20 Oct 2010

TOM HICKS interview analysis: Part 2 - Did H+G really spend £300m on transfers?

In part 2 of this new series analysing Tom Hicks' recent statement, I look at his contentious transfer spending claims: did Liverpool really have a net spend of £150m under Hicks and Gillett?


In his recent interview with Sky Sports, Hicks stated the following:

"We spent over 300 million dollars gross on players, about 150 million net on players, but you never hear that in the media; it always kind of disappears in all the noise and anger. ".

Seems clear enough. However, later in the same interview, Hicks says this:

"We spent 300 million pounds on players. 150 million net are the ones we would sell. I think, I don't know, second highest in the league at the time, or third"

So: is it dollars or pounds? Hicks contradicts himself but it's probably just confusion on his part; I do not think he's lying. I personally think he meant pounds, not dollars, and here's why:

1. Immediately preceding his statement about '300m dollars', he referenced the '270 million dollars' he and Gillett had put into the club:

"George and I have put in $270m into the club. We spent over 300 million dollars gross on players, about 150 million net on players"

Hicks was in a 'dollars' frame of mind, so he said dollars. A simple mistake.

2. The actual figures in dollars are so removed from what Hicks suggests (i.e. the figures are actually much higher), that I cannot believe he meant dollars.

3. Hicks illustrates his confusion with the financial aspects of transfers at another point in the interview, where he states:

"We spent 300 million pounds on players. 150 million net are the ones we would sell""

Clearly, Hicks makes the mistake in thinking that the amount recouped for players = net spend. That's incorrect. Net spend = Gross Spend minus Money Recouped. With this in mind, it seems likely that he would be capable of making more innocent mistakes, such as the dollar/pounds contradiction about. Not that it matters - using Hicks' figures, net spend would be 150m over 4 financial years anyway (300m - 150m)

I thought it was best to get these issues out of the way first, so I'll be proceeding on the basis that Hicks meant pounds, not dollars.


I apologise if the following is a little confusing, but to create an accurate picture of transfer spending under Hicks and Gillett, it's important to deduct sales that took place before they arrived, and include all purchases/sales up to the point that the left the club.

1. Hicks and Gillett bought the club on the 6th February 2007. For accounting purposes, LFC's financial year runs from 31 July - 31 July. Thus, any players bought/sold between 31 July 2006 and 6 February 2007 should not be included in this analysis.

2. Several players were sold between 31 July 2006 and 6 February 2007; Two were purchased. I've included details of these a little further down the article.

3. The transfer spending figures for 2007-2009 are recorded in the club's accounts. Unfortunately, accounts for 2009-10 have not been released yet. Having said that, the purchases/sale price figures for the following are included in the 'Post Balance Sheet Events' section of the 2009 Accounts:

* Albert Aquilani + Sotiris Kyrgiakos (Bought for a combined 20.4m)

* Xabi Alonso, Andrea Dossena + Andrei Voronin (Sold for a combined 29.7m)

4. For the purposes of this article, I've compiled the purchase/sale prices for players bought/sold during 2009-10 financial year from the next best source: The official LFC website.

5. As per point 2 above: Between July 2006, and February 2007, the following players were sold:

* Barragan, Traore, Mellor, Kromkamp, Kirkland (Combined 4.5m)

* Darren Potter £525k
* Stephen Warnock £1.5m

TOTAL: £6.5m

I've deducted this amount from the 'recouped ' section for 2006-7 (see table below).

6. As per point 2 above: Between July 2006, and February 2007, the following players were purchased:

* Dirk Kuyt - 10m
* Alvaro Arbeloa - 2.5m

I've deducted this amount from the 'Gross spend' section for 2006-7 (see table below).

7. Including the players referred to in point 3, here are the figures I compiled from LFC.tv for transfers conducted from 31 July 2009 until NESV took over:

Transfers In

* Albert Aquilani + Sotiris Kyrgiakos - £20.4m
* Jonjo Shelvey - £1.7m
* Ayala - £160k
* Raul Meirelles - £11.5m
* Paul Konchesky - £3.5m
* Danny Wilson - £2m
* Christian Poulsen - £4.5m
* Brad Jones - £2.3m

Total Gross Spend
: £44.36m (22.6 = RB | 21.7 = RH)

Transfers Out

* Xabi Alonso, Andrea Dossena + Andrei Voronin - £29.7m

* Albert Riera £3.3m
* Diego Cavalieri £3m
* Krisztián Németh £1m
* Javier Mascherano £17.25m
* Lauri Dalla Valle £750k
* Alex Kacaniklic £750k
* Nikolay Mihaylov £1.5m
* Mikel Domínguez £2.6m
* Yossi Benayoun £6m

Total Recouped = £65.85 (31.2 = RB | 35.6 = RH)


Everything discussed above is reflected in the following table:


CLAIM #1: £300m spent on players
REALITY: £210m

Hicks falls short in his estimate here. However, he could be including ALL fees associated with transfers to arrive at the £300m figure, including the following:

* Contract extensions
* Signing-on fees
* Transfer taxes


This could conceivably take the figure up to £300m. If we're talking about transfer fees alone though, the figure spent (£210m) is nowhere near £300m.

CLAIM #2: £150m net spend on players.
REALITY: £198m recouped, but total net spend of £11.6m

As I argued earlier in this article, it's obvious that Hicks equates money recouped on players to net spend. With that in mind, Hicks basically states that £150m has been recouped on players. Well, the reality is that much more than that has been recouped.

However, Hicks' net spend figure is also £150m (£300m minus £150m), and with that he's way off the mark. The actual net spend figure under H+G is £11.6m.

VERDICT: Is Hicks lying?

I don't think so. He is either confused, and/or is using a different method of calculating his figures. The club's accounts don't lie. Here are snippets from the relevant accounts (bear in mind the deductions from the 2006-7 figure, as explained above):


Of course, based on the figures, people could legitimately argue that Hicks is lying. However, the question once again is this: considering the context of his interview, was there a deliberate intention to deceive? I would argue no.

That is my OPINION. People remember what an opinion is, right? If people don't like my opinion then that's not my problem.

Hicks may have got his figures wrong but that doesn't change the fact that Rafa Benitez was given close to £200 to spend during H+G's reign (and close to £300m during his entire reign) and he wasted much of it on the likes of Keane, Aquilani, Babel, Riera, Dossena, Johnson, Lucas etc.

Imagine how good the squad would be now if the money provided to Benitez had been spent well...

That is another OPINION. Get over it already.

NB. Thanks to Gary - one of the site's regular commentors - for highlighting the fact that I'd missed out Kuyt and Arbeloa from my earlier calculations.

Jaimie Kanwar


  1. I apologise for the length of this post (!), but in order to illustrate how I arrived at the figures, I had to fully explain each step of the process.

  2. Nice bit of Rafa-slating at the end.
    The fact we started last season as many peoples favourites for the league would indicate to me that Rafa infact built quite a good squad. 5 years of progress was hindered by last years decline. One year should not over-rule 5.

    Otherwise, average net spend per year of £6m is pretty poor if you need to keep up with the wage and pay power of Chelsea, City and United. Or even Arsenal and Tottenham, who have had consistently bigger wage bills than us.

  3. For every Keane, Aquilani, Babel, Riera, Dossena, Johnson, Lucas etc. there's a Reina, Agger, Mascherano, Torres, Kuyt, Alonso, Benayoun etc.

    I also find it laughable you class Lucas, Johnson and Aquilani as bad buys.

  4. And so it begins: the obsession with net spend.  You conveniently dismiss the money Benitez actually had in his hands to SPEND. And it is not 'Benitez slating - it is fact: If the money given to Benitez had not been wasted, we'd have better players right now. And the proof it was wasted is the fact we finished 7th!

    I'll give you an example of why the net spend argument is nonsense:

    CHELSEA - 2004-9

    TOTAL net spend = 80m
    AVERAGE net spend per year = 16m
    GROSS SPEND = 325m

    * Chelsea spent £325m between '04 and '09, including £100m+ spent each season from '04-'06.

    * Despite this huge outlay, Chelsea's average net-spend was only £2m more than Liverpool's during the same time period (!).

    * Does looking at the net spend provide a true indication of Chelsea's spending power? Of course not. It's ridiculous to even suggest it.

    * The only way to gauge the depth of Chelsea's spending power (and consequent value of their squad) it to look at their gross spend, which is significant.

    * The net-spend cult still persist with the idea that net spend = the true gauge of a manager's ability in the transfer market. They'll try and tell us that Chelsea's squad only actually cost £80m; that in 2004, Mourinho didn't actually spend £100m - he spent £41m.

    Net spend is quite clearly a non-credible excuse that football fans use to try and justify dubious transfer performance. 'But he only has a net-spend of [insert figure here] per yer' and blah blah blah. Utter nonsense.<span>

    Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/06/exclusive-rafa-benitez-vs-chelsea.html#ixzz12vM29CN5</span>

  5. I don't see how your argument confirms that Rafa wasted lots of money when in fact there was only £6m a season available after sales were accounted for. Yes some transfers didn't work out but who only has successes? Ferguson? What about Veron? What about Taibi? What would be interesting is if you could tell us how much there was available to Rafa in net spend in the years before Hicks and Gillett arrived.....

  6. PS why do you assume Hicks is not lying? He has something of a track record....

  7. So what he said wasn't true but he didn't lie? Or maybe I am just not looking at it intelligently? Did he misremember?

  8. Why didn't Rafa demand that the useless youth academy be closed down as it has been a complete waste of money since it started in 1999? The standard of youth and reserve football is pathetic, it is no better than testimonial standard. Alex Ferguson created players like Giggs,Beckham,Scholes,Butt, and the Nevilles and several others from his youth system which saved United a fortune in the transfer market while Houllier and Benitez and now Hodgson have failed miserably to make the youth and reserve structures produce players for the first-team.

