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

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

When discussing transfers, i've never really seen seasons viewed as being Jan-Jan. They've always been worked on the same time scale as the football season.

indeed - i'd be including Mascherano in the 07/08 spending.

Mr Alan

just saw this in the times feature with Benitez today. thought it relevant.

L'prof

Mr Alan wrote: »

When discussing transfers, i've never really seen seasons viewed as being Jan-Jan. They've always been worked on the same time scale as the football season.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

indeed - i'd be including Mascherano in the 07/08 spending.

Same as, I'm just a bit pretarded today!

EDIT: £80.2m in 5.5 seasons, £14.6m per year is decent bit of spending for any of the top clubs.

Mr Alan

for a club hovering around 4th, its not enough if they want to push on & win the league imo.

Mitch Connor

jasonorr wrote: »

Same as, I'm just a bit pretarded today!

EDIT: £80.2m in 5.5 seasons, £14.6m per year is decent bit of spending for any of the top clubs.

I think prior to this summer United's was about 16million on average. That will have dropped massively as a result of the Ronaldo sale though.

L'prof

Mr Alan wrote: »

for a club hovering around 4th, its not enough if they want to push on & win the league imo.

Maybe not, given the season ye seem to be having, but as long as the ultimate aim isn't short-term and probably short-lived success, if they stay in and around that average, then it should be adequate to at least challenge!

Mr Alan

Morzadec wrote: »

Interesting to see it like that, we havn't spent a penny in 2 years!

Do people think we should strengthen in January? I know this seems like a stupid question and that most people will immediately answer yes but hear me out.

i wouldnt worry about it! the article with Rafa says that priority in Jan is to reduce the wage bill & that we'll be selling 3 or 4 players without bringing anyone in.

Mr Alan

jasonorr wrote: »

if they stay in and around that average, then it should be adequate to at least challenge!

we challenged last year, closer than we have ever been.

a net spend of around 15m-20m a season would be enough imo, but it can't stop like it has over the last 2 years, our average spend is going the wrong way every season since the americans threw all the debt on the club

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

we challenged last year, closer than we have ever been.

a net spend of around 15m-20m a season would be enough imo, but it can't stop like it has over the last 2 years, our average spend is going the wrong way every season since the americans threw all the debt on the club

Was going to say the same - the average spend of the first few seasons would probably have made a good difference if maintained over the last two summers.

It is the same situation at United - the debt is eating at the club. As a United official is rumoured to have remarked - "If it wasn't for the Glazers, we'd have more money than we knew what to do with".

Terrible situation both clubs are in now. The United situation has been hidden be the recent success, but even the massive success we have had hasn't served to actually reduce any of the debt, so one can only fear what will happen after seasons where we don't win the league, or go far in Europe. I don't actually think United could afford another season like 05/06 (i think) where we didn't compete in the league and went out of europe altogether before Christmas. I think Liverpools immediate future hinges, quite worryingly, on the CL results over the next few weeks.

L'prof

Mr Alan wrote: »

we challenged last year, closer than we have ever been.

a net spend of around 15m-20m a season would be enough imo, but it can't stop like it has over the last 2 years, our average spend is going the wrong way every season since the americans threw all the debt on the club

Not every year, ye weren't spending too much before Rafa came in, were ye?

From your link, Rafa averaged £14.98m before the owners. In the 2 years after the takeover he averaged £25.75m. I guess the question is, how necessary was the takeover and could this amount have been spent without them? At the moment under the Americans it's an average of £14.36m, which is pretty much what ye had before them. We'll just have to wait and see how that figure progresses.

whatawaster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Liverpools immediate future hinges, quite worryingly, on the CL results over the next few weeks.

On our results in the league over the next 7 months would be more accurate. Going out of the CL now will cost a few million. Not qualifying next season will probably cost 20m.

I think Purslow said we only budget for a CL group stage anyway

Mr Alan

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Was going to say the same - the average spend of the first few seasons would probably have made a good difference if maintained over the last two summers.

