Gerard Houllier - RIP :-(

3 Nov 2009

ALBERTO AQUILANI - The truth about his transfer fee. How much will he REALLY cost?

There seems to be a lot of confusion over how much Liverpool paid/will eventually pay Roma for the services of Alberto Aquilani. Figures such as £20m, £17m and £5m (!) have been bandied about, but the truth is the total outlay could (potentially) turn out to be much more.

On the 8th August 2009, Roma released official details of Aquilani's transfer fee. The fee is broken down as follows:

Four cash installments:

* €5m upfront
* €3m by 4th January 2010
* €7m by June 30th 2010
* €5m by June 30th 2011.

Base transfer fee = €20m/£18m

Further Add ons include:

* €300k for every year Liverpool qualify for the CL from 2010/11 to 2014/15.

* €250k every time the player reaches 35 appearancs; 70 appearances; 105 appeances and then 140 appearances.

* €1m the first time Liverpool either wins the Premier League or Champions League by 30 June 2014.

* 5% of any future transfer fee paid to Roma.

ANALYSIS (all figures converted to pounds using today's conversion rate)

* If Liverpool qualify for the Cl every year from 2010 to 2015, a further £1.3m will become payable. How likely is it this will happen? Liverpool have featured in the CL in 8 of the last 9 seasons. There is no reason to think this will not continue.

POTENTIAL EXTRA COST: £1.3m (Based on CL qualification every year)

* If Aquilani reaches 140 appearances, a further £900k will become payable. Is this possible? For Aquilani to achieve that figure, he would need to make a measly 28 appearances each season for 5 years. This is clearly achievable.

POTENTIAL EXTRA COST: £900k

* If Liverpool win the league or CL by June 2014, a further £900k per trophy will become payable. Is it possible that Liverpool might win the league and CL in the next 5 years? Absolutely.

POTENTIAL EXTRA COST: £1.8m

* 5% of any future transfer fee to be paid to Roma. As an example: If Aquilani stays for the full 5 years of his contract he will be 30 years old. If he then leaves, it is unlikely that Liverpool will recoup the initial outlay (due to his age). So - if we conservatively estimate that Liverpool receive half the original price, that would net the club £9m.

POTENTIAL EXTRA COST: £450k (5% of 9m)

* Using the fact that only €5m has been paid so far as some kind of excuse/way to manipulate net spend is not fair or accurate. The total amount of the base fee will still have to be paid in less than 2 years!

CONCLUSION

The following is definite:

* Liverpool will pay £18m for Aquilani.

The following is highly probable:

* £2.2m will become payable as a result CL qualification/appearance levels

* £450k (or whetever fee we get for him) will become payable when Aquilani is sold. (This figure is just for the sake of debate - I'm not saying this WILL happen!)

The following is less probable but still possible:

* £1.8m will become payable as a result of winning the league/CL

POTENTIAL TOTAL COST OF TRANSFER - £22.45m

For the purposes of illustration, I have conservatively estimated Aquilani's eventual sale fee. It could easily go the other way - a club could come in with an Alonso-size offer, in which case Liverpool would have to pay even more to Roma.

So - almost £22.5m (potentially) for Aquilani, a player who 2.5 months into the season has not yet made his debut in the league or Champions League. And this is not taking into account any signing-on fee. Phillipp Degen received a £2m SO fee, so Aquilani's could be equally significant.

Given Aquilani's injury history, who got the better deal here - Liverpool or Roma?

If Aquilani turns out to be a superstar then the eventual total outlay will, of course, be worth it. If, however, the Italian turns out to be another flop, then we're looking at a large amount of wasted money.

From what we've seen of Aquilani so far, he looks calm, composed and comfortable on the ball - just what we need right now! I personally have no doubt that, if he stays fit, Aquilani will become an important player for Liverpool.

Let's hope he's a roaring success....starting at Lyon tomorrow night :-)

Jaimie Kanwar



156 comments:

  1. What's your point, Jamie?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Degen received signing-on fee because he came on a free (although admittedly one of Rafa's worst acquisitions)

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is a lot of misinformation about transfer fees - this is my attempt to bring clarity to the issue.  From this point on, people can't go around saying Aquilani cost 20m; 17m etc. And if they do, it's just wrong.

    I was thinking about this yesterday and realised that no matter how much I searched official sources, I could not find any definitive answer on this issue, so I decided to answer the question myself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes. But if your conservative sell on fee is achieved then we recoup 9m from your total of 23m so it will have cost us 14m, we will have won the league and qualified every year for the CL and won it.

    If we win the leagu in the next 5 years and the CL then he has hardly failed if he has played 30 games each season !!!!!!


    and if as you highlighted we sell him on for a large fee then he will have been for free, we will have won the league and all is rosy !!!!!!!

    This makes no sense. You base your estimates on the fact that he will play 30 games a season ane we will be very successful but then say he is not worth that much money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You flip between euros and sterling.  Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I haven't flipped between them at all.  I've laid out Roma's figures in Euros (as per the official document) and then converted to sterling in the analysis section.  There is even a note stating this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Every day your articles make me laugh. You are clueless and constantly contridict yourself. In previous articles, you moan that we dont spend big, yet when we do (for a quality player with a well structured, protected payment plan) you moan again!! Do us a favour, go and grab a prawn sandwich and go and support United mate - leave our club to real fans xx

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can you read, or are you deliberately misconstruing what I've written?

    Where did I say he wasn't worth the money?

    I didn't.

    And please don't start with the net spend fallacy.  That is not the issue here; it is irrelevant at this stage.  I am only trying to establish the actual cash outlay on the player.

    Whatever money is recouped, a specific amount of money will still be paid out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. you're forgetting the selling on price...should he play well and we keep him for the duration of all these clauses then sell him for £25m we make a profit (including the 5% Roma take), it's only small but it's still a profit, we could also have some of these clauses on him when we sell.  Also we could have some clauses like this on other players we have sold - e.g. Alonso, Arbeloa so you don't know how much we'll be getting back over the same time period.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No I haven't forgotten the selling-on price - that is explictly addressed in the article.

    If we were ultimately to sell Aqulani to for 25m, we would just about break even, and this is based on him reaching the required appearance levels AND Liverpool winning the league/CL.

    5% of 25m = 1.25m

    Realistically though, how many 30+ midfielders go for 25m?

    As I said, if Aquilani is a hit it will have all been worth it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good to have a clearer understanding of the figures, have to agree that the fees are too often unclear. Do have to take issue with the line "another flop" though - great article on RAWK that every Red should digest. 

    http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=249365.0

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kbill76 - Have Liverpool had no flops transfers under Benitez? 

    re that article - I wouldn't take it at face value - many of the figures are inaccurate.  I've been researching transfer fees under Benitez for an article and that RAWK post is jus not accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Like Redzoo, I'm struggling to see your point.  The extras mean nothing.  If he's rubbish or injury-prone, He'll be a waste of £20M. If a success, £20m well spent, much like the £26m is now seen as being for Torres. An extra £250k ia two players weekly salary - a drop in the ocean.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jaime Kanwar;  A man who attempts to start an arguement about anything related to Liverpool Football Club.  Tune in next week to hear about how Liverpool actually play in blue.  Kanwar, you really are a sad little t0sser

    ReplyDelete
  15. Clarification of the figures to avoid misinformation and exaggeration is always a good thing. Or do you dispute that? 

    I don't want to get into this pointless tooing and frooing.  If you don't see the point, fine.  You've made your point.  if you have something to add to the discussion, please feel free.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, and 'extras mean nothing'?  Right.  So the fact that Liverpool may have to pay out an extra 5m is 'nothing'.  I ssuspect many people will disagree with such a blatantly flippant comment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. your entire atricle is worded towards the implication that we've had our arses felt.  Don't write in this fashion and then jump down the throats of anyone who picks up on it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Can you believe a shit like degen getting 2 mill SO. Maybe LFC should should sign my dog, he can shit on the bench and make me money. He will even chase beach balls on the pitch.Rafa's transfer dealings should be fucking investigated. Just like Hull city is doing to phil brown and duffen.You will never win with rafa. YWNWR 

    ReplyDelete
  19. I haven't jumped down anyone's throat.  The article is neutral and not geared toward any specific POV.  You are projecting your own expectations onto it. 

    The posted above said I suggested he wasn't worth the money.

    That is clesarly not true, so I highlighted that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jaimie - you ignored my last post which asked some awkward questions. 

    Let's try again:  Do you think Benitez is 'bad' in the transfer market? (You have certainly said this previously).  If so, do you have evidence that he signs more 'flops' than any other manager for similar fees?  Who has a better success rate than Benitez?  

    You also ignored my question last time about the research conducted over 25 years, detailed in Soccernomics, which proves that a club's wage bill equates to their finishing position in the league with 92% accuracy.  Do you dispute this finding? If so, where is your counter evidence? 

    If you accept it, then why should Liverpool finish higher than 5th (or 6th now) given their position in the wage table?  What do you base your expectations on?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Your information is correct tho you have missed a couple of points including but not limited to;
    Degen signed a four year contract on a free transfer. As thus, he received a 'welcome bonus' which is not the case for lady ga ga! Tho admittedley with additional performance incentive awards based on too many points to mention.
    the relevance of this point that you have missed both the salary and performance incentive awards listed in lady ga ga's contract which i think you would find - if published; his true cost to Liverpool will be far greater than the figures mentioned tho clearly with the caveat that someone thinks he is worth it?! Only time will tell.
    i think you would all be surprised of the additional costs to our beloved football club.  Essentially, every player signs the same form of contract. There is a standard contract which the FA, Premier League and Footall League use. It has all the same terms with the exception of the schedule, which deals with the financial provident.
    That is where details will vary massively from player to player, though image rights are a new trend which can see the top players working from two separate contracts. The top players have a company which they own and that company will then have a contract with the club, providing the player's services for a set fee.
    don't forget Harry Kewell received £1M when Liverpool won the CL!! i think you'd all be surprised just how much every assist, goal, win, cup, title cost the club in supplementary payment schedules in players contracts...
    so none of you know just how much lady gaga will cost the club - except of course himself, his agent and the hierachy at Liverpool  :)
    lets just hope he's worth it eh?!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Damo - I didn't respond because it would've been pointless.  'Soccernomics' is not the footballing bible.  It is not irrefutable fact.  Just because you think it is doesn't make it so.

    To ask the question 'why should Liverpool finish higher than 5th or 6th given their position in the wage table' is indicative of how ridiculous it is to blindly adhere to Soccernomics' argument.

    In Liverpool's case, it is nowhere near accurate.  Under Benitez alone, we have finished 5th, 4th, 3rd twice and second. How does that fit into the the inflexible Soccernomics box?

    You go on about how Soccernomics as if it is the be all and end all, but it is not.  It is one point of view - it is not the only point of view.

    I am not interested in whether Benitez signs more flops than any other mananger; I am interested in what he (or any other manager) does for LIVERPOOL.

    Arsene Wenger's signing of Francis Jeffers has absolutely NOTHING to do with Benitez signing Ryan Babel. 

    Benitez should be judged on what his players contribute ON THE FIELD.  Nothing else matters when it comes to judging whether a player is a success or a flop.

    And I have never said that Benitez is 'bad' in the transfer market; I have argued that he makes bad buys sometimes.  There is a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Good points.  I appreciate what you're saying, but we have to use the available information, i.e. whatever is in the public domain.  Since much of what you mention would be in Aquilani's contract - which we will never see - it is not really relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Is Jaimie there, i come in peace but please explain.  
     
