Red said...

Jaimie try the numbers again without the Christian Ronaldo sale
almost identical!!
a one off fluke sale that distorts the whole picture
and how about a similar comaprioson for the 70s and 80's?You certainly seem to have the time!Nev the Red

trutherts said...

when it comes to the transfer market liverpool appear to be blind only with benitez where we even considered a success in the market

Aaron C. said...

You really do have to adjust for inflation in order to make some of these arguments valid. As far as the overall comparison between United and Liverpool, it probably comes out in the wash, as the figures are so similar for the most part. However, to compare the spending of different liverpool managers, you most certainly have to account for inflation, otherwise you are comparing apples and oranges. To say Dalglish and Benitez spent 66% of liverpools total transfer funds is a bit unfair. Of course two of the most recent managers will have spent more than people managing back in the 90's.

I like the article though, as much as it pains me to admit it. We've practically been on a level playing field as far as spending goes since our last league title, yet we've been completely out preformed domestically. As much as I hate Fergie, he certainly deserves some respect.

Jaimie K said...

23 minutes. That's how long it took for the typical Ronaldo excuse to present itself. So, you want me to take off the Ronaldo sale but keep the 50m torres sale, right?

Yes, that sounds fair :-)

The numbers don't lie. Take off the Ronaldo/Torres sales and LFC's figures are still worse than United's

Re 'having the time' - This article took me 10 minutes to put together. I have my own database of stats/financials etc, all available at the click of a button. The hard work compiling everything was done years ago.

Re the 70s and 80s - I will post that comparison later this year. Getting club accounts from the 70s is quite hard (!)

bigred_76 said...

Jamie the closet Manc, still only ever negative stories about LFC, Asked yo many a time, you never answer, Do you actually go the game???

Zanatos1980 said...

Good article, in regards to managers, inflation has to come into it, and also many more things, as a example, even now we are still reaping the rewards of the players brought by Rafa, and will do for years to come, same goes for previous managers. Take Agger, if he was sold for 20mil now BR would get the net figure, even though Rafa brought him. This is the same for players sold under Rafa but brought by previous managers.

One thing it does show is how we have wasted so much money, to be anywhere around Man Utds figures, and even worse over them, but be so far off them just shows how manager after manager has failed, badly. 

Jamie, what would be interesting is to see who was in charge of the deals for each period, i.e Parry etc. As when it comes to prices paid I`ve always felt this was down to them, as I just cant see a manager being allowed to bid whatever they wanted. Surely someone else does the money side of it. Would be interesting to see which person wasted the most. 

Nice article though. Just goes to show CL or no CL we still over spent on players not good enough. 

Kermy38 said...

great article from a Manc fan there.

Zanatos1980 said...

When I say reaping the rewards, I meant money wise. Its extremely hard to work out how valuable a manager was to the club just based on transfers. There`s so much more to it, where did they finish in the league, what youngsters did they get in, how much money did they make the club after all there buys have been sold, and how much did each player signed bring to the club, example how much cash did we make from having a world superstar like torres on the books. To me it seems almost impossible to work out, other than a gut instinct. This is why I think most people still are fond of Rafa, as a overall he brought more to the club than any manager in the last 21 years. He made mistakes and it was the right time for him to go. However he still imo did more for the club in terms of performance, worldwide fan base building, creditabilty and many other things than any manager we have had in the last 21 years. Was he transfer crazy? YES, did he buy some of the most random buys ever? YES, what he also brilliant? YES. Did Man Utd spend better? YES

Phil Pederson said...

Oh dear, another pop at Benitez, how predictable you are.


Let's have a look at the NET SPEND CULT then shall we.

JK in terms of gross spending...it is you that is deluded. Let's play out YOUR flawed argument net v gross.

NET
So then, if I buy 10 players for £10m each and sell 10 players for £10m each, that equates to £100m gross spend but ZERO net (as I recoup £100m from sales..hopefully you are still following this JK). 

GROSS
Are you trying to tell us that if I buy 1 player for £50m and sell him for £5m (£50m gross spend, £45 net LOSS) then I have managed transfer spending better because my gross spend is £45m less than the first example???? doh!