It is the same situation at United - the debt is eating at the club. As a United official is rumoured to have remarked - "If it wasn't for the Glazers, we'd have more money than we knew what to do with".

Terrible situation both clubs are in now. The United situation has been hidden be the recent success, but even the massive success we have had hasn't served to actually reduce any of the debt, so one can only fear what will happen after seasons where we don't win the league, or go far in Europe. I don't actually think United could afford another season like 05/06 (i think) where we didn't compete in the league and went out of europe altogether before Christmas.

Agree 100%.

Good post.

More Utd fans need to open their eyes to the tight rope their club in negotiating imo.

TheDoc

Mr Alan wrote: »

just saw this in the times feature with Benitez today. thought it relevant.

Can I ask how they judged the recouped amount? I cant read it very well on my phone.

But how did they calculate that Glen Johnson has got most of his fee back, shirt sales or are they attempting to value on pitch performances?

Edit :

Sorry just winced my eyes and saw that although glen johnson is in the picture, i assume they are refering to the years transfer spending.

Had a blonde moment where i thought glen johnson cost 30 million.

kryogen

Mr Alan wrote: »

Agree 100%.

Good post.

More Utd fans need to open their eyes to the tight rope their club in negotiating imo.

im pretty sure most united fans, well i would hope most united fans, understand the peril our club is in financially.....

we are in worse trouble then yourselves truth be known!

but in the immediate future your situation looks much worse

Mitch Connor

kryogen wrote: »

im pretty sure most united fans, well i would hope most united fans, understand the peril our club is in financially.....

we are in worse trouble then yourselves truth be known!

but in the immediate future your situation looks much worse

I would say a good proportion of the fans are aware of the debt, but I would say the majority of them would be ignorant of the full implications of the debt, the fact we aren't actually paying any of it off, that the PIKs will be starting to become due in a couple of years etc.

I would say many think United can continue on as they have been, apparently servicing the debt, and all will be grand. But that isn't the case, the debt repayments are going to have to increase, quite a lot, in the next few years. Unless United find yet more large revenue streams, things will get worse; and I do not think that United fans in general do really understand the dangers the club face.

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

Agree 100%.

Good post.

More Utd fans need to open their eyes to the tight rope their club in negotiating imo.

Doesn't bother me, The club must continue to be succesful to raise the funds to service the debt. Worst case scenario is that the americans are forced to sell, finding a buyer wouldn't be a big deal for a club of Uniteds stature. Failing that they could always float again.

SlickRic

The Muppet wrote: »

Doesn't bother me, The club must continue to be succesful to raise the funds to service the debt. Worst case scenario is that the americans are forced to sell, finding a buyer wouldn't be a big deal for a club of Uniteds stature. Failing that they could always float again.

easy as that, eh?

Mitch Connor

The Muppet wrote: »

Doesn't bother me, The club must continue to be succesful to raise the funds to service the debt. Worst case scenario is that the americans are forced to sell, finding a buyer wouldn't be a big deal for a club of Uniteds stature. Failing that they could always float again.

So, say the Glazers do sell the club. What do you honestly think will happen?

Do you think the Glazers will sell without making a bit of cash for themselves?

Do you think the buyers will give the Glazers a crap load of cash AND pay off all the debt?

Do you think there is anyone with the cash to pay off the 800million debt AND give the Glazers some 'F the F Off' money? Do you think anyone wishing and willing to spend that type of money wouldn't just buy some cheaper club (City, Chelsea as they were) and pump less money into that club while buying all the top stars?

Honestly, I think the debt is going to affect United for years to come, regardless of whether the Glazers sell up or not.

The Muppet

SlickRic wrote: »

easy as that, eh?

Yep,

This is OT here ,happy to continue this in the united thread.

PHB

The Muppet wrote: »

Doesn't bother me, The club must continue to be succesful to raise the funds to service the debt. Worst case scenario is that the americans are forced to sell, finding a buyer wouldn't be a big deal for a club of Uniteds stature. Failing that they could always float again.

