Liverpool FC Forum

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:36 am

Igor, as I've asked another person who said Benitez didn't have the right backing, who hasn't backed him right? The board (before the yanks obviously) the fans or the players? When Moores was chairman he was backed to the heavens on all fronts, yet we still didn't win the league. Truth is, we won't win the league under Benitez because of his tactics and rotation policy. If he accepts that they don't work over here in England and he changes the way he manages us, then maybe we stand a chance, but if he keeps to those policies, which he will, we'll never win it, no matter how much he is backed.

Also as for outspending, I don't buy into this arguement. Spurs and Newcastle have both outspent us in the last couple of years, but we've finished higher than both of them. So it's all very well blaming that for those who finish above us, but it's the same rule for those who spend more than us, but don't finish as high. Outspending is an excuse people use, shame is, it doesn't hold up.

by **Igor Zidane** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Igor, as I've asked another person who said Benitez didn't have the right backing, who hasn't backed him right? The board (before the yanks obviously) the fans or the players? When Moores was chairman he was backed to the heavens on all fronts, yet we still didn't win the league. Truth is, we won't win the league under Benitez because of his tactics and rotation policy. If he accepts that they don't work over here in England and he changes the way he manages us, then maybe we stand a chance, but if he keeps to those policies, which he will, we'll never win it, no matter how much he is backed.

Also as for outspending, I don't buy into this arguement. Spurs and Newcastle have both outspent us in the last couple of years, but we've finished higher than both of them. So it's all very well blaming that for those who finish above us, but it's the same rule for those who spend more than us, but don't finish as high. Outspending is an excuse people use, shame is, it doesn't hold up.

Ok ,do we agree that under David moores we were not able to compete in the same transfer bracket as man utd and chelsea. If we do agree ,then can we also agree that rafa has had to buy players of lesser ability than the other two teams ,but still he is expected to compete.

Do you think that rafa was able to compete in the same transfer bracket as the two teams this year . If you do ,explain to me why utd can spend nearly £60 million on 3 players when we had to sell players to stregnthen our squad . NET spend last year was no more than under david moores.

Do you agree that what's happening to the club ,might be effecting rafa and the players confidence, is it a coincidence that we have been playing poorley since the sh!t hit the fan.

And lastly if we carry on the way we are going , we will most definately end up like Leeds utd never mind spurs and newcastle . Sacking there managers constantly has done them the world of good.

by **nobybob** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:03 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Igor, as I've asked another person who said Benitez didn't have the right backing, who hasn't backed him right? The board (before the yanks obviously) the fans or the players? When Moores was chairman he was backed to the heavens on all fronts, yet we still didn't win the league. Truth is, we won't win the league under Benitez because of his tactics and rotation policy. If he accepts that they don't work over here in England and he changes the way he manages us, then maybe we stand a chance, but if he keeps to those policies, which he will, we'll never win it, no matter how much he is backed.

Also as for outspending, I don't buy into this arguement. Spurs and Newcastle have both outspent us in the last couple of years, but we've finished higher than both of them. So it's all very well blaming that for those who finish above us, but it's the same rule for those who spend more than us, but don't finish as high. Outspending is an excuse people use, shame is, it doesn't hold up.

I disagree yet again
how come the top two clubs in the league the last few years IE MANURE and CHELSKI have also been the top two spenders?

Okay Newcastle and spurs may have outspent us SO WHAT all that means is that our manager has done a better job with the money he has had , or had better tactics than theirs. In order to win the league these days IMO you need ALL the circumstances to come together, owners, managers, luck, and also MONEY to get the top class players to compete!
So basically i think your argument doesn't hold up.