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/hicks-gillett-truth-about-liverpool-fcs.html  
     
    'Put another way, how can a club that's spent over 130m in the last two seasons be 'restricted' in the transfer market'?'  
     
    Can you tell me where you got this figure from?  
     
    I just looked on wiki for transfers 08/09 09/10 and although maybe slightly out but it comes to 75.3Mill and our incoming sales comes to 70.1, which i think suggests the owners are not putting much in apart from the money for players contracts.  
     
    Just to complete my argument about spending, inc figures for 07/08 we signed players to the amount of 69.4 almost the same figure as the last 2 years combined and sold players amounting to 33.65. This means since hicks and gillet arrived we have spent 144.7 mill of which 103.75 mill roughly was from player sales, which means the club over 3 years has put up 40.95mill, which is hardly a massive figure is it. 13.65mill a season.

    To finish my point this is how we are being restricted. Maybe we would have a better squad if we didn't have to sell good squad players off to fund new transfers. Also if we weren't servicing our debt(interest 43mill) then maybe we could use that to improve. This is how the club is restricted by the debt put onto the club, which i will add G+H said they wouldn't do to begin with. They said something along the lines that they wouldn't be buying the club like the glazers baught utd.

    ReplyDelete
  25. But this season supposedly 20 mill of the budget has gone on existing player contracts thus effecting transfer budget therefore probably is relevant although granted we dont know these details, thus never knowing the true cost

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jaimie, Jaimie, where art thou Jaimie

    ReplyDelete
  27. Fernando Torres     £26.5m
    Javier Mascherano     £17m (the other 1.6 was for the loan in 2006-7)
    Ryan Babel    £11.5m
    Martin Skrtel     £6.5m
    Yossi Benayoun     £5m
    Charles Itandje     £3.5m
    Sebastian Leto      £1.85m
    Emiliano Insua     £1.3m
    Damien Plessis    £1m
    Robbie Keane     £20.3m
    Albert Riera     £8m
    Andrea Dossena     £7m
    Diego Cavalieri    £3.5m
    David Ngog     £1.5m
    Alberto Aquilani     £18m
    Glen Johnson    £17.5m
    Sotiros Kyrgiakos     £2m

    TOTAL    151.95

    ReplyDelete
  28. Some very debatable maths there mate:

    <span>"If Aquilani turns out to be a superstar then the eventual total outlay will, of course, be worth it. If, however, the Italian turns out to be another flop, then £23m is looking like a huge amount of wasted money"</span>

    If he turns out to be a flop then he won't be making the appearances required for more money to be paid to Roma and will probably be sold on so the CL qualification payments won't be required. So he will cost £18m if he's a flop, more if he's a success. Not quite what you try to claim!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rossi - money going on existing contracts has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?  Is it not a good thing that Gerrard, Torres et al have been signed up?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ok so that total is 6m more than the 1 i did, i wont dispute that.

    My question is using my sales figure of 103 mill, which means a net outlay of 16 not 13, which i previously put(i maybe slightly under agin with sales figures) , do you think this is a sufficient figure from the club to compete squad wise, because obviously we sell good squad players to fund  first 11 players, hence the reason the squad looks bare when we get some injuries.

    Is the clubs debt(interest 40 mill) not directly affecting our ability to compete as we cannot get more loans out obviously because of the current debt not that i would suggest that, but it shows the owners are restricting progress

    ReplyDelete
  31. How do we know that Aquilani will not be making the appearances if he's a flop?

    An appearance can be either a start of a sub appearance.  Benitez regularly uses failed signings, does he not? The likes of Babel, Lucas, Voronin etc all get games, even when they're not playing well.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Your net spend figure is inaccurate.  I have been researching this for the last few weeks and the actual net spend figure is higher than that.  I will be posting an article soon about this.

    As I've tried to explain a million times: net spend is an excuse; it is not relevant.  At the end of the day, Benitez had 20m to spend on Keane; 16m to spend on Dossena and Riera; 11.5m to spend on Babel etc.  He chose those players and many more like them.  Just because money may be made back at some point in the future does not mean a mistake was not made originally.

    I'm not getting into the net spend issue again as I've been down this road a million times, and it's just pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Failed signings, i thought you were a fan of lucas, anyhow could you answer my question above please?

    ReplyDelete
  34. What I personally think about Lucas and what is objectively the case are two different things.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jaimie - the wage bill scenario in Soccrenomics is not just an opinion, much as you'd like it to be. It is the result of a 25 year study that shows 92% accuracy in predicting finishing postitions.  I am afraid it is a 'fact' that the research shows that.  It is not an 'opinion' - it is a stasictical fact based on the research conducted.  Are you not able to grasp that? 

    Just sayng 'I disagree with it', is obviously ludicrous. Where is your counter evidence?  What do you base your 'opinion' on?  Your opinion is clearly not as valid as a 25-year statistical study.  This is pretty basic stuff Jaimie.  

    The 92% obviously leaves room for some manoeuvre; that's why certain teams can buck the trend now and again.  It's not 100% is it?  

    So Rafa's performance, given the 8% window of opportunity, has been remarkable.

    As for the comparisons with others in the transfer market, of course you have to compare Rafa with others.  I too want every buy to be fantastic, but that's not going to happen is it? 

    So when assessing Rafa's buys, we have to see how well other managers have done. Otherwise what are you basing your assessment and expectations on?  Why should he be better than anyone else?  On what grounds?  Because you want it to happen?  How childish! 

    I thought you presented yourself as a slick debater Jaimie?  You seem to resort to unsubstantiated assertion very quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Thats because you completly refuse to take any comments on board. How is it an excuse. Selling Alonso means we could then afford Aquilani. How is that an excuse. + why money made back in the future alonso in this example was sold before buying Aquilani. Can you not accept that maybe we had to sell to buy certain players thus the gross spending does not show the full picture. You don't want to talk anymore about it because you know i am right on this point. The last 4 transfer windows meaning summer january summer january shows that the club has only put up around 5 mill, which suggests the clubs debts are restricting our ability to compete in the market. You can dismiss this all you like but its true. To reiterate over the last 2 years the outgoing sales more than less equals our spends, So why don't you read what i say properly and understand that the debts are having a massive affect as time goes on!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Damo - I am not interested in Soccernomics or what it purports to prove.  For a start, unless the writers have had access to every CONFIDENTIAL personal player contract over the last 25 years (which they haven't) then any analysis is inherently flawed and based on guess-work.

    Additionally, unless the writers have examined every team and every ACCURATE wage figure in the same time period, the results are even more suspect.

    No one is saying every buy has to be fantastic?  Where do you get that from?  The idea that we have to see how well other managers have done to assess Rafa's impact in the transfer market is just complete and utter nonsense.  It is not even a logical way to proceed.  Just because you are adamant that it is doesn't make it so.

    Benitez is given money; he chooses his signings.  How they perform on the pitch has absolutely nothing to do with how other managers spend their money.

    What possible difference does Juan Sebastien Veron's failure at Man United make to Robbie Keane's  failure at Liverpool?  NOTHING.

    It is completly pig-headed and ridiculous to argue otherwise.  However, if you are arguing that they are somehow linked, then explain why.

    You state:

    So when assessing Rafa's buys, we have to see how well other managers have done. Otherwise what are you basing your assessment and expectations on?  Why should he be better than anyone else?  On what grounds?   

    Why does he have to be btter than anyone else? Who says that is the rule here?  The assessment of whether Benitez is successful in the transfer market comes from how his buys contribute to the team.

    ReplyDelete
  38. damien plessis was a free and insua fee was tied with the pallatetta deal , so its almost impossible to know the exact amount...robbie keane cost 18mil and like aquilani could have risen to the 20.3 (but we all know hat happened there)....

    ReplyDelete
  39. I find the debate and information provided here
    informative it's good to have transparency though I am not
    saying I agree with everything Jamie writes.
    I feel the article raises more questions then answers
    re signing players. For me who has been a regular visitor to Anfield.
    I feel that we need to sign players of quality we cannot afford to sign players
    who are injured no matter how good a player they may be.
    We are in a dire position and what effect would
    a fully fit Alberto had upon our chances?

    ReplyDelete
  40. When you put it like that, it is a lot of money.

    But equally, it is a potential £23m broken down over around 5 years. This is a lot different to paying £23m in one lump sum.

    And it depends on Aquilani's success, so if he is a massive flop, we won't pay £23m.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I really don't understand some of your maths at all..

    You say if he reaches 140 appearances 900k will be payable, then go on to say there is a potential extra cost of 1.1m. Clearly there are 4 difference appearance payments at 250k euros each, so 1m euros or 900k.

    The cause is clearly 1m the first time liverpool win either the league OR the CL, yet you seem to think that they add together. And even if they did it would be 900k per trophy, totalling 1.8m, not 1.9m as you say.

    Then you can't possibly include a sell-on fee. That's just ridiculous. You're trying to say the more he is sold for, the more he cost. Is that not counterintuitive? Sure, the more he is sold for, the more Roma will get, however, I'd be more inclined to think of it as 5% off the sale price than an added cost now.

    So in summary,

    He cost 18m certainly.
    +1.3m for CL qualification
    +900k for appearances
    +900k for a major trophy win

    21.1m total cost if liverpool have a successful 5 year period.

    THEN if he is sold for 9m, liverpool will receive 8.55m of that fee. That doesn't mean his cost gets boosted by an extra 450k. And even if it did, that would leave his total cost at 21.5m.. I really don't know where your 23m came from.

    If you're going to try to write an article titled "THE TRUTH ABOUT..." at least make sure you're competent enough with the figures you're dealing with to make it the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Let me put it simply in gross terms because you hate net. the last 3 windows we spent 75.3mill roughly, also during that time we sold players worth 70.1, therefore how much is the club ie owners putting up themselves.

    Answer my question do you think the debt put on the club effects how much they can put up towards new signings? considering we spent 40 mill or whatever on servicing the debt?

    ReplyDelete
  43. 1 thing,a 20 million pound footballer has a 20 million pound contract also, so in actual fact this player costs more like 40 million total

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jaimie - I can't understand why you don't get this about the transfers. 

    It's pretty simple.  How do you assess whether Benitez has been good or bad in the transfer market? 

    You say by looking at how his buys perform on the pitch.  Fine. Of course that's where you start.  As you say, he has money, he buys players, they perform or don't.  

    So let's say Benitez buys 20 players and only one of them is any good.  Does that make him bad in transfer market?  Or good?  How do we know?   What are we basing that assessment on?  What percentage of players should come good? Where does that figure come from?  Your opinion?  Mine?  Why?  1 in 20 might be excellent.  Or it might be awful.  But how will we know unless we involve other people to compare that to?

    Clearly, in isolation, and without reference to how well others perform in buying successful players, it's impossible to say whether 1 player in 20 is good or bad.  Can you not see that?  

    You simply have to look at everyone's activities to come up wth a benchmark for success. So let's say we look around and find that 50% of players making it and playing well is a good return, based on what everyone does.  Now we have a benchmark to judge Rafa's activities on, rather than some abritrary personal assessment of you or anyone else. 

    As I say, I'm not sure why you can't see this.

