Liverpool FC Forum

[The Good Yank]

It seems that we spend alot of time on this forum, in regards to discussing players, on whether a player is worth their transfer fee.

"Suarez at 22 million was a steal"

"Carroll cost 35 million FFS"

"Henderson cost us 20 million and is Shlt"

In my opinion, in past years when we were clearly on a sell to buy (or worse) philosophy, these arguements had merit.  That clearly is not the case anymore. 

So then we enter an era where we have money to spend (something we've been crying out for years to be possible), but yet their are still complaints. 

"We could have bought Aguero if we saved that money instead of buying Carroll." 

"If we'd not bought Henderson we could've gotten Mata."

Then we move on to the restrictions on the wage bill.  Well in the interview that was posted in the ""Owners" thread.  The question was asked, "How much money needs to come off the wage bill before more investment in new players" (Or something like that.)  John Henry's response, "None".

I think the owners have shown that if a player is available, That suits Kenny and the staffs desires and needs, and wants to play for Liverpool.  We will get that player.

The only time to bang the old drum of how much players cost is the moment the owners hold their hands up and say "Well we've given the amount we've given to invest in players and that's all we can give up right now."

If that happens, than complain about transfer fees until the cows come home.  However, since there is no sign of that happening.  QUIT COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW MUCH THE OWNERS PAID FOR PLAYERS.

[SouthCoastShankly]

I agree, for me the wage bill is far more important. Transfer fees are the long time worth of an asset, whereas a wage bill represents real-time worth of the asset.

The accumulative effect of a high wage bill has far more effect on the day to day running of a club than a single transfer fee.

[RedAnt]

There is, as was said, a lot of talk like "the £35m we spent on Carroll is money we could have used to buy Mata" but that's actually untrue. Mata is now a Chelsea player. Always would have been. We bought Carroll because he was the only realistic target. Mata wouldn't have come to us. We had £50m of Chelski's Monopoly money and we used it to bring in the only viable option. This was in the transfer window and Carroll was injured but was massively important to the Toon. They sure as heck didn't want to sell him. We got £50m for the traitor so £35m on Carroll was no loss. In fact it was profit...£15m profit that went towards Suarez.  In THAT case then the transfer fee really isn't important.

But money in football these days really is Monopoly money isn't it? Managers backed by super rich investors don't see it as money. If they do..it's toy money, or Football Manager 2012 money. Playing FM12 if you mess up with silly transfers you can reload, or start again. In the real league if you mess up with money the worst they can do is sack you...and you walk off with a massive pay-off of even MORE money!! Once that money is YOUR money then suddenly it's not toy money anymore. You're rich. Woohoo!

At the top of the English leagues, money and in turn transfer fees mean very little. Mid table in the Premier League though and it starts to matter. This is why the fairplay transfer stuff was brought in (and seems to be failing) to stop teams like City from tossing money at anything that can kick a ball. Man City could buy almost every team in the Premier League.

It's a very sad fact of modern football that teams like QPR and Norwhich have to fight hard merely to keep their head above the surface in the Premier League. They have no hope of ever, ever, ever winning it. There's very few teams that can win it. we all know that and they all know that. For promoted teams it's like a bunch of kids, or stinky old wino's crashing a rich mans party and seeing how much trouble they can cause before they get booted out.

Do transfer fees matter? To the rich, no. To the poor, yes.

[jacdaniel]

We got Suarez, Enrique, Adam and Doni for a combined price of about 35 or 40M.  Thats a bargain IMO for 4 players that have made us a much stronger squad.

We probably slightly overpaid on Downing but he seemed to be a top target and we really needed some width.

We definitly overpaid for Hendo and Carroll.  But overall, I feel like the money has been well spent.

[Thommo's perm]

No

[Kenny Kan]

The only time to bang the old drum of how much players cost is the moment the owners hold their hands up and say "Well we've given the amount we've given to invest in players and that's all we can give up right now."

That could be easily interpreted as "you've had the money-now make most of what you've spent".

[aCe']

Ridiculous discussion. Expectations are largely based on the amount spent, and transfer fees and wages go a long way in determining the success of not only the side, but also the manager and his staff.

We cant just sit there and say forget about how much players cost because its not an issue for the owners because obviously at some level it is. The club for me is at a crucial stage of trying to get back to becoming competitive at the highest level and to a large extent we seem to be relying on new purchases to make that happen. How else could spending more than 100mill in 6months be justified ?