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:05 am

Igor Zidane wrote:Sacking there managers constantly has done them the world of good.

i know its sarcastic mate but hanging onto warnock didn't exactly do the blades any favours

by **Igor Zidane** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:06 am

peewee wrote:
Igor Zidane wrote:Sacking there managers constantly has done them the world of good.

i know its sarcastic mate but hanging onto warnock didn't exactly do the blades any favours

It is good to have you back mate.

by **Igor Zidane** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:09 am

Right kiddo's off to me pit now ,i'll continue this healthy discussion tomorrow.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:22 am

No I don't agree we weren't able to compete, because year in year out, under Moores, we spent 30-50 million, we just didn't spend it on one single player, which is why people don't think we could compete. Fair enough Chelsea took it to another level, but we were still spending huge amounts ourselves. 2005/06 season we brought in Reina (7m) Crouch (7m) Sissoko (6m) Agger (5m) Gonzalez (not sure) Paletta (not sure) but there's 30 million+ and we got within 10 points that season, Chelsea brought in Shevchenko for 30 alone and finished only 9 points ahead, so how is outspending not making us compete, we obviously could that year.

Yes Benitez could compete this year. Nearly 50 million, where's not to compete? United may be able to spend 60 million, without having to sell a lot of their players. But we were letting the deadwood go. Bellamy/Cisse/Fowler/Zenden/Gonzalez/Paletta off the top of my head. 6 for Bellamy and a pittance for the other five, it's hardly bringing in huge amounts is it. 8 million for Sissoko, which apparently went on the Mascheranho deal, it's still 10 we had to find. So we may sell players, but it's not nesscerailly to fund other transfers, it's because we sell who we don't need to bring in players we "apparently do need"

I think what's gone on behind the scenes is an easy excuse to blame for what's happening on the pitch, but if it is affecting the players and staff, how do you explain us winning our remaining three Champions League games, as well as remaining undefeated until the Reading game. Or does it only affect us when we fail to win?

If we carry on the way we are, with any luck we will end up the way Leeds have, with Gary Mc in charge (obviously with us still being the Prem though

) but the only way we're going to change what's happening is by losing Benitez, because if Hicks and Gillett go, we're still going to be putting up with this rotation bollox, and we'll still be out of the title chase by Christmas, whoever runs the club. We could bring in Ambrovich and we'd still be out of it. You can have all the quality in the world, if you don't have the right manager, it's pointless.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:27 am

nobybob wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Igor, as I've asked another person who said Benitez didn't have the right backing, who hasn't backed him right? The board (before the yanks obviously) the fans or the players? When Moores was chairman he was backed to the heavens on all fronts, yet we still didn't win the league. Truth is, we won't win the league under Benitez because of his tactics and rotation policy. If he accepts that they don't work over here in England and he changes the way he manages us, then maybe we stand a chance, but if he keeps to those policies, which he will, we'll never win it, no matter how much he is backed.

Also as for outspending, I don't buy into this arguement. Spurs and Newcastle have both outspent us in the last couple of years, but we've finished higher than both of them. So it's all very well blaming that for those who finish above us, but it's the same rule for those who spend more than us, but don't finish as high. Outspending is an excuse people use, shame is, it doesn't hold up.

I disagree yet again
how come the top two clubs in the league the last few years IE MANURE and CHELSKI have also been the top two spenders?

Okay Newcastle and spurs may have outspent us SO WHAT all that means is that our manager has done a better job with the money he has had , or had better tactics than theirs. In order to win the league these days IMO you need ALL the circumstances to come together, owners, managers, luck, and also MONEY to get the top class players to compete!
So basically i think your argument doesn't hold up.

Arsenal are top right now, and as it's well proven, have hardly bust the seams of their wallets. So money doesn't really come into it.