  9. You don't get to be millionaires by making simple mistakes with figures he knows what he is saying - Lying B*****ds

  10. Obviously he didn't intend to lie, he would have no reason to. He was only bleating on sky for kicks, nit trying to win sympathy with clearly fabricated figures. Seriously, wake up.

  11. The Roy Hodgson Brigade7:28 pm, October 20, 2010

    Rafa spent 100mil short of what NESV paid for LFC. Money wasted by Rafa...

    Rafa spent 200mil on players and look what we have been left with. There is not one attacking player which can provide width or get past a defender. You would think that after 6 years we would atleast have some natural ability in our squad. Apart from Torres there aint shit, saying that though what has Torres done so far this season? 

    Be it Roy or any other manager on earth, it is going to take Mount Everest to climb to rebuild this squad in order to WIN the EPL.

    Mount Everest will be reached though and the best part is that it will be reached with someone else at the helm and with not AFAR... Ever... He is gone!!! And will never return!!! Thank F*** for that!!!

  12. Plus surely the point about Keane's purchase is that he wasn't actually Benitez's buy but Rick Parry's- hence why Rafa seemed so uninterested in him.

  13. Your bias views are amazing. Rafa generally over achieved (bar last season) with very little money to spend and had no chance of competing with the top teams. Had he been given a decent kitty and more control on transfers last season he would still be here and we would still be competing for top 4!  

  14. Since you name yourself after the worst manager in Liverpool's recent history what credibility should we give your words?

  15. No, it is you who needs to wake up.  Stop being so biased for a second and think logically: why would Hicks lie about something that could be checked very easily.  Also, why lie when he wants to change Liverpool fans' perceptions of him (he says this at the end of the interview). 

    Lying means a deliberate intent to deceive.  That doesn't apply here IMO.

  16. I don't particularly like your hyperbolic headlines - which I find a bit off putting. However, you do go to some lengths to present accurate figures. These figures are indisputable and open to OBJECTIVE analysis. However, you move on then to a SUBJECTIVE analysis on the perceived quality of the signings. Now, you're entitled to your opinion on the quality of signings. I would respectfully suggest that you do a seperate article on your opinion of quality of players and not put the two perspectives in the one artilce. Otherwise you will have people only focus on this subjective element. So maybe an article on the objective analysis of the figures followed by an article on the subjective analysis of signings.

  17. In summary, hicks didn't lie he just gave totally false figures. Anyway, it is all Rafa' s fault because well , it just is. Haha. Critical realism at it's finest.

  18. If you loo at things in such a black and white manner then you will come to obvious conclusions.  6 months ago, Benitez guaranteed a 4th place finish PUBLICLY.  We finished 7th; doies that mean he lied?  Using your narrow view, you would argue yes.  he didnt lie though; he just got it wrong.

  19. the youngsters at anfield now are the best in the uk bar none and maybe the world, some great players the best set we have ever had - the new owners should know ithis fact.

  20. the youngsters at anfield now are the best in the uk bar none and maybe the world, some great players the best set we have ever had - the new owners should know ithis fact.

  21. I'm not even getting into this debate - anyone who actually argues that Benitez 'spent' only 6m a season is obviously not worth arguing with.  Please look at my chelsea example in the second comment on this thread for why the net spend fallacy is ridiculous.

    In any event. it's not 6m net spend a season for Benitez - you have to remember that Hodgson's figures are included here also.

  22. Tell me: what specific, measurable benefit has LFC received from the purchases of Lucas, Aquilani and Johnson.

    How have their purchases improved the team?

    Aquilani was injured when he was bought, and made zero impact when he wasn't injured.  Johnson has been a defensive liability from day one, and was part of our worst league season in decades.  Lucas is a squad player at best, and has contributed next to nothing positive in a Liverpool shirt.

    A player is a good buy if he has a specific, measurable benefit on the club's performances on the pitch.  If he doesn't, he is obviously a bad signing.

    I'm interested to hear your answer.

  23. Okay - please list all the things Hicks has allegedly lied about (with evidence to back it up).  He has no 'track record' of lying at all.

  24. Key phrase of yours being 'imo'. You give him the benefit of the doubt. He is casting himself as the victim. Of course he has to embellish to achieve this. Besides, why would he care if the figures could be easily disproven, especially when the people who disprove it give him the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, he had form for lying last week, was proven in court after all.

  25. The Roy Hodgson Brigade7:44 pm, October 20, 2010

    Oh the excuses that are going to filter through this article.

    Next Real Madrid will be blamed for Alonso's exit and Arbeloa's exit will be blamed for the arrival of Degen...

  26. I see your point, James, and I think it's a good one.  However, if people cannot (or will not) distinguish between subjective and objective analysis - or have some kind of problem with their co-existence - then that's their problem.

  27. *shoots self*

    I never knew Aquilani and Johnson cost 'very little' money...

  28. The Roy Hodgson Brigade7:46 pm, October 20, 2010

    Surely you can come up with something better to prove me wrong?

  29. Absolutely ridiculous. Here's why.

    <span>CLAIM</span>: £150m net spend on players
    <span>REALITY</span>: Actual net spend of £24.1m
    JaimieK: Is Hicks lying? I don't think so.======================================<span>REALITY</span>: Total net spend of £24.1m under H&GJaimieK: Rafa Benitez was given over £200m to spend during H+G's reign

    In the absence of Ferguson's famous treble-winning academy and Chelsea / Man City NET MILLIONS, it's our ridiculous NET SPEND that shows exactly why we've been moving backwards. If the only way to import valuable players is to 1st export valuable (untested) players, as Clint said: "you're on a 1st class ticket to nowhere".Over H&G's reign, £24.1m net spend shows how hideously grasping they are- Roy's recent transfer straight jacket on the back of losing Mascherano and Benayoun was the final straw.Your article exposes Hicks as the liar we all know he is, yet you refuse to condemn him...Does he let you go out in his boat?Your article

  30. Stadium, no debts to be put on the club, transfer money to be made available this summer. Need I go on? Are you fruit of his loins?

  31. Absolutely ridiculous. Here's why.  
    <span>CLAIM</span>: £150m net spend on players  
    <span>REALITY</span>: Actual net spend of £24.1m  
    JaimieK: Is Hicks lying? I don't think so.======================================<span>REALITY</span>: Total net spend of £24.1m under H&GJaimieK: Rafa Benitez was given over £200m to spend during H+G's reign  
    - In the absence of Ferguson's famous treble-winning academy and Chelsea / Man City NET MILLIONS, it's our ridiculous NET SPEND that shows exactly why we've been moving backwards. If the only way to import valuable players is to 1st export valuable (untested) players, as Clint said: "you're on a 1st class ticket to nowhere".Over H&G's reign, £24.1m net spend shows how hideously grasping they are- Roy's recent transfer straight jacket on the back of losing Mascherano and Benayoun was the final straw.Your article exposes Hicks as the liar we all know he is, yet you refuse to condemn him...Does he let you go out in his boat?

  32. Do you really need the difference between a promise of the future and a lie about past events. Poor, even by your standards.

  33. Do you really need the difference between a promise of the future and a lie about past events. Poor, even by your standards.

  34. Do you really need the difference between a promise of the future and a lie about past events. Poor, even by your standards.

  35. Absolutely ridiculous. Here's why.  
    <span>CLAIM</span>: £150m net spend on players  
    <span>REALITY</span>: Actual net spend of £24.1m  
    JaimieK: Is Hicks lying? I don't think so.<span></span><span>REALITY</span>: Total net spend of £24.1m under H&GJaimieK: Rafa Benitez was given over £200m to spend during H+G's reign  
    In the absence of Ferguson's famous treble-winning academy and Chelsea / Man City NET MILLIONS, it's our ridiculous NET SPEND that shows exactly why we've been moving backwards. If the only way to import valuable players is to 1st export valuable (untested) players, as Clint said: "you're on a 1st class ticket to nowhere".Over H&G's reign, £24.1m net spend shows how hideously grasping they are- Roy's recent transfer straight jacket on the back of losing Mascherano and Benayoun was the final straw.Your article exposes Hicks as the liar we all know he is, yet you refuse to condemn him...Does he let you go out in his boat?

  36. The net spend is the important thing. That is how much the manager had available to improve the squad.

  37. So in summary, the average spend per season was only £6 million. Was it really that low?
    Yet again you have another dig at Rafa at the end when actually the post was meant to be about H&G's spend, so not sure other than showing your true colours why you would yet again slag Rafa off?
    Anyway you make a point of saying crap players such as:
    Keane - An experienced premiership striker with a good goals return, not quite sure why it didn't work out unless the rumours of it being a Parry signing are correct & of course we did recoup most of the fee anyway.
    Aquilani - An exceptional player who with his injury problems and settling in now done would have shown his true worth this season if given the chance, he seems to be doing very well at Juventus.
    Babel - Coveted by most of Europe including Wenger, it hasn't quite worked out so far but I could see why everyone was after him, he looks the part if nothing else.
    Riera - When your crying out for £30 million to buy a world class winger and the board say here's £6 million, then you get what you pay for.
    Dossena - With not having the world class left winger he wanted Rafa gambled by signing an offensive defender who unfortunately forgot to defend.
    Johnson - Maybe the same reason, no money to buy a world class winger so again opted for the offensive defender. But overall apart from a dip in form so far this season for Englands right back and goal of the season winner it was a good buy, and of course we ensured we didn't lose any money that Portsmouth owed us.
    Lucas - £6 million for a young experienced Brazilian midfielder who won many accolades is not a bad buy either.
    Rafa didn't get all his transfers right either does any manager but then again he rarely got the big money to buy his 1st choice player. How often were we linked with Silva, Turan, Tevez, Villa etc which would have cost at least £30 million each only to be dissapointed when we had to settle for spending £6 million on Riera or £1.5 million for Ngog.
    Anyway your article despite it's anti Rafa undertone proves that overall Rafa didn't actually spend a lot of hard cash due to the sell to buy policy that was evident.