For me, when you spend big the extra pressure comes from the forgone cash that could have been better spent elsewhere if the player fails to make a significant impact. The difference between us getting a signing wrong and ManUtd or Chelsea getting a signing wrong is a big one imo. On the one hand, we are still in the process of building a starting 11 that is good enough to challenge for a top spot while they are merely trying to improve on the excellent sides they already have. That essentially means that we need to sign players who would improve us more than their new signings would them. On the other hand, we are not ManCity regardless of what many on the forum seem to be suggesting given the owners' statements. I expect the 100+ mill spending days to be over by the end of this transfer window. That only adds pressure on us getting our big money signings (Carroll, Henderson, Downing) right because in all likelihood we wont get another shot at spending that much money in one window.

[woof woof !]

Ridiculous discussion. Expectations are largely based on the amount spent, and transfer fees and wages go a long way in determining the success of not only the side, but also the manager and his staff.

We cant just sit there and say forget about how much players cost because its not an issue for the owners because obviously at some level it is. The club for me is at a crucial stage of trying to get back to becoming competitive at the highest level and to a large extent we seem to be relying on new purchases to make that happen. How else could spending more than 100mill in 6months be justified ?

For me, when you spend big the extra pressure comes from the forgone cash that could have been better spent elsewhere if the player fails to make a significant impact. The difference between us getting a signing wrong and ManUtd or Chelsea getting a signing wrong is a big one imo. On the one hand, we are still in the process of building a starting 11 that is good enough to challenge for a top spot while they are merely trying to improve on the excellent sides they already have. That essentially means that we need to sign players who would improve us more than their new signings would them. On the other hand, we are not ManCity regardless of what many on the forum seem to be suggesting given the owners' statements. I expect the 100+ mill spending days to be over by the end of this transfer window. That only adds pressure on us getting our big money signings (Carroll, Henderson, Downing) right because in all likelihood we wont get another shot at spending that much money in one window.

, good post aCe, couldn't agree more.

[ConnO'var]

It does matter..... no matter how you slice the numbers on the Carroll deal and saying that we got 2 players for the price of one does not mean squat. Granted, Suarez was a wonderful deal but we paid 35 million for the big fella.... we may have the money but that's 35 million expectations on the shoulders of a player I do rate..... That 35 million quid is probably playing on the mind of Andy and he's struggling to live up to the expectations at the mo. It's not the fee itself that bothers me.... but I think Comoli would have better served the club if he had made the fee "undisclosed". That way, the  big man could have just gotten on with the job instead of worrying about living up to the price tag.

Not everyone has the reputation already earned to make the price immaterial.

[RedAnt]

I suspect those of you who talk of the 'waste of money' that is Andy Carroll would have complained too had we signed 3 complete failures at £10m a pop to fill the hole the traitor left rather than pay £35m on Andy Carroll. Or what if we simply banked the £50m from Torres and didn't bother to buy a new stiker? Would that have made people happy? I suspect you'd complain at that too...probably saying "Well, we could have got Andy Carroll! Why didn't we spend the £50m before the transfer window closed?!?"

£35m is a huuuuuuge sum, but why don't people realise that if you have a day to buy one international England striker of 22 years of age, from a team that dosen't want to sell, and you just banked £50m...you're going to pay a stupid transfer fee! What were the options? A handful of no-name players from Europe? A Titi Camara maybe? Degen? Biscan? Nunez? Pick any flop you like. They're ten a penny.

[stmichael]

In this window, my biggest concern was getting rid of players we didn't need rather than what we spent on the players coming in. Getting rid of deadwood would reduce the wage bill considerably and make it more acceptable to spend a bit extra on transfer fees as a result.

On the prices, I'm just glad to see the club doing their business early again rather than rushing around at the last minute like we did in the last window and paying over the odds. Spurs and Arsenal must be bricking themselves right now.

[Thommo's perm]

I suspect those of you who talk of the 'waste of money' that is Andy Carroll would have complained too had we signed 3 complete failures at £10m a pop to fill the hole the traitor left rather than pay £35m on Andy Carroll. Or what if we simply banked the £50m from Torres and didn't bother to buy a new stiker? Would that have made people happy? I suspect you'd complain at that too...probably saying "Well, we could have got Andy Carroll! Why didn't we spend the £50m before the transfer window closed?!?"

