Liverpool squad/keeper/spending comparison thread [read post #161]

Karmafaerie

The Muppet wrote: »

You're right my math's is ****. Thats nine of the 55 he's purchased , it's less than one one five.

I could argue about your valuations as the purchases you listed are undervalued, for example Torres and Macherano both cost more than you say. Most of the sell on fees are just speculation so there's no point is there?

No Torres and Mascherano didn't cost more than I mentioned.
They were reported to have cost more, but they didn't.

Torres was 20.6 rissing to a possible 22 mill or so, but we haven't won the league or CL since, so it's still at the original 20 millish.

Masch was 16 on the dot as revealed by his owners at the time.


Nice try though.
You keep believing what you want.

The Muppet

Karmafaerie wrote: »

No Torres and Mascherano didn't cost more than I mentioned.
They were reported to have cost more, but they didn't.

Torres was 20.6 rissing to a possible 22 mill or so, but we haven't won the league or CL since, so it's still at the original 20 millish.

Masch was 16 on the dot as revealed by his owners at the time.


Nice try though.
You keep believing what you want.

http://www.lfchistory.net/stats_transfers_by_manager_detail.asp?Transfer_id=1111

lets leave it there shall we?

Karmafaerie

The Muppet wrote: »

http://www.lfchistory.net/stats_transfers_by_manager_detail.asp?Transfer_id=1111

lets leave it there shall we?

Not the figures quoted by his owner at the time, and Liverpool never release transfer details.

And even if you do want to use your figures, that would put the transfer fee at £17,000,000 twice £17,000,000 is £34,000,000.
Masch was supposedly being looked at for £35,000,000 and Rafa said that £50,000,000 couldn't buy him.

So even using your figures, I was being conserative in my original post.

Thank you for agreeing with me and backing up my point with your link Muppet.

Boggles

whatawaster wrote: »

Last season, despite the fact that he had spent just 5m last year,

Reira & Keane???

Thats almost 30 million???

Dosenna & Cavaleri, thats another 10+m??

whatawaster

Boggles wrote: »

Reira & Keane???

Thats almost 30 million???

Dosenna & Cavaleri, thats another 10+m??

To fund those Purchases Crouch had to be sacrificed. Riise sold to fund Dossena purchase and Keane sold to fund himself halfway through the year.
Just to tell the full story and all . . .

Boggles

whatawaster wrote: »

To fund those Purchases Crouch had to be sacrificed. Riise sold to fund Dossena purchase and Keane sold to fund himself halfway through the year.
Just to tell the full story and all . . .

So what?

He still spent the guts of 40 million, players will always have to move on at every club, money recouped goes back into the club for future transfers,etc.

Players moving on or not working out does not nulify or justify spending.

He spent the guts of 40 million last season on players not 5 like you said, just to tell the full story and all...

whatawaster

But there is a difference between spending 40 million and bringing in 35 million in sales and spending 40 million and bringing in nothing in Sales.
That’s why to properly compare between different clubs it’s better to use net spend as a comparison because it gives a better view of the substance of their resources.

Ardent

Well, let's look at it then. These are some of the the flops he has bought since the Americans took over:

Babel - 11M
Kuyt - 11M
Lucas - 5M?
Dossena - 7M
Rieira - 10M?
Insua - 2M?

That's a lot of rubbish for good money right there, all of whom are playing regularly.

(And don't come out with this crap that Kuyt isn't a flop. I've said it many times in the past and I'll say it again - Liverpool will never win the Premiership while that guy's an ever-present in the team.)

And then there's the Keane fiasco which was costly and frankly embarrassing to all concerned.

Benitez's good purchases include:
Torres - 22M
Reina - 7M?
Agger - 5M?
Mascherano - 19M
Johnson - 18M

How can anyone say he has been hampered in the transfer market? It's a ridiculous assertion.