How about an actual worst case scenario? The debt gets too big (which is going to happen soon). The Glaziers want to leave. They however can't make enough money from a buyer who gives them enough profit. As such, they decide to asset strip, run the club in the most profitable way possible, which is to ensure top 4 status, maintain minimal transfer spending, and sell off the best players for huge money when the bids come in, see Rooney. They hope by doing this they can maintain control long enough to see a good profit. However, they fail, and eventually are forced to sell, only after 4-5 years of utterly destroyed the team.

Normally I'd take heart in the fact that Liverpool are as ****ed as us, but sadly, I can't even do that. It's a travesty what is happening to both clubs.

Glico Man

I completely agree that seeing the two most successful clubs in England being reduced to what they have is a travesty.

I have been a Liverpool fan since 1989/1990 and have always enjoyed seeing United get done over, but not like they are now.

I think for the first time in a long time (since their respective tragedies) do the fans know how the others feel.

Its a disgrace that "owners" are able to come in and destroy teams like this, and its not confined to Liverpool or United, Portsmouth's situation saw them staving off administration by their finger nails.

The Premier League's "fit and proper" test needs a serious review and quickly before another giant falls, a la Leeds...

Mr Alan

PHB wrote: »

As such, they decide to asset strip, run the club in the most profitable way possible, which is to ensure top 4 status, maintain minimal transfer spending, and sell off the best players for huge money when the bids come in, see Rooney. They hope by doing this they can maintain control long enough to see a good profit.

sounds familiar

Boggles

Uniteds future depends on the Glaziers. If they fook up, we are in trouble.

Can't find anything in their past business dealings that points to the fact they don't know what they are doing.

Alot of scare mongering and What If scenarios.

Right now I trust them, but with a wary eye.

Not an ideal scenario but I would take it a 100 times every day over a Russian or a Rich Arab that sees owning a football club as a play thing.

As for Hicks and Gillette, If they didn't have the falling out there is no doubt in my mind the comerical side of Liverpool FC would have progressed alot further, despite there personal feelings towards each other the club has progressed comercially though.

On the bright side both clubs are worth alot more now then what they were bought for, meaning the product has not been damaged (yet).

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

sounds familiar

What assets have your yanks stripped ?

Mr Alan

not identical, but similar & certainly the way we seem to be going.

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

not identical, but similar & certainly the way we seem to be going.

Both clubs spent very little last summer, that has happened before, it's way too early to see any trend. I haven't seen any asset stripping,we've yet to see if Ronaldos money is reinvested for United. I don't believe all the doomsday bull.

Mr Alan

This season & the season before for us.

Our season looks like its going to be a tough one. qualification for CL gonna be tougher than ever with the huge investment pumped into City & Villa over the last couple of years.

wats our priority in Jan?

to sell a few players to cut the wage bill.

you can keep your head in the sand all you want over whats happening at the club you follow, but i won't be.

Mitch Connor

The Muppet wrote: »

Both clubs spent very little last summer, that has happened before, it's way too early to see any trend. I haven't seen any asset stripping,we've yet to see if Ronaldos money is reinvested for United. I don't believe all the doomsday bull.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/5130064/Manchester-United-debt-soars-to-700m-despite-record-season.html

Accounts for the football club and the Glazer family's holding companies that control it were published yesterday, but sadly for supporters seeking a fillip, the news was as mixed as reports of Tuesday's 2-2 home draw against Porto.
United published accounts for the 2007-08 season for three companies incorporated in the UK; Manchester United Football Ltd, effectively the football club; their immediate parent, Red Football Ltd, the vehicle set up by the Glazers to hold their interest in the club; and Red Football Joint Ventures Ltd, the ultimate UK-based parent.