£35m is a huuuuuuge sum, but why don't people realise that if you have a day to buy one international England striker of 22 years of age, from a team that dosen't want to sell, and you just banked £50m...you're going to pay a stupid transfer fee! What were the options? A handful of no-name players from Europe? A Titi Camara maybe? Degen? Biscan? Nunez? Pick any flop you like. They're ten a penny.

Good point well made
We have spent millions before (dont mention the "R" word) on absolute sh'ite and although 35 mil might be a high price to pay for a somewhat unknown quantity, if he comes good he will be worth every penny and more.
I dont particularly care how much we spend as long as the player is right for us. I believe KK knows what hes doing and whoever he buys should be given a chance to prove themselves before being labelled a waste of money

[Bad Bob]

It does matter..... no matter how you slice the numbers on the Carroll deal and saying that we got 2 players for the price of one does not mean squat. Granted, Suarez was a wonderful deal but we paid 35 million for the big fella.... we may have the money but that's 35 million expectations on the shoulders of a player I do rate..... That 35 million quid is probably playing on the mind of Andy and he's struggling to live up to the expectations at the mo. It's not the fee itself that bothers me.... but I think Comoli would have better served the club if he had made the fee "undisclosed". That way, the  big man could have just gotten on with the job instead of worrying about living up to the price tag.

Not everyone has the reputation already earned to make the price immaterial.

This is the only time I really worry about the impact of the transfer fee.  If it weighs on the shoulders of the player we bought and hinders his performance than it obviously matters.  Otherwise, I'm more in line with the Good Yank: we've got new owners who are prepared to splash a little cash and not worry too much about a slavish sell before you buy scenario.  As such, I worry much less about the costs of players or the opportunity costs of going for player A rather than player B.

As for the supporters, I wish people could step back from the price tags a bit when evaluating a player's performance.  I got some stick for sticking up for big Andy last week (hi Bam ) but, recall that I was reacting to a post that said his performance was "not good enough for a 35 million pound striker."  Which to me is a ridiculous statement.  What's the sliding scale?  Scoring a goal is only good enough if the striker cost 20 million pounds or less?    It's this kind of thing that crops up too often in fan discussions IMO.

[aCe']

It does matter..... no matter how you slice the numbers on the Carroll deal and saying that we got 2 players for the price of one does not mean squat. Granted, Suarez was a wonderful deal but we paid 35 million for the big fella.... we may have the money but that's 35 million expectations on the shoulders of a player I do rate..... That 35 million quid is probably playing on the mind of Andy and he's struggling to live up to the expectations at the mo. It's not the fee itself that bothers me.... but I think Comoli would have better served the club if he had made the fee "undisclosed". That way, the  big man could have just gotten on with the job instead of worrying about living up to the price tag.

Not everyone has the reputation already earned to make the price immaterial.

This is the only time I really worry about the impact of the transfer fee.  If it weighs on the shoulders of the player we bought and hinders his performance than it obviously matters.  Otherwise, I'm more in line with the Good Yank: we've got new owners who are prepared to splash a little cash and not worry too much about a slavish sell before you buy scenario.  As such, I worry much less about the costs of players or the opportunity costs of going for player A rather than player B.

As for the supporters, I wish people could step back from the price tags a bit when evaluating a player's performance.  I got some stick for sticking up for big Andy last week (hi Bam ) but, recall that I was reacting to a post that said his performance was "not good enough for a 35 million pound striker."  Which to me is a ridiculous statement.  What's the sliding scale?  Scoring a goal is only good enough if the striker cost 20 million pounds or less?    It's this kind of thing that crops up too often in fan discussions IMO.

But Bob, surely certain price brackets (20mill+ or 30mill+) at least on paper should imply a certain caliber of player when it comes to transfer fees. How else would clubs come to a valuation of players to buy ? 
End of the day, if we pay 20mill for a player we expect the quality of the player (and hence his performances) to reflect that amount. The debate of potential quality is a different one, and one I assume many wouldnt want to get into it at this point. All I have to say about it is that imo we're not yet at a level that allows (or explains) us spending huge chunks of our budgets on players who are not yet the ready article.

On a different note, the fact that a club doesnt want to sell someone and as such came up with an overinflated valuation for them doesnt mean that the other side was 'forced' to pay that amount like some seem to be suggesting. It just means that the other club agrees with their valuation and as such decided to pay it.

[paisleyred]

also Henderson is Not $hit!