  38. Absolutely ridiculous. Here's why.   
    <span>CLAIM</span>: £150m net spend on players  
    <span>REALITY</span>: Actual net spend of £24.1m  
    JaimieK: Is Hicks lying? I don't think so.   <span></span> <span>REALITY</span>: Total net spend of £24.1m under H&GJaimieK: Rafa Benitez was given over £200m to spend during H+G's reign   
     In the absence of Ferguson's famous treble-winning academy and Chelsea / Man City NET MILLIONS, it's our ridiculous NET SPEND that shows exactly why we've been moving backwards. If the only way to import valuable players is to 1st export valuable (untested) players, as Clint said: "you're on a 1st class ticket to nowhere".     Over H&G's reign, £24.1m net spend shows how hideously grasping they are- Roy's recent transfer straight jacket on the back of losing Mascherano and Benayoun was the final straw.     Your article exposes Hicks as the liar we all know he is, yet you refuse to condemn him...     Does he let you go out in his boat?

  39. The Roy Hodgson Brigade7:53 pm, October 20, 2010

    If Rafa only spent 6mil a season how the hell can we be sitting with a squad full of his crap?

  40. For what it is worth, I don't think that Johnson, Lucas, Babel, Riera, Dossena et al are good enough for our great club either objectively or subjectively. Rafa had a huge amount of money to spend and he spent it very, very poorly. Net spend had nothing to do with his ability to buy the right player at the right price. You sell your Porsche for 10m and replace it with a Fiesta costing 8m - does this make you an expert at buying quality cars? Eh, no

  41. Aaagh!  Still with this?!  Since when do Chief Executives sign players?!  There is no evidence whatsoever Parry signed Keane - that is a myth, and one that is constantly perpetuated by the Pro benitez brigade.  I've discussed why it's a myth here:


    Benitez quite clearly states he wanted Keane and was happy with his signing.

    What next?  Benitez was lying in public?  He was forced to say these things under threat of death?!

  42. Gillett made the comment about the stadium, and it was not a lie.  Transfer funds were put on hold because of the impending sale of the club.  There was no debt on the club (LFCAGL); it was on the holding company (Kop Football Ltd). 

    But just ignore everything that matters, like the credit crunch/financial meltdown; business realities of selling a football club; the intricacies of debt structure etc.

  43. The Roy Hodgson Brigade7:57 pm, October 20, 2010

    Hodgson failed miserably when he has been at the club for 4 months and had nothing to do with the academy which was Managed by Houllier & Rafa? Atleast we saw Carra & Stevie from the Houllier tenure, what the hell did Rafa produce?

  44. I thought he and/or Gillett claimed that they won't do a Glazer-style buyout, hence not leverage the aquisition debt on the club. That, in my book, was as blatant a lie as I have ever heard. He also claimed that this last summer would be big in transfers. Well, again in my book, it wasn't and you figures back that up. Lie!

  45. Do you really need the difference between a promise of the future and a lie about past events. Poor, even by your standards.

  46. The squad he built finished 2nd just over a year ago. It finished 7th last season- Roy Hodgson has it down in 19th place.

  47. "There was no debt on the club (LFCAGL); it was on the holding company (Kop Football Ltd).

    "So the club's income wasn't servicing the interest then?

  48. I think you are right. Someone who claims to be a businessman should not get such figures wrong.

  49. And ignore the fact that Hicks has done levereged buy outs everywhere he has gone!

  50. "There was no debt on the club (LFCAGL); it was on the holding company (Kop Football Ltd)."   -   So the club's income wasn't servicing the interest then?

  51. I am not sure whether this can be checked easily. You surely have spent an awful lot of time to check this stuff and most of us wouldn't go as far as doing that. When he sues Broughton et al he will have to give evidence in court. Then we will see how he calculates to get those figures.

  52. Carra was already playing for the club under Roy Evans.

  53. The Benitez effect is doing inter a lot of harm I see.

  54. While I agree with you that after six years there should be more in place than there actually is, it surely didn't help that Rafa (and I am anything but a member of the pro-Rafa-cult) generated much of his outlay by selling players.

    Anyway I still think that he should have bought more wisely.

  55. This is what I called biased perspectives. Let's put it another way. How many big money buys in the region of 20m pounds did Rafa spend? Torres, Aquilani, Keane, Mascherano and Johnson?

    Out of the 5, I think we can all agree that Torres and Mascherano are successes. No? 

    Agree that Keane is a write off and Rafa did not benefit from Aquilani (though Roy Hodgson should). As for Johnson, can we agree that he is not a total waste, especially under Rafa? 

    Two and half (Johnson) out of 5 is 50%. Can we be reasonable on this? Now tell me 50% success rate in the unpredictable football transfer market is not shabby, is it? 

    For every Torres, Drogba, Henry, Ronaldo, there is the Mutu, Shevchenko, Veron, Djemba Djemba, Kleberson, Billion...

    And for every Dossena (who I believe is around 10m pound and less region?) there is the Alonso, Reina, Agger..

    Beside, have you been a football manager? Do you if you have been one, you would always get the player you want?

    We know Rafa wanted Malouda and Sabrosa and he got Pennant. It is easy for you to say "if" this or "if" that, you are not on the job. 

    I should give you credit for being objective with Hicks, though my doubt of your motive is confirmed by your slating of Rafa at the end. You just couldn't help it, could you?

    By the way, you seem to imply that Rafa has been a complete waste at Liverpool. Let me remind you that there were only managers of two clubs in the Premier League had done better than him in the six years he has been in England. Chelsea and Manchester United, not even Arsenal, title-wise. And what kind of money had these two clubs been spending? 

    By the way, you should spare us all the explanation of pound and dollar bullock to justify that Hicks' mistake and not lie. We are not stupid. In the 3 and half years of the Americans, big money on Torres, Johnson, Keane and Aquilani. Let say 20m x 4 = 80m. Where is the 220m gone? On which players? 

  56. Your point about Chelsea's net spend is wrong. They didn't sell to buy. They spent fortunes, then sold those that didn't gel.

    Their rejects, even today, are coveted players like Joe Cole and Wight-Phillips.

    Sell to buy is different.

  57. Another person who completely ignores the money Benitez actually SPENT, i.e. the money that the club paid out on players.  Net spend does not change that.  What matters is WHO we got for the money, and how successful they were.

  58. You seem to imply that Rafa has been a complete waste at Liverpool

    Untrue. I have not implied that at all.  I have always given him credit for his achievements, and this is proven in various articles/comments.

    The rest of your post is filled with baseless supposition (i.e. 'we know Rafa wanted Malouda and Sabrosa and he got Pennant') so there's no point addressing further points.

  59. Well how about his net spend wasn't £200m for a start? Ignore what Jamie says on this. It is net spend that counts. To argue otherwise is just ludicrous.

  60. No - you are just making yet another lame excuse.  Sell to but is not a fact; it is an excuse used by Benitez's supporters.  The point I make a Chelsea's net spend is totally valid; you just can't accept it because it would cast a different light on Benitez's transfer dealings.

  61. Hilarious.  Please post Benitez's quotes from that article.  Oh, wait - there aren't any!  it's typical media lies.

  62. Have you removed my comment about his history of levereged buy-outs? Can't see it anymore.

  63. What 'lies' were proven in court, exactly?  Please explain.

  64. Give it time. 

    [AGENT SMITH] It is...inevitable[/AGENT SMITH]

  65. Don't indulge this guy fellas. Rarely an article it is that he writes that isn't designed to be provocative to red fans. Obviously it's what his sponsors require of him. Curiosity got the better of me this time but I won't be reading his articles again. I advise you to do the same. He's the new Fat Dunk! Cue his indignant response.....

  66. Pathetic response to Steve's post, you ought to be ashamed. Is your name Mack perchance?

  67. The Roy Hodgson Brigade8:20 pm, October 20, 2010

    From 2nd to 7th for Rafa just as you have posted.

    Obvoiusly the squad that Rafa built was not good enough to win the EPL because 2nd got us 2nd... HOORRRAAAHHH!

  68. Hm, I would say that at the time Aquilani came in the money would have better been spent on a striker, but that is only my humble opinion. That doesn't mean that I see Aquilani as a bad player, but surely our team was more than crying out for a fit striker than a crooked midfielder.

  69. That's why I call it the 'Net Spend Cult', of which you are clearly a member.  You refuse to accept anything else other than net spend.  Why?  because you think it places Benitez in a good light.  However, if his Net Spend was MASSIVE, you would be arguing how net spend is not important etc.

    The net spend fallacy is the lamest excuse I've ever heard re LFC.  Anyone can see that it's nonsense peddled by people with an agenda.  The amount of money spent on players is what matters.  By that, I mean the ACTUAL REAL MONEY passed from LFC to other clubs for the services of players.

    That is real money, not an illusion.

  70. They can't accept it because it is wrong: a very lame argument.

  71. LFCforumCo - I gave you countless chances.  You are now banned.

  72. At the end of the day who really gives a damn now?Hicks and the other 'un are gone now thankfully so let's just move on and look to the future,with or without Hodgson.BEnitez made some good buys but a hell of alot of bad ones and whichever way you look at it he did have money to spend and he didwaste it.

  73. Jaimie. You keep on babbling on about what Benitez had to spend as if it was a lump sum ?? He wasnt given £200 mill outright to spend. Remember, he had to rebuild a whole team including alot of youth and reserve players. He couldnt go out and spend 30-40 mill on a single player like other teams can. He had to sell to spend and your figures prove that ... £6 mill net a year is nothing in the big picture !!!! He had to take gambles in the market and with the kind of figures being mentioned I dont blame him. You seem to be forgetting Rafa is our most successful manager since Kenny.