Go back to school JK or get an accountant...I wouldn't trust you with 50p the way your brain works things out.

Duncan said...

Utd have won a lot more important trophies than Liverpool as well.  You can't compare League Cups and FA Cups with two Champions Leagues and a ridiculous amount of Premier League trophies.  As a Liverpool fan it would be wise not to draw any attention to the money spent by Liverpool and their minor success.  What's the point?  

Zanatos1980 said...

I think the point is to highlight the gross mis use of transfer money by us. 

David said...

Think it might be you who needs to go back to school if you think 100-50 = 55!

Zanatos1980 said...

I think you mis-read it, he was using two different examples, unless my eyes are messing up I see no where that he says 100-50 = 55!

nhd said...

Erm, that's not what he said at all. If you look the gross spend for both clubs (and the net spend), they are in a very similar ball park. Almost negligible difference in todays footballing terms. What is essentially being said that having spent similar amounts of money, Utd have had VASTLY more success. If you take inflation into account, things get worse for Liverpool, as they spent more on transfers during the 90's, which would be relatively higher in 'todays money'

Jaimie K said...

The point? 

* To ensure accurate info about LFC's transfer spending is available in the public domain (to counteract the masses of inaccurate info)

* As Zanatos says below, to highlight misuse of transfer funds

* I write about stuff that interests me, and LFC's finances interest me.

Johnny said...

Pointless waste of time, serves no other purpose than to highlight your Manc Roots and have another pop at Benitez. Why 21 years? Why not include the time that we were winning premierships at will and THEY were spending money like mad to try and catch us (Just as we are them, now). Why not look at how many times they have broken transfer records compared to us or the wages paid to their players and ours?

It must be a very sad existence you lead to have maintained your hatred of Benitez to this stage. I know you claim not to hate Benitez but your actions deny those claims.

Jaimie K said...

Exactly, NHD.  Add inflation into the mix and the money wasted on transfers would look positively catastrophic.

Zanatos1980 said...

Two things Jamie, who do you think is mainly responsible for the mis-use of money? The managers for picking bad targets, or the people who make the deals?

Secondly, of the last 21 years, who do you feel was the best manager, not just on transfers, but who did the most overall to get us nearly back up there? Even if its the best of a bad bunch, I`m guessing you must have a preferred person.

Jaimie K said...

Hey Zanatos - In my view, the blame is generally 70-30 in favour of the manager. The Chairman signs the cheques, but he puts his faith in the manager's expertise and ability to to choose an effective player. The manager:

* Watches players
* Sees all the scouting reports
* Makes the decision to pursue a player
* Persuades the club to part with the money

etc.

Things change with each manager though given the circumstances at the time. For each manager, I'd attribute the following levels of blame:

* Souness - 100% -
* Evans - 80% (20% Moores + Parry)
* Houllier - 70% (30% Moores and Parry)
* Benitez - 70% (30% Parry/Purslow/H+G)
* Hodgson - 50% (50% Purslow/H+G)
* Dalglish - 50% (50% FSG + Comolli)

As for best manager over the last 21 years:

1. Gerard Houllier
2. Rafa Benitez
3. Roy Evans

Benitez won the CL, but Houllier did all the hard-work of transforming the club (on and off the pitch):

* Professionalizing every aspect of the club.

* Dealing with the indiscipline of the Spice Boys era.

* Overhauling the club's training facilities.

* Taking Liverpool back into the Champions League, and bringing European respectability back to the club.

Benitez made Liverpool a true European force but he had the benefit of the superb infrastructure and strong foundations laid by Houllier.

Just to be clear: Houllier is not one of my favourite LFC managers, but I'm being objective here - he did a lot of positive stuff for the club, from which Benitez undoubtedly benefited.

Giles said...

Reina, Skrtel, Agger, Alonso, Mascherano, Lucas, Garcia, Torres, Kuyt...... net spent probably negative......deluded accountancy £100+ million wasted according to the above!!

THINK TWICE said...

DEFINE GROSS SPEND ??

Jaimie K said...

