'The Big Four' - Merely stumbling, re-aligning or finished altogether?

mirwillbeback

Fuhrer wrote: »

A side so poor that they are second?


Wow, Ronaldo must be really talented to be able to help them out from Real MAdrid...

There is such thing as a poor second.

6 league defeats so far, out of FA Cup, playing rubbish on the field and almost bankrupt off it.

And Ronaldo did help them this year, look at the accounts.

pickarooney

If some of the higher-up clubs in financial difficulty were to slash their wages across the board (at least for any new contracts), how many players would still want to play for, say, Liverpool on 20,000 a week or Manchester United on 10,000 if they could get 40,000 or 70,000 at Man City?

At what point would there be simply too much competition for places at Man City for players to not want to join them?

Realistically, it has to happen at some stage - clubs are going to have to get realistic and start offering wages they can afford while still staying in business and players are going to have to accept it.

From the fan's point of view, would most supporters prefer to see their teams doling out ridiculous sums on big-name players or bringing young players through the ranks? Economically, it makes so much more sense to do the latter that it's hard to understand why clubs are seemingly not making any real effort to bring it about. More clubs need to realise that dropping out of Europe, or even relegation is not that big a deal compared to outright collapse.

Furthermore, the basement clubs are only going to see attendances go further and further down as fans get sick of spending their precious cash on watching their teams having no ambition above 17th place.

everdead.ie

pickarooney wrote: »

If some of the higher-up clubs in financial difficulty were to slash their wages across the board (at least for any new contracts), how many players would still want to play for, say, Liverpool on 20,000 a week or Manchester United on 10,000 if they could get 40,000 or 70,000 at Man City?

At what point would there be simply too much competition for places at Man City for players to not want to join them?

Realistically, it has to happen at some stage - clubs are going to have to get realistic and start offering wages they can afford while still staying in business and players are going to have to accept it.

From the fan's point of view, would most supporters prefer to see their teams doling out ridiculous sums on big-name players or bringing young players through the ranks? Economically, it makes so much more sense to do the latter that it's hard to understand why clubs are seemingly not making any real effort to bring it about. More clubs need to realise that dropping out of Europe, or even relegation is not that big a deal compared to outright collapse.

Arsenal Wage structure is capped around 100,000 no? They spend roughly 45% of turnover on wages, Spurs pay about 48% of turnover on wages with King on 75-80,000 the highest earner If they can both do it why can't others with bigger stadia pay higher wages still

OhNoYouDidn't

everdead.ie wrote: »

Arsenal Wage structure is capped around 100,000 no? They spend roughly 45% of turnover on wages, Spurs pay about 48% of turnover on wages with King on 75-80,000 the highest earner If they can both do it why can't others with bigger stadia pay higher wages still

Because those clubs have debt to service and like it or not, that will take prioity over the next few years.

Man City aside, will any EPL club be in a position to grab the top players from outside England any more.

therecklessone

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Because those clubs have debt to service and like it or not, that will take prioity over the next few years.

Man City aside, will any EPL club be in a position to grab the top players from outside England any more.

Chelsea have converted all of their debt into equity for Abrahamovic.

everdead.ie

Can I ask how do people see the top 7 lining out come may?
Personaly I think
Chelsea
Arsenal
Man Utd

but then it becomes an awful lot more difficult to see the next four and how they will line out I think Man City have the(slight) edge but there isn't much difference between Liverpool/Villa/Spurs/Man City

PHB

Ultimately, for me, business drives everything in the long term. While there may be a manager of two taking it to a higher level, money will determine everything.

Manchester United are in one sense fantastic financially, and in one sense ****ed. Before Interest issues, United are still one of the most profitable clubs in World Football. The Glaziers are going to **** up our football success for a while imo, but not massively. I do think that eventually, United will be sold to somebody who will clear the debt and take on the club as a profit making enterprise.
In which case, there will still be money for significant transfer spend and wages due to the stadium, and thus I can't see United ever dropping out of the top 4 for a long period. However, Fergie leaving will be a major issue. I fully expect him to be replaced by Mourinho though.