I agree it plays a part, but if you can generate a good side, it doesn't matter how much is spent. I use the example of Everton, being scouse those bluenose cu.nts won't let us forget it. They've spent next to nothing compared to us, yet are performing better, so where is this money arguement holding up? Again Spurs and Newcastle outspend us, you're arguement is we must have a better manager, well if he can outclass Spurs and Newcastle, why not United and Chelsea? There isn't a difference and this is why the money arguement will never hold up.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:33 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:No I don't agree we weren't able to compete, because year in year out, under Moores, we spent 30-50 million, we just didn't spend it on one single player, which is why people don't think we could compete. Fair enough Chelsea took it to another level, but we were still spending huge amounts ourselves. 2005/06 season we brought in Reina (7m) Crouch (7m) Sissoko (6m) Agger (5m) Gonzalez (not sure) Paletta (not sure) but there's 30 million+ and we got within 10 points that season, Chelsea brought in Shevchenko for 30 alone and finished only 9 points ahead, so how is outspending not making us compete, we obviously could that year.

We didn't spend £30m net that season - player sales netted £13m in that season, and Chelsea had been spending massively in seasons prior to that - on a different level altogether to what we were able to spend.

We spent around £20-25m net last summer, Chelsea spent £25m in the January window alone ffs - one on a back up!

There's no point comparing, they're in a different league financially, and so are the Manc's.

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:38 am

LFC2007 wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:No I don't agree we weren't able to compete, because year in year out, under Moores, we spent 30-50 million, we just didn't spend it on one single player, which is why people don't think we could compete. Fair enough Chelsea took it to another level, but we were still spending huge amounts ourselves. 2005/06 season we brought in Reina (7m) Crouch (7m) Sissoko (6m) Agger (5m) Gonzalez (not sure) Paletta (not sure) but there's 30 million+ and we got within 10 points that season, Chelsea brought in Shevchenko for 30 alone and finished only 9 points ahead, so how is outspending not making us compete, we obviously could that year.

We didn't spend £30m net that season - player sales netted £13m in that season, and Chelsea had been spending massively in seasons prior to that - on a different level altogether to what we were able to spend.

We spent around £20-25m net last summer, Chelsea spent £25m in the January window alone ffs - one on a back up!

There's no point comparing, they're in a different league financially, and so are the Manc's.

i dont know why people always bring up the net costs, when we say we have spent 100 million and someone says "yeah but we recouped 70 million"

i think this somewhat misses the point, the fact is that at the time its written we have talent that we paid 100 million for, what we recouped getting rid of players is not relevant, we still have players that were good enough to cost 100 million

its like saying for example that we spent 22 million on torres, but then we offloaded some players for 20 million, does this suddenly makes torres value 2 million? you can bet your sweet aunt fanny it doesnt, his value is still 22 million, we can use this for the whole team, we have a team worth a certain value (based on what we spent) and what we offloaded does not affect their value one bit.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:51 am

peewee wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:No I don't agree we weren't able to compete, because year in year out, under Moores, we spent 30-50 million, we just didn't spend it on one single player, which is why people don't think we could compete. Fair enough Chelsea took it to another level, but we were still spending huge amounts ourselves. 2005/06 season we brought in Reina (7m) Crouch (7m) Sissoko (6m) Agger (5m) Gonzalez (not sure) Paletta (not sure) but there's 30 million+ and we got within 10 points that season, Chelsea brought in Shevchenko for 30 alone and finished only 9 points ahead, so how is outspending not making us compete, we obviously could that year.

We didn't spend £30m net that season - player sales netted £13m in that season, and Chelsea had been spending massively in seasons prior to that - on a different level altogether to what we were able to spend.

We spent around £20-25m net last summer, Chelsea spent £25m in the January window alone ffs - one on a back up!

There's no point comparing, they're in a different league financially, and so are the Manc's.

i dont know why people always bring up the net costs, when we say we have spent 100 million and someone says "yeah but we recouped 70 million"

i think this somewhat misses the point, the fact is that at the time its written we have talent that we paid 100 million for, what we recouped getting rid of players is not relevant, we still have players that were good enough to cost 100 million

its like saying for example that we spent 22 million on torres, but then we offloaded some players for 20 million, does this suddenly makes torres value 2 million? you can bet your sweet aunt fanny it doesnt, his value is still 22 million, we can use this for the whole team, we have a team worth a certain value (based on what we spent) and what we offloaded does not affect their value one bit.