Yes, anyone can cherry pick transfers and make everything look all rosy.

No one denies that Benitez made some top signings; he did, and he deserves respect and gratitude for that.

On the other hand, he made lots of terrible buys too, and that also has to be acknowledged.

THINK TWICE said...

Where is money received on transfers

Jaimie K said...

Under the 'Sales' Heading.

MoneyMoneyMoney said...

I think the point being made re gross and net above was about your obsession with slating Benitez, I think it is clouding the way you review objective information. 

It is a nonsense to only refer to what a club spends and fail to acknowledge monies recouped. Would you prefer to buy a house for 200,000 and sell for 500,000 or buy for 150,000 and sell for 250,000.The case rests!

Jaimie K said...

There is no obsession; Benitez's fans are just incapable of accepting criticism of the man. Example: you accuse me of 'slating' Benitez, but I have not done that.  I've merely stated facts. Why don't you accuse me of slating Graeme Souness? In the article, the most critical thing I said was about him.

Also, you seem to ignore the fact that people are capable of making up their own minds.  If I was posting transfer figures but leaving out the figures related to player sales in a nefarious bid to make Benitez look bad (which is what you seem to suggest) then you'd have a point.  I don't do that - I present all the figures.  I give my opinion, yes, but ultimately, all the figures are there, and people can draw their own conclusions.

Realist said...

Think some of you might be missing the point. You are selling high profile players and bringing in lesser ones which equates to a better net spend but lack of trophies. I would be more inclined to focus on how to keep players of the caliber of Gerrard more consistently then you will see the most important ratio of trophies to net spend increase.

Zanatos1980 said...

Nice reply Jamie - While I agree that the Manager def decides on who should be brought, the price must surely come down to someone else, and this is where I feel we have gone wrong. Carroll as a example at 10mil wouldn`t have been a bad buy. Same goes for so many others. Its not so much the players who were poor, but the prices paid where to much. Even the worst buys where brought for a reason, to cover positions, put pressure on people already in that role etc. The price part is what has gone ohh soo badly wrong. 

Same applies for sales too. While I fully understand there`s more than just the price re-couped to think about, as wages play a bigger roll when looked at year on year. I still think we often over pay and under sell. Giving us such a bad gross or net spend. Both are bad. The Aqua deal is one recent example... Paying half his wages??? seriuosly? Altough there has been loads of other examples to also prove this. Other than Alsono and Torres I think we have undersold on most our recent sales.

In regards to the best manager over the last 21 years, fair reasoning mate. Personally I place Rafa no:1 with Houllier no: 2. But not out of blind faith, just purely how I see it. I think its damn close between both.

Houllier did indeed set up a lot of stuff, and do a lot of things, altough I`ve always felt its un fair to take away the CL win that Rafa got purely cause it was mainly Houlliers team. The manager wins whatever he wins with the team he has. Houllier though should get credit for getting us into the CL. 

I also think the biggest issue is we don`t or haven`t had a clear team stratagy in place, so each new manager re shapes his team to fit his way, then when sacked new managers does the same, giving us a permanint turn around of players.

Maybe both Houllier and Rafa should have been given one extra year. Looking back, often teams who come second after not being close the year before have a bad year after before returning to do well year after that. i.e  Man utd came 2nd, then 11th??? then won it year after when Fergie got his first title. Possible post closeness blues maybe.

Zanatos1980 said...

I`m a fan of net spend, just as running my own company, to me its the true figure. When I look at my books I always judge my Net profit as a example of how I`m doing. However you can`t only count good buys and not the bad. If your Gross spend, you count them all, and if your net you should still count them all. 

One thing to add with Rafas net spend, a lot still haven`t been sold, when they are we will get a better idea of how his deals did. So many young talents who will make a lot of money when/if sold were brought by him.

Johnny said...

 Whats the Point Jamie - there have been posts made that haven't been insulting or childish but you delete them simply because they destroy your argument.

Still, as long as that makes you feel good about yourself.

Zanatos1980 said...

Surely thats a catch 22 tho? Unless we start winning the league, its near impossible to keep top players over the long term. 