Oh yeah, forgot - "net spend". That old chestnut.

whatawaster

Headshot wrote: »

and who's fault is it that alonos left

im not having a go at rafa

im having a go at people always blaming ye're owners for everything

I’m not blaming the owners for Alonso leaving certainly. I don’t think many players would have turned Madrid down this summer.
My point remains, and it can’t really be argued.
Had Alonso and Arbeloa stayed, Rafa would have had next to nothing to spend.
So I ask you – would that have meant the owners had backed him in the transfer market? (spending ~ Zero)
So how is it really different from what’s occurred? (NET spending ~ ZERO)

whatawaster

Ardent wrote: »

Well, let's look at it then. These are some of the the flops he has bought since the Americans took over:

Babel - 11M
Kuyt - 11M
Lucas - 5M?
Dossena - 7M
Rieira - 10M?
Insua - 2M?

That's a lot of rubbish for good money right there, all of whom are playing regularly.

(And don't come out with this crap that Kuyt isn't a flop. I've said it many times in the past and I'll say it again - Liverpool will never win the Premiership while that guy's an ever-present in the team.)

And then there's the Keane fiasco which was costly and frankly embarrassing to all concerned.

Benitez's good purchases include:
Torres - 22M
Reina - 7M?
Agger - 5M?
Mascherano - 19M
Johnson - 18M

How can anyone say he has been hampered in the transfer market? It's a ridiculous assertion.

Oh yeah, forgot - "net spend". That old chestnut.

How is Kuyt a flop when only Ronaldo was more productive among wingers last season?
Insua a flop at 2m. You’re really showing yourself to be clueless here. Firstly, he cost just 1.3m and he’s only a kid.

Anyone who completely discounts net spend knows nothing about how businesses work and their opinion is invalid.

Ardent

whatawaster wrote: »

So how is it really different from what’s occurred? (NET spending ~ ZERO)

Why should you care about net spend? It's none of your business.

The only thing you should be concerned about, as a fan, is who the manager brings in to strengthen the team year on year. The fact remains, Benitez has gone through A LOT of players throughout his tenure and yet we have a very ordinary team when you take out Gerrard and Torres.

Mr Alan

Ardent wrote: »

Babel - 11M
Kuyt - 11M
Lucas - 5M?
Dossena - 7M
Rieira - 10M?
Insua - 2M?

Kuyt was 9 (what a ****ing bargain that lad was)
Riera was just less than 8
and as has been pointed out Insua was just over 1m (another great buy)

whatawaster

Ardent wrote: »

Why should you care about net spend? It's none of your business.

The only thing you should be concerned about, as a fan, is who the manager brings in to strengthen the team year on year. The fact remains, Benitez has gone through A LOT of players throughout his tenure and yet we have a very ordinary team when you take out Gerrard and Torres.

None of my business? WTF are you on about?

You have to look at the whole picture.

Take this season for example. I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked Headshot, and I’d appreciate an honest answer.

Without going into a blame game or the rights and wrongs of the situations, lets imagine 2 scenarios:

Scenario 1 – Alonso and Arbeloa stay at Liverpool. Benitez doesn’t have the money therefore to buy Johnson or Aquilani and pretty much no money is spent.

Scenario 2 – Alonso and Arbeloa leave, bringing in around 34 million. That money is almost entirely spent on 2 replacements – Aquilani and Johnson.

Question: - can you not see that the same restrictions in scenario 1 (no money to spend) are, in substance, still present in scenario 2?

I’ve used this analogy before. If I sell my car for 20K and buy a new one for 20K, I’m not going to go around saying I spent 20K on cars. Similarly if I’m a business my accounts will not show a 20K expenditure on cars, but rather a ZERO expenditure on cars.

Can you not see where I’m coming from?

Ardent

Mr Alan wrote: »

Kuyt was 9 (what a ****ing bargain that lad was)
Riera was just less than 8
and as has been pointed out Insua was just over 1m (another great buy)

You're hilarious, you are. Always downward revising the cost of our players. Kuyt was over 10M minimum, according to most sources.

How much did the Keane fiasco cost us again, according to you?