    ReplyDelete
  45. wow, i'm actually surprised how composed the responses are to this information. good opinions on both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The document is translated from Italian so perhaps the wording does not capture the true intention, but that provision definitely means:

    1m the first time Liverpool win the league
    1m the first time Liverpool win the CL.

    This has been verified by someone who speaks Italian.

    You're right about the 1.9 - it should be 1.8.  However, that was deliberate in an attempt to catch people plagiarising the article.  If they published 1.9, it would be an easy catch (this is recommended strategy of TyntTracer, the company that I used to track plagiarism - and there is a LOT, believe me)

    It doesn't make any difference to the overall figure:

    18m + 1.3m + 1.9m + 900k + 450k = 22.45m

    I used the sell-on price as a mere example,  Why do you make such a big deal out of it?!  is it not possible that Liverpool might eventually sell Aquilani for 9m?  Yes.  He could also go for more.  Either way, it is a fact that 5% of the fee will go to Roma, so it is a valid exercise to include a potential sell-on fee.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Your figures are WRONG Rossi.  How many times?!

    ReplyDelete
  48. If he wins us the league and CL who cares how much he costs!!!! he he doesnt then we pay no extra, if he flops he wont make enough appearances to cost to much.

    ReplyDelete
  49. > If Liverpool qualify for the Cl every year from 2010 to 2015 - may be twice, so not exactly £1.3m
    > If Liverpool win the league or CL by June 2014 - No way, so not £1.8m
    > 5% of any future transfer fee to be paid to Roma - This may possible (£450k)
    > If Aquilani reaches 140 appearances - Very rare possiblity with his injury record

    ReplyDelete
  50. Damo - your argument is not credible in the slightest.  If Benitez buys 20 players and only one of them is a success then yes, of course he has failed in the transfer market!  We base that on the obvious: the crap performance of the players on the pitch and the knock on negative effect on the team. 

    How other teams perform has nothing to do with it, and you STILL have not credibly explained how this is actually the case.

    I find it hilarious that you are seriously trying to argue that it's impossible to say whether a hit rate of 1 in 20 is good or bad'.  Are you listening to yourself?

    In isolation or in reference to others makes no difference - it is still OBJECTIVELY bad.

    Using your spurious reasoning, it would be impossible to say whether 1 win in 20 games is good or bad unless we compare that run to how other teams are doing.

    God, is the the Twilight Zone or something?! 

    using that example: 1 win in 20 games.  This is objectively bad, no matter how you slice it or dress it up.  In isolation, or compared to any other team.

    If, say Man United, Arsenal and Chelsea have won 70% of their games and Liverpool have won only 1 in 20, what's the difference?  Winning 1 game in 20 is STILL AWFUL.

    The same goes for transfers - there is absolutely no causal link between one team's transfer success and another's.  If there is, explain how instead of just throwing up generalisations like 'you have to look at everyone's acticities to come up with a benchmark for success'.

    This flies in the face of all reason and logic.

    Once a manager has bought his players, that is it.  The comparison ends.  Their effectiveness is solely judged by performance on the pitch, not how player X is doing at Man United.

    And I see you've dropped the Soccernomics spiel now.  Why?  Because it's clearly not a supportable argument.  As I stated above, unless the writers had access to personal player contracts then their wage estimates will be just that: estimates.  As such, any analysis is not really credible or persuasive at all.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Damo - your argument is not credible in the slightest.  If Benitez buys 20 players and only one of them is a success then yes, of course he has failed in the transfer market!  We base that on the obvious: the crap performance of the players on the pitch and the knock on negative effect on the team. 

    How other teams perform has nothing to do with it, and you STILL have not credibly explained how this is actually the case.

    I find it hilarious that you are seriously trying to argue that it's impossible to say whether a hit rate of 1 in 20 is good or bad'.  Are you listening to yourself?

    In isolation or in reference to others makes no difference - it is still OBJECTIVELY bad.

    Using your spurious reasoning, it would be impossible to say whether 1 win in 20 games is good or bad unless we compare that run to how other teams are doing.

    God, is the the Twilight Zone or something?! 

    using that example: 1 win in 20 games.  This is objectively bad, no matter how you slice it or dress it up.  In isolation, or compared to any other team.

    If, say Man United, Arsenal and Chelsea have won 70% of their games and Liverpool have won only 1 in 20, what's the difference?  Winning 1 game in 20 is STILL AWFUL.

    The same goes for transfers - there is absolutely no causal link between one team's transfer success and another's.  If there is, explain how instead of just throwing up generalisations like 'you have to look at everyone's acticities to come up with a benchmark for success'.

    This flies in the face of all reason and logic.

    Once a manager has bought his players, that is it.  The comparison ends.  Their effectiveness is solely judged by performance on the pitch, not how player X is doing at Man United.

    And I see you've dropped the Soccernomics spiel now.  Why?  Because it's clearly not a supportable argument.  As I stated above, unless the writers had access to personal player contracts then their wage estimates will be just that: estimates.  As such, any analysis is not really credible or persuasive at all.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I agree, Stevo - lots of interesting views around.  And this is what this site is all about - passionate but civil debate :)

    ReplyDelete
  53. I agree, Stevo - lots of interesting views around.  And this is what this site is all about - passionate but civil debate :)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Who Cares, really there are more pressing issues at the club.  Like should the shop stock more oversized jackets

    ReplyDelete
  55. I also would like your thoughts Jaimie

    ReplyDelete
  56. ok here goes for the umpteenth time last 3 windows

    7 dossena
    3 cavilieri
    1.5 Ngog
    19.3 Keane
    8 Riera

    16.9 Aquilani (Granted this may be wrong)
    17.5 Johnson
    2 Kyriakos
    Total 75.2

    Out
    Carson 3.25
    Crouch 11
    Guthrie 2.25
    Keane 12
    Risse 4
    Le tallac 1.1
    Alonso 30
    Arbeloa 3.5
    Leto 3

    Total 70.1

    Now please answer my question do you think the owners are putting in enough funds for Rafa??? because from these figures it suggests no. You may argue extra 4 mill for Aquilani but then the same could be said for the amount recieved for Keane.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Or does the clubs debt mean they can't, because 40 mill or whatever is used to service the debt

    ReplyDelete
  58. Also Jaimie just telling me my figures are wrong is hardly debating the issue. It seems to me you just don't want to admit defeat on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Im really peed off with you Jaimie, looking back through you say net spend doesn't mean anything course it bloody does, its the true cost to the football club dognut christ, if liverpool's turnover for example was a billion pounds but your spending 950 mill on wages etc, then the clubs profits would be 50 million. Are you telling me that, that 50 million figure is irrelavant???? That would be net profit. How can you not see that. You say net spend is just excuses. Excuses for what Bad buys as you say. Well it would appear rafa knows this and rectifies most by selling them on and bringing in a new player. How can you not grasp that net cost, net profit are the only key figures, gross means nothing!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Jaimie, I can only assume you are being deliberately obstreperous here.  Also writing things in capitals doesn't take them right.

    My example was obviously a seriously skewed hypotethetical instance, but still holds up. 

    You say:

    I find it hilarious that you are seriously trying to argue that it's impossible to say whether a hit rate of 1 in 20 is good or bad'.  Are you listening to yourself?  
     
    In isolation or in reference to others makes no difference - it is still OBJECTIVELY bad.  


    How exactly is 1 in 20 objectively bad?  There is nothing whatsoever objective about it. That's my whole point. It's purely subjective.  Based on your opinion, or some idea that it is self-evidently bad.

    It's your opinion and that's not an objective assessment. What I'm saying is how do we get some objectivity into it? The only possible way to do that is to look at other managers and find a benchmark for sucess.  Otherwise, we're just subjectively deciding that 1 in 20 is bad.  Why is it bad?  So is 10 in 20 good? Why? Because you say so?  Why does that make it valid?

    Just saying 'it's obviously awfu'l is very amateurish arguing. 

    In fact, you shoot yourself in the foot with your 1 in 20 league games anaolgy.  You say:

    Using your spurious reasoning, it would be impossible to say whether 1 win in 20 games is good or bad unless we compare that run to how other teams are doing.  

    But Jaimie, that's exactly how a league works.  A team's points are meaningless, except compared to how many points other teams have got. 

    You seem to be struggling with the basics of scientific, objective debate here.  Just saying something is 'obviously bad' isn't really an argument I'm afraid.  You have to prove it.  Objectively.  Please explain how you will do that with transfers and asssessing someone's success or failure in this area. 

    You also seem to be a bit confused about casual relationships.  This argument has nothing to do with cause and effect.  I never said it did.  It's about how we decide if someone is good at something or not. My challenge to you is how you do that objectively in total isolation, without refernece to anyone else's ability, which is what you claim to be able to do.

    And remember, you just saying 'it's awful' isn't objective.

    As for Soccernomics, I haven't 'dropped it'. I need to reference my copy when I get home to provide some data. 

    What I do know is that the study was part of a PHD thesis, which they do not hand out willy nilly. Most of the wage bill data is published in company accounts, as well, so questioning the accuracy of the information is perhaps not your best attack.  Anyway, as I say, let me get some facts and I'll come back to it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. IN

    Dossena - 7m
    Cavilieri - 3.5
    Ngog - 1.5 
    Keane - 20.3
    Riera - 8
     
    Aquilani - 18m
    Johnson - 17.5m
    Kyriakos - 2m
    Saric - 500k
    Degen - 2m signing-on fee
    Palsson - 380k
    Ayala - 160k

    Total 80.8

    We need to also add the money used to extend the contracts of Gerrard, Torres, Kuyt and Benayoun. If we make a conservative estimate of 5m per player, that is an extra 20m.  This is money that will come from the club: Thus

    80.8 +20 = 100.8m
     
    OUT

    Carson 3.25 
    Crouch 9m (Not 11 - the other 2m is based on other factors.  The amount Liverpool received was 9m)
    Guthrie 2.25 
    Keane 12 
    Riise 4
    Anderson 250k
    Le tallac 1.1 
    Alonso 30 
    Arbeloa 3.5 
    Leto 1.3 
     
    Total 66.65

    100m in 3 transfer windows to buy players/secure important players on long-term contracts?  Yes, I am perfectly happy with that.  It is an immense amount of money.

    ReplyDelete
  62. IN

    Dossena - 7m
    Cavilieri - 3.5
    Ngog - 1.5 
    Keane - 20.3
    Riera - 8
     
    Aquilani - 18m
    Johnson - 17.5m
    Kyriakos - 2m
    Saric - 500k
    Degen - 2m signing-on fee
    Palsson - 380k
    Ayala - 160k

    Total 80.8

    We need to also add the money used to extend the contracts of Gerrard, Torres, Kuyt and Benayoun. If we make a conservative estimate of 5m per player, that is an extra 20m.  This is money that will come from the club: Thus

    80.8 +20 = 100.8m
     
    OUT

    Carson 3.25 
    Crouch 9m (Not 11 - the other 2m is based on other factors.  The amount Liverpool received was 9m)
    Guthrie 2.25 
    Keane 12 
    Riise 4
    Anderson 250k
    Le tallac 1.1 
    Alonso 30 
    Arbeloa 3.5 
    Leto 1.3 
     
    Total 66.65

    100m in 3 transfer windows to buy players/secure important players on long-term contracts?  Yes, I am perfectly happy with that.  It is an immense amount of money.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I'm not going to debate this further as your arguments are just not credible in the slightest.  I'm not going to keep repeating themselves.  it's impossible to debate sensibly with someone who seriously believes that winning only 1 game in 20 is not objectively bad.

