Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:25 am

god_bless_john_houlding 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.

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.

We've been more successful in Europe than Chelsea for numerous reasons, above all else though, because we have a manager well capable of delivering results in that format. The dynamics of European football are very different to league football. Suffice to say, Chelsea have also been reasonably successful in Europe in recent seasons. Three UCL semi's in four seasons isn't bad, it's pretty good actually. Money on its own doesn't equal success, there isn't an inference in my argument that it does, but it plays a significant part in it.

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.

When did Arsenal enter your last post?

They didn't, you were referring to Chelsea, don't try and change the point.

In any case, how many managers in recent times in England have managed to succeed on the same budget as Wenger?

Name me one other, there's your argument.

Rafa's supposed to do a Wenger?, even though Wenger's been at Arsenal for significantly longer than him and won titles BEFORE the Abramovich era. NOW, because he's honed his ability to mould his own team and scout out quality players for relatively cheap sums of money, he is able to compete at a higher level on a low budget.

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.

Where do I infer or state that money spent = success. I don't, it doesn't and never will. I hope that one sinks in. I'm disappointed with our league form, but when was the last Everton won anything?

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:31 am

well i disagree mate, it does not affect the value of the player on the pitch, a team worth 100 million is a team worth 100 milion whether we had to sell players or not, it does not lower that value of that player

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:45 am

Bollox mate, your entire arguement is we can't compete because we don't have the same amount of funds. Well there's 3 incidents that prove money doesn't really come into it.

As for the fella above who thinks the same way and we sell our left back/left winger and forward to fund a transfer and how do we replace these players, well there's one obvious solution, try the youth team. Also United sign Ferdinand for 30 million in 02, how do they bring that money back? Answer by selling Beckham the following season. Every club sells players to refund huge transfers, we're no different, but we don't HAVE to sell to fund our transfers.

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:00 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Bollox mate, your entire arguement is we can't compete because we don't have the same amount of funds. Well there's 3 incidents that prove money doesn't really come into it.

As for the fella above who thinks the same way and we sell our left back/left winger and forward to fund a transfer and how do we replace these players, well there's one obvious solution, try the youth team. Also United sign Ferdinand for 30 million in 02, how do they bring that money back? Answer by selling Beckham the following season. Every club sells players to refund huge transfers, we're no different, but we don't HAVE to sell to fund our transfers.

have you ever read any of my posts, I have NEVER said on this forum or anywhere else that we can not compete because of lack of funds, NEVER. that is a cr*p argument.

we can not compete because we have a manager who does not know his *rse from his elbow.

I am all for having a discussion with you mate but don't attribute things to me that i have never said. it doesn't matter if we are the richest club in the world with the most expensive players while we have a manager who is clueless how to play them.

my argument is a team worth 100 million quid is worth 100 million quid, it has no relevance how much we have offloaded, a 20 million player is worth 20 million, its not important how much money we recouped or are you suggesting that the 20 million player an suddenly play like a 2 million quid player because we recouped 18 million in other sales

ludicrous argument, if i buy a car for 50 million and sell my old one for 20 million, does that make my 50 million car worth 30 million, and then my car breaks down etc or stops performing because its now worth less, bollox its still worth 50 million

by **LFC2007** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:06 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Bollox mate, your entire arguement is we can't compete because we don't have the same amount of funds. Well there's 3 incidents that prove money doesn't really come into it.

You've either misread my posts or are making incorrect assumptions, there isn't a moment where I say or intimate 'we can't compete because we don't have the same amount of funds'.

We should be doing better, and our current position isn't fully representative of the ability we have within the squad. It is however, not quite good enough to win the title, and that;s in part down to the fact that over the past 3 and a half seasons we haven't had the spending capacity of Chelsea or the Manc's.

Financial constraints from when Rafa first joined, up until now, or last summer rather have had a significant impact on our ability to sign players of the calibre of Chelsea or the Manc's. Not to mention wage expenditure - it would reasonable to assume that our wage threshold was lower than both aswell. I think the figures would bear that out.

If you want to go down the route of assuming my argument is; money spent should equal success.

Ok then, Newcastle should be winning Premierships by now, and your mate Martin Jol should've won the league with Spurs on his budget. In one season he spent as much as any other I believe.

And you want him to replace Rafa?

As for the fella above who thinks the same way and we sell our left back/left winger and forward to fund a transfer and how do we replace these players, well there's one obvious solution, try the youth team. Also United sign Ferdinand for 30 million in 02, how do they bring that money back? Answer by selling Beckham the following season. Every club sells players to refund huge transfers, we're no different, but we don't HAVE to sell to fund our transfers.