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Riera was just less than 8

Not proving value for money, one trick pony really.

Mr Alan wrote: »

and as has been pointed out Insua was just over 1m (another great buy)

Insua has a severe lack of pace, good little player with potential, lack of pace is something you can't fix though.

Xavi6

Boggles wrote: »

Insua has a severe lack of pace, good little player with potential, lack of pace is something you can't fix though.

At City we call it 'Javier Garrido Syndrome'

Mr Alan

Ardent wrote: »

You're hilarious, you are. Always downward revising the cost of our players. Kuyt was over 10M minimum, according to most sources.

How much did the Keane fiasco cost us again, according to you?

where are these sources that say minimum 10m?

re:Keane, he ended up costing us about 3m i think, could be less over the next season or two.

Boggles wrote: »

Not proving value for money, one trick pony really.




Insua has a severe lack of pace, good little player with potential, lack of pace is something you can't fix though.

Riera is a decent squad player. for 8m i didn't expected messi. i expect.....a decent squad player.

must say, never noticed Insuas lack of pace, i'll keep an eye out though in future. either for 1.5m, great buy.

Xavi6

Mr Alan wrote: »

Riera is a decent squad player. for 8m i didn't expected messi. i expect.....a decent squad player.

We turned him down for half that, and even though I wanted him at the time, I can see now how the wool was being pulled over our eyes.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Riera is a decent squad player. for 8m i didn't expected messi. i expect.....a decent squad player.

He is muck Al, 1 or 2 good games doesn't make you decent.

For half that you could have gone for a Matty Taylor who actually would be a decent squad player.

whatawaster

Xavi6 wrote: »

We turned him down for half that, and even though I wanted him at the time, I can see now how the wool was being pulled over our eyes.

What do you mean the wool was being pulled over your eyes?
You either thought he was good or you didn't. Was he just pretending to be good?

IMO he's an excellent squad option. At 8m i'm happy with him as a second choice LW. He's not a regular in the Spain squad for nothing.
He has outstanding technique and a great shot. He's too inconsistent for my liking, but let's give him his second season and let's let him get fully fit before we judge

whatawaster

Boggles wrote: »

He is muck Al, 1 or 2 good games doesn't make you decent.

For half that you could have gone for a Matty Taylor who actually would be a decent squad player.

He's far from muck.
For about half his games last season he played very well, hardly one or two games. not consistent enough imo, but far from muck.
He hasn't had a chance to get going this season

Mr Alan

xavi, only at the end of last season you were waxing lyrical how you always knew Riera was a quality player. ffs how easily do you change your tune man he has played about 4 games since that time.

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

re:Keane, he ended up costing us about 3m i think, could be less over the next season or two.

Have you a source for teh £3 million figure? according to teh bbc it's near 9 million.

Keane has signed a four-year contract at Spurs with the fee starting at £12m and rising with add-ons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/7861523.stm

whatawaster

The Muppet wrote: »

Have you a source for teh £3 million figure? according to teh bbc it's near 9 million.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/7861523.stm

Apparently it's 12 million rising almost certainly to 16 based on add-ons for apps etc.
There are further add-ons for winning trophies etc, but, of course, it's Spurs.

We're are all only guessing though.

Mr Alan

muppet; the add ons mainly heavily based on Spurs staying in the PL last season.

and you're working off the assumption that the original fee for Keane has no incentives based in it. which it clearly did (18m or 19m without incentives iirc).


Tony Barrret at the Liverpool Echo (now the times) is widely regarded as the most reliable sources re: Liverpool tranfers. he says the move back to was for 16m.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2009/02/02/robbie-keane-completes-move-to-tottenham-liverpool-fc-latest-100252-22837715/

Bandit12

Ardent wrote: »

Well, let's look at it then. These are some of the the flops he has bought since the Americans took over:

Babel - 11M
Kuyt - 11M
Lucas - 5M?
Dossena - 7M
Rieira - 10M?
Insua - 2M?