Chelsea appear to be in a better position, but aren't. Their costs are massively higher than their real profit. They owe more money than United do, although it is to Ambrovomich. If he stays, they'll be fine, and never probably drop out of the top 4. If he goes, they are in serious trouble. If he ever decide to call in his loans, they'd be beyond ****ed. More debt than United but less revenue.

Arsenal imo are in the best shape financially. They have debt, but its managable. They are using it to get the new stadium. Once that is paid off, they will be a powerhouse. They've got the 2nd biggest stadium, a huge fanbase, and a strong young squad. Once Wenger leaves however, there will be issues.

Liverpool are similar to United in terms of finances, but ultimately have a smaller stadium. Until they can get that new stadium, they will still forever be at a financial disadvantage to United, and soon Arsenal aswell. IMO they will eventually get new investors, and with any luck, they'll have the money to build a new stadium. Nonetheless, I think their squad is seriously lacking in quality, especially in terms of youth prospects. I do think that the new manager will dictate an awful lot, so the choice needs to be the right one.

Man City are imo like Chelsea 5 years ago. Mancini is a good manager, but imo he's got to do the work of Ranieri, and then the work of Mourinho. The squad is still bleh, and needs an awful lot of work to become PL winners. However they have a huge huge huge chance of taking 4th this year, and with that, could seriously push on. It'll require the right purchases though, can they buy as well as Essien, Drogba, Robben, Carvalho? They were some impressive purchases.

Villa will continue to hover. Financially sound. Until they get CL football, they will be restricted in who they can attract. They need to do it this year imo, because if they don't, they'll lose their best players. An element of last chance saloon.

Spurs are very financially safe. A little bit behind Arsenal, but only 3-4 years. With the money for the stadium, they may need to restrict the transfer spend a little, but can still be big spenders.

IMO, what I think will happen, is that United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool can all win the league in the next 5 years. I think that will depend an awful lot, an awful lot, on the managers chosen. However I can't predict that, but financially, United and Arsenal are the most profitable clubs out there. Chelsea and City are precarious, could go big spending, could go Leeds. Spurs are just a little behind Arsenal. Liverpool are further behind again, and may not get that new stadium for a while longer.

therecklessone

PHB wrote: »

Chelsea appear to be in a better position, but aren't. Their costs are massively higher than their real profit. They owe more money than United do, although it is to Ambrovomich. If he stays, they'll be fine, and never probably drop out of the top 4. If he goes, they are in serious trouble. If he ever decide to call in his loans, they'd be beyond ****ed. More debt than United but less revenue.

See my earlier post, Abrahamovic converted those loans into equity, the club are debt free.

MUSEIST

therecklessone wrote: »

See my earlier post, Abrahamovic converted those loans into equity, the club are debt free.

I know yeah, this fact seems to have gone over most footie fans heads, chelsea owe nothing to abramowich a tthe mo

leninbenjamin

MUSEIST wrote: »

I know yeah, this fact seems to have gone over most footie fans heads, chelsea owe nothing to abramowich a tthe mo

They announced it over Christmas did they not? It seems like they wanted to keep it as low profile, seems great on the surface but some seem to think this is Ambramovich eyeing up an exit strategy.

therecklessone

leninbenjamin wrote: »

They announced it over Christmas did they not? It seems like they wanted to keep it as low profile, seems great on the surface but some seem to think this is Ambramovich eyeing up an exit strategy.

I don't see how it is tbh, if he's selling he'll have an asking price, whether that asking price repays outstanding loans (to himself) or purchases equity he still ends up with the same £ in his pocket.