  74. The Roy Hodgson Brigade8:29 pm, October 20, 2010

    Carra cemented his position under Houllier though... Houllier should be given the credit.

  75. When Rafa was appointed I thought he was chosen because it was expected that he could do two things. Get the best out of the existing motley crew (which he did in 2005) and work with not that much money available. Well, it is only the impression I've got back then. Surely the money available was reduced by our new owners (IMHO). He must have accepted that there wouldn't be the money to spend the way Chelsea, Barcelona, Real Madrid or Manure could do it. I had hoped that he would get in a few more gems within the budget instead of going for the household names. Maybe there is something awfully wrong with our scouting department.

  76. Too early to judge.

  77. The Roy Hodgson Brigade8:32 pm, October 20, 2010

    Net spend of 200mil. You are now officialy the biggest JOKE on this site!!!

    The 200mil ACTUALLY IN FACT refers to GROSS.

    Next please... 

  78. One bad season does not make a bad manager. No one says his last season was satisfactory. But look at him over the long period he was at Liverpool. Before Hicks and Gillett arrived he won the Champions League in 2005, the FA Cup in 2006. Then Hicks and Gillett arrived in early 2007. Rafa still got us through to the Champions League final that year. In his last two seasons at the club finances were exceptionally tight but he still came close to winning the Premiership less than 18 months ago. It's all about net spend I'm afraid.

  79. You give a compelling argument and I have to say most instances where Hicks is supposed to have lied he did not lie at all. Thing is, he twisted the truth to make it look far better than it was eg. "no debt on the club" actually meant "no debt on the club but all the debt will go on it's parent company which only owns the club thereby effectively putting all the debt on the club". But this is besides the point. The moment the article lost credibility in my eyes was when you stated:

    "Clearly, Hicks makes the mistake in thinking that the amount recouped for players = net spend"

    For a businessman with Tom Hicks' many years experience to not know the difference between "net" and "gross" is just not possible. This is the absolute basic finance and something I learned went I was 13 in GCSE Business Studies. It is not a difficult concept and it is not hard to remember which is which. I'm sorry, but he just wouldn't make that mistake. Mixing up dollars and pounds, yes, I accept that happens every day, but gross and net to a multi-millionaire businessman? No. Unless of course you concede that Tom Hicks is a very poor businessman?

    I have one final suggestion which is that you tone down the aggression with which you defend yourself. I do not mean this in a condescending way, but you may see more reasonable and reasoned responses and less insults and claims of being a manc or on Hicks payroll if you accept that your opinion is just that - an opinion - and other people hold different to you. Some may be misinformed or just plain wrong, but it is unprofessional and rude to add venom to your response rather than explain why you see things differently in a polite manner. But then this is just a suggestion and you can run your website as you want

  80. The Roy Hodgson Brigade8:35 pm, October 20, 2010

    It does not matter where the money came from. Rafa is the one who spent the money.

    It seem like you are one of the only Pro Rafa if I may call you that which actually understands that Rafa spent 200mil of LFC's money.

    Do you agree anteater?

  81. Johnson: best attacking right wingback in England.  Now before you open your mouth and say "defenders are supposed to defend", let me say, you're wrong.  Look at the evolution of the modern game, fullbacks are the only position on the pitch that has space in front of them 90% of the time when they receive the ball.  That time and space on the ball is what makes players a threat, look at the decline of the "classic number 10" (think Maradona) and look at the increase of the type of deep-lying playmakers (think Pirlo/Xabi Alonso) - there is a reason for this.  Players who are allowed time and space on the ball from deep are more dangerous, I could bore you to death with the tactical aspects of it but simply put: In a 4-2-3-1 system think of the 2 fullbacks as midfielders and the 2 defensive midfielders as defenders, it's still the same amount of defensive and attacking units.  You're essentially sacrificing defense down the flanks for more defense in the middle which allows you to not get caught out on the counter-attack down the middle when your fullbacks go marauding forward.

    Aquilani: Yes, spot on about the injury but there's simply no way we'd be able to afford a quality player in the manner in which we purchased him (installments). Made zero impact? Six assists in his limited games (Gerrard had 7 for the entire season playing every week) or 1 every 136 minutes, the best average out of all players in the top 5 leagues (La Liga, Serie A, EPL, Bundesliga, Ligue 1).  Actually watch the games before commenting please.

    Lucas: One of the most intelligent players currently in the world, not the flashiest, not the most creative, not even great technically.  You can rest assured that if the ball gets passed to Lucas under pressure, he'll know exactly what to do with it and not give it away.  Also, with the modern game evolving and tackling becoming less common and more emphasis being placed on interceptions and ball-retention, guess who excels at those things?  Reads the game very well, faultless attitude and gives 100% every week, what more could you want from him?  He's like Michael Carrick, Denilson, Obi Mikel - to the untrained eye, they aren't glamour players but why do top managers keep picking them in their lineups? Interceptions and ball-retention, you can bet your money on it.

  82. Texan judge not knowing about British court case. Different reasons for same injunction re propestuve owners being lined up, knowing he couldn't reconstitute the board but doing it anyway and later admitting it. Your stance on hicks is peculiar, similar to that of a cult's, ironic eh? 4-0 half time...

  83. Texan judge not knowing about British court case. Different reasons for same injunction re propestuve owners being lined up, knowing he couldn't reconstitute the board but doing it anyway and later admitting it. Your stance on hicks is peculiar, similar to that of a cult's, ironic eh? 4-0 half time...

  84. jaimie youre biased 
    what did benitez do except give liverpool hope of winning something big
    now we hope not to be relegated

  85. Houillier was rightly a fan of Carra referring to him as the 'new Alain Roche'. But Carra had already played 20 first team games the season before Houillier arrived- so yes Houillier deserves credit for playing him even more but he can't be credited with bringing him into the team- it was already evident that he would be a first team player.

    By the way both Gerrard and Fowler take issue in their respective autobiographies with the idea that Houillier in some way 'discovered' Gerrard. But I don't want to take credit from Gerard Houillier for giving him his debut or establishing him in the team. He couldn't fail to notice such a good player and one who had the same name as him!

    By the way, are you as pleased as me to see GH back in the Premiership. I look forward to extending him a warm welcome when he returns to Anfield.

  86. The Roy Hodgson Brigade8:46 pm, October 20, 2010

    Yes anteater, the scouting department which Rafa bought to the club...

  87. The Roy Hodgson Brigade8:48 pm, October 20, 2010

    Well Raf did take over from a winning team which was all down to Jose M, a team filled with Mighty players...

    Roy took over a squad filled with shit that finished 7th the previous season.

    Spot the difference...

  88. I wonder why so many fellow Reds have slated and berated Lucas in the past when he actually is that great a player as you portrait him? Weren't Liverpool supporters knowledgeable? Don't get me wrong, I often defended Lucas when others blamed him, but to most fellow Reds he seems to be a liability.

  89. Nah, that is your crown. you are truly beyond help.

  90. Good point about Johnson. Still he gets a lot of stick from a lot of fellow Reds for being found out of position. Maybe I should discuss matches with you in the future as you seem to have a lot of tactical understanding.

  91. That Hicks and Gillett had never given an undertaking that any sale could be sanctioned by a majority of the board for starters.

  92. The Roy Hodgson Brigade8:55 pm, October 20, 2010

    I guess you also believe that Rafa only spent 6mil a season?

  93. Second minus Alonso equals seventh. Seventh minus Mascherano equals, well, we will see.

    The season we finished second we picked up quite a few points in the dying minutes if not seconds of games. The following season we were dropping point against relegation contenders. I don't blame this solely on Rafa, the players are to blame too, and our former owners not to forget. Anyway, the season we finished second seems like the exception to me under the Benítez era. At times we played exciting attacking football I didn't witness under Rafa before. Last season we didn't play anything like that anymore.

  94. In regards to the whole net spend/total spend argument.  It's fairly simple, Rafa set about rejuvenating the squad which was behind Arsenal/Chelsea/Man Utd in terms of quality, depth, youth setup.

    He only ever really had a lump of cash once (£40m + 100% of player sales) - the window when we got Torres, Masch, Benayoun, Skrtel, Babel etc. Prior to that he'd managed to almost bridge the gap under Moores/Parry spending pittance and still unearthed a few gems in Alonso, Garcia, Reina, etc.  Since that massive window it's been a complete sell-to-buy policy.  When he did make a mistake (Keane for example, let's not get into semantics and just say Rafa bought him for posterity's sake) - he recognised he'd made a mistake and recouped what he could ASAP (A valuable lesson could be learned here Jaimie), he'd never overpay for journeymen with no resale value, he'd hold on to the majority of his youth prospects.

    Meanwhile, the other three teams are reaping the rewards of what has been sown years before (which is currently what we were in the process of doing).  So often he'd have to settle for 3rd or 4th choice players.  Vidic was a target a year before United got him, Pennant was bought because a further £2m odd wasn't made available for Dani Alves.  Plenty more names spring to mind too.  When we finally caught up (2008 odd) and could go back to sensible spending we reverted to cost-cutting while other teams continued to spend sensibly.

    If Rafa was poor in finishing 7th, what does that make Woy who sits in the relegation zone?  At least he came out and made 4th an ambition instead of Woy's defeatist attitude.  Look at cold-hearted Rafa Benitez, all that's necessary is an arm around the shoulder with a reach-around  while telling highly paid professionals how good they are on a daily basis.  He's been a shambles to say the least...  Carry on though, he'll get 4th - after all, you "have a feeling".


  95. The criticism of Lucas is actually that he is too tactically disciplined for his own good. When he was signed by Rafa he was actually a box to box midfielder in the Gerrard mould. He hasn't been allowed to be that at Liverpool because of SG's presence and he has followed, what we assume are, the manager's instructions to sit tight. Gerrard who is not at all tactically disciplined would have just ignored those instructions and played his own game. But he won the prestigious award for the best player in the Brazilian league before he came to us and he now has 6 caps for Brazil. Liverpool fans are very unwilling to be patient with players- Lucas has only been a first team regular for one season.