That's a lot of rubbish for good money right there, all of whom are playing regularly.

(And don't come out with this crap that Kuyt isn't a flop. I've said it many times in the past and I'll say it again - Liverpool will never win the Premiership while that guy's an ever-present in the team.)

And then there's the Keane fiasco which was costly and frankly embarrassing to all concerned.

Benitez's good purchases include:
Torres - 22M
Reina - 7M?
Agger - 5M?
Mascherano - 19M
Johnson - 18M

How can anyone say he has been hampered in the transfer market? It's a ridiculous assertion.

Oh yeah, forgot - "net spend". That old chestnut.

How is "net spend" an old chestnut? Rafa has had to sell players to finance the purchase of other players.

The Muppet

whatawaster wrote: »

Apparently it's 12 million rising almost certainly to 16 based on add-ons for apps etc.
There are further add-ons for winning trophies etc, but, of course, it's Spurs.

We're are all only guessing though.

You can't really use clauses because we usually are not aware of what the clauses are and they may never be met. For instance there is rumour linking Keane with a january move to Celtic, If this happens the clauses will amount to very little if any money for Liverpool.

Mr Alan wrote: »

muppet; the add ons mainly heavily based on Spurs staying in the PL last season.

and you're working off the assumption that the original fee for Keane has no incentives based in it. which it clearly did (18m or 19m without incentives iirc).


Tony Barrret at the Liverpool Echo (now the times) is widely regarded as the most reliable sources re: Liverpool tranfers. he says the move back to was for 16m.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2009/02/02/robbie-keane-completes-move-to-tottenham-liverpool-fc-latest-100252-22837715/

The Liverpool Echo printed a story listing Torres fee as £26.5 million at the time of his transfer. This figure is vigourously rejected by most livepool fans including yourself Al. Either it's a reliable source or it's not we can't pick and choose.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2007/06/29/reds-on-brink-of-torres-signing-100252-19378735/


Personally I would tend to believe the BBC over any other source because if they don't have the info the will say it's undisclosed.

The article you linked to is pretty vague " a 16 million deal" is open to a lot of different intrepretations. for instance is his signing on fee, clauses and or wages included in that fee? The article doesn't give us the answer.

slingerz

Benitez has spent enough money to be on a level footing with the best. The problem is he didnt spend it wisely enough.

Xavi6

whatawaster wrote: »

What do you mean the wool was being pulled over your eyes?
You either thought he was good or you didn't. Was he just pretending to be good?

I thought he was good at the time (he was deservedly named MOM in a game I was at in 2006) but he has failed to progress as a player. At 27 he is well into his peak, if not past it, as a winger. The value simply isn't there.

The reasons given for us not signing him are still the reasons why he is struggling now.

Mr Alan wrote: »

xavi, only at the end of last season you were waxing lyrical how you always knew Riera was a quality player. ffs how easily do you change your tune man he has played about 4 games since that time.

I said he was a good player when he played for us, i.e. as a 23 year old on loan in the Premiership. He has done next to nothing since joining Liverpool and is a case of a player not fulfilling potential.

And I always said he wasn't worth the amount paid btw.

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

You can't really use clauses because we usually are not aware of what the clauses are and they may never be met. For instance there is rumour linking Keane with a january move to Celtic, If this happens the clauses will amount to very little if any money for Liverpool.

The Liverpool Echo printed a story listing Torres fee as £26.5 million at the time of his transfer. This figure is vigourously rejected by most livepool fans including yourself Al. Either it's a reliable source or it's not we can't pick and choose.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2007/06/29/reds-on-brink-of-torres-signing-100252-19378735/

read your own story Muppet.

it was speculation before any deal was done.

every mention of him by the echo after the deal was done was 20m.

Personally I would tend to believe the BBC over any other source because if they don't have the info the will say it's undisclosed.