Spot on peewee.

Obviously the reply will be "we're not arguing that, we're saying we can't compete without losing members of our squad"

Which is still sh!te anyway, because look at who we sold at the start of this season, who in all honesty would we of kept at the time? We don't sell to fund other transfers, we sell players we don't need anymore.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:58 am

LFC2007 wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:No I don't agree we weren't able to compete, because year in year out, under Moores, we spent 30-50 million, we just didn't spend it on one single player, which is why people don't think we could compete. Fair enough Chelsea took it to another level, but we were still spending huge amounts ourselves. 2005/06 season we brought in Reina (7m) Crouch (7m) Sissoko (6m) Agger (5m) Gonzalez (not sure) Paletta (not sure) but there's 30 million+ and we got within 10 points that season, Chelsea brought in Shevchenko for 30 alone and finished only 9 points ahead, so how is outspending not making us compete, we obviously could that year.

We didn't spend £30m net that season - player sales netted £13m in that season, and Chelsea had been spending massively in seasons prior to that - on a different level altogether to what we were able to spend.

We spent around £20-25m net last summer, Chelsea spent £25m in the January window alone ffs - one on a back up!

There's no point comparing, they're in a different league financially, and so are the Manc's.

Well whoopty bloody do, they're still in a stronger financial state than us when it comes to Europe, but it seems to be us who are performing best there, or doesn't finance count then because it makes your feeble arguement look even worse. They're in a stronger finicial position than Arsenal (especially considering Arsenal are still paying debts because of the new stadium) yet Arsenal are above them both or doesn't finance count for Arsenal because that makes your feeble arguement look even worse again. We're in a stronger financial state than Everton, yet they're above us, so if United and Chelsea are above us because of finance, shouldn't we be above Everton, but we're not, so all in all this money arguement is sh!t. Wow they spend more than us, money doesn't win you the league, as Claudio Ranieri found out. He had Ambrovich's millions yet didn't win the league. It's about having the right man to spend the money you have. We don't, as Benitez' transfer record says.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:07 am

peewee wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:No I don't agree we weren't able to compete, because year in year out, under Moores, we spent 30-50 million, we just didn't spend it on one single player, which is why people don't think we could compete. Fair enough Chelsea took it to another level, but we were still spending huge amounts ourselves. 2005/06 season we brought in Reina (7m) Crouch (7m) Sissoko (6m) Agger (5m) Gonzalez (not sure) Paletta (not sure) but there's 30 million+ and we got within 10 points that season, Chelsea brought in Shevchenko for 30 alone and finished only 9 points ahead, so how is outspending not making us compete, we obviously could that year.

We didn't spend £30m net that season - player sales netted £13m in that season, and Chelsea had been spending massively in seasons prior to that - on a different level altogether to what we were able to spend.

We spent around £20-25m net last summer, Chelsea spent £25m in the January window alone ffs - one on a back up!

There's no point comparing, they're in a different league financially, and so are the Manc's.

i dont know why people always bring up the net costs, when we say we have spent 100 million and someone says "yeah but we recouped 70 million"

i think this somewhat misses the point, the fact is that at the time its written we have talent that we paid 100 million for, what we recouped getting rid of players is not relevant, we still have players that were good enough to cost 100 million

its like saying for example that we spent 22 million on torres, but then we offloaded some players for 20 million, does this suddenly makes torres value 2 million? you can bet your sweet aunt fanny it doesnt, his value is still 22 million, we can use this for the whole team, we have a team worth a certain value (based on what we spent) and what we offloaded does not affect their value one bit.