Barca come calling, what you going to do? stay in a team finishing 6th, or go play for one of the best teams in the world and be able to look back at all your medals?

You need that bit of luck.

MoneyMoneyMoney said...

Because some (in your words a 'cult') argue for net spend over gross spend you refer to them as being on a 'deluded plain' (I think you mean plane) and having an argument with 'no credibility at all' . I am not ignoring facts and figures...I am arguing on a specific point you made, and one I believe you have been defeated on. Gross spend is a distorted view and one I (and many others) don't subscribe to. I see you try to deflect your response by ignoring the facts and figures I quoted to illustrate the failings of looking at gross spend and not net spend.

Jaimie K said...

It's all a matter of opinion. I believe net spend is ultimately irrelevant; you don't. There's no absolute right answer. I've argued this point countless times and I don't have time or energy to argue it again. Let's just agree to disagree.

MoneyMoneyMoney said...

If we are comparing Utd with Liverpool I'd like to understand what level the salaries/contracts are at too. A free transfer with a huge salary does not equate to zero spend. I think Liverpool have wasted a lot of money but lets look at the total figures - not one angle.

MoneyMoneyMoney said...

I agree to disagree. I am putting across an alternative perspective so that others can see both sides of the argument - and then make an informed decision. You have your view and I have mine.

OriginalChan said...

Add in the lazy and non-existent efforts into exploiting our commercial value going into the 90s coupled, after the success of the 70s & 80s and the formation of the PL (and compared to them lot) it is not good enough at all. 

Jaimie K said...

If I could get access to factual info about salaries/signing on fees etc then I would include those figures.  Alas, that info is not available in a usable format.  It's included in the accounts but all lumped together, so it's impossible to glean individual figures.  

MoneyMoneyMoney said...

Fair enough. Not a criticism of the figures, but an observation that some may not consider the contract value factor when trying to draw conclusions.

MoneyMoneyMoney said...

Agreed. (JK doesn't see it) So all we can do is present the merits of NET over GROSS spend to others and let them decide which is the most appropriate way to judge the management of finances.

Davidminey said...

Amazed you picked houllier over rafa. lets get thing straight rafa made some terrible signings josemi,morientes,gonzalez spring to mind yet id say we recovered around plus 75% of the fee we paid obvious exeptions ie robbie keane but the pleasing thing for me he wasnt afraid to hold his hand up and say i made a mistake he hasnt worked out, UNLIKE Houllier. People say it was houlliers team in istanbul...but thats crap,the majority of players in the squad where houlliers flops ie traore kewell smicer biscan diao (26mill combined cost btw) yet the key players were signed by rafa ie alonso and garcia and no way would houllier ever have signed those players. 2001 was brilliant yet back in those days there was only a big 3 with lfc,afc and mufc. rafa had to compete with abramovics chelsea and later on city and spurs when hicks and gillett were exposef for the crooks they are. To think of the regular champs league football and amount of teams put to the sword by lfc ie.chelsea,inter,ac milan, real madrid,barcelona is for me the reason rafa has been our best manager since 1990

Jason Carr said...

he also brought some top youngsters to the club who are still here,,also man ure were extremly fortunate to bring throught i average group of youngsters at the same time... cannot bring myself to say good also lfc always seems to get shafted in the transfer market eg mcmanaman and to a less of degree alonso mascarano and kuyt, why we let top players get down to so little time on there contracts is beyond me if they want to go and dont sign a contract get rid for get top dollar while we still have time

Jaimie K said...

And that is precisely what this site is about: differing views, advanced in a civil manner.  Cheers.

mark said...

A good article sadly ruined by the authors lack of understanding about the importance of net spending and the obvious underlying anti Rafa stance.  Trying to use gross spend as a means to attack Rafa is something the media used to to love spouting.  However anyone with any business knowledge or general sense will point to the net spend as the important figure.  63 million net spend, which if you take into account Torres sale and other players he signed sold would put him into a negative net spend overall.  So Rafa actually despite the rubbish spouted was actually very successful in the transfer market.