The article you linked to is pretty vague " a 16 million deal" is open to a lot of different intrepretations. for instance is his signing on fee, clauses and or wages included in that fee? The article doesn't give us the answer.

ok, well here is the bbc saying 12m rising with add ons, and mentioning that the 20.3m figure with Liverpool was inclusive of add ons that were not paid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/7861523.stm

and here is the bbc saying torres was 20m too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/6239286.stm

Mr Alan

you not gonna respond to the above muppet?

or are you just gonna ignore it & then claim torres was 26.5m and keane was over 20 and sold for 12 the next time it suits you?

or do you prefer not to believe the bbc in this instance despite your earlier assertion

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

you not gonna respond to the above muppet?

or are you just gonna ignore it & then claim torres was 26.5m and keane was over 20 and sold for 12 the next time it suits you?

or do you prefer not to believe the bbc in this instance despite your earlier assertion

Mr Alan wrote: »

read your own story Muppet.

it was speculation before any deal was done.

every mention of him by the echo after the deal was done was 20m.



ok, well here is the bbc saying 12m rising with add ons, and mentioning that the 20.3m figure with Liverpool was inclusive of add ons that were not paid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/7861523.stm

and here is the bbc saying torres was 20m too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/6239286.stm

Take it easy man I had to go out, just back now.

I didn't say he was sold for 12 an bought for 21, I said it could be triple the £3 million you quoted which it could, If I had to give a figure I would guess that around £5 Milllion would be a more realistic figure for the sum liverpool lost on the deal.

The Echo article re Torres was from around the time he signed, I quote "the reds have agreed a deal in principle" negotiations had taking place and the article was based on that..

I have also read an interview with rafa giving the figure for Torres at £22 million and he mentioned Garcia going the other way as being part of the negotiations. I haven't looked for a link to this interview I just remember reading it at one stage. There are lost of article giving different values for Torres, I believe he had a £27 million release clause so I think it's probable he would have went for around that figure given the teams that were interested in signing him.

SlickRic

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Wrong thread fail

awesome, thanks.

you can delete your post now

damn similar thread titles.

~Rebel~

SlickRic wrote: »

awesome, thanks.

you can delete your post now

damn similar thread titles.

indeed, cant move for all the liverpool threads at the moment!

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

The Echo article re Torres was from around the time he signed, I quote "the reds have agreed a deal in principle" negotiations had taking place and the article was based on that...

the article was from before the deal, speculating what might happen, when the deal was done, they had the correct figure.

I believe he had a £27 million release clause so I think it's probable he would have went for around that figure given the teams that were interested in signing him.

so despite the fact that the majority of the respected media incl the bbc which last night you said you think is the most reliable say the deal was 20m, you are gonna choose to believe it was 27m?! very strange tbh.

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

the article was from before the deal, speculating what might happen, when the deal was done, they had the correct figure.



so despite the fact that the majority of the respected media incl the bbc which last night you said you think is the most reliable say the deal was 20m, you are gonna choose to believe it was 27m?! very strange tbh.

The Reds have agreed a deal in principle with Atletico Madrid and hope to convince him to accept personal terms next week

See the highlighted bit.

Many mainstreams go with a higher figure than £20 Million. I said I tend to believe the BBC over other sources and thats true. In this instance I have read an interview with Rafa mentioning a higher fee and confusing things by also mentioning the Garcia deal as part of the negotiations.

From what I have read I think it's highly likely that Liverpool paid £20 million plus Garcia (who cost them £6 million odd) for Torres. The £20 million quoted is the net spend



I found the interview, Rafa clearly states Torres was £20 million Plus Garcia who cost liverpool £6 million, hence the £26 million price tag.

How much did he cost?

Whenever we talk about the deal for Torres with Atlético Madrid we always include Luis GarcÍa in the price. The total cost of the operation is around £20 million.


http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/archivedirs/news/2008/mar/31/N159367080331-1327.htm

Mr Alan

from the same article in the echo Muppet.

