Are Liverpool ( and Rafa ) done? *Haters Gonna Hate

The Muppet

SlickRic wrote: »

good grief.

i'm sorry Muppet, but please leave it.

you know what the money situation is. you know what our net spend is. he's not perfect in the transfer market, who is? he's better than most in it, and again, deep down, you know that too.

he is more financially restrained than many clubs in the Premier League.

Net spend is new money, it has nothing to do with players sold. , Liverpool's net spend over the last six seasons is only surpassed by Man City and Chelsea, so I don't agree he has been more financially restratined than many clubs in the prem. Lets leave the spending debate for the approptiate thread.

SlickRic

The Muppet wrote: »

Lets leave the spending debate for the approptiate thread.

i agree.

but don't try to take the high road now

if the money issue keeps being used against him in all these other threads it has to be defended.

it's been spelled out many many times in the appropriate thread what his constraints have been, and how much he's spent, by people far better at explaining it than me, yet you use it against him all the time. it gets tiresome.

The Muppet

SlickRic wrote: »

i agree.

but don't try to take the high road now

if the money issue keeps being used against him in all these other threads it has to be defended.

it's been spelled out many many times in the appropriate thread what his constraints have been, and how much he's spent, by people far better at explaining it than me, yet you use it against him all the time. it gets tiresome.

I'm gald you posted that, someone else had at me yesterday about the amount of posts I have made re Rafa's spending. That vast majority of those posts have been in reply to someone complaining about the restrainst rafa is working under as is the case here. Al's thread was the first mention of finances and as you say the truth about money issues should be defended.

Mr Alan wrote: »

there is no doubt that Liverpool fans dont want Voronin at the club, but having him is indicative of the situation the club is in financially.

wat you are saying is very different than them starting to turn on Rafa.

Mr Alan

Muppet do you think currently Rafa can afford to off load Voronin & bring in a far better calibre of player instead of him?

Happy Monday

The Muppet wrote: »

And how was the initial purchase of the players who were sold funded?

He - we as LFC fans - are not denying that cash has been made available for Rafa to spend.

But nowhere near as much net cash as Chelsea, Utd and now City.

I mean Chelsea spend 30m on Shevchenko and sell no to raise more.

Utd have bought people like Saha - 15m - and Smith - 8m - and rarely played them.

There IS a disparity of resources - FACT!!

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

Muppet do you think currently Rafa can afford to off load Voronin & bring in a far better calibre of player instead of him?

I don't know. I have a sneaky suspicion that Rafa has a few quid left in the kitty from his summer dealings. I thiink PHB made excellent points about the way rafa spend his money this summer in the spending thread.

<Edit>Happy monday you should do a bit of research before quoting figures about United.<Edit>

Paul Tergat

Happy Monday wrote: »

Utd have bought people like Saha - 15m - and Smith - 8m - and rarely played them.

Sorry what the **** is this about?

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

I don't know. I have a sneaky suspicion that Rafa has a few quid left in the kitty from his summer dealings.

we bought centre half cover for 1.5m in the summer cause we dont have a pot to piss in and couldnt afford to bring in our targets, our owners have openly said they are look for people to invest in the club because they dont have a pot to piss in.

if rafa could've offloaded Voronin this summer & brought in a better replacment, i have no doubt he would, but the financial state the club is in at the min, has his hands tied. i stand by that.

since the yanks have come in, the proverbial well seems to have pretty much run dry.

Happy Monday

p_larkin99 wrote: »

Sorry what the **** is this about?

About the fact that Manure can sign Nani, Anderson a whole string of players for big money - let them sit on the bench - and play them when needed.

Rafa has no such luxury - Alonso has to be sold to fund someone else - Bellamy sold to fund Torres - and on we go.

Fact!

Fromvert

Happy Monday wrote: »

About the fact that Manure can sign Nani, Anderson a whole string of players for big money - let them sit on the bench - and play them when needed.