    There is nothing subjective about it.  Our personal feelings/emotions/expectations etc have nothing to with designating a run of 1 win in 20 games as bad. 

    it is objectively bad because a win is good and failure to win is not good.  This is indisputable.  Thus, if a team wins 1 game and loses 19, it is objectively bad.  No thought/emotion/personal experience/reference to outside agents is necessary to make the determination that such a run.

    It is just bad.  End of story.  there is no need to reference anything or anyone else.

    You can keep going on about how I'm 'confused' or 'not getting it' but any fair-minded person can see the sense in what I'm arguing and the complete lack of sense in what you're arguing.

    This is like arguing that water is wet.  I am arguing it is wet; you are arguing that water is dry, and despite the illogicality of it, you persist in arguing it.

    I explained my points in a clear manner before - you have just engaged in pointless sophistry.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Jaimie.  Fine, let's cut the crap. 

    Just answer me this: do you think Benitez is good or bad in the transfer market? 

    What do you base that judgement on?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Rossi - it is yo who does not grasp the (in)significance of Net spend.

    You and other propents of net spend use it as a way of allowing the manager to relinquish responsibility for bad purchases.

    Example: "It doesn't matter that we spent 20m on Keane because we got 12m back".

    Just becuase we made money back does not mean that the original mistake is negated!

    There is still an 8m LOSS to contend with.  Plus, there is the loss of intangible things like impact on the team/creative contribution/cohesiveness etc - things that were lost because the WRONG player was bought.

    Jus imagine if we had spent that 20m on someone who wasn't dumped after 6 months.

    That player could conceivably have made a huge difference on last season AND this season.  If we had another 20m player instead of Keane who was STILL HERE, perhaps we wouldn't be struggling so much with injuries now because that player would be making a difference.

    The key here is the impact the RIGHT player would've made.  That is the loss that teams who waste money on the wrong players have to bear.

    Just saying 'but we made money back on him' is juust a gigantic kop-out.

    Of all the stupid theories in football, net-spend is the one I hate the most, mainly because it provides an easy mask for incompetence.

    ReplyDelete
  66. It's not as easy as making a good/bad generalisation.  I have never stated Benitez was 'bad' in the transfer market; I have always said that he has made some good/effective signings and some bad/ineffective signings.

    For me, a transfer can be classified as good when the player makes a positive specific and measurable impact to the performance of the team on the pitch.

    For attacking players, this means goals/assists; goals + assists per minute/game; shots on target and a myriad of other criteria.

    For defenders there will be another set of criteria, and so on throughout every position in the team.

    Examples of good/effective signings: Alonso, Garcia, Reina, Crouch, Kuyt, Benayoun, Torres.

    Examples of bad/ineffective signings/Aquisitions: Babel, Dossena. Degen, Morientes, Voronin, Gonzalez, Palletta, Keane

    it is perfectly possible to classify a player as good/bad signing based on their performance on the pitch for Liverpool.

    Reference to other teams/players is totally unnecessary.

    So - if Manager A signs 10 strikers over a 5 year period, and only one of them scores goals, then it is safe to say that the other 9 strikers were bad/ineffective signings.  Why?  Because they have not produced any specific measurable impact on the team.

    A striker's main task is to score goals.  if that is not being achieved then the Striker is not performing their principal role in the team.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Jamie, when playing in a league, you are playing against other teams. These teams are different in many ways. However in order to get a grasp of how good your team is, you first have to have a comparison, that being of the rival teams.

    The more succesful teams (Man Utd) are obviously the bar setters and the lesser succesful teams (us) use that bar as a comparison to get up to that level.

    As for money spent, we have only spent £3.88m average net spend per season more in Rafa's time than the previous 6 seasons before he took over. Whilst we do have to spend money on contracts, when players are sold, their right to payment at our club is nearly always revoked, thus the wage bill is lowered, there is net spend in wages too, unfortunately it's lesser available to us.

    Let's not forget that we have eaned £114m from Champions League revenue since Rafa has taken over, where has this money gone? it's £22.8m a season. It appears that a lot of our revenue is going straight into paying of debts or rather the owners debts which has been put in the name of our club. We are outside the top 4 for net spend per season and in the wages department, yet we are regular in the top 4.

    Not a lot else can be said, it's really hard to take someone seriously when they harp on about gross spending and dismissing the purpose of net spending so as to skew their own agenda. It sounds as if you are trying to get an investment on Dragons Den.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Oh yeah, is Damo the Irish guy that used to linger on FGN?

    ReplyDelete
  69. for the first time I actually found a post interesting. It seems to reinforce the lack of fincial support Benitez is actually experiencing. Have we details of Johnson and other key signings? How does this arrangment equate with other signings from the other big clubs?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Naldo - thanks for your comments.  You state:


    In order to get a grasp of how good your team is, you first have to have a comparison, that being of the rival teams.  

    Why?!  What comparison can be made?  Don't just say it - explain it.  It's no good just repeating it ad nauseum.  What is the basis for such a comparison?  How does it help Liverpool.

    Use our current situation as an example:  6 defeats in 7 games.

    What does comparing ourselves to Man U at the moment achieve?  Nothing.  Do we need to look at Man U or Arsenal to know that our current form is crap?  No!  Whatever way you slice it, 6 defeats in 7 games is bad.

    Your point about Champions League revenue is not really pertinent here.  Liverpool FC is a business - it costs money to run that business.  Not every piece of revenue generated goes towards buying players.  This has never been the case and never will be the case, either at Liverpool or any other club.

    You say 'it appears that alot of our revenue is going towards paying debts'.  Every club has debts of some description, and revenue will obviuously go towards paying them!  This has not stopped over 260m being made available to Rafa since 2005. 

    That figure also does not include money used to extend/improved contracts in that time period for the likes of Gerrard, Torres, Yossi, Kuyt etc. That money has to come from somewhere, does it not?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Jaimie, what you've written isn't correct according to the figures in the given evidence printed by Roma (allegedly).

    5,3,7,5m fees in installments until June 2011. 250k (Euros) for appearances up to 140 = 1m. 1m for winning the EPL or CL, 1.5m for 5 seasons at 300k per season.

    Given that the exchange rate would have already been agreed at the time of printing, and judging by the date the rate was at 1.14/£, it would mean a total cost of £20.6m inc bonuses and clauses, not inclusive of any sell on clause - the reason I leave that out is Liverpool wouldn't need to pay some of the fees depending on when/if the player was sold.

    How did you arrive at £22.45m?

    Also:

    "As I've tried to explain a million times: net spend is an excuse; it is not relevant."

    What business are in you Jaimie? Because it's clearly not economics.

    The NET spend is of paramount importance as previous NET figures dictate future total spending, do you actually believe that our Club starts afresh every summer or January and just says "right Rafa, you've got £20m to spend". NO.

    NET spend is the key figure, a business doesn't report on outgoings alone, the incomes earnt from sales is reflective in future spending. NET spend is extremely relevant.

    I'd be interest to know how you got hold of this document too Jaimie, I'll be passing this along to a colleague for review as I don't understand how you got hold of this document as it's private and confidential under privity of contract legislation, please do provide which public sector you got this information from as I'm sure you wouldn't print confidential information without first vitiating the confidentiality agreement therein. Did you get this from a representative of either Club?

    One could assume that if you got this from a 3rd party source it's relevance would be rendered irrelivant as it could have easily been doctored or even forged. So, where did it come from Jaimie?

    I'd be very interested to know where it came from, I'm not saying that someone has simply copied the AS Roma mark onto a piece of paper and then translated a segment from English text but when read in Italian it doesn't flow as it should.

    If you could let us know the source of the document I'd appreciate it, I feel you may have been duped.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Jaimie, what you've written isn't correct according to the figures in the given evidence printed by Roma (allegedly).

    5,3,7,5m fees in installments until June 2011. 250k (Euros) for appearances up to 140 = 1m. 1m for winning the EPL or CL, 1.5m for 5 seasons at 300k per season.

    Given that the exchange rate would have already been agreed at the time of printing, and judging by the date the rate was at 1.14/£, it would mean a total cost of £20.6m inc bonuses and clauses, not inclusive of any sell on clause - the reason I leave that out is Liverpool wouldn't need to pay some of the fees depending on when/if the player was sold.

    How did you arrive at £22.45m?

    Also:

    "As I've tried to explain a million times: net spend is an excuse; it is not relevant."

    What business are in you Jaimie? Because it's clearly not economics.

    The NET spend is of paramount importance as previous NET figures dictate future total spending, do you actually believe that our Club starts afresh every summer or January and just says "right Rafa, you've got £20m to spend". NO.

    NET spend is the key figure, a business doesn't report on outgoings alone, the incomes earnt from sales is reflective in future spending. NET spend is extremely relevant.

    I'd be interest to know how you got hold of this document too Jaimie, I'll be passing this along to a colleague for review as I don't understand how you got hold of this document as it's private and confidential under privity of contract legislation, please do provide which public sector you got this information from as I'm sure you wouldn't print confidential information without first vitiating the confidentiality agreement therein. Did you get this from a representative of either Club?

    One could assume that if you got this from a 3rd party source it's relevance would be rendered irrelivant as it could have easily been doctored or even forged. So, where did it come from Jaimie?

    I'd be very interested to know where it came from, I'm not saying that someone has simply copied the AS Roma mark onto a piece of paper and then translated a segment from English text but when read in Italian it doesn't flow as it should.

    If you could let us know the source of the document I'd appreciate it, I feel you may have been duped.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Jaimie, what you've written isn't correct according to the figures in the given evidence printed by Roma (allegedly).

    5,3,7,5m fees in installments until June 2011. 250k (Euros) for appearances up to 140 = 1m. 1m for winning the EPL or CL, 1.5m for 5 seasons at 300k per season.

    Given that the exchange rate would have already been agreed at the time of printing, and judging by the date the rate was at 1.14/£, it would mean a total cost of £20.6m inc bonuses and clauses, not inclusive of any sell on clause - the reason I leave that out is Liverpool wouldn't need to pay some of the fees depending on when/if the player was sold.

    How did you arrive at £22.45m?

    Also:

    "As I've tried to explain a million times: net spend is an excuse; it is not relevant."

    What business are in you Jaimie? Because it's clearly not economics.

    The NET spend is of paramount importance as previous NET figures dictate future total spending, do you actually believe that our Club starts afresh every summer or January and just says "right Rafa, you've got £20m to spend". NO.

    NET spend is the key figure, a business doesn't report on outgoings alone, the incomes earnt from sales is reflective in future spending. NET spend is extremely relevant.

    I'd be interest to know how you got hold of this document too Jaimie, I'll be passing this along to a colleague for review as I don't understand how you got hold of this document as it's private and confidential under privity of contract legislation, please do provide which public sector you got this information from as I'm sure you wouldn't print confidential information without first vitiating the confidentiality agreement therein. Did you get this from a representative of either Club?

    One could assume that if you got this from a 3rd party source it's relevance would be rendered irrelivant as it could have easily been doctored or even forged. So, where did it come from Jaimie?

    I'd be very interested to know where it came from, I'm not saying that someone has simply copied the AS Roma mark onto a piece of paper and then translated a segment from English text but when read in Italian it doesn't flow as it should.

    If you could let us know the source of the document I'd appreciate it, I feel you may have been duped.