More likely to is to allow Chelsea compete in European competition should Platini manage to change the rules and exclude clubs with excessive debt. Both RA and Berlusconni were cited by Platini late last year as club owners who were concerned by increased indebtedness among Europe's elite.

mike65

PHB wrote: »

Liverpool are similar to United in terms of finances, but ultimately have a smaller stadium. Until they can get that new stadium, they will still forever be at a financial disadvantage to United, and soon Arsenal aswell. IMO they will eventually get new investors, and with any luck, they'll have the money to build a new stadium. Nonetheless, I think their squad is seriously lacking in quality, especially in terms of youth prospects. I do think that the new manager will dictate an awful lot, so the choice needs to be the right one.

Liverpool debt has been reduced to just (!) £237 million thats a signficant drop from £350 million-odd in the early summer. It appears that investors will be found with talk of about 100 million equity. As for youth propects I'll presume you are not familair with the success of the youth set up and a quite a tasty crop of 16-19 year olds that have started to push into the first team squad. In a year or two there should a good sprinkling of fresh faced talent at Anfield.

OPENROAD

Thing I would fear for Liverpool is if they drop out of the top 4 this season, I think it will be a lot harder to get back in again compared to a few years ago.

PHB

therecklessone wrote: »

See my earlier post, Abrahamovic converted those loans into equity, the club are debt free.

MUSEIST wrote: »

I know yeah, this fact seems to have gone over most footie fans heads, chelsea owe nothing to abramowich a tthe mo

leninbenjamin wrote: »

They announced it over Christmas did they not? It seems like they wanted to keep it as low profile, seems great on the surface but some seem to think this is Ambramovich eyeing up an exit strategy.

therecklessone wrote: »

I don't see how it is tbh, if he's selling he'll have an asking price, whether that asking price repays outstanding loans (to himself) or purchases equity he still ends up with the same £ in his pocket.

More likely to is to allow Chelsea compete in European competition should Platini manage to change the rules and exclude clubs with excessive debt. Both RA and Berlusconni were cited by Platini late last year as club owners who were concerned by increased indebtedness among Europe's elite.

You missed the point I was making. Chelsea's expenditure is much higher than their revenue. They need to be continuously maintained by Ambrovomich. If he leaves, they'll need to undergo a massive, massive re-structuring.

---

As for the issue of the loans. If Ambrovomich wants to get his money back, is there no way for him to do it?

PHB

mike65 wrote: »

Liverpool debt has been reduced to just (!) £237 million thats a signficant drop from £350 million-odd in the early summer. It appears that investors will be found with talk of about 100 million equity. As for youth propects I'll presume you are not familair with the success of the youth set up and a quite a tasty crop of 16-19 year olds that have started to push into the first team squad. In a year or two there should a good sprinkling of fresh faced talent at Anfield.

United won everything there was to win the youth cups. Nobody made it at United. No guarantees, nada.

As for the loan debt, if I'm not mistaken, they have a fairly similar debt/asset ratio to United. Beyond that, even once they get past the debt, they still are at the disadvantage they were at before the Americans took over.

leninbenjamin

therecklessone wrote: »

I don't see how it is tbh, if he's selling he'll have an asking price, whether that asking price repays outstanding loans (to himself) or purchases equity he still ends up with the same £ in his pocket.

I think what those comments I saw were inferring was that he might sell off his stake in Chelsea piece by piece, in which case the club having no debt would make it a much more attractive investment. Not only has he lost £3 billion since 2008, but his empire is supposed to be still losing money so that's where the suspicions he will leave are coming from.

MementoMori

PHB wrote: »

United won everything there was to win the youth cups. Nobody made it at United. No guarantees, nada.

As for the loan debt, if I'm not mistaken, they have a fairly similar debt/asset ratio to United. Beyond that, even once they get past the debt, they still are at the disadvantage they were at before the Americans took over.

Not to drag things too far off topic but seeing as a couple of people mentioned the youth setup at Liverpool, I thought it was worth replying.

Just on the Liverpool youths thing. Liverpool have done well in terms of youths in the last while but more importantly have been doing very well in the reserve league (which is effectively treated as an U-21 team for the most part).

Might be worth people's while checking out my post detailing just how much Liverpool youngsters have featured for the first team this season.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63879925&postcount=14426

This post doesn't include a number of promising youth/reserve players. While there are no guarantees, the numbers do look good in terms of the current crop of young players at the club.

PHB

Look at Arsenal and United, players under the age of 24, generally the age when you begin your peak years as a footballer [All stats from ESPN]:

United:

Wayne Rooney
Antonio Valencia
Jonathan Evans
Anderson
Nani
Fabio
Rafael
Fredirico Macheda
Danny Welbeck
Zoran Tosic
Darren Gibson
Diouf

Arsenal:
Fabregas
Vermaelen
Clichy
Song
Diaby
Denilson
Nasri
Traore
Bendtner
Ramsey
Walcott
Senderos
Carlos Vela
Fran Merida Perez
Jack Wilshere

Then look at Liverpool:

Lucas
Insua
Ngog
Babel
Spearing
Ayala
El Zhar
Darby
Plessis
Pacheco
Kelly
Eccleston

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't stack up.

CHD

Link to stats PHB? Duno why I can't find it on the site.

Slash/ED

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I don't think Platini will give the premiership another CL place

And why on earth would he?

Lamper.sffc

Apologies if already mentioned but the top 4 are simply making way for the return of LEEDS. End of discussion:D

MementoMori

PHB wrote: »

Look at Arsenal and United, players under the age of 24, generally the age when you begin your peak years as a footballer [All stats from ESPN]:

United:

Wayne Rooney
Antonio Valencia
Jonathan Evans
Anderson
Nani
Fabio
Rafael
Fredirico Macheda
Danny Welbeck
Zoran Tosic
Darren Gibson
Diouf

Arsenal:
Fabregas
Vermaelen
Clichy
Song
Diaby
Denilson
Nasri
Traore
Bendtner
Ramsey
Walcott
Senderos
Carlos Vela
Fran Merida Perez
Jack Wilshere

Then look at Liverpool:

Lucas
Insua
Ngog
Babel
Spearing
Ayala
El Zhar
Darby
Plessis
Pacheco
Kelly
Eccleston

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't stack up.

My point was more about those at a level slightly younger than 24.
I was saying that there are for the first time in a long time there are actual young decent prospects coming through at Liverpool, which hasn't been the case in a while.I was more looking at those around the 21 and under mark.

The 12 Utd players you listed cost somewhere in the region of £90m in my opininon. The total of the 15 Arsenal players listed cost somewhere just over £42m. For the 12 players at Liverpool I make the total somewhere just over £20m. These figures may not be 100% accurate but they do give a general indication of the level of spending that has gone into young players at the various clubs. While the Liverpool figure does included a couple of undisclosed amounts these were in the case of Ayala and Eccelston which were either compensation/training fees and certaintly were anywhere near the millions paid for some of the other prospects. Also in terms of comparison the players you listed for Utd and Arsenal would have a greater average age than those listed for Liverpool, so a direct comparison is erroneous on two points.

As well for United Obertan was omitted at a cost of £3m and for Arsenal Gibbs, Djourou, Mannone and Fabianski at a total cost of around £2.5m were omitted.

Also for Liverpool Nemeth, San Jose, Mihaylov, Gulacsi, Bouzanis, Dalla Valle, Buchtmann and Mavinga could/should all be added into the list as decent prospects. The cost of all of these is would be well under the half million mark at most. The reported fee for San Jose £270k and Mihaylov £133k. Gulacsi and Nemeth are consistently reported as undisclosed but given the links with MTK it's very unlikely high sums were involved. Training compensation was supposedly paid for Mavinga and Buchtmann. Dalle Valle and Bouzanis most likely were in the same neighbourhood given there status/age when they arrive.