In a move that suggests a degree of disdain for supporters who have taken a keen interest in the club's finances since the Glazers took control in 2005, United and the family chose not to comment on results that showed debt with the ultimate parent company had spiralled to £699 million. Instead they were left to draw their own conclusions from a trawl through the occasionally Byzantine structure of England's dominant club.
On the surface things look rosy enough. United remain the most effective money-maker in the world's richest league, generating record turnover of £256 million in 2007-08, a wonderful season on the pitch that ended with retention of the Premier League title and victory in the Champions League final.
Those titles generated a 50 per cent increase in media revenues to £90.4 million, augmented by £101 million in match-day revenue from Old Trafford, up around 10 per cent on 2007, and commercial income rose by 14 per cent to £64 million. Taken together this generated an operating profit in the football club accounts of £66 million.
Look deeper however and the picture that emerges confirms the trends established during the Glazers' relatively short tenure. United remain the pre-eminent money-maker in English football, but profits at the football club level are wiped out by the need to service rising levels of debt.
While the football club showed an operating profit, Red Football Ltd recorded a loss of £21.4 million, and Red Football Joint Ventures Ltd a loss of £44.8 million, due in large part to interest costs during the year of £68.8 million.
When the Glazers bought the club for £828 million in 2005 they borrowed £556 million to help them do it, securing about 70 per cent of that against the club. As of June last year, according to these accounts, that debt stood at £699 million.
The principle reason for the spiralling level of debt – it increased by £33 million compared to 2006-07 – is the structure of the loans. The majority of the debt, £518 million, is bank debt secured against the club and their assets, including Old Trafford and the Carrington training ground.
A further £175 million is in "payment in kind" loans, effectively a form of equity, accruing interest at a penal 14.25 per cent annually. That interest is not paid off but rolled over annually, swelling the PIK loans by £23 million in the last year.
Club sources argue that as this debt is effectively secured against the Glazers' assets, rather than the club, there is no need for concern. They also point out that the losses are swollen by the accounting device of writing off "goodwill", effectively the amount by which the Glazers overpaid to buy the club, which amounted to £35 million in the last year.
What will worry supporters and, those in the Government and the Football Association concerned by United's reliance on such a heavily-leverage business model, is that even the bank debt is increasing, by £8 million. Interest is being serviced, but debt is not being reduced.
In theory none of this will matter if United continue to perform on the pitch and commercially, and if the banks retain their appetite for carrying the club's debt as the impact of the credit crunch, which largely post-dates these accounts, plays out.
The questions concerning supporters last night were what happens if the pre-eminence of recent seasons is threatened. Will the recession impact on the club's ability to sell out Old Trafford and more importantly the 10,000 executive seats that contribute close to half the revenue? Will a significant bid for Cristiano Ronaldo prove irresistible?
And will chief executive David Gill, paid £1.7 million last year for guiding the club between the demands of their Scottish manager and American owners, secure a replacement for shirt sponsor AIG willing to match the £19 million the American insurer presently pays?
The answers will become clear in time, but last night fans were left to reflect on confirmation of the Glazers' legacy to United; a burden of debt that leaves even the most commercially astute and successful of clubs running to keep up

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

This season & the season before for us.

Our season looks like its going to be a tough one. qualification for CL gonna be tougher than ever with the huge investment pumped into City & Villa over the last couple of years.

wats our priority in Jan?

to sell a few players to cut the wage bill.

you can keep your head in the sand all you want over whats happening at the club you follow, but i won't be.

What about this season and the seaon before, you've spent a lot of money. £75 million, most of it generated from sales, there was certainly no asset stripping.

What players will ye be selling in Jan, Voronin and the likes, I bet he won't be forced to sell any of your quality players. Mach may go because he wants to, he wanted to go lasy summer and Rafa wasn't forced to sell. There is no evidence of asset stripping at either club, I'll wait until I have something to moan about before I start.;)

Mr Alan

Gabriel Marcotti wrote:

One of the key building blocks of any good PR/spin campaign is to repeat certain talking points endlessly. Never mind what the question is, just repeat your talking point. We've seen politicians do it for years. The neat thing is that, if you repeat something enough times it sort of becomes true, or, at least, actionable (remember the war over evidence of - as one former Prime Minister put it - "Weapons of mass destruction related program activities"?).