They spent £39 in the summer of 2002, in the next season they spent £25m. That £25m received cancelled out the Beckham transfer, so they still spent £39 outright in 2002.

'Huge transfers' - there is a massive difference between £30m on Ferdinand and £5.8m on Agger for example. We haven't had the same spending capacity, however you want to mask that fact.

You're right we spent mega-bucks on Skrtel, £6.5m. Chelsea spent just the £10m on a back up.

You'll never understand the youth team argument, so there's no point in me trying to go over that one again. It hasn't sunk in.

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:10 am

LFC2007 wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Bollox mate, your entire arguement is we can't compete because we don't have the same amount of funds. Well there's 3 incidents that prove money doesn't really come into it.

You've either misread my posts or are making incorrect assumptions, there isn't a moment where I say or intimate 'we can't compete because we don't have the same amount of funds'.

We should be doing better, and our current position isn't fully representative of the ability we have within the squad. It is however, not quite good enough to win the title, and that;s in part down to the fact that over the past 3 and a half seasons we haven't had the spending capacity of Chelsea or the Manc's.

Financial constraints from when Rafa first joined, up until now, or last summer rather have had a significant impact on our ability to sign players of the calibre of Chelsea or the Manc's. Not to mention wage expenditure - it would reasonable to assume that our wage threshold was lower than both aswell. I think the figures would bear that out.

If you want to go down the route of assuming my argument is; money spent should equal success.

Ok then, Newcastle should be winning Premierships by now, and your mate Martin Jol should've won the league with Spurs on his budget. In one season he spent as much as any other I believe.

And you want him to replace Rafa?

As for the fella above who thinks the same way and we sell our left back/left winger and forward to fund a transfer and how do we replace these players, well there's one obvious solution, try the youth team. Also United sign Ferdinand for 30 million in 02, how do they bring that money back? Answer by selling Beckham the following season. Every club sells players to refund huge transfers, we're no different, but we don't HAVE to sell to fund our transfers.

They spent £39 in the summer of 2002, in the next season they spent £25m. That £25m received cancelled out the Beckham transfer, so they still spent £39 outright in 2002.

'Huge transfers' - there is a massive difference between £30m on Ferdinand and £5.8m on Agger for example. We haven't had the same spending capacity, however you want to mask that fact.

You're right we spent mega-bucks on Skrtel, £6.5m. Chelsea spent just the £10m on a back up.

You'll never understand the youth team argument, so there's no point in me trying to go over that one again. It hasn't sunk in.

ah so the lack of funds one was not aimed at me

by **nobybob** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:20 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Bollox mate, your entire arguement is we can't compete because we don't have the same amount of funds. Well there's 3 incidents that prove money doesn't really come into it.

As for the fella above who thinks the same way and we sell our left back/left winger and forward to fund a transfer and how do we replace these players, well there's one obvious solution, try the youth team. Also United sign Ferdinand for 30 million in 02, how do they bring that money back? Answer by selling Beckham the following season. Every club sells players to refund huge transfers, we're no different, but we don't HAVE to sell to fund our transfers.

So your answer to united spending 60 or 70 million on 3 players is the youth team get real do you really think that 3 youth team players could just come straight in and be as effective as 3 world class proven players __dont think so they have to be gradually eased in.

united buy ferdinand for 30 million and didnt have to sell beckham THAT season this says alot to me and when they did sell him the following season did they not buy more players ?

yet in order for us to buy one of the few world class players (on loan ) at the club macha for 4 million down now and the rest in wages ect over five years and also the purchase of skrtel, we HAVE to sell sissoko.

by **nobybob** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:21 am

ah so the lack of funds one was not aimed at me

lol not the sharpest tool in the box are we .

by **66-1112520797** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:29 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.

But then again isnt the tale ... 'money cant by you success not atall true ?'

by **The_Rock** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:07 am

The reason why Moores hired rafa was because he was successful while not spending that much $$$ ...... Lets not forget this.

And when rafa came here...he did mention that he preferred to buy team players and not galaticos....

So why talk about $20 million players now

Rafa has got more than enough funds....if he has just concentrated on building one good team instead of 2 average teams..he would have done better.

If he didn't buy Kuyt, bellamy and gonzales..he could have bought a world class player....but no..he had to go quantity. And look what has happen ? Bellamy and Gonzales are not here....Kuyt is sh1t...

by **Lando_Griffin** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:48 am

Tell you what - let's look at the cost of each "starting 11":

Liverpool:

Reina -£6m

Carragher - Free

Agger - £5.8m

Finnan - £3.5m

Arbeloa - £2.6m

Gerrard - Free

Pennant - £8m

Mascherano - £18m

Babel - £11.5m

Kuyt - £9m

Torres - £20.2m

Total cost: £86.6m

The scum:

Van Der Sar - £2m

Evra - £5.5m

Ferdinand - £33m

Vidic - £7m

Brown/Neville - Free

Giggs - Free

Carrick - £18.6m

Scholes - Free

Ronaldo - £12.24m

Tevez - £20m

Rooney - £31m.

Total cost: £129.34m.

Sh*tski:

Cech - £7m

A. Cole - c.£16m

Terry - Free.

Carvalho - £19.85m

Ferreira - £13.2m

Malouda - £13.5m

Essien - £24.4m

Fat Frank - £11m

Wright-Phillips - £21m

Drogba - £24m

Shevchenko - £30m.

Total cost: £179.95m

Arsenal:

Almunia - Undisclosed. (Say £1m, then.)

Sagna - £7.45m

Gallas - £11m (part of swap-deal for Cole.)

Toure - £150,000

Clichy - £250,000

Fabregas - Free

Flamini - Free

Diaby - £2m

Hleb - £11.2m

Eduardo - £8.5m

Adebayor - £3m.

Total: £44.55m.

Arsenal have by far the cheapest squad, but some of their best acquisitions were signed as children, and so cost nothing. (A luxury only a long-term manager can benefit from.)

But please, go on - tell us that we should be beating Man U and Chelsea to a league title.

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:51 am

mate for many years utd outspent us on transfers but we still won the league nearly every season while they floundered, the cost of the team is not always consistent with the performance.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:55 am

The old "why buy 3 players when you can buy 1" line is wearing a little thin, to be perfectly frank.

In Rafa's first season, we had a ridiculous injury list, which underlined the need for a deep squad of players.

If you need to fill 3 positions, but you decide to throw all your wad at just the one, it's Sod's Law that all 3 positions will be hit with injuries.

Imagine lobbing £20m at a winger, only for them to get injured after 2 weeks. Imagine also if the striker and fullback positions that also needed attention ALSO get injury problems.

We'd be f*cked up the a*se.

THAT is why Rafa wants a squad.

It may also please those of you championing Moris to know that he, too, likes to have a squad of players equating to 2 per position.

(Or did you all forget that?)

by **The_Rock** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:57 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:Tell you what - let's look at the cost of each "starting 11":

Liverpool:

Reina -£6m

Carragher - Free

Agger - £5.8m

Finnan - £3.5m

Arbeloa - £2.6m

Gerrard - Free

Pennant - £8m

Mascherano - £18m

Babel - £11.5m

Kuyt - £9m

Torres - £20.2m

Total cost: £86.6m

The scum:

Van Der Sar - £2m

Evra - £5.5m

Ferdinand - £33m

Vidic - £7m

Brown/Neville - Free

Giggs - Free

Carrick - £18.6m

Scholes - Free

Ronaldo - £12.24m

Tevez - £20m

Rooney - £31m.

Total cost: £129.34m.

Sh*tski:

Cech - £7m

A. Cole - c.£16m

Terry - Free.

Carvalho - £19.85m

Ferreira - £13.2m

Malouda - £13.5m

Essien - £24.4m

Fat Frank - £11m

Wright-Phillips - £21m

Drogba - £24m

Shevchenko - £30m.

Total cost: £179.95m

Arsenal:

Almunia - Undisclosed. (Say £1m, then.)

Sagna - £7.45m

Gallas - £11m (part of swap-deal for Cole.)

Toure - £150,000

Clichy - £250,000

Fabregas - Free

Flamini - Free

Diaby - £2m

Hleb - £11.2m

Eduardo - £8.5m

Adebayor - £3m.

Total: £44.55m.

Arsenal have by far the cheapest squad, but some of their best acquisitions were signed as children, and so cost nothing. (A luxury only a long-term manager can benefit from.)

But please, go on - tell us that we should be beating Man U and Chelsea to a league title.

Flawed argument......Rafa doesn't have a starting 11...he has a starting/rotating 65.......

by **Lando_Griffin** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:58 am

peewee wrote:mate for many years utd outspent us on transfers but we still won the league nearly every season while they floundered, the cost of the team is not always consistent with the performance.

Is it not the exception which proves the rule?

It CAN happen - but it's highly unusual, and very difficult.

Liverpool FC Forum

My indictment of the rafa benitez regime

Who is online