    ReplyDelete
  74. You don't need any teams to base comparisons on when you have 6 defeats in 7 games. That is poor, however every team has poor runs. Rafa hasn't become a poor manager over the last few weeks and the players are not bad all of a sudden. We do have a pretty weak squad at the moment, which is a product of Rafa having to sell so many players to buy.

    Like I said, wages have a net spend too. We sell/release players to lower the wage bill. Whilst we do give new contracts to players, so do other teams, a couple of which offer more than we do. Yet have the means to spend more in net per season than we do too.

    Rafa is working on a very limited budget, yes he has signed some flops. He has often rectified that quickly by selling them on for the best possible price in order to buy someone else. It's a long work in progress, slowly though he is building a team of class acts, he will have to continue the rigerous buying/selling routine in order to get a good balance between the starting eleven and the rest of the squad though. At the moment our squad is weak, but the first eleven is very strong.

    ReplyDelete
  75. 1. The figures are correct.  Read it again.  I have converted into pound sterling (clearly stated) and I've used today's exchange rate (clearly stated).

    2. Net spend it a fallacy when it comes to football transfers.  I've explained my position a million times on this.  I'm not repeating myself again.

    3. The Roma document is readily available on Roma's official website: <span>http://www.asroma.it/UserFiles/988.pdf</span>

    Duped?  I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  76. lucas is not a flop, he is not the greatest midfielder in the world but he is far from the worst. He is even far from the worst to where the red shirt.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Hi Jamie,

    I'll keep this brief, three questions:
    1) Are you bored? With the sorts of money flying around in football at the moment why does it matter that the fee for Aquilani be 2-3 million either side of the 'purported' fee? This sort of analysis could have gone into just about every player transfer over the last ten years, yet rarely seems to warrant an article.
    2) You say you are not interested in Socceronomics - perhaps the most 'valid' analysis of football transfers, player values and their effect in recent history. Any 'journalist' worth their salt should consider such an in-depth analysis, based on evidence, and resulting in frighteningly consistent results over 25 years to be vitally important to a reasoned argument. It would be professionally and intellectually irresponsible to ignore it. Can you claim not to be so?
    3) For someone who regularly responds to posts asking "where's the evidence for this? What's your source?" as a cheap way to weasle out of an answer, you sure are slow to accept it when it is provided.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Please advise how you came across this piece of information. As far as I'm aware details of a confidential nature from private contracts need to be vitiated by both parties prior to release to 3rd parties or, in this case, being released into the public domain.

    It appears at first glance that you've come across a letter, private in nature, printed by AS Roma detailing the transfer contract of Alberto Aquilani between said Club and Liverpool FC.

    I'd appreciate it if you could give us a source as I'm sure you can imagine with many a reported fee flying around some clarity would be great, I understand the validity of the evidence but it's not hard to paste an AS Roma emblem onto a piece of blank page and then translate a segment of text from English to Italian.

    I'd also add that in Italian the text doesn't flow as it should.

    ReplyDelete
  79. My bad, that was two questions and a leading statement

    ReplyDelete
  80. So tell us Jaimie just how much we would recieve, if we won both the Premiership and the CL?.....and than if we sold him say 3-4 years later for a larger fee.  

    ReplyDelete
  81. Redlester - thanks for your comments.

    1. This is my site, and the subject matter interests me, so I wrote about it.  I wanted to clarify once and for all what Aquilani's transfer fee was/is.  Every supposedly reputable source has something different, which most of the time completely conflicts with the published facts (i.e. Roma's document).  I wanted to bring clarity to the issue.

    Are you bored?  That sort of post-analysis could've gone into just about every article ever posted on this site, yet it barely seems to warrant a comment ;)

    2. Who says that Soccernomics is 'perhaps the most valid analysis of football transfers in recent history'?  Sounds like one of the soundbytes on the book cover itself.  And no, I am not interested in Soccernomics because, like everything else related to football, it is not fact.  It is not even close to being fact.  It is guesswork on a grand scale, especially when it comes to player salaries.

    As I argued earlier in this thread, unless the writers have had access to every player's personal employment contract to gain accurate salary/bonus/add on information, the results are pure speculation - one person's interpretation of (inaccurate) data.

    It is not gospel; it is not fact and, in my view, it is not persuasive or credible.

    Having said that, no appraisal of transfer fees/player salaries will ever be completely factual or credible because it is impossoble to gain legal access to the relevant data.

    And you say 'frighteningl consistent results'?!  Please.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that the most expensively assembled team has the greater chance of winning trophies.

    ReplyDelete
  82. It equates to £20.6m inc bonuses (the figure we all knew anyway) when translated to english so what's the point of the article?

    Most of us knew we'd paid around £17m up front and will end up paying around £20m so what's the point of the article Jaimie, I don't understand where you're coming from?

    Do you simply write articles with flash headlines in order to generate hits on your sight? Perhaps if you gave a point of view it would help but alas you're so fearful of showing yourself to be "one or the other" I suppose by keeping your articles vague and generic you keep up the hit rate. I'm off to read someone with some REAL insight - Paul Tomkins, at least he has the courage of his convictions.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I've already answered this question earlier in the thread in response to another of your posts.  There is no conspiracy here - the document is available on Roma's official website: <span>http://www.asroma.it/UserFiles/988.pdf</span> 

    If the Italian 'doesn't flow', I suspect it is you with the problem, not the Italian lawyer who drafted the document.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Don't forget the agreed Euro fees are only so costly now because of the current exchange rate. A favourable exchange rate move (say, back to the more typical 1.5 : 1 rate) would see the €20m initial fee amount to only £13.5m

    ReplyDelete
  85. You have lost all credibility as far as im concerned the article, which this is related to is about the real cost of aquilani, yet keane by your calculations cost the full 20.3 even though he never made the required of appearences etc what the total fee gets made up of. Ie we prob paid 19 then a further 2 mill or whatever depending on appearences/success. Yet in the sales you put crouch down as 9 because the other 2 mill is based on other factors. So its one rule for incoming another for outgoing, so you could try and prove a point haha.

    Can i also say three transfer windows is summer/january/summer thats why i didnt include torres and co. + the question i asked was about the last 2 years have the board put in enough and even by your figures it stands at 14 mill, meaning 7 mill per season theyve added to the kitty.

    You also lose credibility when you include 2 mill signing on fee for degan, christ every player who signs gets a signing on fee, where are the rest of those figures then.

    I was only including the significant fees really nothing less than 1 mill, but you included some not all why was this, we got ngoo for 250g, whys he not there. So your figures are wrong aswel.

    You also state liverpool recieved 9m for crouch, did they or was alot still outstanding, which is partly why we got johnson as they now have a transfer ban because they couldnt make payments. Including supposedly a fee to chelsea for johnson.

    You suposedly talk facts or critically analyse whatever to me i think you twist things to make it look a certain way to get sensationalist points accross and never back down even when someone is clearly right and your wrong ;)

    ReplyDelete
  86. I look forward to your response

    ReplyDelete
  87. "And no, I am not interested in Soccernomics because, like everything else related to football, it is not fact.  It is not even close to being fact.  It is guesswork on a grand scale, especially when it comes to player salaries."

    Jaimie, most of what is written in the World today is based in part on guess work and certainly the majority of what you write is based on guess work.

    I don't see how you can discredit the work of one of the World's leading Professors in Economics (Szymanski) or the work of Kuper who writes for the Financial Times, when both are clearly in a far better position to discuss the impact of economics on football than we are.

    I'd imagine that Szymanski is able to obtain for more information about the economics of football from his position as MBA Dean at Cass Business School in London than you or I are able to.

    If a man with as much information at his disposal as Szymanski has is deemed to be involved in "guess work" what would that make your analysis of all things Liverpool?

    ReplyDelete
  88. "And no, I am not interested in Soccernomics because, like everything else related to football, it is not fact.  It is not even close to being fact.  It is guesswork on a grand scale, especially when it comes to player salaries."

    Jaimie, most of what is written in the World today is based in part on guess work and certainly the majority of what you write is based on guess work.

    I don't see how you can discredit the work of one of the World's leading Professors in Economics (Szymanski) or the work of Kuper who writes for the Financial Times, when both are clearly in a far better position to discuss the impact of economics on football than we are.

    I'd imagine that Szymanski is able to obtain for more information about the economics of football from his position as MBA Dean at Cass Business School in London than you or I are able to.

    If a man with as much information at his disposal as Szymanski has is deemed to be involved in "guess work" what would that make your analysis of all things Liverpool?

    ReplyDelete
  89. I definitely picked on that negative vibe also despite him not actually saying the words "waste of money".

    <span>Your opinion was clear with: "So - almost £22.5m (potentially) for Aquilani, a player who 2.5 months into the season has not yet made his debut in the league or Champions League." </span>

    <span>However, if your future projections are realised then I will be a very very happy Liverpool fan! :D
    </span>

    ReplyDelete
  90. "And no, I am not interested in Soccernomics because, like everything else related to football, it is not fact.  It is not even close to being fact.  It is guesswork on a grand scale, especially when it comes to player salaries."

    Jaimie, most of what is written in the World today is based in part on guess work and certainly the majority of what you write is based on guess work.

    I don't see how you can discredit the work of one of the World's leading Professors in Economics (Szymanski) or the work of Kuper who writes for the Financial Times, when both are clearly in a far better position to discuss the impact of economics on football than we are.

    I'd imagine that Szymanski is able to obtain for more information about the economics of football from his position as MBA Dean at Cass Business School in London than you or I are able to.

    If a man with as much information at his disposal as Szymanski has is deemed to be involved in "guess work" what would that make your analysis of all things Liverpool?

    ReplyDelete
  91. "And no, I am not interested in Soccernomics because, like everything else related to football, it is not fact.  It is not even close to being fact.  It is guesswork on a grand scale, especially when it comes to player salaries."

    Jaimie, most of what is written in the World today is based in part on guess work and certainly the majority of what you write is based on guess work.

    I don't see how you can discredit the work of one of the World's leading Professors in Economics (Szymanski) or the work of Kuper who writes for the Financial Times, when both are clearly in a far better position to discuss the impact of economics on football than we are.

    I'd imagine that Szymanski is able to obtain for more information about the economics of football from his position as MBA Dean at Cass Business School in London than you or I are able to.

    If a man with as much information at his disposal as Szymanski has is deemed to be involved in "guess work" what would that make your analysis of all things Liverpool?

    ReplyDelete
  92. "And no, I am not interested in Soccernomics because, like everything else related to football, it is not fact.  It is not even close to being fact.  It is guesswork on a grand scale, especially when it comes to player salaries."

    Jaimie, most of what is written in the World today is based in part on guess work and certainly the majority of what you write is based on guess work.

    I don't see how you can discredit the work of one of the World's leading Professors in Economics (Szymanski) or the work of Kuper who writes for the Financial Times, when both are clearly in a far better position to discuss the impact of economics on football than we are.

    I'd imagine that Szymanski is able to obtain for more information about the economics of football from his position as MBA Dean at Cass Business School in London than you or I are able to.