These talking points are useful when discussing Rafa Benitez. Take your pick from the following: Lucas Leiva, the mishandling of Robbie Keane, the sale of Xabi Alonso and, my personal favourite, "spending £240 million" and being "no closer" to winning the Premier League.

I like the last one best because it's the most idiotic. The latter part of the statement is easy to dispatch. Liverpool finished closer to winning the title last year than they have in any season since 1989/90, when they actually won it.

But the former part is truly absurd. Liverpool may have spent £240m since Benitez's arrival (Tony Barrett's figures in The Times yesterday more accurately put the number at £226m, presumably because they don't include Djibril Cisse, who was signed earlier but only arrived when Benitez did). But the key is that this number is a gross spend.

Liverpool also SOLD players in that period. A much fairer reflection of Benitez's spending is to look at the net spend, which is around £80m (or £94m if you include Cisse).

That's a lot isn't it? Yes, until you remember that it's £80m (or £94m) over SIX years. Which is actually between £13.5m and £15.5m a season. A hefty sum, but not an earth-shattering one. Just this past summer, for example, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Manchester City, Sunderland, Stoke and Birmingham City all spent that amount (or a little more, much more in the case of City).

There are plenty of reasons to be critical of Benitez. It's just that some are valid and some, like this £240m fallacy, are, at best, wrong, at worst, dishonest.

good to see there is elements in the media who know what they are talking about.

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

good to see there is elements in the media who know what they are talking about.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Knew the liverpool fans would love Marcoti.

people banging on about a 240million spend. Ronnie Whelan and who exactly?

Also, seems to be a lovely media love in for Liverpool at the moment.

Articles like this, the benitez interview, the lack of fuss made over the lack of class liverpool have shown with them endorsement of the 15 minutes that shook the world mockumentary - If United had done something like that portraying Benitez and Gerrard in similar fashion there would be uproar. As it is, "its just a bit of fun".

Opposition fans object to the Liverpool line that Benitez has been working on a shoe string over the last 5 years, when it simply is not the case. He hasn't been given the vast sums Chelsea or City have, but it is on a level with other clubs, including United. Over the last 4 years you could argue United had a similar net spend to Liverpool (resulting in 3 league titles and a CL win, amongst others), or that they have had a 1million average net spend (if you include the Ronaldo sale)

Mr Alan

media love in with Liverpool?! because there's an interview with Rafa? and one article i've put up (both of which are in the same paper btw.

holy ****ing christ.

the documentary your sensitive soul has been upset by takes the piss out of everyone. incl Rafa & the players.

whatawaster

Documentary?

Mitch Connor

whatawaster wrote: »

Documentary?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6920853.ece

Shockingly, it doesn't critiscise in any way.

Though I really should ammend what I said earlier. It is not a media love in, it is a Times love in, not much more than a daily liverpool fanzine.

whatawaster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6920853.ece

Shockingly, it doesn't critiscise in any way.

Though I really should ammend what I said earlier. It is not a media love in, it is a Times love in, not much more than a daily liverpool fanzine.

Haven’t seen it so I can’t really comment.

It’s one of only two decent sports papers in Britain, so I’m glad if someone is putting forward facts, it’s them

Mitch Connor

whatawaster wrote: »

Haven’t seen it so I can’t really comment.

It’s one of only two decent sports papers in Britain, so I’m glad if someone is putting forward facts, it’s them

facts or pro-liverpool spin. Depends how you look at it.

For instance, look at the spending comparison. Mentions Sunderland, Birmingham and City spent over the liverpool average.

Doesn't mention Arsenal and United spending under it, and being ahead of Liverpool league and performing better in Europe.

Doesn't mention that clubs trying to break into the next level of the league would generally have to spend more than the clubs already on that level, in order to improve their squad enough to compete. It looks nice to say that if Liverpool want to compete they have to spend more than Birmingham, but the reality isn't that simple. After 5 or 6 years, Benitez shouldn't have to be spending crap loads every summer.

whatawaster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

facts or pro-liverpool spin. Depends how you look at it.