Rafa has no such luxury - Alonso has to be sold to fund someone else - Bellamy sold to fund Torres - and on we go.

Fact!

No need for that sh'te :P.

rossie1977

Happy Monday wrote: »

About the fact that Manure can sign Nani, Anderson a whole string of players for big money - let them sit on the bench - and play them when needed.

Rafa has no such luxury - Alonso has to be sold to fund someone else - Bellamy sold to fund Torres - and on we go.

Fact!

nail head, sissoko has to be sold to fund masch, crouch went so they could buy keane

chelsea and man utd don't have to sell to buy, this is one thing opposition fans cannot grasp for some reason, its pretty simple really

Headshot

Happy Monday wrote: »

About the fact that Manure can sign Nani, Anderson a whole string of players for big money - let them sit on the bench - and play them when needed.

Rafa has no such luxury - Alonso has to be sold to fund someone else - Bellamy sold to fund Torres - and on we go.

Fact!

you live up to your name ill give ya that

I feel happy already :pac:

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

we bought centre half cover for 1.5m in the summer cause we dont have a pot to piss in and couldnt afford to bring in our targets, our owners have openly said they are look for people to invest in the club because they dont have a pot to piss in.

if rafa could've offloaded Voronin this summer & brought in a better replacment, i have no doubt he would, but the financial state the club is in at the min, has his hands tied. i stand by that.

since the yanks have come in, the proverbial well seems to have pretty much run dry.

Think I'll organise a whip round Al.;)

Rafa spent £38 million on two other players this summer Another right back (how many is that now?)that is arguably not as good defensively as the player he replaced an injury prone midfielder who hasn't played in any prem games three months in. Spending £38 million while not having a pot to piss in is some
trick,

Out of interest how much do you think Rafa should be given each season to spend?

Paul Tergat

Happy Monday wrote: »

About the fact that Manure can sign Nani, Anderson a whole string of players for big money - let them sit on the bench - and play them when needed.

Rafa has no such luxury - Alonso has to be sold to fund someone else - Bellamy sold to fund Torres - and on we go.

Fact!

No this is not what you said at all.

I highlighted a very specific part of it.

You said we bought Saha and barely played him. In the first of our 3 titles in a row he was a massive part of the way we played. When he was fit he played. The reason he wasnt playing as much was down to injury, not that we bought him to put him on the bench.

Again, when Smith was first signed he played a lot of games, even playing out of position a lot due to our lack of CM options.

and sorry why are you saying fact at the end of your post? it makes it sound like you are taking the piss outta your own manager.

edit: and we also payed 12.8m for saha and not for 15m

Mr Alan

had to replace 2 first team players. and it was 34m. as you well know.

squad players were not as much of a priority & there was **** all available for em.

SlickRic

The Muppet wrote: »

Think I'll organise a whip round Al.;)

Rafa spent £38 million on two other players this summer Another right back (how many is that now?)that is arguably not as good defensively as the player he replaced an injury prone midfielder who hasn't played in any prem games three months in.

and how did he get that £38m?

seriously, you know this...

either you really are failing to grasp this, or, i just don't know.

he's had money. nobody is f*cking disputing that for a second.

but he's funded those big money purchases from sales of players. that is all people are saying, and have been saying for far too long now.

Fromvert

The Muppet wrote: »

Think I'll organise a whip round Al.;)

Rafa spent £38 million on two other players this summer Another right back (how many is that now?)that is arguably not as good defensively as the player he replaced an injury prone midfielder who hasn't played in any prem games three months in.

Rafa had two players but wanted two different players. So he sold his two players for £33m and bought the two players he wanted for £37m. Now remember that Rafa was also owed £7m from another deal.