    If a man with as much information at his disposal as Szymanski has is deemed to be involved in "guess work" what would that make your analysis of all things Liverpool?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Thanks for your reply Jamie:
    1) Yes it is your site, and of course you are free to write about what you wish. The fact that I detect undertones of "Aquilani could well be an EVEN BIGGER waste of money" from the tone of your article is subjective on my part, so I'll leave this argument alone.
    2) Socceronomics. Very few studies based on living organisms result in a a 100% consistency rate, for various reasons I won't go into. As you stated, it's impossible to be completely conclusive in something like a sport. However, it is folly to dismiss something like Socceronomics based on this fact. The sheer amount of statistical data involved in producing the figures in the book is staggering. Ask any academic, or the kinds of people that research more important problems than football, such as health risks, cures for disease etc. if they would appreciate the benefits of the sort of in-depth analysis that offers these figures in order to continue their line of research, and they'd chew your arm off. These sorts of factual studies (which do leave some room for error) are the things we base our evolution and development as a species upon. These sort of figures CANNOT BE IGNORED, except by the most pedantic of types doing so selectively to further their own agenda.

    I'd also like to address your point "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that the most expensively assembled team has the greater chance of winning trophies." I dispute this. I think a lot of people were surprised at how high this figure actually was, and how tightly it corresponds to player value. I would have thought that other factors, such as the ability of a manager to get the most from individuals, player confidence and effective strategy and tactics would have had far more impact on success than it apparently does.

    ReplyDelete
  94. 'If we had another 20m player instead of Keane who was STILL HERE, perhaps we wouldn't be struggling so much with injuries now because that player would be making a difference' 

    You have nearly proved my point jaimie, exactly right. Like you point out though in your figures above outgoings and incoming fees are very similar over last 2 years, so benitez hasn't had the luxury of buying a player keeping him in the squad and then adding to the squad, over the 5 years if a signing hasn't worked out he has to ship them out and replace them. An example might be Mark Gonzales, he got 1 season at pool, he may have done better 2nd season but once deemed a failure he had to sell so he could bring in someone else.

    With Keane, i think benitez even mentioned about his age when he sold him back that he had to move him quickly thus not losing as much money on him. This is because Benitez knows that the money raised would be going back into his budget, whether it did or not is another question.

    I think Chelsea fans always say all there big buys are still at the club. Well i bet there net spend is massive compared to ours. Even if Gross spend is similar to ours - why dont ya work that 1 out.

    When did it become a debate about incompetetance and for someone who says he hasn't said if benitez is good or bad in the transfer market, all your other comments would suggest your mind is made up on benitz specially with regards to spending

    ReplyDelete
  95. You're absolutely right - most of the stuff written about relating to sport is guesswork, and the same goes for what I write too.  I don't dispute that. 

    I don't, however, go around trying to coerce people into reading what I write, claiming it is authoritative and cannot be disputed, which is what a couple of posters have done on this thread and others.

    And I do not discredit Szymanski and Kuper's work - kudos to them for creating a compelling analysis.

    The inescapeable fact is though that much of the data in their book is not factual, thus any conclusions that arise are inherently flawed.  Persuasive and compelling yes; the last word on the subject? No.

    ReplyDelete
  96. you say keane was not worth 20m, if the stories are true and rafa wanted to buy barry for 18m, who ever decided keane was the better option was wrong and I dont think it was rafa. Why rafa thought barry was a bargain was you where buying a player that could cover about 4 positions on the field and do a good job this would have been great for the situation we are in at the moment with all the injuries we have at the moment.

    so before you start calling into question some ones transfer judgement you should firstly find out the facts 

    ReplyDelete
  97. I think you'd be surprised if you read the book Jaimie, the evidence they provide in relation to the figures given is solid. The numbers are factually accurate otherwise the book would widely discredited by the Clubs named and more importantly potentially libellous.

    It shows an 89% correlation between money spent on wages and the success of a Club (based on data from 1998-2007).

    To be honest the fact that you've discredited the book without reading it shows a huge amount of guess work on your part, you're simply guessing the figures given in the book are inaccurate when in reality they're pretty spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  98. How is that any great revelation?  It's like arguing that there's a correlation between rich people and Ferrari ownership! 

    If you set out to prove something which is obvious then you will achieve your goal.

    Why are higher wages paid?  Because the players receiving them are of a higher quality.  This is why the likes of Kaka, Ronaldo et al are paid the biggest bucks.

    Higher quality players = higher quality football.

    Higher quality football = more chance of winning trophies.

    I'm sorry, but this is not a stunning revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Jaimie, I'm embarassed to read your responses to most of these posts, particularly to Damo and Rossi. Your refusal to accept the nett spend argument is laughable, your only argument against is that the initial outlay could have een spent more wisely. Of course it could and that simply means time has been wasted, which is of course a bad thing. However nett spend is of vital importance because it means that we have to sell some of our assets (namely certain players) to contribute to the funding of new ones. How can that not be relevant? Paticularly considering that any worth while funds will be raised either by good players leaving or a high turnover of lesser quality players commanding smaller fees. Either way Rafa is continually criticised for the amont of players coming and going as well as the lack of strength in depth, both of which can be linked to the above. Finally regarding the issue of comparisons with other managers spending/success, this is obviously relevant. Damos hypothetical use of '1 win in 20' has been taken literally by you. Of course we can all say that 1 win in 20 is terrible without making comparisons, however what can you say is good without making comparisons? If we win 15 in 20, is that good? The answer is no if our rivals are winning 18 out of 20! And we will only know by comparing ourselves to them which is the whole point of a league system! Transferring this to money I'd like to see your reaction if your wage was cut to £5000 a year, i'm sure then comparisons to your contemporaries would become a valid point!

    ReplyDelete
  100. That's fine Jaimie, If that is your opinion but why state their work is inherently flawed because the information given is not factual if you're then going to conceed higher salaries and success being unequivocally linked is no great relevation?

    I was merely saying their work is fundemantally sound as they've used information provided by the Clubs therein which disproves your "guess work" theory.

    It's no great revelation but it does go some way to providing Benitez with an argument against the wave of criticism directed his way when it comes to the lack of success we've had in the League.

    If there are several other Clubs outhere who can spend more on salaries and wages the logical assumption is that they will be more successful, the improtance of such logic is undeniable.

    Ergo, when most fans are expecting us to win the League, Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham are all in a stronger position to do so. It is far more logical to expect us to challenge for 4th place than it is to expect League success.

    ReplyDelete
  101. That's fine Jaimie, If that is your opinion but why state their work is inherently flawed because the information given is not factual if you're then going to conceed higher salaries and success being unequivocally linked is no great relevation?

    I was merely saying their work is fundemantally sound as they've used information provided by the Clubs therein which disproves your "guess work" theory.

    It's no great revelation but it does go some way to providing Benitez with an argument against the wave of criticism directed his way when it comes to the lack of success we've had in the League.

    If there are several other Clubs outhere who can spend more on salaries and wages the logical assumption is that they will be more successful, the improtance of such logic is undeniable.

    Ergo, when most fans are expecting us to win the League, Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham are all in a stronger position to do so. It is far more logical to expect us to challenge for 4th place than it is to expect League success.

    ReplyDelete
  102. That's fine Jaimie, If that is your opinion but why state their work is inherently flawed because the information given is not factual if you're then going to conceed higher salaries and success being unequivocally linked is no great relevation?

    I was merely saying their work is fundemantally sound as they've used information provided by the Clubs therein which disproves your "guess work" theory.

    It's no great revelation but it does go some way to providing Benitez with an argument against the wave of criticism directed his way when it comes to the lack of success we've had in the League.

    If there are several other Clubs outhere who can spend more on salaries and wages the logical assumption is that they will be more successful, the improtance of such logic is undeniable.

    Ergo, when most fans are expecting us to win the League, Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham are all in a stronger position to do so. It is far more logical to expect us to challenge for 4th place than it is to expect League success.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Once again, Rossi, your post is riddled with inconsistencies.

    1. Ater the sale of Keane, Daniel Levy stated the following:

    "I have already made my opinion clear on the nature of this transaction. I don't regard it as a transfer deal - that is something which happens between two clubs when they both agree to trade - this is very much an enforced sale, for which we have agreed a sum of £19m as compensation plus a potential further £1.3m in additional compensation".

    It had nothing to with Keane's appearance levels.  Spurs dropped their complaint re Liverpool's pursuit of Keane when Liverpool made a 'donation' to Spurs' favourite charity.

    It has never been confirmed that the extra 1.3m was received by Spurs, but if you factor in the 'donation', it probably all balances out in the end.

    2. And I'm not quite sure what point you're tryiug to make re Keane and the subject of the article.  In fact, It seems like you have no relevant point at all in this regard.

    3. re Degen's signing-on fee: where do you think that money comes from - thin air?!  the club has to pay for that from its own funds, so of course it is relevant when it comes to assessing how much money has been spent on player transfers.

    If such information is publicly avaiable it should be included in any analysis of transfer spending.

    And if I've 'lost all credibility. with you Rossi then that's fine.  You're entitled to your view.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Okay - since you clear;ly have the book, please post the evidence that backs up your contention that 'they've used information provided by the clubs'.  I'm sure there must be something written in the book about from where the facts and figures were obtained, and if they are factual, no?

    Cheers. JK

    ReplyDelete
  105. Jamie,

    I have just looked at the total gross cost of our squad and our closest rivals Chelsea and Man U.

    Ok so for Man U I have van der sar 7m, neville 0m, evra 7m, O'shea 0m, Evans 0m, Ferdinand 30m, Brown 0m, Vidic 7m (GK and defence =51m) Hargreaves 20m, Fletcher 0m, Valencia 15m, Anderson 18m, Nani 17m, Giggs 0m, Scoles 0m, Carrick 20m, Park 4m, Tosic 15m (Mid = 110m) Berbatoss 30m, Rooney 30m, Owen 0m (Stike =60m) Total cost = 221m

    For Chelsea I have Cech 7m, Ivanovic 10m, Cole 5m, Carvalho 20m, Terry 0m, Bosingwa 16m, Ferreira 13m, Alex 0m (GK and Defence 71m) Mikel 16m, Cole 7m, Lampard 11m, Essien 24m, Zhirkov 18m, Malouda 13m, Ballack 0m, Deco 8m (Midfield 98m) Drogba 24m, Anelka 15m, Kalou 9m, Sturridge 0m (Strike 45m) Total cost = 214m

    For us Reina 7m, Johnson 17m, Agger 6m, Aureilio 0m, Carragher 0m, Skrtel 7m, Insua 1m, Kriagkos 2m, Dossena 7m, Degen 0m (GK and defence = 47m) Lucas 7m, Benyaoun 6m, Gerrard 0m, Mascherano 18m, Riera 8, Aquilani 20m (Midfield 59m) Kuyt 9m, Babel 11m, Torres 24m, Voronin 0m, Ngog 1m (Strike 45m) Total 151m

    I accept these figures may be slightly off, I mainly used wikipedia, but regardless we can agree that the total cost of chelsea man u squads is almost 60m more than Liverpools, that is 3 players of 20m quality that they have more than us, even if we say their squads cost only 40m more that is still 2 players of 20m quality more than us,

    This is the reason why we will not win the league not because rafa has misspent his money, imagine what he could do to the squad with another 60m.

    Your thought?

    Cheers, Chris 

    ReplyDelete
  106. Further to this Jamie, I hope you get a chance to respond to my post above, in which I state "I think a lot of people were surprised at how high this figure actually was, and how tightly it corresponds to player value. I would have thought that other factors, such as the ability of a manager to get the most from individuals, player confidence and effective strategy and tactics would have had far more impact on success than it apparently does."