For instance, look at the spending comparison. Mentions Sunderland, Birmingham and City spent over the liverpool average.

Doesn't mention Arsenal and United spending under it, and being ahead of Liverpool league and performing better in Europe.

Doesn't mention that clubs trying to break into the next level of the league would generally have to spend more than the clubs already on that level, in order to improve their squad enough to compete. It looks nice to say that if Liverpool want to compete they have to spend more than Birmingham, but the reality isn't that simple. After 5 or 6 years, Benitez shouldn't have to be spending crap loads every summer.

Everyone knows Arsenal spend next to nothing, it’s always mentioned when Wenger is brought up.
United were slightly ahead of Liverpool in spending until they sold Ronaldo. So that they’ve spent less is a short term thing.
Our league positions are also short term. We were a better team than Arsenal six months ago.

Benitez hasn’t spent crap-loads ANY summer. The truth is with City, Spurs and Villa all spending huge money spending next to nothing isn’t going to cut it. Standing still or going backwards will be the only result. We don’t yet have a productive youth programme like Arsenal. We need to improve our squad with one or two new faces a year. This summer it’s been a RB in/RB out, CB in/CB out, CM in/CM out.

kida

Mitch Connor wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6920853.ece

Shockingly, it doesn't critiscise in any way.

Though I really should ammend what I said earlier. It is not a media love in, it is a Times love in, not much more than a daily liverpool fanzine.

thats is a f&^*^ign disgrace, could you imagine if that was the other way around?

Mr Alan

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Doesn't mention Arsenal and United spending under it, and being ahead of Liverpool league and performing better in Europe.

are you talking purely in the last games or so? because Liverpool have been quite comfortably better than Arsenal for the last 2 seasons.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Doesn't mention that clubs trying to break into the next level of the league would generally have to spend more than the clubs already on that level, in order to improve their squad enough to compete.

do you why its a little funny to say this seconds after comparing the spend of rafa & Liverpool to Ferguson & Utd? :rolleyes:

L'prof

Mr Alan wrote: »

are you talking purely in the last games or so? because Liverpool have been quite comfortably better than Arsenal for the last 2 seasons.

No offence, but what difference does it really make, when neither team has won anything in the last 2 seasons?!?

Arsenal are competing while spending nothing, Wenger never needed the influx of cash that Benitez has to compete.

You can't harp on about Liverpool being "better" than Arsenal and ignore money spent at the same time!

Mr Alan

Ok, well i can say that since Rafa arrived at Liverpool, Liverpool have been better than Arsenal (& won more). Money spent may of course be an issue, no doubt about it.

The grievance was with Mitch comparing Liverpool to Arsenal unfavourably, based on one run of poor results.

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

are you talking purely in the last games or so? because Liverpool have been quite comfortably better than Arsenal for the last 2 seasons.



do you why its a little funny to say this seconds after comparing the spend of rafa & Liverpool to Ferguson & Utd? :rolleyes:

1. This season specifically - Marcotti mentioned the spending this summer gone, specifically.

2. No - look at the league 5 years ago. United no where in sight vs the Arsenal 'unbeatables' or Chelsea two seasons running. United were in a similar league position to Liverpool. My issue he shouldn't compare liverpool transfers favourably to United (Oh boo hoo, United can spend 30million on a player and we can't) when the simple fact is the net spend of the two clubs is very similar over the last 5 years, when both clubs have bought in similar positions.

United and Liverpool have spent similar amounts, net, over the last 5 years when Rafa has been at Liverpool. Over the premiership years in total I think the net spends are similar too - maybe Liverpool ahead. United have got more for the money spent.

whatawaster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

1. This season specifically - Marcotti mentioned the spending this summer gone, specifically.

2. No - look at the league 5 years ago. United no where in sight vs the Arsenal 'unbeatables' or Chelsea two seasons running. United were in a similar league position to Liverpool (in fact, didn't Liverpool finish second, ahead of United in one of those seasons). My issue he shouldn't compare liverpool transfers favourably to United (Oh boo hoo, United can spend 30million on a player and we can't) when the simple fact is the net spend of the two clubs is very similar over the last 5 years, when both clubs have bought in similar positions.