Jason Carr said...

i am sure that king kenny will be losing sleep over your opinion of him lets be trueful about it if we all could have our true views about you on hear the language would be very interesting infact we could all see some new swear words lol 

Simon said...

Excellent point, was just typing this myself.

Hillsborough deeply affected Liverpool. Our young manager, schooled by Paisley and Fagan, was left a broken man.

Kenny had just won 3 leagues, 2 FA Cups in 5 seasons, we were perfectly positioned to continue our success into the 90s; then Graeme Souness arrived......

This tragedy, the confined location of Anfield, the fortuitous arrival of the Man Utd golden generation of kids and not recognising how football finances would change the playing field created a perfect storm that allowed Man United to surge ahead.

Ultimately Liverpool's business plan failed them. Nowadays, of course, business plans are not necessary. Just get some petrodollars......

Paul said...

I believe success has a part to play in Manu spending less. I say that for 2 reasons. For one, when you have a squad which just won the premier league you shouldn't need to spend much to improve or maintain squad strength and depth, and two, it's easier to attract players so you don't really need to gamble or pay over the odds as we have done much of.

Paul said...

We've also had to pay higher salaries to attract top talent and keep top talent.

Jaimie K said...

If you want slag me off, just go and start a thread on TIA, RAWK, or other LFC forums. They'll welcome you with open arms.

Frouboc said...

Without doubt the guy putting this website out is never a Liverpool supporter.....
Ive never met a lfc supporter who would big up anything that shows the red scum in positive light.
A true LFC fan would always spin the truth no matter how unlikely it appeared, FACT.
Also, His surname must be an anagram for something more appropriate !!! 

Zanatos1980 said...

Agreed! Wages play just a big a roll as signing fee. Not just for comparing Liverpool v Man utd but also in judging a Managers v Managers. Evans may have sold someone cheap, not helpping his net spend, but saving the club millions per year. 

Right now BR seems to be trying to balance the books a little, which is imo the main reason Aqua went. 

Kenny messed up big time in so many areas, 131 mil spent!

Zanatos1980 said...

Both figures are important, Gross gives you a good sign of your outlay, and where your over spending, NET gives you a true time reflection on how you did. 

End of the day if I earned 100k Gross this year, told my other half, and she buys loads of things, spending all 100k, and I hadn`t told her The company used 70k to buy stock over that year, so we only actually had 30k Net to ourselves, I`d be buggered. 

Both NET and GROSS are vital, but once the dust settles its NET and only NET that keeps a company or football club afloat.

Yarivkita said...

very good one!

Nlowe121 said...

surely liverpool would been better off with lump somes of money like united had to spend on most there players, rather than dribs and drabs say like benitez had?

alanacourt said...

For once I am in sympathy with JK.
This club/company has been extra-ordinarly badly managed for 20 years. John Smith and Peter Robinson were superb administrators. Noel White took over briefly from Smith, who had been diagnosed with cancer and then DISASTER, David Moores took over as Chairman, This guy could not hold down a job in the buying department of his family firm and yet he became Chairman of a medium sized plc
A fanatical LFC supporter but did not have the qualities to be a senior manager never mind the boss.
So we were bereft of any tactical or strategic leadership until JHN. Moores called in Parry as his CEO and anybody who has ever had any business connection with Parry will tell you that he could not make a decision.
I once called him the legendary indecisive CEO and was he pained but could not answer my challenge.
The opportunity was there in the 90's to float the company bring in the funds to build a new stadium but Moores did not want to dilute his ownership.
We were left behind in a mega way. My friends and I challenged the Board direct including Moores, Parry and Eric Clayton, a non-exec.
He agreed with all of our critique but said that 'David' was moveable.
So we have been stuffed and not by the Yanks but our own.
When JHN first came aboard I asked him One to sack Hodgson and Two to investigate our scouting processes on the basis that hundreds of millions have been wasted not just if transfer fees but wages and other oncosts.
JK's analysis  bears that out.
What is the way forward?
The fact despite the several hundred million pounds down the pan the company is solvent and cash generative. That is a good base to start from.
Proper financial controls and processes need to be in place. Quality commercial and operational management need to be in place and they should not be supporters but guys who can take objective decisions.
Are we there yet. I dont know only time will tell but these owners are different to our previous bunch in that they are professional managers so I remain optimistic for the long term.