  96. Not so hilarious perhaps?

  97. The Roy Hodgson Brigade9:05 pm, October 20, 2010

    That makes you the 2nd BIGGEST JOKE on this site because you believe Hicks Hater...

    Next please...  

  98. Your unfounded allegation yesterday didn't go down well with me so I tend to disagree with you by default until you have proven that you can have a well tempered discussion without spouting silly accusations. And I am far from pro Rafa, but he gave me some nice memories, too and I don't want to blame him for something that I find is not true.

  99. I love discussing tactics.  I'm a barista by day, but a coach by nights (well early afternoons and early Saturday/Sunday mornings).  I post on other LFC forums in regards to tactics/player roles and instructions etc.  Feel free to get in touch with me (dj_hammertime@hotmail.com) and I'll let you know where I post and under what name.  Always good to add members to the community :P

  100. JK can you check your numbers please. I don't think we spent anywhere near £69.9m in 2006-07. I don't know the exact figures but I believe it is closer to £30m than £70m as you suggest. Its also odd that we spent exacty the same (69.9m) in both 06/07 and 07/08 which makes me think that you may have made a mistake.

    And then of course H&G were only there from Feb 2007 so a majority of that money was spent before they arrived in the summer and winter trasfer windows. I believe the total amount spent during H&G's tenure is approximately 140m rather than £220m which is a big difference. As i said I don't have access to the exact figures as you do, but from the approximates that I do have your figures seem incorrect.

  101. The Roy Hodgson Brigade9:13 pm, October 20, 2010

    My unfounded alligation?

  102. The Roy Hodgson Brigade9:24 pm, October 20, 2010


    Hopefully we will see an article of what Rafa spent under the Moores ownership too, then add it to what was spent in this article then that will make things look even better for the people who believe that Rafa only spent 6mil a season...

  103. The difference is rafa is keeping his team winning whilst Roy looks like relegating his. Check and mate.

  104. The difference is rafa is keeping his team winning whilst Roy looks like relegating his. Check and mate.

  105. The difference is rafa is keeping his team winning whilst Roy looks like relegating his. Check and mate.

  106. May I also ask you a specific tactical question? Without forum?

  107. Did you read the court petition Hicks presented to the Texan judge in order to place a restraining order on RBS and NESV? Was it just a slight oversight, a typing error, that failed to mention the High Court ruling from earlier in the day? It may not be an out and out lie, but to miss something of that nature out of a petition is gross misrepresentation, and if Hicks is willing and able to do that in a 'world famous' court of law it doesn't exactly paint him in the saintliest of lights. As for transfer spending, the net amount Benitez spent is £24.1m, which conveniently is the same amount payed to Athletico Madrid for the services of Fernando Torres, a sum which very conveniently is very similar to the amount LFC would receive for reaching the UEFA Champions League final the year before. In my eyes, a leveraged buyout is a lie - how can one own something if one does not have the means to pay for it?
    I do wonder about you, Kanwar. There is offering a differing opinion and objective reporting, but it seems you are blinded by your obsession for objectivity to the point where you cover up the shame you have of your own opinions, by braying about your excellently researched articles and the lack of objectivity showed by other fans. Football isn't an objective sport, it is entirely subjective, and your lack of respect for other peoples opinions leads people to attack you, which makes you want to ram your objectivity down our throats it seems. You reap what you sow, Mr. Kanwar, and I for one hope you will one day understand why you cause much frustration in the majority of LFC fans I speak to.

  108. Go check yourself. I can be quite thin-skinned at times.

  109. We have lowered are standards havent we. Lucas good enough for centre
    midfield for liverpool week in week out, not a chance.
    Cant run, cant tackle and is known as the crab in training.
    he is a squad player at most and if he was for sale tomorrow who
    would take him.
    The only team who asked about him this summer where stoke. fact.
    Benitez before he left actuallly contemplated selling him.
    aquilani wasnt rated by benitez at about xmas and told the players
    as much. He never played him because he wasnt good enough.

  110. Don't care if he was lying, I'm more worried about his clear lack of grasp of the figures of the club.....no wonder they made such a mess of things!

  111. I honestly think that Hicks lied so much that he did not know anymore when he was lying and when he was telling the truth.

  112. Gary, the numbers are not incorrect. The snippet from the accounts is at the bottom of the article; or are you suggesting the accounts ate wrong to?
    You're also forgetting that the accounting year rubs from 31 July to 31 july - it is not a calendar year; and what's included in the accounts depends on dates. We don't know the exact dates player were signed/sold. The figures are correct.
    Sent from iPhone
    On 20 Oct 2010, at 21:08, "Echo" <js-kit-m2c-1hn7v1urs4irl52f0uc21i0cqep5813g11kgscdmd4oh865tne5g> wrote:

  113. mate, the reason why net spend is more important that gross spend is because a player has to leave for another to arrive.  It explains why the squad is relatively small and with little depth, and it also explains the high turnover of players (which in turn contributes to higher gross spend) without actually spending a lot more. Its always a bit of a gamble in the sub 5million space, even in the sub 10million space.

    If he had the money to spend, there was good evidence to suggest we could have signed players like Alves, Simao, Silva to name 3.  Imagine if we had?

    Back to topic though, its a damning indictment of those who put the blame at Rafa's door.  All his dealings were far superior to Roy's this summer.  Its also clear he overachieved with what he had.  We were battling at the top on a mid table budget.

  114. So Lucas has contributed nothing positive? Had a pretty good game against Manure at the Toilet, from what I saw. Remember that one? It ended 1-4!

  115. The Roy Hodgson Brigade9:53 pm, October 20, 2010

    Mate I really do not know what you are referring to, and that is me being nice.

  116. Yes I think the failure to replace Robbie Keane was Rafa's biggest failure and it is one that Roy Hodgson repeated in the last transfer window.

    One other thing we need to consider when thinking about transfers is what happens to them when the club wants to move them on. How easy are they to get rid of? In other words does anyone else want them and where do they go and what do they achieve- because this can also be an indication of quality. One of Rafa's first difficulties when coming into the club was that many of the players who had been signed under the 'new so and so label' by GH were not wanted by other clubs. Look at how long it took to get the decidely ordinary Anthony Le Tallec off our books. He was loaned out to 5 clubs before we finally managed to get shot of him. Similarly Salif Diao went through three loans before we finally managed to ditch him. The 'new Zidane' Bruno Cheyrou had 2 years of being loaned out before his contract ran out. Diouf had to be loaned out for a season before we could sell. None of these players has gone on to achieve anything.

    How many of Rafa's signings were that difficult to get rid of? Voronin was one example, El Zhar would be another. Itanje has been impossible to get rid of. Are there many more? Usually when Rafa decided to get rid of players he had brought in he seems to have little difficulty finding a buyer. And when talking about players Rafa bought maybe we would do well to reflect on the fact that the following players were in the squads that played in the World Cup Final: Reina, Arbeloa, Torres, Alonso, Kuyt, Babel. 6 players Rafa bought were in the squads that made it through to the final of the world cup and of those 3 actually played in the final (and in any normal team Reina would have done so as well). Does that suggest that he just bought poor players?

  117. The Roy Hodgson Brigade9:59 pm, October 20, 2010


    If Roy is still here by Jan, I am sure NESV will give him the cheque book or ask him to get rid of players who are not fit enough to wear the shirt and bring in some players with natural abilty which is non existant in the squad now and then we can have this chat again at the end of the season...

    Rafa took over a squad which was well looked after by Jose M and Roy took over a squad which has won nothing in 4 seasons...

  118. growler he bought 2 players for the combined cost of alonso. Give me back alonso
    any day of the week. if he was that great a man manager how come so many 
    players have left or wanted to leave last season. I do believe he is a good coach
    but his man-management has alot to be desired. His transfers in the last 2 years
    ultimately got him the sack.

  119. "Benitez before he left actuallly contemplated selling him.  
    aquilani wasnt rated by benitez at about xmas and told the players  
    as much."

    Do you have anything to back this up? Are you his milkman or something?

  120. I think  Jose inherited a title winning team there as well so maybe we should put all of Inter's success down to Mancini?

  121. Do you actually have anything constructive to add to the discussion?

  122. Please don't patronise me JK, I know the year ends. There is absolutely no way that H&G spent £69m between Feb 2007 and the year end. Who did they buy between Feb 2007 and 31st July 2007?

  123. Do you actually have an opinion of your own or do you just repeat what Jaimie says in his article? Nowhere in the post by ehab does he mention spending. When Benitez was in charge we, as the poster quite correctly states, had "hope of winning". As bad as last season was we were on the brink of a European final.

  124. The inland revenue wouldn't be too happy if you only put thru your books what you had paid out & not recouped. Even if you buy a car & trade one in at the same time, the new car might be worth £10k but you might only have spent £6k. This makes complete business sense. What you put across doesn't in the slightest I'm afraid. Rafa had many faults as do you from reading this post. When will you start getting ripped into Hodgson for his terrible start or will you back him just because most other Liverpool fans can see he's making a pigs ear of it & you like to be different. Just because you don't think Hicks was lying doesn't mean he wasn't & it doesn't make other peoples opinions biased. Where's snoggy doggy?

  125. The Roy Hodgson Brigade10:15 pm, October 20, 2010

    What else did you want me to say?

    Wasnt it Rafa which brought his scouting department to Anfield?

    Is that a fact or not constructive?

  126. Sean Dundee had one decent game for us too ;-)

    I don't think Lucas is a bad player - I just think we could've done better for the money laid out.  He should be a squad player, but he's a first-teamer, and was so for ages under Benitez. Shouldn't be that way.