The Reds are believed to have agreed a fee just short of the £27m get-out clause stipulated in Torres’ contract.

again, they were just speculating before the deal was finalised.

when the deal was finalised, the correct amount was reported.

the same amount that was reported on BBC. the site you say is most reliable for transfers.

and actually wat Rafa is saying in that article there is that the total cost which includes Garcia (4m) was £20m! even bigger bargain!

---

interesting to read in Tompkins latest article today that the Liverpool team is the 5th most expensive squad in the league with the 5th highest wage bill.

L'prof

Mr Alan wrote: »

interesting to read in Tompkins latest article today that the Liverpool team is the 5th most expensive squad in the league with the 5th highest wage bill.

They've spent enough to warrant more success!

Mr Alan

they haven't, that was kinda my point.

kryogen

Mr Alan wrote: »

they haven't, that was kinda my point.

Got a link to that article? just wanna have a read of it, would be interesting

actually, only if he has facts and figures, not conjecture or speculation!

Mr Alan

it doesnt have the facts & figures in the article, just mentions that interesting fact in passing, but i knew they were 4th in both from articles elesewhere, presume its City thats pipped em into 5th.

L'prof

Mr Alan wrote: »

they haven't, that was kinda my point.

Ok...maybe for each year break down how much they spent in relation to the winners that year?

EDIT: I know they've been outspent, just wondering by how much. I still believe since Rafa came he's had adequate funding.

kryogen

the knives are really out for Rafa arent they!

Just seeing Steven Warnock on sky sports news critisizing him for signing too many foreign players and squeezing out the Brits in the club

there are 12 British first team members out of 55?

Mr Alan

too late for that! time for my bed.

i'll tell you wat though, just to give ya something to read, i'll break down the squad with how much each person cost! (only the main players)

GK:
Reina-6m
Cavielleri-1.5m

RB
Johnson-17m
Degan-free

LB
insua-1.3m
aurelio-free
dossena-7m

CB
carragher-free
agger-5.8m
skrtel-6.5m
the greek lad-1.5m

CM
mascherano-17m
aquilani-17m
lucas-5.5m
Gerrard-free

RW
Kuyt-9m
Babel-11.5m

LW
Riera-8m
Benayoun-5m

ST:
Torres-20m
Ngog-1.5m
Voronin-free

hardly the kind of squad you'd look at & think wow! so much money spent its the league or the sack!

heres a good article if ya fancy a bit of reading.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/166504-rafael-benitez-the-transfer-truth

Mr Alan

kryogen wrote: »

the knives are really out for Rafa arent they!

Just seeing Steven Warnock on sky sports news critisizing him for signing too many foreign players and squeezing out the Brits in the club

there are 12 British first team members out of 55?

Sky is loving all this anti Rafa ****e, i thought Klinsmann in the studio was a nice touch the other night.

el rabitos

isnt there a seperate thread for all this repetative rubbish?

kryogen

Mr Alan wrote: »

Sky is loving all this anti Rafa ****e, i thought Klinsmann in the studio was a nice touch the other night.

Aye it didnt go unnoticed

very nice touch

Mr Alan

el rabitos wrote: »

isnt there a seperate thread for all this repetative rubbish?

you're in the seperate thread!?

kryogen

el rabitos wrote: »

isnt there a seperate thread for all this repetative rubbish?

uhuh its over

---

>>>>>>>>>>>

the rest of the back seat mods are already there waiting for you!

L'prof

Mr Alan wrote: »

hardly the kind of squad you'd look at & think wow! so much money spent its the league or the sack!

How about I stop you there, first thing that came to my head looking at the players in the current squad. I'm sure the same can be said of many clubs though.

That's the squad as it stands (obviously), how many managers have had better resources than Rafa per year spent at their clubs? When you answer that question, take into account what state the club were in (to quote the great man) footballistically, in other words, how much did the squad need to be improved to challenge for champions league places or challenge for the title. From those managers, how many still have their jobs?

My point is, Liverpool were an established part of the top 4 before Rafa came, there has been an improvement, but significant enough?

I haven't seen many Pool fans (that I know) backing him