Jason Carr said...

not slagging you off at all imo think this is one off the the best sites for lfc fans but if you keep having ago at lfc legends{i know its your job]then you must expect some fans to come on hear and defend them as i am sure you would do if i slated the legend that is john barnes

Carl said...

all this proves is that managers are human and capable of mistakes,,anyway you should be happy that we are now being slowly transformed into Swansea City as it will give you plenty more headlines lol. On a serious note Jamie what do you honestly think of our apparent obsession with trying to sign Swansea players and does it not concern you that we seem to constantly fail in signing top quality players and in your opinion what's the answer.

Stuart Johnson said...

Can I ask ur views on the fee paid for Aquilani? Most news reports claim that it was a massive disaster that we paid around £20m but I also heard that most of the fee was made up of addons after a number of appearances, clearly he didn't make many so I assume that the said fee was inaccurate, also I get loads of stick from manu fans and cud do with some backup!

Jason Carr said...

great post?but i fear for the next few years that is why i think we should have stuck with kenny at very least his name meant something rodgers will not and before people think i am living in the past my son plays football and if i did not support lfc and the top clubs came in for him kenny could sway it just because of what he achieved on the pitch barca had cruyff we had the king the fact that the yanks completely cut all ties with him will only put more pressure on rodgers to get off to a flyer but i fear the worst as from the preseason matches have been awful and top players wanting to leave{rumours] i really hope i am wrong ynwa

Jaimie K said...

Carl, I agree - all managers make mistakes.  Believe it or not, I didn't post this article to attack Benitez; the main point is to show the bad financial management of the club over the last 21 years, which incidentally, coincides with the LFC's failure to win the league in that time.

To be honest, it Rodgers' attempts to sign Swansea players doesn't bother me.  All the players he wants to sign are very good technically and tactically.  For example, Ashley Williams and Joe Allen were two of the top passers in the Premier League last season (and Allen was 6th best in the whole of Europe). It takes talent to achieve that kind of accuracy, and those two will fit snugly into Rodgers' system.

Plus, Rodgers got the same players to within 5 points of LFC in final league table last season, and that's without splurging 100m+ on transfers.

I have no doubt that Rodgers will work his magic at LFC; it's not about star players, it's about the team, and sometimes, the best team doesn't always have the most high profile players. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of this.  Montpelier last season in Ligue 1, for example.

With Rodgers, the system is all important, and with the 433 he prefers to play, you don't need superstars in every position.

It will take time, and things will undoubtedly be patchy during the first half of the season, but you can't just turn around a 17 point deficit (between 8th and 4th) in a few months. 

Re transfers - there's still over 3 weeks of the window left, and I am sure Rodgers will bring in some excellent players.  Maybe not the biggest names, but players who will be good for the performance of the team.

I have massive faith in Rodgers, and I didn't feel this optimistic under Benitez, Hodgson or Dalglish.

Jaimie K said...

Hi Stuart. The details of Aquilani's transfer from Roma were as follows:

Total fee: €20m
* €5m upfront*  €3m by 4th January 2010*  €7m by June 30th 2010*  €5 million by June 30th 2011.

Add-ons:
*  €300k for every year Liverpool qualify for the CL*  €250k for every 35 appearances
* €1m when LFC wins the PL or CL* €5% of any future transfer fee to be paid to Roma. 

As you can see by the dates, LFC paid €20m for Aquilani, and this is confirmed by the club's accounts.

The Add-ons didn't really come into play, so it's not really accurate to say that 'most of the fee' was made up by add-ons.

Sad, but true unfortunately!

Marklaffin said...

Nice article. Some great arguments and discussions. You DO undoubtably come across as anti-Rafa in many of your articles and your very nickname backs this up. For your own credibility, it's good (and very rare) to hear you pay him his due credit. Be lovely if we could find a less boring and divisive issue to bang on about ad nauseam. I respect your opinions, rarely agree with them. So tell me JK, what do u think of the new boss, and how do u view our future prospects? And if I may draw u out for some wild and crazy predictons? Cheers man.