  127. The Roy Hodgson Brigade10:17 pm, October 20, 2010

    You do not get the point Yewo.

    If roy came to the club and it was a winning team which it is not and has not been then would we be 19th in the table now?

    Yewo, you seem like such a nice person, to much of a nice person for me...

  128. Yeah look at Mr. man-management Woy Hodgson.  Alonso wanted to leave FOR FAMILY REASONS, he came out last week and said it AGAIN.

  129. Because Jaimie says the NET spend argument is invalid doesn't make it a fact. THIS IS HIS OPINION. It can also be your opinion. It doesn't make you right because Jaimie agrees with you. It doesn't make everyone else wrong either.

    If we can have an 'Pro Rafa Cult' can I nominate you as the leader of the 'Anti Rafa Cult'? Jaimie has an opinion; I don't always agree but he gives his reasons and we all talk about whether we agree or disagree. You, on the other hand, either repeat what he says parrott fashion, or come across like an 11 year old on MSN.

  130. But have a look at Benitez's record at Valencia- very impressive (including being UEFA Manager of the Year for the 2 years before he joined Liverpool). Have a look at Benitez's record when he first arrived at Liverpool- Champions League winners in 2005, Finalists of the Carling Cup in 2005, European Super Cup Winners 2005, FA cup winners in 2006, Community Shield Winners 2006, Champions League finalists in 2007. Cahmpions League Semi-Finalists 2008. Second place in Premier League in 2009. That's not too grubby for someone who had to bring in a number of players in the bargain basement. Look at where he went when left Liverpool- he was recruited by the reigning European Champions. You Rafa bashers need to remember all of this.

  131. I do appreciate the efforts you put in to your research even if your conclusions are often provocative! I do need to make a point though about net spend. You have to take in to consideration the teams that Liverpool managers have taken over, including Rafa and Houllier... In order to catch the likes of United and Chelsea we would have to spend far more than them year on year even to catch up with the quality they have had throughout their squads. To suggest you can just compare net spends in recent years doesn't take in to account how far we have fallen behind. If we are 5 players behind Utd in terms of quality and we spend the same as them in the next 5 years we are still gonna be 5 players behind them right? So yeah you can analyse the figures but there are other things to consider.

    What has typically happened is Liverpool have tried to sign 3 players of average quality because they were lacking depth in their squad. The likes of Utd and Chelsea would already have the depth and would spend their budget on single quality players. Don't forget we were also interested in many of the quality players like Ronaldo and Vidic but we end up losing out because we haven't been able to compete. If you have a good squad you can risk money on a young player like Ronaldo. If you don't have the quality you need players for now and you can't risk your budget on young players.

  132. The Roy Hodgson Brigade10:31 pm, October 20, 2010

    Do I have an opinion of my own?

    That is the most rediculous comment which you have made so far...

    Is that why you disagree with me and by the looks of things agree with those who also disagree with me?

    FFS you are really lost in translation, you do type english quite well though...

  133. The Roy Hodgson Brigade10:32 pm, October 20, 2010


  134. I can't remember saying that Rafa only bought bad players. He made quite a few blunders in the transfer market though. One I can hardly get over is Mark Gonzalez. Rafa portrayed him as the best thing since sliced bread. The best player from Chile. Banging on about him in public. When he finally arrived at Anfield it was quite embarrassing. Laughing stock springs to mind.

    Degen is actually another player we can't sell. Yes, free transfer, I know, but he surely commanded some kind of signing fee, too.

  135. Roy took over a team who were 7th. We are now 19th. What part of that don't you understand. Roy took an underperforming team backwards further and you blame the inter manager. I am ashamed you support the same club as me. Utterly clueless.

  136. Roy took over a team who were 7th. We are now 19th. What part of that don't you understand. Roy took an underperforming team backwards further and you blame the inter manager. I am ashamed you support the same club as me. Utterly clueless.

  137. Could it be that Gerrard is a bit thick? Or has he just got an inflated ego.

    Yeah, one thing missing among Liverpool fans is patience. Players were even judged by the way they wear their hair. As if that mattered.

  138. This doesn't really take into account the players Chelsea had at the club before Rafa arrived. Pre-Mourinho they had Lampard, Cech, Robben... to name just a few. Liverpool's team was shambolic.

    I hope that in time Benitez' record will hold up against the best and those who hold a grudge now will see this.

    You can't get a more powerful statistic than Rafa's win percentage. Outstanding.

    As for the 'Pro-Purslow' brigade, which you seem to be a part of, should Christian Purslow be held accountable for appointing a weak manager with an an unspectacular record and almost no major league success to his name?

  139. I remember all of this. There are actually a few thing that Rafa lovers should remember, too. Do I have to list them? Hope not. All I'll get is abuse.

  140. Again he didn't say he guaranteed 4th, he said yes to a question.  What would you rather he said?  No or No comment?  He would have gotten slaughtered for that as well, he was in a no-win situation, unless he attained fourth place.

  141. Even Lucas bashers don't say he's a liability, just that he offers very little in an offensive capability.

  142. The Roy Hodgson Brigade10:51 pm, October 20, 2010

    Here come the excuses...

  143. In fact Gross i s a far worse indicator than net, because people always insinuate he had it in one go. Individual seasons you can look at the gross, but not over a period of time.  You also have to take into account how this money was raised. If you are going to talk about true gross, then you can ONLY take into account money given to the manager which has not been raised from sales, which under Hicks & Gillete makes very interesting reading - if you're unbiased.

  144. Name a top flight manager that hasn't brought badly at some point.

  145. Just out of curiosity, how old are you 'The Roy Hodgson Brigade'?

  146. Not a fact, in fact some of the scouting network go back 15-20 years.

  147. That's simplistic  at best, ignorant at worst.

  148. Fernando Torres is Snoogy Doogy.

  149. Probably the best post on here, by some margin, because it is reasoned & unbiased, a rarity on this place.

  150. I don't know what your point is. The club was not left in such as state that we should be in a relegation battle. If the squad was so bad then why were people so dissapointed with 7th last season?

    No idea what you're on about with the 'nice person' thing either. Please enlighten me.

  151. The truth, not excuses, but like a few good men, you can't handle the truth.

  152. The Roy Hodgson Brigade11:06 pm, October 20, 2010

    Jose M

    But all of them have won a thing called trophies consistantly during their careers...

    I guess you wanted me to add Roy in there too but i will leave it to you to do that...

  153. The Roy Hodgson Brigade11:08 pm, October 20, 2010

    So Rafa used the scouting system of Roy Evans?

  154. The Roy Hodgson Brigade11:09 pm, October 20, 2010


  155. The Roy Hodgson Brigade11:09 pm, October 20, 2010

    Why dont you go ask Mommy?

  156. I don't share your opinion- it's nothing personal.

    In this instance if you can quallify why someone saying they liked Benitez means they also 'must believe he only spent 6m a season' then feel free.

  157. The Roy Hodgson Brigade11:14 pm, October 20, 2010

    Provide the proof for the truth, then maybe we can all believe...

  158. is this the same debate as last spring?

    wow running some mileage up on it and the same attitude - people bleating on untill they go blue in the face.

    its pointless much like our prem league performances

  159. LFCforumCo makes a very valid point.  Sell to Buy is very different to buy buy buy then see who fits and sell sell as appropriate much later.  It's clear that Rafa did not spend NET that much.  Its also clear he made mistakes in the transfer market and should have never sold Alonso.  He also bought some cracking players that I have loved to watch.  But what is also clear that at key moments when we needed to strengthen properly he did not have the funds to make the difference.  Now that is not a dig at the owners, (who would be happy to spend £30m on anyone and then top it up with wages of over £120K?). Rafa clearly only had a budget and he had to cut his cloth accordingly.  This meant buying at a slightly lower tier, ie in the 15m to 20m range.  This obviously buys quality but not guaranteed cast iron successes.  And some went wrong.  Big deal.

    For all his faults, we were an excellent team under Rafa, we consistently produced excellent results, we were a European heavy weight and inches away from the first title in 20 years.  I'm young enough to have never really been old enough to "enjoy" a title (I was 10 in 1990), and I can tell you from all the managers we have had in my time Rafa has been head and shoulders above all of them.  Miles and miles.  His reign also coincided with Chelsea spending and he just about kept us up with them.  Where's your European Cup JT?

    Why is it people consistently slate Rafa, particularly this site.  It would be understandable if either side of his reign were titles and titles and European Cups.  But there wasn't.  When someone comes along and does any better, perhaps that would be the time to pick his reign apart.  As I see it, his period was the most glorious period of LFC history in my life.  He has proved it with Valencia, is now proving it at Inter, and ONLY won a Champions League and FA cup with Liverpool.  Not bad for a shit manager.  I wished we had a shit manager now. 

    I'd take Rafa back right now.  He's a class manager, a massive part of LFC history and deserves much more respect than this site and many in the media give him.  I will admit though, that some of his press conference were bonkers, but I loved him for it.  Who wants to be chums with the press, Richard Keyes and Andy "Blue Nose" Grey.  Rafa was non-establishment, and we loved him for it.  Even if the press and this site didn't.  Sky love Roy, he's a great guy, but currently his tactics are shit and his results even worse.  What would you prefer?

  160. <span>"...and he wasted most of it on the likes of Keane, Aquilani, Babel, Riera, Dossena, Johnson, Lucas etc"</span>

    keane wasn't his choice, it was parry's, thus the fallout. i still rate highly of aquilani, he hasn't played many matches when he was around but his performance were great, linked well with gerrard and had the statistics to match his performance. i have no freakin clue as to why Woy send him out and spent 11.5M on unproven Meireles.

    ok i have to admit babel, riera and johnson were great initially but they are the biggest flop for the amount spent on them. I guess it has got to do with rafa's man management?