It's absolutely relevant because we've had to sell players in order to buy, that has affected our ability to sign players in the transfer window. In the summer of 2005, we spent around £18m on three players (Reina, Crouch, Sissoko). Prior to that in the same summer, we had to sell Diarra and Diouf (£5.5m). That was a constraint on our ability to sign players in the transfer window. We were forced to sell, BEFORE we bought anyone. It's no wonder we signed those players later in the summer, whilst every other club had secured deals. Time is of the essence in the transfer window, having to sell before you buy impacts this. Even still £18m is a pittance in comparison to the Manc's or Chelsea, that's Michael Carrick alone.
If we had the capacity to spend £30m-£50m net from the off, I've no doubt we'd have gone for players worth a bit more, and of greater quality. We wouldn't have to wheel and deal before we buy anyone, that is significant whether you like it or not.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:10 am

Diarra and Diouf, would we kept of them even if we didn't buy anyone? No we wouldn't. We sell the deadwood, plain and simple.

by **nobybob** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:25 am

LFC2007 wrote:
peewee wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:No I don't agree we weren't able to compete, because year in year out, under Moores, we spent 30-50 million, we just didn't spend it on one single player, which is why people don't think we could compete. Fair enough Chelsea took it to another level, but we were still spending huge amounts ourselves. 2005/06 season we brought in Reina (7m) Crouch (7m) Sissoko (6m) Agger (5m) Gonzalez (not sure) Paletta (not sure) but there's 30 million+ and we got within 10 points that season, Chelsea brought in Shevchenko for 30 alone and finished only 9 points ahead, so how is outspending not making us compete, we obviously could that year.

We didn't spend £30m net that season - player sales netted £13m in that season, and Chelsea had been spending massively in seasons prior to that - on a different level altogether to what we were able to spend.

We spent around £20-25m net last summer, Chelsea spent £25m in the January window alone ffs - one on a back up!

There's no point comparing, they're in a different league financially, and so are the Manc's.

i dont know why people always bring up the net costs, when we say we have spent 100 million and someone says "yeah but we recouped 70 million"

i think this somewhat misses the point, the fact is that at the time its written we have talent that we paid 100 million for, what we recouped getting rid of players is not relevant, we still have players that were good enough to cost 100 million

its like saying for example that we spent 22 million on torres, but then we offloaded some players for 20 million, does this suddenly makes torres value 2 million? you can bet your sweet aunt fanny it doesnt, his value is still 22 million, we can use this for the whole team, we have a team worth a certain value (based on what we spent) and what we offloaded does not affect their value one bit.

It's absolutely relevant because we've had to sell players in order to buy, that has affected our ability to sign players in the transfer window. In the summer of 2005, we spent around £18m on three players (Reina, Crouch, Sissoko). Prior to that in the same summer, we had to sell Diarra and Diouf (£5.5m). That was a constraint on our ability to sign players in the transfer window. We were forced to sell, BEFORE we bought anyone. It's no wonder we signed those players later in the summer, whilst every other club had secured deals. Time is of the essence in the transfer window, having to sell before you buy impacts this. Even still £18m is a pittance in comparison to the Manc's or Chelsea, that's Michael Carrick alone.
If we had the capacity to spend £30m-£50m net from the off, I've no doubt we'd have gone for players worth a bit more, and of greater quality. We wouldn't have to wheel and deal before we buy anyone, that is significant whether you like it or not.

spot on
you see the difference with us to say the mancs is , we have to sell in order to buy therefore we then become weaker in the position the player leaving has vacated this has still got to be covered.
So say we sell a left wing, left back , and a striker for 6 mil a piece gaining 18 mil which is then spent on a new striker- were do the funds for the new left wing and left back come from ??
You see the chelseas and the manures of the world don't need to worry about this they just go out and buy 3 top class players for 20 million each without having to sell and possibly weaken the team in other positions .

SO MONEY DOES MAKE A DIFERENCE NET OR OTHERWISE

Liverpool FC Forum

My indictment of the rafa benitez regime

Who is online