    With this in mind, would you therefore agree that Rafa has done a good job at LFC with the resources he's had at his disposal? All talk of good buys/bad buys aside, we are overachieving, and since this isn't down to the quality of players in the squad, would it not therefore be very likely to be down to the ability of the manager?

    ReplyDelete
  107. I'm not at home at the moment but I'll be happy to post whatever sources I find when I'm able. I'd urge you to read it, despite what your thoughts are on their salary/spending views they provide some excellent analysis on various other aspects of the game.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Also a further point, it is not true that higher wages are always paid to players of higher quality. Crouch is getting more money now (to cite one example) to sit on Spurs' bench. Paying higher wages to a player is more likely to offset the dissapointment of not playing and being available in reserve, a luxury we can't currently afford.

    ReplyDelete
  109. who cares wot he might be worth if we win the PL or CL.

    ReplyDelete
  110. simple question-oes player sales not affect the transfer budget?

    ReplyDelete
  111. This is nothing new ffs, Roma made the figures public a few days after we signed him, therefore this is not news and you're not making anything clear because it was already clear. Others may have said we signed him for different amounts but they clearly didn't read the news from Roma, do you honestly think those people are gonna sit and read the drivel you frequently post on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  112. U get ue figures as best u can and present them in support of ur position. While i haven't read the book I'll assume the authors of soccernomics did their duel diligence. so y is ur analysis more credible than theirs. Did u have greater access 2 information than they did?

    ReplyDelete
  113. jamie kenco, stop babbling! no one is interested! youve been found out! mission accomplished!

    ReplyDelete
  114. You can play all you want with the figures, the fact remains that Rafa has to sell before he can buy as the Yanks are providing little funding for transfers. They're even biting into the transfer kitty by taking 'revenue' (wages) out of the funds.

    So a question for everyone (if not already asked), does Rafa get sufficient funds to compete with Chelski, manu and the Arse?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Discrediting statistics from the man who uses them constantly 2 support his opinion........nice JK, nice!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  116. Jamie,

    The figures from RAWk are lifted from your sister site lfchistory.net - I've quoted them before when your comments have a different view. Perhaps you can feed into that site, as clearly they have no agenda and if they are wrong as you suggest here and on other comments would serve us all well to have correct recordings.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Your not getting Damo's point Jaimie.  You have to compare apples with apples or other managers signing with Rafa's signings to compare how successful he is.  Damo maybe should have used 10 wins out of 20, in a normal season that would be pretty average BUT if all the teams below have only 9 or less wins and we are sitting top of the table then you would say that Liverpool has been successful.  No? 

    Do you get that analogy?

    ReplyDelete
  118. The analogy and general point does still not make sense.

    You have to compare apples with apples or other managers signing with Rafa's signings to compare how successful he is.

    WHY?!  Why?  Explain why.

    How does looking at the signings of other managers help us see how successful Rafa's signings have been?

    Stop dodging the issue and explain in clear terms WHY.

    What possible difference does looking at Man United's signings make to judging how effective Andrea Dossena was as a signing?

    Re 10 wins out of 20 - no, I would see that as average.  10 oiut of 20 is a 50% win rate, which is average.  Just because other teams have got less wins doesn't make it any less average.  There is always room for improvement.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Thanks for your comments Chris.

    I see what you're saying, but despite the apparent disparity in squad cost, Liverpool STILL managed to finish second last season.  How do you explain this if your argument is 'Liverpool cannot win the league because they man U and Chelsea have more expensive squads'?

    And Liverpool did not overachieve last season; the league was there for the taking.  11 league draws killed us.  if just two fo those draws had been turned into wins the title would've been ours on goal difference.

    This is why the money argument does not hold up.  In fact, it proves the opposite - it ptoces that money is NOT the deciding factor when it comes to having success as a team.

    And Chelsea have far more money than Man United but they have not won the league for three years, despite spending more money on transfers than United.  Again, the money argument doesn't hold up.

    I personally would not trust Benitez to spend an extra 60m wisely anyway, but that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  120. For once Jamie I agree with u. If he can sort us out like Xabi did then even if it does end up 22.5 mil then it be worth it :)

    ReplyDelete
  121. Jaimie,

    I always read and enjoy your articles.  They are well written and you clearly put a lot of considered work into each one.

    However, I never get to the end of a piece without wondering what your point is.  For me there is always an underlying opportunity that you are just trying to have a go at the management.  Would I be wrong to suggest that you routinely needle the facts and you're eager to highlight the negative.  Maybe I am.  But in this piece, you are presenting the facts (very well researched I might add) with what feels like negative overtones.  It seems you are suggesting that the fee paid and the conditions of the fee agreement are excessive and, reading between your lines, this is ultimately a function of an inadequate managerial team and what you are really saying is "Rafa blunders again". 

    Maybe its just me...

    But honestly, you appear to be very swift at sticking the flag up if you get an opportunity.  "The urinal cakes in the players dressing room are the wrong colour... thats it, sack Rafa"!

    ReplyDelete
  122. Hi David - thanks for your comments.  There are not meant to be negative undertones, I just wanted to instigate debate on the subject. I can see, however, why people might see it the way you do.

    I have to take issue with your last comment though.  I always give praise where it's due.  In the last 10 days I have posted losts of articles praising Rafa:

    Me praising Rafa after the Sunderland defeat:    
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/bravo-why-rafa-benitez-should-be.html    
       
    Me highlighting how Liverpool had won the title after losing 4 of the first 9 league games in the past:    
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/revealed-how-liverpool-actually-won.html    
       
    Me arguing that Liverpool would rise from the ashes and mount a title challenge this season:    
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/rising-from-ashes-10-ways-to-save.html    
       
    Me arguing that Liverpool would be fine without Gerrard and Torres:    
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/gerrard-and-torres-injured-liverpool.html    
       
    Me arguing again that Liverpool could beat United without Gerrard and Torres:    
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/liverpool-v-man-united-442-or-4231.html    
       
    Me highlighting the weaknesses of United's central defensive pairing:    
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/video-lets-hope-rio-ferdinand-makes.html    
       
    Me stating the following in my interview with Rebublik of Mancunia (prior to the United game:    
       
    "Liverpool will beat United.  It's almost guaranteed if you ask me".    
       
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/view-from-enemy-interview-with-republic.html    
       
    In the same interview, me stating the following about Benitez:    
       
    <span>"Rafa will not be sacked, nor should he be. Liverpool have never sacked a manager mid-season and the club is not going to start now, especially after last season’s 2nd place finish".</span>    
       
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/view-from-enemy-interview-with-republic.html    
       
    Me continually posting positive articles from other writers about Rafa:    
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/rafa-benitez-high-stakes-adrenalin.html    
       
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/rafa-benitez-man-who-came-in-from-cold.html  
     
    Me highlighting (yesterday) 18 reasons to be postive about LFC:  
    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/10/18-reasons-to-be-positive-about.html  
     
    I am critical, but I give credit where credit is due.

    And I have never ever called for Rafa to be sacked.  Not even a hint of that.  As you can see from the above, I argued that he *shouldn't* be sacked.

    ReplyDelete
  123. No one is saying there is no room for improvement but in order for you to analyse something you have to compare it aginast something similar. For example we will use Gross $ rather than Net $ as I know how much you like Gross figures :)  
    If Company A makes $10m Gross one year and that increases to $15m the next year you would consider that successful BUT if two other companies in the same industry increased their Gross from $10m to $25m then the success of Company A deminishes.

    If Liverpool end up winning the league (long shot at the moment I know but stay with me) and end up with 10 less points than last year you would call that a success! 

    Same with signings if Wenger, Ferguson and Ancelotti sign 10 players each with 5 from each side becomming successful and Benitez signs 10 players with 6 becomming succesful then you would say he is more successful than his counterparts...

    ReplyDelete
  124. Interesting how you strip out add-ons due to Liverpool but include add-ons for what the club pays out.. For example..Robie Keane would have been 20.3mln with add-ons

    ReplyDelete
  125. jeez jamie ole son you take some stick eh? how the hell do you do it? you try to inform the ignorant and all it does is bring thier cousins out of the trailer park!
    i am sick for you having to constantly reply with the same answers, its like ground hog day!. listen you chumps stop heaving it at JK, he does a great job, hes a pro and his posts are respected. well may they continue mate.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Jamie, I understand where you're comign from. It is unfortunate that all your articles are misconstrued to be Anti-Rafa and sometimes Anti-liver pool even  :|  !!!!  I think the logic behind most of your arguments/presentations elude the "fans" that constantly throw in a comparative yard stick when all your articles have been frm stand alone point of view. Good luck, I guess!!!

    ReplyDelete
  127. <span>"You have to compare apples with apples or other managers signing with Rafa's signings to compare how successful he is.  "

     Jamie, Damo is not trying to state that Rafa is a success or failure if 1 out of 20 is a success rather he is stating that in order to judge his record a failure or success there must be a benchmark in place to hold Rafa against.  If every team made 20 signings a year and only 1 was a success then it would be accepted that a 5% success rate shows a success in the transfer market.  If however most teams were seeing a 50% success rate of 10 out of 20 then anything below that accepted standard could be deemed a failure and above it a success.</span>

    Damo's is purely suggesting that although some of Rafa's signings have not been successful you need to look at the transfer dealings of the other teams to gauge the accepted ratio of success to failures on each teams signings.  Although I can understand why Damo suggests this etc I also believe that it would not give a fully accurate picture.

    Rafa is still building his team and has had one financial hand tied behind his back since arriving at Anfield.  Every season he has made several purchases for the first team, reserves and youth set up to rebuild the team left him by Houllier.  Every season he has been forced to settle for second/third best (or worse).  Dani Alves and Simao are just two of the names we were heavily linked with where the extra funds were not available and (certainly in the case of Alves) went on to sign for much higher prices to top European teams.  Compare Rafa's spending with Fergusons over the last few years and you will see exactly what the problem is!  Rafa is forced to share out a small transfer kitty to strengthen the 1st team and also add to the reserves and youth set up which means he has to gamble on players like Degen and Voronin etc.  Meanwhile down the M62 Fergie is buying 2-4 players a window.  In recent years he has bought Berbatov for £30m, Carrick and Hargreaves for around £18m each and these are just for the 1st team.  Fergie does not have to rebuild a team and has money to burn in each window which allows him to buy exciting new talent - Nani - 14m, Anderson - £17m, The Silva twins - £5.2m, Tosic - rumoured around the £17m mark.

    Rafa's transfer record is fairly good - Agger, Reina, Alonso, Mascherano, Garcia, Torres, Kuyt etc but he has had to gamble on a lot of relative unknowns like Babel, Voronin & Degen to name a few.  All international players and all with reasonable reputations etc.  This is where the net spend argument comes in.  Yes Rafa has had a lot of money to spend but this has been over 5 years and has been used to try to rebuild a team from top to bottom.  Each season Rafa will have identified the weak areas that needed to be approved and will then have been given a sum of money to fill those gaps.  Getting £20-50m to spend on one or two players a season would get us some top quality players but when you need to replace players, fix problem areas AND build for the future then this money does not go very far.  Rafa has tried to spend his money wisely and sometimes it works, others it doesn't but there is no doubt that the team has continued to progress.  This season is the one that hurts for me!  Last season we came so close to winning the Prem.  The team looked strong all over the park so with a few top quality signings could only get stronger but instead of an injection of cash to improve the team we have merely been able to replace the two players we have lost!  Rafa doesnt want to gamble on players but is forced to.  