  161. The Roy Hodgson Brigade11:47 pm, October 20, 2010


  162. why is it when people talk about signings, we mention Riera, Keane, Dossena, Lucas, Johnson? Johnson is the england right back, a quality player, who once we get a decent manager will return to form. Riera did a job when we needed someone to provide width. Remeber his first season with us? Dossena was a first choice for Italy and highly regarded, he didn't work out, guess what, sometimes it doesn't.

    As for keane, I read a great piece about the pieces in the jigsaw. The story goes Rafa was promised certain things and these two players would have fit the model to have Masch sitting, with Barry Gerrard with one other (can't remember who )and then Keane and Torres, with the width coming from full backs.  The formation looked awesome, but after Keane was secured, 'money dried up' for Barry.

    Lets not forget his successes - Masch, Alonso, Garcia, Skrtel, Agger, Reina, Torres, Arbeloa, Kuyt, moving Gerrard, Insua, Aurelio, Glo Jo, then the kids, SHelvey, wilson (yes they were Rafa signings), PAcheco, Ayala, Ecclestone, Ngoo, Amoo, Suso and the other awesome kids that make up the best youth squad in the country (allegedly!)

    Thats before you get to dismantling the youth team mafia that created nothing since Gerrard and replacing them with the guys that created the Barca system, reviving the medical team, improving the players tactically, standing up to the owners, protecting the club and players against all (unlike Roy today!), restoring European pride and us to number 1 in Europe, the list goes on.

    All on a net spend of Wolves or Birmingham while trying to close the gap on the mancs whilst being outspent by spurs and Villa.

    It astounds me that our fans have so little time invested in the club and the reasons behind decisions, yet berate those created a golden era for the club, as well as those who take the time to do the research and then share it (thanks Jaimie)

    If losing the 'socalled' fans who support by proxy is a by product of a couple of seasons of mediocrity, I would take it, tohave a a better quaility of fans who understand the club, history and motivations.

  163. Good article

    Hicks looked shell shocked in that interview so could easily have made some mistakes, so didn't necessarily lie

    I'm amazed that the idea of a Net amount of money confounds people. Has anyone ever worked? Gross pay v Net pay etc

    How does net spend not matter?? It wouldn't matter if it was NFL and everyone was on a level playing field with salary / spending caps

    How can anyone state Rafa spent X hundred million pounds, when every 3 steps forward also comes with 2 back???

    Anyone who can't see the relevance of the difference between the following 2 points is deluded and couldn't possibly grasp any idea or argument of any weight

    1) the ability to splurge vast amounts of cash on a clutch of players, ie Chelsea or Man City

    2) the patient trading of players and building of a team, without the initial shot in the arm of £100m + initial spend, ie Liverpool

    Chelsea had some huge flops, Veron, Shevcenko etc but because of their wealth it can go unnoticed in the media

    H & G essentially just bought Torres during their time there and every other player was traded in and out. Although large profit on Alonso almost cancels that out

    Rafa admittedly is not as good as Redknapp in transfer market but I wonder even the popularly acclaimed "Wheeler dealer" would have fared with a NET SPEND of 24 million in 4 years

  164. A well thought out counter argument as ever! I'd say I'd ignore your posts as well but the cast majority are just begging to be picked apart so I doubt I'll be able to resist.

  165. Sell 2 buy is not OK12:26 am, October 21, 2010

    Investment: If (like Hicks said) you have £300million given to you to spend you buy 10 - 15 superstars.

    The odd one won't gel. You sell the superstar for a lot of money.

    Welcome to Chelsea.

    If you have no money given to you to spend you sell a decent player hoping to replace him with a better player. You also have to get rid of loads of cheay players and get free / cheapy players in return.

  166. I'm not a fan of Hicks, but he may not have explicitly lied. Who knows, he looked shell shocked at the time so may have been confused. Afterall a court did rule against him!!! Shock, horror!!

    Net spend is vital

    When would anyone have considered anything else in English football during pre-Abramovich times

    Teams spent within their means, more or less. Liverpool spent big in 80s because they were top dogs, then Man Utd took over after the Liverpool tragedies tore the heart out of the club and robbed us of a broken Kenny Dalglish

    Then Abramovich comes in and blows 100s of millions, same now at Man City, and we all instantly forget that football clubs and therefore professional football itself exists because they are supposed to make money for their owners!!

    And the only people who treat them as something other than a business are people who haven't any real concept of the value of money because they have so much

    Therefore the entire premise for this argument is redundant

    Hopefully UEFA can bring in the guidelines on limiting spending as planned to create a level playing field or in 5 years the top four will be Man City, QPR, Chelsea, Next billionaires play thing

    Let's just call it like it is and recognise that we are comparing apples with oranges, and that until there is some financial equality, the Premier League will lose it's appeal

    Will the Asian viewers be as interested when Liverpool and United are battling for 6th spot??

  167. Please don't patronise me JK; I know what the year ends are. I'm not the sort of person who is arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm asking a genuine question. H&G took over in Feb 2007; how much did they actually spend on transfers between then and the year end. As far as i can see we bought Torres, Babel and Benayoun  and Lucas that summer before 31st July and that's about 40 million, which is closer to what I said (£30m) than the £70m stated in the accounts. Kuyt and Arbeloa, I believe, would fall into this year end but were brought before H&G's tenure, so how can you include their costs (approx £13m). All I'm saying is that the figures don't add up.  As I said I don't have the exact figures. Where does the 69.9m come from? Genuine question JK, don't get so defensive.

    So lets say you don't include Kuyt and Arbeloa, we're getting further away from the alleged £300m H&G spent on transfers. Even taking that approx £13 away then thats £209million. That's 91m short of £300. I don't see how you can justify that H&G did spend £300m.

    Whilst I agree that net spend should not be used to justify Rafa's spending, it definitely should be considered when you are looking at what H&G" invested". They owned the club so obviously any money recouped is going to go back into the pot so to speak. So if £198m was recouped in player transfers and only £209 was spent then it could be said that H&G put very little of their OWN money into the club. Mainly it was the club's money that went back onto the transfers not H&G's money.

  168. So what does that prove?  Nothing. You argued that Rick Parry signed Robbie Keane; I asked you to prove it; the first article you posted was typical media lies with no Benitez quotes; the second article contains standard quotes from Benitez but nothing about Robbie Keane.  Again: provide proof that it was Parry who signed Keane (The very idea of it is ridiculous - it's like saying Christian Purslow signed Raul Meirelles)

  169. Dj

    Would you like to see a return to basic 4-4-2 with 2 wingers, or maybe a 5-3-2 with Johnson having a license to go forward from wingback position

    What do you feel are the merits of playing left footer on the left, right on the right?

    I felt Joe Cole's crosses the other day were hit from an ideal position from a defender's point of view, easy to clear. A left footer from bye line whipping it in results in OGs, corners etc

  170. Johnson: best attacking right wingback in Englandle

    Says who? You? Please explain HOW he is the best attacking right back in England.  A soundbyte doesn't cut it.  How have Liverpool benefited from that?  Where is the specific, measurable evidence of that contention?  If he's the best 'attacking' right back then his assists ration must be quite high, no (it's pitiful); the team must have improved in an attacking sense, right (it hasn't).  Please explain more.

    Johnosn is an utter liability in every respect - his performances both this season and last prove that, and I've explained my reasoning here: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/09/glenn-johnson-still-gigantic-waste-of.html

    Lucas: One of the most intelligent players currently in the world
    And I thought the Pro-Benitez Brigade was in denial.  A quite stunning comment.  If you believe that then that's fine, but it's just not true.  What next, Phiipp Degen is one of the greatest defenders in the world?

  171. The net spend is the important thing. That is how much the manager had available to improve the squad.<span></span>
    A perfect example of the ridiculous thought process of the net spend cult. So Benitez only had 6m a year to spend?!  The denial on display here is truly frightening.
    (and it's not 6m anyway - Hodgson's figures are included and need to be subtracted.)

  172. God, the way Benitez supporters try and twist the truth is amazing.  Benitez DID guarantee 4th, and it was NOT in response to a question.  He said:

    "The players are doing the same and we are working together. I can guarantee that we will finish in the top four."


    Are you going to deny it again?  Or are you now going to argue it was a Benitez lookalike at the press conference...?

  173. No - no one insinuated Benitez had that cash in one go; that is yet *another* lame excuse used by his rabid supporters to try and discredit the gross spend argument.

    It's a fallacy anyway as it doesn't matter if he had it all in one go or not!  No matter what you or anyone else says, the following is a fact:

    During his time at Liverpool, Benitez spent (i.e. paid money to other clubs for the services of players) over 200m.  That is REAL MONEY going from the club to  other clubs.  That is the physical amount of money  paid for players.

    Yes, money was recouped - no one is denying that; but the 3.5 recouped on Dossena does not chance the fact that, at one time, 20m was paid out for Keane.

    Also, the net spend argument CONDONES FINANCIAL LOSS.  Example: Robbie Keane - bought for 20m; sold for 12m.  That is an 8m loss (this is specifically stated in the accounts).  The net spend cult will say 'oh, but he only actually cost 8m.  THAT IS AN 8M LOSS.  That doesn't change the fact that 20m went from LFC to Spurs for his signing.  That 20m could have been spent on a better player; someone who fitted in and enhanced the team.  if that had happend, there WOULD BE NO LOSS.  The team would've been improved, and there would have been a knock on effect over time.

    it's not only loss of money that the lame net spend argument ignores; it's loss of benefit to the team as a result of managers buying the wrong players.

  174. How does the transfer record of other managers have anything to do with Benitez?  it doesn; it's just yet another tactic used by Benitez's supporters to dilute the issue.  Instead of focusing on the issue at hand they start referring to things that have absolutely nothing to do with it.

