Paul tompkins latest blog - Fergie has spent more than rafa

Liverpool Football Club - General Discussion

Postby account deleted by request » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:17 pm

Spending of Rafa Benítez vs Alex Ferguson

       
 
     
Following the publication of a database called "Transfers_Premiership", which listed the Ins and Outs at a number of top clubs since 1992, I felt it was important to double-check the figures, particularly with people quoting it as fact.

There was also a section focusing on the spending of Rafa Benítez versus that of Alex Ferguson since 2004, which was used by another site (BIAWC), designed to denigrate the Spaniard. And this is what I focused on. The figures are significantly wrong.

There were a number of glaring errors in this database, such as including the £14.2m transfer of Djibril Cissé as a Benítez signing, when everyone knows it was sanctioned by Gérard Houllier, and listing Lucas Leiva's deal as £8m when it was €8m, roughly £2m cheaper.

It also did not include the incremental fees payable for Wayne Rooney and Michael Carrick. At the base of this article are images of the corrected database figures.


2004 Onwards

Whether or not Benítez has outspent Ferguson since 2004 is in many ways irrelevant, given that Ferguson had spent massively in the three years before Benítez arrived: Veron at £28m, Heinze at £7m and Van Nistelrooy at £19m have now gone (as have Forlan, Alan Smith, Kleberson, Djemba-Djemba, Bellion and all manner of signings from that time), but Ferdinand, Saha and Ronaldo haven’t. That’s £60m spent on three players for his current squad while Rafa was still in Spain; £60m that the Scot hasn’t needed to spend since 2004. A £60m head-start.

Of course Benítez has had to spend differently to Ferguson in the last three years –– because Ferguson had already splashed loads of cash, whereas Benítez was starting his project from scratch. And as I’ve pointed out before, Benítez hasn’t had the chance (or desire) to cash in on his best players for big fees as they reach the end of their peak effectiveness after years of sterling service, as seen with the lucrative sales of Beckham and van Nistelrooy, and at Arsenal, Vieira and Henry. That’s the difference between starting out and having been in the job ten or twenty years. You sell one set of stars as the next bunch emerge.

This is what ignorant and dim-witted people cannot fathom. If I start building a high-quality house a few years before you,then I won’t need to spend as much to finish it once you finally get started. If that is not blindingly obvious and logical, I don’t know what is. And let’s not forget that until he’d won the league a first time, Ferguson had spent more than any other manager, breaking the British transfer record twice –– something Benítez is yet to do, or even get close to. And even then it took Ferguson seven years to make that breakthrough.

And of course, both Wenger and Ferguson are relying on their youth groundwork from a decade or two ago. Again, Ferguson hasn’t had to spend as much between 2004 and the present day because of players like Giggs, Scholes and Neville, who only came into the team five-ten years after Ferguson took charge. As an example, in ten years’ time, maybe the Liverpool manager won’t need to buy an expensive centre-half, if Jack Hobbs maintains his progress.

The fact of the matter is that Manchester United and Chelsea’s current squads cost far, far more than Liverpool’s, and in United’s case, much of that stems from the years before Rafa’s arrival.

Using figures taken from more reliable sources, I make the net spending by Benítez to be £27m less than was incorrectly stated. The net spend by Rafa drops by about 25%, to £60.4m; Ferguson’s spending in the same period weighs in at £88.3m, £27.9m more than his rival’s –– the original figures claimed that Rafa had spent £8.5m more than the Scot. (Scott Carson’s sale to Villa, should it happen, will also massively reduce Benítez’s net spending; the first of his youngsters to make the club a massive profit.)

Such lists might seem harmless, as mere internet forum fodder for discussion, but the viral nature of the net is well known. The commentator on Sky’s Football First noted during the Reading game that only Chelsea had spent more since Benítez took charge at Liverpool; which, as I’ve pointed out, is total rubbish. Wherever the commentator heard this information, passing it on as fact is irresponsible.

On the whole, Benítez has bought extremely well. No manager ever gets it right 100% of the time; if they get it right 50% of the time they’re doing well.

Reina, Arbeloa, Agger, Alonso, Babel, Lucas, Mascherano, Benayoun and Torres are all top-class and 26 or under, and while a couple of the younger players naturally need to develop and continue to adapt to life in England, the potential is immense (as it is for some of the teenagers recently recruited). These players can be part of Liverpool’s team for years to come, and all should improve. A problem this season has been the absence of Agger’s passing and movement from the back.