    ReplyDelete
  128. <span>The so-called 83.8M net spend as quoted in the web-site was based on some very conservative numbers on player purchase prices while very aggressive numbers on player sale prices. E.g. FT's cost was quoted as 20.2M. We all know that this was AFTER netting off Luis Garcia sale. But that article counted the 4M as sales proceeds on the other side of the equation. Same for Robbie Keane, he was quoted as costing 19M and selling at 16M. But the 16M price, even Rafa admitted, is AFTER ALL the performance targets (goals/assists) are met. I.e. LFC may or may not get the $ if Keane cannot achieve these performance targets or when he is sold before these targets are achieved. Check this out: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1. If you include all that, the net spend number will be ~95-100M, or 19-20M/year (excluding the 14M Cisse which the web-site counted as Rafa spending). Hence, Rafa was actually ranked #3 in NET transfer spent since he took over in 2004. So you are right Rafa DID need to sell before buy, but he has STILL outspent (NET) all but 2 teams (CHE / MC) over his 5-year tenure, even MORE than MU / ARS.<span>  </span>You of course will defend Rafa by saying that's because a lot of good players by MU were bought BEFORE Rafa came. Well, take a look at the current MU squad. The only key active MU players that were bought before Rafa came is Ferdinand (rooney joined MU the same year as Rafa came), while Giggs/Neville /Scholes/Oshea were all trained in-house. But when you inherited Carra/SG from your predessor, you can't complain not having the expensive Ferdinand. And ARS case is even more obvious. So the reality is Rafa PROBLEMS ARE NOT DUE TO NOT HAVING ENOUGH $, BUT RATHER POOR TRANFER DEALINGS.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  129. <span>Damo, I don’t have info on whether Rafa signed more flops than other managers, but do have evidence that Rafa has outspend (on a NET basis) all but 2 premiership teams over his 5-year tenure. Check this out: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1. The site got one thing wrong which is it included Cisse’s 14M as part of Rafa spending which is NOT (should be Houllier). But even if you exclude that, the net spend number for Rafa will be ~95-100M, or 19-20M/year. And that makes him rank #3 in NET transfer spent since he took over in 2004, EVEN MORE THAN MU / ARS. So Rafa's myth of "not having enough $ to spend" is FLAWED, at least not against the other 18 EPL teams</span>

    ReplyDelete
  130. Rossi, it's not just LFC who is working on a positive net transfer surplus position. BOTH MU & ARS are. MU only got Valencia to replace the 80M Ronaldo, while ARS got NO ONE to replace Adebayeour. So yes, LFC debt is restricting Rafa's transfer dealings. But he handled that MUCH MUCH worse than MU / ARS by buying an injured crock in AA rather than someone who could offer immediate help.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Dave, spending >200M over 5 years and delivering ONLY 1 quality offensive player (FT) and you're still arguing Rafa transfer record is GOOD?? And please name a world-class manager that do worse than that.
    And whom did Rafa replace XA with? An injured crock (AA) who could only witness the WORST RUN in LFC history over the past 50 years!!! 

    ReplyDelete
  132. Alot of the United players pre benitez may not be playing now, but were they in 04/05, 05/06 etc?? exactly ;)

    ReplyDelete
  133. Jamie - you're not a writer. Not yet anyway. You try too hard, you're not interesting, and you're not insightful. Relax a little.

    ReplyDelete
  134. and also, ferguson has only been required to replenish his squad, a tricky business no doubt..but a much less envious task than completely overhauling a stagnated one, as rafa has had to do..this means the neccesity of signing stop-gap players just to keep the squad ticking over. this is why figures are relativel similar, but perhaps results are totally different..it's only now that rafa has maybe a squad he is happy with, but he is finding he cant add quality,without losing some..ie aqua -- alonso..

    ReplyDelete
  135. Kanwar is trying to have his cake and eat it. He spends 95% of the article endevouring to show that Aquaman may have cost too much and then writes a couple of lines that there maybe a chance that he could succeed. This article has one intention and that is to get the fans angry about the transfer but also cover Kanwars back should anyone point out that we don't give 2 hoots about how much he cost if we win the CL or PL. Maybe you want to get off that Fence your sitting on Kanwar and show us your true face.

    ReplyDelete
  136. There was a similar sell on clause when Rafa signed Alonso, he just waited until the clause date ended and sold him to Madrid without paying a penny.

    You'll find most transfers are split up with clauses, it's just unusual for a club to disclose it.

    If the add ons kick in, then we've been successful, so I'll be happy.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Actually, it's called having an opinion and trying to elicit the opinion of others by presenting different sides of the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  138. jaimie...on a side note? what do you make of whelans comments? i know ive lambasted you for anti lfc rhetoric but part of me realises thats fans should be critical at times (though i still say balance is the key ) but i think ex lfc players should keep out of the media speculation and conjecture and support the club no matter...i see ex united players tend to never criticize fergie or jump into the media circus...

    ReplyDelete
  139. Lucas isn't a failed signing. But that's my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Hi Ben,

    Ex Liverpool players have earned the right to criticise/analyse Liverpool.  I have no problem with it if their criticism is warranted.  However, ex players should never call for the manager to be sacked - that is jus wrong.  Criticism of tactics, formation, signings etc is perfectly fine if it's deserved.

    There are also lots of ex players worshipping Benitez in the press too.  It balances out.  The manager should expect criticism from all sides - it's part of the job.  Benitez - and managers in general - are all ready to lap up the praise when it comes their way; if they make mistakes, they have to accept the opposite.  And if they can't hack it, they should make way for a manager who can hack the criticism.

    And I am NOT Anti-LFC.  Never have been and never will be.  Criticism of managers, players, tacticts etc does not = anti-LFC sentiment.

    I support Liverpool FC; Rafa Benitez FC, Steven Gerrard FC, Kenny Dalglish FC or Fernando Torres FC.

    ReplyDelete
  141. It all keeps coming back to depth of squad. Even last season there were small grumbles of discontent and to be honest if there wasn't some truth to the point then we wouldn't be debating it. I want to know where the money goes personally just like I want to know how my own money is spent. Why? BECAUSE WE HAVE NO BLOODY MONEY!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  142. Jaimie, my question relates specifically to whelan...with regard to your point about ex players earning the right to criticise, i disagree completely - it all goes back to 'no player being bigger than the club'...also whelans attack was rather more personal and also tended to follow the current media line regarding skewed statistics and dubiously calculated transfer dealings (the ommission of money recouped, cl earnings etc)
    i was not having a go at you being anti lfc (balance has been more prevalent lately ;)   ;)

    ReplyDelete
  143. That doc as been around for months, so why now!

    ReplyDelete
  144. Because I felt like it.

    Next.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Spot on..Using Jamie's standpoint, Raffa was given a budget of £20mln plus sales but now given that net spend is not important, why wasnt Raffa flagged for exeeding his budget..He had that £20mln but since the Alonso money is coming into the club it should be disregarded since it has effect of accounting for net spend. Technically this would mean the transfer fees in would not count as they would have a netting effect and this has an effect of disregarding the principle of double entry accounting..stripping transfer funds in is the only way you can disregard the net spend point of view.Jamie If thats how your accountant balances your books, you shld take steps to do to him what many fans want done to Voronin.
    I would say we are blessed to have accountants who value double entry accounting otherwise we would end up like Rangers who are buy 1 or 2 players every 3 seasons because if wages for existing members are deducted from the rigid £20mln figure we may only have £2mln left. Before the £20mln is questioned, I arrived at this figure assuming owners budget £20mln for transfers and this cant be incresed if net spend does not count since we have to ignore that money was brought in from player sales or from the club's archievements on the pitch.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Jamie - how come my comment from last night isn't here?

    ReplyDelete
  147. I agree. See Isvan Kozma

    ReplyDelete
  148. Any information you want can be found and to be accurate within company account stored at companies house and I believe that these can either be purchased or obtained freely. 

    Jaime, why dont you do some proper research instead of just claiming to know stuff.

    You really are a crisp packet. 

    ReplyDelete
  149. I would say using the spending theory, we over-archieved finishing above Chelsea. While Chelsea may have more money to spend as of now, United out spent everyone for over a decade and this counts significantly. In the season Chelsea got their riches they didnt win the league but won in the subsequent year because they were building on the previous year's spending.Now you can imagine how an effective machine United are now because they have had the luxury of outspending everyone for over a decade prior to Chelsea. Its also important to note that Chelsea only started to outspend United but tha does not mean United started spending less than they were doing before. 

    ReplyDelete
  150. Wages is completely separate to transfer fees. Have a look at the company accounts. 

    ReplyDelete
  151. Jaimie - "Clarification of the figures to avoid misinformation and exaggeration is always a good thing." 

    This depends on whether clarification changes anything, which in this case, it does not.  It is information which until a couple years into the players stay or we win some big trophies with him in the team - whichever comes first. 

    If I were a Liverpool shareholder, then perhaps it might change something (though I guess it would be made clear for me if I were!). Right now, a £5 million difference (even if based on nothing but 'ifs' and 'buts') makes no difference to how I sleep at night.

    Selling Alonso RUINED my sleep however.

    ReplyDelete
  152. a lot is made of rafa's transfer record with regards to the number of players he bought/sold and whether they have succeeded or failed. people fail to realise that prior to this year every lfc manager's hands have been tied by a conservative transfer policy. deals for 15m + players were never sanctioned - remember cisse was our most expensive purchase til the americans tried to cash in on some pr by giving the funds to buy torres. added to this rafa was left with a team that needed a major clearout and overhaul and was given roughly 20m plus money recouped annually to build a premier league team while ensuring a top four position and cl group stage qualification (not an easy balancing act). if you take these factors into consideration and analyse rafas and the teams performances it is clear the team is going in the right direction...the only thing that will speed the process is cash and stability (ie debt, stadium and owners). i agree rafas bought a lot and a number have been total failures but he's had to hedge on finding a gem on mediocre money - whereas chelsea and man united can write off 20m + failures and move on seemingly while not having to sell to underwrite any failures or contract extensions. arsenal are also different, wenger inherited a decent squad and had more control (rafa has onl achieved that this year) to decide how and where money was spent, also with a number of quality players already in place when he arrived he had more time to develop his youth policy (unnoticed while his first team kept winning). wenger with the exception of adding depth does not really need to buy on the basis of over ten years of a youth policy. think of this for one minute - if parry hadnt sabotaged the simao move and the money was provided to buy barry without selling alonso where would we be now? we'd have barry, simao and we'd still have xabi!

    ReplyDelete
  153. jaimie - you concede that our squad is assembled for less than chelsea or united and yet we finished second - surely this can be attributed as much to rafa as the players? surely we can agree that if it werent for this net spending/sell to buy fiasco rafa would never have considered selling alonso (he was our only saleable asset - babel, voronin etc didnt attract any bids of substance) any business that budgets for new equipment/assets (ie players) and maintenence (ie contracts) out of the same budget is doomed to remain static. it is through pure luck that we have a manager that understands the economics of football and especially the way lfc's finances have been run for the past few years that we are not already in a leeds type situation  

    ReplyDelete
  154. Hey Jaimie, is you is or is you aint a bummer?

    ReplyDelete
  155. I have no idea why we let Aqualani go out on loan, on his day he is still one of the world's best players in his position.

    Paul
    Sandpits

    ReplyDelete