So how much did Rafa actually spend?

rossie1977

The Muppet wrote: »

Think I'll organise a whip round Al.;)

Rafa spent £38 million on two other players this summer Another right back (how many is that now?)that is arguably not as good defensively as the player he replaced an injury prone midfielder who hasn't played in any prem games three months in.

if alonso had not left liverpool would have spent about £7m this summer out of their own pocket seeing as portsmouth still owed them £10m from the crouch sale, arbeloa left himself btw

really how hard is it to understand, get money in, able to buy, no money in not buying, if its getting too difficult tell me when to slow down

lets look at everton, no money we all agree?? sell rooney to utd for 30 odd million, now they have money so they buy Joleon Lescott for £5m, andy johnson for £9m, Van der Meyde £2m, Valente £1.5m, phil neville £4m, Arteta £2m, Kroldrup £6m, without the rooney money none of those purchases are possible..........agree or disagree

Happy Monday

p_larkin99 wrote: »

No this is not what you said at all.

I highlighted a very specific part of it.

You said we bought Saha and barely played him. In the first of our 3 titles in a row he was a massive part of the way we played. When he was fit he played. The reason he wasnt playing as much was down to injury, not that we bought him to put him on the bench.

Again, when Smith was first signed he played a lot of games, even playing out of position a lot due to our lack of CM options.

and sorry why are you saying fact at the end of your post? it makes it sound like you are taking the piss outta your own manager.

edit: and we also payed 12.8m for saha and not for 15m

Good f**k tonight - there are Mancs on this thread!
The central point is that Chelsea and Utd have had more scope to buy squad men for larger sums of money than LFC had.
We in turn have had larger sums than say Villa and Everton.
It's against this backdrop that Rafa is operating in.
The point is illustrated by Saha - 15m - had Rafa bought him he would have been waiting game to game for him to return - with Utd there was a Van Nistlerooy or Rooney or options like that available at all times.

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

had to replace 2 first team players. and it was 34m. as you well know.

squad players were not as much of a priority & there was **** all available for em.

That doesn't alter the fact that he was given £38 million to spend. The owners could have closed on it all.

SlickRic wrote: »

and how did he get that £38m?

seriously, you know this...

either you really are failing to grasp this, or you're on a permanent wind up.

he's had money. nobody is f*cking disputing that for a second.

but he's funded those big money purchases from sales of players. that is all people are saying, and have been saying for far too long now.

Calm down Slick, I'm not disputing that rafa has sold players to buy, sure if he didn't he'd have a hunded players on the payroll.;)

These players that he's selling to buy new players, where did the money to buy them come from?

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

That doesn't alter the fact that he was given £38 million to spend. The owners could have closed on it all.

Player sales was always meant to be reinvested into the squad, so he wasnt "given" that money, he generated it for himself.

again with the makey uppy figures for the two players btw :rolleyes:

The Muppet wrote: »

These players that he's selling to buy new players, where did the money to buy them come from?

David Moores in the main.

Paul Tergat

Happy Monday wrote: »

Good f**k tonight - there are Mancs on this thread!
The central point is that Chelsea and Utd have had more scope to buy squad men for larger sums of money than LFC had.
We in turn have had larger sums than say Villa and Everton.
It's against this backdrop that Rafa is operating in.
The point is illustrated by Saha - 15m - had Rafa bought him he would have been waiting game to game for him to return - with Utd there was a Van Nistlerooy or Rooney or options like that available at all times.

No you see again, you did not say that and i picked you up on it.

You said we signed Saha and Smith (quoting an incorrect price which you have ignored and left at 15m) and said they were rarely played. Which is complete bull****.

'FACT' :rolleyes:

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

David Moores in the main.

Progress ! The club given him whatever money he has had to buy whatever players he has purchased . Now all you have to accept is that only Chelsea and Man City have given their manager more money over the last six seasons and we're there.

Mr Alan

so are you agreed that our current owners have not done what they should in order to move our club forward??

moving a club from 4th to winning the PL takes considerably more than money generated from player sales.

SlickRic

The Muppet wrote: »

Progress ! The club given him whatever money he has had to buy whatever players he has purchased . Now all you have to accept is that only Chelsea and Man City have given their manager more money over the last six seasons and we're there.

ok, so that's all your point is?

that money made from players Rafa decided to sell, has been given back to him by the club?

that doesn't mean he's had all this 'new money' to spend that you keep telling us he has.

whether it's come from the club or not, it's money he's made from sales, that he wouldn't have had from the club if he hadn't sold them.

that is all Liverpool fans are saying. and it can't really be disputed.

OPENROAD

Mr Alan wrote: »

so are you agreed that our current owners have not done what they should in order to move our club forward??

moving a club from 4th to winning the PL takes considerably more than money generated from player sales.

Has Rafa not spent more on purchasing players in the last four seasons than on money generated from sales?

Mr Alan

not really in the last two years. about a 1m net spend or so (the figures muppet will roll along with in a minute are incorrect).

the year before that (the americans first year, they spent a few quid after our CL final appearance).

since the americans have arrived, the spending has slowed down to a near stand still, when in fact they were meant to be able to get us to compete financially with anyone for a player.

OPENROAD

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6888955.ece#

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

so are you agreed that our current owners have not done what they should in order to move our club forward??.

New money: over the last three years they gave him £47 million (£40 million , £6 million and 1 Million) I think a good manager should be able to move a club forward with that level of investment .

Mr Alan wrote: »

moving a club from 4th to winning the PL takes considerably more than money generated from player sales.

Yes I agree with you there.

Mr Alan

the fee for EVERY player purchased this year is wrong?! wtf, journalists actually get paid for nonsense like this?!

Glen Johnson £18m (17), Alberto Aquilani £20m(17), Sotiros Kyrgiakos £2m(1.5).

have a read of the thread about his spending, it breaks down his net over the last 3 years.

Mr Alan

because my gripe is with the investment since the americans have come into our club.

Fromvert

Just had a quick scan through some of the figures.
Looks like United paid nothing for the Tevez loan. I think that is wrong.
United paid £17m for Anderson and Nani. I thought it was less then that.

That write up is incredibly inaccurate. I'm sure their are mistakes everywhere.

Headshot

Fromvert wrote: »

Just had a quick scan through some of the figures.
Looks like United paid nothing for the Tevez loan. I think that is wrong.
United paid £17m for Anderson and Nani. I thought it was less then that.

That write up is incredibly inaccurate. I'm sure their are mistakes everywhere.

fromvert can i have an offical link to the figures concerning ando,nani and tevez please

OPENROAD

Mr Alan wrote: »

because my gripe is with the investment since the americans have come into our club.

Fair enough and I can understand where you are coming from to a large extent, suppose the point people are making is that Rafa has still had a significant amount to spend since he came especially if you take Chelsea andd City out of the equation.

mike65

Dont trust those figuers, Aqualani was bought for just 5 million up front the remaining monies may never be paid for various reasons (not winning CL/PL etc), I see Cisse is listed, which shows how useless that list is.

Headshot

mike65 wrote: »

Dont trust those figuers, Aqualani was bought for just 5 million up front the remaining monies may never be paid for various reasons (not winning CL/PL etc),

again any link to this mike

mayordenis

OPENROAD wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6888955.ece#

That "article" (and I use the term lightly) said Rafa signed Cisse. Compared the £20 million spent on him and Morientes to the masterstroke of Rooney for the same amount (Cisse £14 million - not signed by rafa, Morientes £6).
Stupid article essentially.

Mr Alan

openroad wrote:

Fair enough and I can understand where you are coming from to a large extent, suppose the point people are making is that Rafa has still had a significant amount to spend since he came especially if you take Chelsea andd City out of the equation.

well, in fairness with the money he has had he has turned Liverpool into a team that was barely making the CL struggling to get 4th into one that challenged for the title and regularly competes to win the CL. (having won 1 & and an FA cup)

OPENROAD

Mr Alan wrote: »

well, in fairness with the money he has had he has turned Liverpool into a team that was barely making the CL struggling to get 4th into one that challenged for the title and regularly competes to win the CL. (having won 1 & and an FA cup)

You make it sound like he has had basically little money to spend since he arrived at Liverpool.

Mr Alan

no he has had ok money before the americans came in-about 15m a year net, but he has had to rebuild an entire team.

mike65

Headshot wrote: »

again any link to this mike

I may have suggested that 5 million was the most of could be paid short of winning everything, that was sloppy on my part. The deal is a very "easy" one for Liverpool cash flow wise.

http://liverpoolfc.co.za/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1126051643/m/472106714

It appears that if Liverpool win everything and he plays over 140 games the total outlay will be 20m EURO + 3.2m EURO (extras) up till summer 2015.

RasTa

Mr Alan wrote: »

no he has had ok money before the americans came in-about 15m a year net, but he has had to rebuild an entire team.

Didn't he win a CL with the majority of the team he was left with?

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

no he has had ok money before the americans came in-about 15m a year net, but he has had to rebuild an entire team.

£47 million net over the last three season (since yanks buyout) averages over £15 million a year net . whats the problem so?

Re Cisse He signed for the club after rafa took over so technically he is a rafa signing. There are many players in the sold list that rafa didn't sign should they be omitted to so that we have a list consisting of just rafa signings/sales? It''l look even worse for rafa if we do.

Mr Alan

RasTa wrote: »

Didn't he win a CL with the majority of the team he was left with?

yep. with a few great additions by himself. namely Alonso & Luis Garcia, who along with Gerrard, were the reason we won the CL.

The Muppet wrote: »

£47 million net over the last three season (since yanks buyout) averages over £15 million a year net . whats the problem so?

the problem is, your figures are invented.

as you well know.

Headshot

mike65 wrote: »

I may have suggested that 5 million was the most of could be paid short of winning everything, that was sloppy on my part. The deal is a very "easy" one for Liverpool cash flow wise.

http://liverpoolfc.co.za/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1126051643/m/472106714

It appears that if Liverpool win everything and he plays over 140 games the total outlay will be 20m EURO + 3.2m EURO (extras) up till summer 2015.

cheers

most deals are done like that these days anyway

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

the problem is, your figures are invented.

as you well know.

Go on then list his purchases and sales for the last three seasons with fees and prove my figures wrong. Bet you don't.

The Muppet

Headshot wrote: »

cheers

most deals are done like that these days anyway

Nanis and Andersons certainly were.

Fromvert

Headshot wrote: »

fromvert can i have an offical link to the figures concerning ando,nani and tevez please

Well you know your self that Utd rarely disclose their fees (not a PLC so don't have to) so no I don't have an official link and you know that already.

But it was reported in a good few papers (yeah I know) that a fee was paid for the Tevez loan. What you read in the papers was good enough for you the last time I asked you for a link so that will have to be good enough for you now. :P

Well it depends on what papers you choose to believe (generally the ones that will suit your argument;)).

So for this one I choose to believe The Guardian, which says the initial outlay for both Anderson and Nani was £15m which could rise to £35m. So who knows what activates the add ons and whether or not they have been paid.

End of third paragraph

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2007/may/31/newsstory.sport10


Flimsy I know.

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

Go on then list his purchases and sales for the last three seasons with fees and prove my figures wrong. Bet you don't.

well for example this year....

Players Out
Alonso £30m
Arbeloa £3.5m
Leto £3m
Hammill £500k
Hobbs £300k
Anderson £250k
Hyypia 0
Pennant 0
Total In £37.55m

Players In
Johnson £17m
Aquilani £17m
Kyrgiakos £1.5m

Total out £35.5m

profit of £2.05m

Dave!

I think this thread has ceased to be about the match and so no longer serves its purpose.