Some of Benítez’s other signings aren’t playing too well at the moment, and perhaps a few need to step up their game to prove they can help take Liverpool to the next level, but they are not flops or failures. They have largely held their values, and have something to offer when on song.

So while it’s looking increasingly unlikely (if not impossible) that the Reds can win the league this year, the development is definitely there.
And by looking at how quickly Arsenal and Manchester United suddenly transformed from sides that looked on a par with (or inferior to) Liverpool a year or two ago, it’s not unrealistic to think that with the talent at his disposal, and one or two key additions, Benítez’s team can go from strength to strength.



I have made every effort to list the transfer fees as correctly as possible. The majority of those in the original document appear perfectly correct, but where there was an error or omission I've altered it and marked it with an asterisk, and also listed it in bold. If there are any further errors, for the Ins and Outs of either team, please let me know.


The original database lists:

• Benítez's net spend as £87.7m

• Ferguson's net spend as £79.2m

Concluding that Benítez had spent £8.5m more than Ferguson.


The true figures are:

• Benítez's net spend is £60.4m

• Ferguson's net spend is £88.3m

Therefore Benítez's net spend is £27.9m less than his rival's (a swing of £36m from the original figures)


Or how to turn water into wine by P.Tompkins  :D Obviously Riise, Carra, Gerrard, Hyypia, Kewell dont count while Giggs and Neville do ?
Last edited by account deleted by request on Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
account deleted by request
 
Posts: 20690
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:11 am

Postby Leonmc0708 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:33 pm

I cringe at these type of stories cus only one thing matter come May, not net spend, gross spend, money spent before christ, money spent ano domini or any money spent whatsoever.

The only thing that matters is what major trophies have been won.
JUSTICE FOR THE 96

Image
User avatar
Leonmc0708
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 8420
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:44 am
Location: SEFTON SHED

Postby Sabre » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:41 pm

Well S@int it's not turning water into wine nor multiplying bread and fishes. It's just another figures and I like more these than the previous ones, makes more sense. :D

Seriously, thank you for bringing the article, I needed some Tomkins pills for my morale.
Last edited by Sabre on Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
SOS member #1499

Drummerphil, never forgotten.
User avatar
Sabre
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 13178
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:10 am
Location: San Sebastian (Spain)

Postby account deleted by request » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:42 pm

Leonmc0708 wrote:I cringe at these type of stories cus only one thing matter come May, not net spend, gross spend, money spent before christ, money spent ano domini or any money spent whatsoever.

The only thing that matters is what major trophies have been won.

You are right Leon.

So while it’s looking increasingly unlikely (if not impossible) that the Reds can win the league this year


Sounds like even Tompkins has given up the ghost of the Title. :(
account deleted by request
 
Posts: 20690
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:11 am

Postby Leonmc0708 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:49 pm

s@int wrote:
Leonmc0708 wrote:I cringe at these type of stories cus only one thing matter come May, not net spend, gross spend, money spent before christ, money spent ano domini or any money spent whatsoever.

The only thing that matters is what major trophies have been won.

You are right Leon.

Most of the time mate - yes.
JUSTICE FOR THE 96

Image
User avatar
Leonmc0708
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 8420
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:44 am
Location: SEFTON SHED

Postby redtrader74 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 pm

Leonmc0708 wrote:I cringe at these type of stories cus only one thing matter come May, not net spend, gross spend, money spent before christ, money spent ano domini or any money spent whatsoever.

The only thing that matters is what major trophies have been won.

I agree Leon, but the article at least determines what the correct figures are, with the amount of mis-informed drivel on the Net, it good to get figures that have been checked.
User avatar
redtrader74
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: London

Postby Reg » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:12 pm

Dont interupt lads, I'm still cheering and clapping !  :rasp
User avatar
Reg
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 13512
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:24 am
Location: Singapore

Postby account deleted by request » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:19 pm

Reg wrote:Dont interupt lads, I'm still cheering and clapping !  :rasp

:laugh: nice one Reg   :laugh:
account deleted by request
 
Posts: 20690
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:11 am

Postby 66-1112520797 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:52 pm

I saw the title of this thread, who it was writtenm by and thought OH FFS !!
66-1112520797
 

Postby 66-1112520797 » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:08 am

Reg wrote:Dont interupt lads, I'm still cheering and clapping !  :rasp

:laugh:   :laugh:   :laugh:
66-1112520797
 

Postby bigmick » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:24 am

It's an interesting take on things to add up funds spent before Rafa took over and conclude Fergie therefore had a "60 million start". Quite how Rafa was supposed to compete in Liverpool spending while he was manager of Valencia is something of a mystery to me but there you go. I suppose also the fact that our manager aquired a team which had within it's ranks a player worth probably in excess of 30 million pounds is irrelavent in that particular analysis.

Whichever way you look at it though, it's no surprise to me that we have been outspent by Manchester United and Chelsea. I'm actually surprised people are debating it to be perfectly honest, and the commentator who referred to the incorrect facts ought to know better.

In the main I agree with Tompkins when he says Rafa has bought well. Sure there have been a couple of failures, with Kuyt and Morientes rivalling each other for the title of biggest flop, but there have been many more astute buys. Some of these haven't been seen yet as he points out, and who's to tell what kind of potential we have lurking in the youth ranks.

The issue I would take with the transfer policy overall however is that we have spent too much time effort and money trying to build two first teams, rather than concentrating on building one. If we were to add up all the money spent on "options" and "possibilites" and convert them into proper first team players then we would progress IMHO. It might mean we aren't able to change the team and the formation quite so regularly, but I can't help thinking it would be a worthwhile sacrifice.
"se e in una bottigla ed e bianco, e latte".
User avatar
bigmick
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 12166
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:19 pm
Location: Wimbledon, London.

Postby The_Rock » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:26 pm

bigmick wrote:It's an interesting take on things to add up funds spent before Rafa took over and conclude Fergie therefore had a "60 million start". Quite how Rafa was supposed to compete in Liverpool spending while he was manager of Valencia is something of a mystery to me but there you go.

Thompkins thinks most of the red fans are dumb sh1t..... He constantly manipulates stats to push his point... :no
A Genius Billionaire Playboy Philanthropist
Image
User avatar
The_Rock
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:30 pm
Location: Michigan, Toronto and Singapore...take your pick

Postby burjennio » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:33 pm

I dont know if anyone actually watched prematch buildup anymore but yesterday Jamie Redknapp (who should know better) said that Rafa had spent over £150m in 4 years!!!! Where did he pull this figure from? He mentioned Houllier only having £108m in 6 years and being sacked - is it just me or has even ex-players started trying to stir the pot?
User avatar
burjennio
 
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:17 pm
Location: belfast

Postby Sabre » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:45 pm

The_Rock wrote:
bigmick wrote:It's an interesting take on things to add up funds spent before Rafa took over and conclude Fergie therefore had a "60 million start". Quite how Rafa was supposed to compete in Liverpool spending while he was manager of Valencia is something of a mystery to me but there you go.

Thompkins thinks most of the red fans are dumb sh1t..... He constantly manipulates stats to push his point... :no

All journos do. The difference with Tompkin is that he tries to kill the tension surrounding the club, where as other journos like to fuel the flames, the more problems the better.

I think the point he's making is that if you picked the Liverpool of 2004, that Liverpool needed more spending than the current one. That is, this team is a player or two away of being perfect, in 2004 instead you had to reconfigure all the midfield to surround Gerrard, and you needed to offload a lot of deadwood.

Manchester instead did big spending before and they haven't needed a massive reestructuration in the last years. I don't think that's a mad point to make.
Last edited by Sabre on Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
SOS member #1499

Drummerphil, never forgotten.
User avatar
Sabre
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 13178
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:10 am
Location: San Sebastian (Spain)

Postby maguskwt » Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:17 pm

great article...

how good benitez is in the transfer market is a matter of discussion... but it is obvious that we are making progress as a football club under him (ie the footballing aspect that a manager is responsible for... the business aspect however is much to be desired which is the responsibility of the yanks and rick :censored: parry)... no other recent liverpool manager has looked into such a variety of aspects regarding the club... and that is exactly the reason why he must be given time to see his project develop further...
Image
maguskwt
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 8232
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:39 pm

Next

Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 63 guests