Hazard542 said...

LFC the only club in the world that rabbits on about NET spending, as if turning a profit - or at least attempting to is some sort of achievement. TROPHIES are all that count. No denying LFC's truly glorious past - a beacon of true football history, no doubt. Not good enough now though, other than a good season here and there in recent times. No youth system, dud buys and even worse Bosmans (Kewell 80k a week, Jovanovic 115k a week spring to mind)

LFC look to be a slowly sinking ship. Denial is not just a river in Africa

Chesterrichman said...

Let's see a table of league last 20 years listing for each year: a) money earned by cup runs (domestic+Europe) b) wages of LFC as % top wage payers in league c) ave LFC transfer spend (gross/ net) as % of top transfer payers in league d) league pts.

Carl said...

Thanks Jamie, good article by the way. It certainly highlights where our true weakness lies,,,,the transfer market.,

aitchjay said...

I think the biggest missing point here is the number of players signed. As with LFC in the 70's, ManU, having established themselves as the number 1 team in the country, would normally spend most of their budget on a single player, for instance, in 2001/2 they paid £28million for Veron out of a total of £37.5 (75%) 2002/3, £38m will include Rio Ferdinand at £29m (76%) 2004, 25 of 50 on Rooney (50%), it's significant that Utd spent 37% of their total 2000's spend in the first four years whereas LFC only 18%. Benitez especially would sign lots of players. I think this was very much Benitez's argument that he was required to sell to fund buying and was always having to settle for his 2nd or 3rd choice as funds were never in place for his number 1 targets.  I'm also a little bit dubious about some of the figures despite their "official" source.  I've no idea what the cut off dates are, but (from Wikipedia)  in 2000 - 2002 we sold Fowler for £12.75, Ziege for £4, Westerveld £3.75, Matteo for £4.75 Song £2.5 and Camara £2.6 plus a few others, that's over £30 million yet the table shows sales of just £18.  Overall an interesting and obviously thought provoking post, but doesn't tell the whole story.

TuckerBelfastRed said...

The thing that always got to me every year was seeing the manager standing with a line of players at 4,5,6, or 10mil when imo, we should have signed 2 top players each season. If we had employed that policy then in a short space of time we would have had a team of top players instead of a team of 3 or 4 top players and the rest made up of just above average or average players and a subs bench that made you cringe when you looked at the team sheet. That is where we have been going wrong all these years and that is why our trophy haul from the 90s to date have been so poor. I believe that is what Brendan is addressing now it will be 2 top signings and a couple of top players on loan and that is how our team is going to be rebuilt but a word of warning it will take time so nobody should expect a top 4 this season.

Neiljamiesonhall said...

taking into consideration the substantial fees recouped from player sales, added to the many millions already sheared from the club's extremely high wage bill (in excess of £15m will be saved already from next season's wage payouts after the offloading of Aurélio, Kuyt, Rodríguez, Amoo and Aquilani), I estimate it that club owners The Fenway Sports Group have invested a net spend of a mere £10m into transfers since taking over the club at the tail end of 2010.

MRKL said...

Inflation or no inflation . . . numbers, league table and throphy cabinet don't lie . . . since Souness our managers brought in "shitty players" with huge transfer fee  . . . from PHIL BABB to Aqulani . . .  . . Rafa recovered most from Alanso & Macherano . . . what about the $$ we lost for Aqua man the guy from Chile . . .he bought these 2 guys when they were injured.

I still think 35M for Carroll, 20M for Downing, 16M for Henderson is bad business.  

Saint said...

Nope, he does not need to. LFC has yet to win the EPL since the formation.

sohambhattacharya said...

This actually proves the point why we have been poor. Lack of proper management and impatience. If we had stuck with Rafa even during the bad times who knows what might have happened. Maybe even houlier. Thing is our top owners and the board has also been efficient. It has been an overall systematic failure after the immense success we enjoyed in the 80's.

Post a Comment