United and Liverpool have spent similar amounts, net, over the last 5 years when Rafa has been at Liverpool. Over the premiership years in total I think the net spends are similar too - maybe Liverpool ahead. United have got more for the money spent.

Liverpool had a squad barely capable of making the top 4 in 2004, only doing so through the incompetence of the teams below them. United finished 17/18 points ahead of Liverpool that season. They had an established manager/regime in place.
Liverpool could have just bought a small quantity of more expensive players. But that would have really put our top 4 status in jeopardy as we had so many holes in our team. Strengthening the squad in numbers was a good strategy, even if it didn’t always go to plan.

Mr Alan

how many league winning players did Ferguson have at Utd when Rafa arrived at Liverpool?

Mitch Connor

whatawaster wrote: »

Liverpool had a squad barely capable of making the top 4 in 2004, only doing so through the incompetence of the teams below them. United finished 17/18 points ahead of Liverpool that season. They had an established manager/regime in place.
Liverpool could have just bought a small quantity of more expensive players. But that would have really put our top 4 status in jeopardy as we had so many holes in our team. Strengthening the squad in numbers was a good strategy, even if it didn’t always go to plan.

Does show something alright.

8 of the 04/05 squad are still at United (Brown, Ferdinand, Neville, Fletcher, Giggs, Rooney, O'Shea and Scholes).

Only Gerrard and Carragher remain for Liverpool.

5 of those United players are first choice, only two of them were purchased, the rest being youth players.

L'prof

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ok, well i can say that since Rafa arrived at Liverpool, Liverpool have been better than Arsenal (& won more). Money spent may of course be an issue, no doubt about it.

You can say that Liverpool have been "better" if you like, Their record against Arsenal doesn't show any form of superiority. They have been more consistent against lesser teams, but I wouldn't say there's much between either team at all since Benitez arrived.

2-1 in the trophy count is hardly amazingly better either!

Mr Alan

how much did those two players cost Mitch?

60m?

not to mention a player like Ronaldo who was already there before, i think its fair to say that a good chunk of the success Utd have had in the last 5 years is down to Giggs,Scholes,Ferdinand & Ronaldo, who were all there before Rafa arrived.

SlickRic

one media outlet dares try offer support to Rafa and there's uproar from opposition fans.

unbelievable.

keep kicking him while he's down so.

carry on...

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

how much did those two players cost Mitch?

60m?

not to mention a player like Ronaldo who was already there before, i think its fair to say that a good chunk of the success Utd have had in the last 5 years is down to Giggs,Scholes,Ferdinand & Ronaldo, who were all there before Rafa arrived.

And a massive chunk of the success Rafa has had over the last 5 years has been down to Gerrard and Carragher, who were there before he arrived. His biggest success (CL win) came with extremely few players he signed himself.

Hyppia was also a fairly big player for you lot and only left this summer - I have read Liverpool fans saying that you miss Hyppia this season, if just for his assurance and experience. Finnan was massively important in his time there. Hammann was a big reason for the CL win (biggest reason imo)

Again, compare the United spending historically over the course of the premiership with that of Liverpool, and it is very similar, so again, why should this be an acceptable excuse.

Liverpool have spent the same money and had the same opportunities as United, United have simply done better.

Mitch Connor

SlickRic wrote: »

one media outlet dares try offer support to Rafa and there's uproar from opposition fans.

unbelievable.

keep kicking him while he's down so.

carry on...

'uproar'.

Please, show me this 'uproar'. One or two posts on the love in the Times are having (wonder if it why they got the first interview...) and this is 'uproar'. What did you call the medical card fiasco a while back?:D:rolleyes: