http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2012/08/lfc-vs-man-utd-21-year-grossnet.html Some interesting stats in this article, especially the percentage spends by Dalglish and Benitez. Thoughts?
It is amazing how much emphasis is placed on net Transfer Spend. A couple of £M here or there makes little difference. In the post-Bosman era it is wages that sorts the wheat from the chaff And getting your knickers in a twist over the marginal differences in net Transfer Fees when the respective Wagebills can vary by £30M/£50M/£100M EVERY Season? Not having a go at the OP, the Media have the same one-eyed view
nobody cares... NOBODY. its irrelevant the only stat that matters is 11-0 in the prem. thats all.. nothing else.
Actually that's not true. I care that we are outspending utd, and have **** all to show for it, in terms of League titles. I agree that these figures can be interpreted or manipulated any way you choose to, but at the end of the day it is still depressing reading. A lot of posters in this board were using net spend as a defence against the accusations of our clubs overspending, on overrated players. It works both ways unfortunately.
fair enough you care we spend more and get less... some will say they see where it all went wrong etc etc... nothing other than results matters.... no city fan will complain nor chelsea fan and the only reason i think we do is cos we are rubbish now after spending and spending.
I agree with what your saying, and I think a lot of us can see where it went wrong, and your last sentence says it all really. We are never going to spend as much as city or Chelsea, but we have spent roughly the same as utd over the same period, with a lot less to show for it.
I think it is quite a relevant topic. It shows we're not getting value from the money we spent which is evident. Since Kenny has left, I get the sense that Rodgers and the board are not neccessarily tightening the strings but are trying to negotiate and save every last penny from each deal we do. Borini for approx £10m but a talented youngster who has experience at a big club in Italy, and at Chelsea and Swansea, and was also called up to the national side - seems like a decent deal. And now we're looking at loans deals for some top European talent. I sense this is going to be a long week ...
The problem is United have had one manager so every season they can just add one or two players to an already successful team. Everytime we get a new manager they change the squad around to get the players they want which aren't necesserily the same players as the previous manager wanted. This means getting rid of the old (usually for a cheaper price) and brining in their own. We saw it when Benitez was hired and he brought in an influx of Spanish players, then Kenny came and brought an influx of British. Now we've seen Rodgers getting rid of players cheaply (Kuyt, Maxi, Aquilani) in order to bring his own players in.
It does show that for all his faults, Fergie is a very good manager, and manages to do well with some very normal players. While he does spend big he also manages to combine big signings with average players to great effect. For example o'shea, brown, fletcher, jonny evans, etc are not world class players but his ability to get them to work so well as a team has led to many titles. He is also ruthless which I think gets overlooked. Would Fergie have kept Gerrard as long as Liverpool have? He may have done but Gerrard would never have the power he does in the side. He manages to keep a player while they are useful. Of course Fergie has made some cock ups ; Veron, Anderson, while selling Stam for example, but he balances them really well with good signings; Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez (first season) Liverpool have managed to miss the boat on so many occasions is a little sad. Missing the marketing when the premier league first started, missing the prem in 08/90, and then weakening rather than strengthening the following season etc. Hindsight, what a wonderful thing.
We're definately playing catch up in terms of finances/commercial. We were overspending on wages for players who didn't really justify it (Thanks Purslow!) and as mentioned previously, it took us far too long to capitalise on our brand. FSG have come in and we're trying to rectify the problem. Increasing our revenues and getting rid of the old high earners. There is definately a long term strategy but it will take 10-15 years to truly see the benefits. Unfortunately, we can't change some of the existing contracts i.e. Gerrard, Carragher etc are all still earning big bucks but we have a new process to follow when signing new players by not offering ridiculous wages. Before the outgoings this summer, we were currently at 70% in terms of wages to revenue which is a red flag for UEFA. We are now roughy at 62% but I can see some new players coming in at around the £40/50k p/week mark which would increase the percentage to 66%. I believe FSG's plan is to get this ratio to about 50-55%.
swarbs one of yours shouldn't count... but seriously... 1. roy evans - unprofessional players. you only need look and fowlers to see tlanet wasted, or if not that then how carragher came up and was a right joker but is now considers some wonder pro... he wastes more talent than anyone finishing second and noly scraping one cup. 2. houllier should have gone after his heart attack, vanity kept him on. 3. rafa frankly got an ego after 2007 and he went down hill but G&H also sold him downhill. a lot of reds fans can't/won't see his flaws and why nobody is giving him a big job. all 3 men had to do a complete rebuild job after their predecessors royally mucked up and all three then mucked up themselves leaving a disaster zone behind. whatever the reasons are doesn't matter, the only important point today for this thread is we are NOT comparing LFC spend to UTD but a procession of LFC managers to FERGUSON. In reality while ferguson is winning he is also selling players for profits, making less deals through stability and consistency while we are playing the complete rebuild or gamble game. Ferguson has been lucky to have giggs, scholes and neville also beckham and he's kept his top players a very long time, contrast to us keeping i think hyppia longest bar carragher and gerrard.
Agree with most of your points MITO but we have no idea who Rafa has been in talks with regarding a new job. I am pretty certain that he either wanted to come back to LFC or wait for Maureen to get bored so he can take over Real Madrid, it will be his decision to be out of work. I'm not just blindly defending him either, I loved the guy but could clearly see his faults as well
^^^^ THIS This is the biggest factor, we cannot keep changing manager and expect to win the league unless you have unlimited funds and can but the supposed best players in the world.
Well yes I am. If you take that line out of the context of the whole post. Which you have. But if you read the whole post, you will clearly see my criticism is of the importance derived from the disparity of net Transfer Spend, with Wages being constantly overlooked/ignored despite the fact the margins are massive in comparison and have a far greater impact on tangible success in The Premier League. And as I said; I amnot having a go at the OP, who has quite rightly stated, made no opinion
He can be ruthless, but he can also be very loyal. Like you say, players like O'Shea, Brown, Fletcher and Evans would have been ditched by many other managers, but they have contributed greatly to our success, and SAF has stayed very loyal to them cos he knows they will always contribute. He's only ruthless with a player if they don't care or don't put the effort in. I think if SAF had been managing Liverpool then he'd have stayed loyal to Gerrard, but taken more steps to reduce his importance to the team and how much Liverpool depends on him. Like with Scholes and Giggs - they are regularly rested and used in the more important games, whereas Gerrard generally plays almost every game for Liverpool if he is fit, and get injured much more as a result. But that again comes down to SAF's loyalty - he can rest Giggs and Scholes because he has stayed loyal to Carrick and Anderson, when other managers might have sold them after a season or two of poor form.