  175. In other words, it backs up your views on Benitez, therefore it's great.  What a shock.

  176. He only ever really had a lump of cash once (£40m + 100% of player sales) - the window when we got Torres, Masch, Benayoun, Skrtel, Babel etc. Prior to that he'd managed to almost bridge the gap under Moores/Parry spending pittance and still unearthed a few gems in Alonso, Garcia, Reina, etc.<span></span>
    Unfounded supposition.  Proof please.
    Since that massive window it's been a complete sell-to-buy policy.<span></span>
    Baseless assertion.  Proof please.  (Who was sold to buy Keane?  Who was sold to buy Johnson?  Who was sold to buy Mascherano?  Utterly inaccurate, and another favourite excuse of Benitez's supporters).

    He recognised he'd made a mistake and recouped what he could ASAP<span></span>
    So what?  Liverpool lost 8m on Keane (and don't even try and argue this point; it is specifically stated in the accounts; it is also stated that LFC's profit for that year was offset by a loss on Keane). And because Benitez failed to buy the right player, Liverpool suffered the loss of benefit from having another top player in the squad, especially last season when we were crying out for another decent striker.
    So often he'd have to settle for 3rd or 4th choice players.  Vidic was a target a year before United got him, Pennant was bought because a further £2m odd wasn't made available for Dani Alves.<span></span>
    In the words of Richard Chivers, QC: Absolute poppycock.  Please provide one shred of proof for any of these assertions that emanates from a reliable source.  These are rumours disseminated by Benitez fans.  It's funny how Benitez was given almost 80m to buy Keane, Johnson, Aquilani, mascherano and Dossena but was allegedly denied an extra 2m to buy Alves.  Benitez had the money - he just pi$$ed it against the wall on the wrong players.
    If Rafa was poor in finishing 7th, what does that make Woy who sits in the relegation zone? <span></span>
    Yes, because it's totally fair to compare a manager who has been in the job 4 months with a manager who had 6 years and almost 300m gross to spend on players. 
    Look at cold-hearted Rafa Benitez
    Precisely, a man responsible for alienating many players, igniting a civil wat at Anfield (which was paid out in public) and falling out with anyone who dared question his dictatorial 'authority'.

  177. Making a prediction on a future league finish cannot be compared to knowing the essential figures of an "asset" you value at over $1 billion

    You can't lie about something that is yet to happen....... right?

  178. It's not patronising at all, just restating the facts.

    The accounts do not lie.  And I've researched all the players bought from 31 July 2006 to 2nd Feb 2007, and there were no significant purchases, just a bunch of youngster brought in on free transfers/minimal fees.

    Go look for yourself - you'll see it's true.

  179. Jaimie will just never accept any alternative view to his own

    Raj's comment reflects reality

    24m net spend over 4 years is pathetic, how much did we pay out on interest repayments in the same timeframe

    H&G have put us back to a mid 90s position in terms of our squad v top teams

  180. Benitez has nevr denied he wanted to sign Keane. The issue was that Barry was the priority signing and Parry failed to deliver. That Keane tunred out to be a headless chicken and now warms the bench back at Sputs shows Benitez's quick reaction to a far from ideal situation.

    Similarly Rafa wanted to sign Jovetic as well as Aquilani as reaplcements for Xabi. Again his strategy was compromised by lack of money.

    Rafa was the best manager since Dalglish - the facts show it and we should respect the guy as man and manager. He is not our greatest manager but in an era where LFC are not the dominant force in English football his efforts were more than creditable.

  181. Is Roy Hodgson trying to solicit a Man Utd bid for Fernando Torres? His utterances after the Everton game and on Torres are utterly baffling and typical of those of a "small team" manager (which many people would argue is what his expertise is all about).

    The Liverpool manager must totally dismiss any possibility of a LFC player joining MU. If Roy can't understand what LFC management job is about it's time to show him the door.

    It is important for the fans to make it clear to the owners that the sale of Torres to MU will make them even more unpopular than H&G. If Torres wants to leave he was go back to Spain but not to the main rivals. If Roy is allowed to continue on his current path, Torres to Man U will gather a momentum of it's own.

  182. alonso didnt leave for family reasons, he left because he was treated like
    a piece of meat after benitez fell out with him over being at the birth of his son
    then telling him he would have to leave and sign that he wanted a move.
    this is a fact. i am not a roy hodgson fan, but i will give him a chance
    you are still getting over benitez like a jilted lover, he has gone, move on.

  183. Maybe I just don't get football :)  but can anyone name a manager apart from Wenger who gets it consistently spot on in the transfer market without spending a ridiculous amount of money?

    Martin O'neil left Aston Villa because he felt that the owners weren't backing him enough in the transfer market to break into the top 4. Rooney has just come out and said that he's leaving manU because he doesn't feel that they can buy quality players to compete and win trophies which would appear ludicrous given the amount of money ManU have spent over the years.

    The fact is that that the current squad is more than good enough to be in the top 6 of the PL and that hodegson has already wasted money on players like Poulson and Konchesky who haven't really added any quality to the squad. Does this make him a bad manager? of course not but it does show IMO that most managers are not that great in the transfer market.

    The problem LFC have always had is the inability to consistently spend 20+ million person season on a quality player in addition to the squad fillers that you need to bring in. In my view Benitez has clearly wasted money but so has Hodegson and if he's still in charge in January he will waste money again.

  184. Well said mate. No matter what people say about Rafa he is in mine and every Liverpool fan i know, the best manager we have had in 20 years. Was he perfect? No. Did he always make the right decisions in the transfer market? No. But i believe he got more right than wrong and we have had great games under him. 1 bad year does not out weigh 5 good years.

    I refuse to talk about Net spend once more coz it is like banging my head against a brick wall on this site.

    Hicks lied in the interview, a desperate man in desperate times. Whether or not it is G that said the things about the spade in the ground H went along with G

  185. @Jaimie - Last word on net spend. Did H&G give Rafa 200m+ at any one time to spend on players?

    Have Man City just spend over 170m in 2009?

    Thats the difference. I am 100% sure if Rafa had 200m+ to spend at one time we would have a stunning team. The fact that he never had that money to spend in one go means you are limited in the players you can buy.

    If i want to buy a car that is worth 40 grand but i only get 20 grand a year, there is no way i can get the 40 grand car. But if i buy a car each year for 20 grand each it doesn't mean after two years with the money i have spent i should have had a 40 grand car..

    I would still argue when Rafa left the squad that remained was worth more than 200m

  186. Lol hmmmm I'm starting to lose respect for you Jaimie. 2003/2004 season chelsea spent 153 mill as spated by transferleague.co.uk. Funny you neglect to mention!
    Season 03/04           Paulo Ferreira £13,200,000   Leon Knight £100,000   Arjen Robben £12,000,000   Ed de Goey Free   Petr Cech £7,000,000   Jean-Yves Anis Free   Scott Parker £10,000,000   Graeme Le Saux Swap   Neil Sullivan Free   Rhys Evans Free   Claude Makelele £16,600,000   Jody Morris Free   Hernan Crespo £16,800,000   Gianfranco Zola Free   Alexei Smertin £3,450,000   Enrique De Lucas Free   Adrian Mutu £15,800,000   Rob Wolleaston Free   Joe Cole £6,600,000   Andy Ross Free   Juan Veron £15,000,000         Wayne Bridge £7,000,000         Damien Duff £17,000,000         Geremi £7,000,000         Glen Johnson £6,000,000         Craig Rocastle Signed         Yves Makaba-Makalamby Free         Total £153,450,000     £100,000 £153,350,000

  187. RHB = freak. It's not that i don't agree with you "arguments", it's the way you just slate other people for not believing in what Jaim...you believe in.

    Jaimie if you were fair you would delete RBH's comment above for being xenophobic?

    I would also at this point like to distance myself from any clan, brigade, club, cult, click. I am a Liverpool FC supporter

  188. Paul - why do you just believe anything you read on the net?  Did you bother to check the source of transferleague's figures? No. They are cobbled together from news reports; the fiugures I used come directly from Chelsea's accounts, thus they are accurate and irrefutable.

    People continually amaze me with their unwillingness to think critically about things.

    And what does the 2003-4 seaosn have to do with it anyway?!  Benitez was not at Liverpool then, hence why my comparison with Chelsea was 2004-9.

  189. Nice analysis but your conclusion is 100% wrong.

    1) The way I read it, Hicks said the spent net £150 million on transfers, but the actual is £24.1 million. This is a lie. You say that he may have been confused by the figures and/or the word net - come on, he is a leverage buyone specialist and this is "his" money, he's not a 10 year old.
    2) So, we had a net spend of £6 million per annum, is that 2nd or 3rd highest in the league? No way - lie.
    3) Your swipe at Rafa - on a net spend of £6 million per annum, he did very well. Not perfect, but nobody is.

  190. But he didn't have just one decent game - that was simply a high profile example. How we could have attained our greatest points tally for more than 20 years, scored more goals than any other team in the PL the 2008-9 season, & had a very good defensive record with such a player who 'hasn't improved the team' is absolute tosh!

  191. Spot on by Simon and Nickname.
    Jaimie ... what is your argument against my comment about Benitez not having a lump £200 million to spend ??
    The money he was getting was in drips and drabs.
    For a true and accurate reflection of Rafas spending, everyone commenting on this post needs to look at the following link. You will find Rafa has done quite well !!!


    Comments please :)

  192. Yeah - if he ever does. I'm really hoping that he tries to taking some of those adversaries back to the High Court, they will have him for a string of liabilities longer than the distance between Liverpool & Milan! And then he'll be bankrupted & in jail for contempt.

  193. Did he really waste money or did he do alot more for LFC ?
    Have a look at this


  194. Raj - do not post links to Tomkins' site on here. If you want to believe his made up figures (which are not taken from accounts) then fine - go and discuus them on his site.

  195. Some reason why Roy would not be here?