Lucas - 23 last week
Insua - 21 last week
N'gog - 20
Babel - 23 in December
Spearing - 21
Ayala - 19
El Zhar - 23
Darby - 21
Plessis - 21
Pacheco - 19 last week
Kelly - 19
Eccleston - 19 30th December

Gulacsi - 19
Mihaylov - 21
Nemeth - 21
San Jose - 20
Bouzanis - 19
Dalla Valle - 18
Buchtmann -18
Mavinga - 18

Pepe LeFrits

In terms of comparison I'm not sure it is erroneous for PHB to leave out the ones you've added. There is a discrepancy between the amount of youth in Liverpool's first team squad and United/Arsenal. It's difficult enough as it is for people to know if the youngsters who are already in the first team squads are going to make the grade without delving into reserve and youth teams.

In that case Arsenal's list could be extended on and on. Ages are off the top of my head, I can't be arsed looking all of them up.

Szczesny 19 (on loan at Brentford)
Pedro 19 (on loan at Celta)
Nordtveit 19 (on loan at Nurnberg)
Lansbury 19
Emmanuel-Thomas 19
Bartley 18
Hoyte 19 (on loan at Brighton)
Murphy 18 (on loan at Brentford)
Simpson 20 (on loan at QPR)
Coquelin 18
Afobe 17
Eastmond 19
Randall 19
Miquel 17
Watt 19
Sunu 18

etc...

A line needs to be drawn somewhere and participation in the first team seems like as sensible as any. If they're not in the first team now it's difficult to foresee them having much of an impact on their club's fortunes for a couple of years at least.

PHB

Sorry I took it from ESPN as that is generally the squad that would be called on for PL games. If you want to go into reserves, we can.

My point was a simple one though. Looking at the squads, the first team squads, United and Arsenal (to a greater extent) have much more quality at younger ages. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. How much it cost to get them there is pretty irrelevant, because they are there now, and we're discussing the future.

Let's just look at those lists again. I could say without a doubt in my mind, that the following people are going to be playing CL/UEFA football, at United or elsewhere, for the rest of their careers.
Rooney, Valencia, Evans, Anderson, Fabio, Rafael.
Nani, Macheda, Welbeck and Tosic have bloody good shots.

I think 6 of them will definately make it at United, with the others hopefully we get 2 of the 4 making it at United, which would be a good return.

For Arsenal:
Fabregas, Vermaelen, Clicky, Song, Denilson, Nasi, Ramsey, Walcott, Vela, Wilshere I think will all make it at a CL/UEFA team, probably mostly at Arsenal.
Diaby, Traore, Bendtner, Senderos, are up in the air.
Perez is very young but I'd expect him to be a top top player.

For Liverpool, can you really say the same?
Lucas, Insua will make it at CL/UEFA teams.
Babel should aswell, but probably wont make it at Liverpool.
I think Ngog will aswell.
After that, I'm not too sure I'd be sure of any of them. I thin Pacheco looks like he's got something, but has yet to show it really at all.
The rest, I think you'd be lucky to get two.
Keep in mind that Macheda, who scored two vital goals for us to win the PL last year, is just a good youth prospect. There are better ones. That's the standard required at Top 4 clubs.


As for the reserves, maybe you're right, maybe you have decent U-21 prospects coming through, which is great. But realistically, at absolutely best, you're looking at 2 Liverpool first teamers, at bloody best. And you're assuming, that United and Arsenal don't have the same prospects. United's youth system has been overhauled and the first products of that system were Rossi, Pique and Evans (who are all near the top of their generation for their position]. The next set of products are Cathcart, Welbeck and Macheda. Then we're looking at Petrucci and Pogba. In comparison, while Liverpool have come on leaps and bounds in the past years, which I don't deny, they still are at best, now starting to catch up with United, who are still trying to catch up with Arsenal.

As such, when talking about the long term prospects, the fact that United and Arsenal have better young first teamers, and maybe a similar reserve set up to Liverpool, gives them an advantage, as Liverpool will need to buy more.

Prufrock

PHB wrote: »

My point was a simple one though. Looking at the squads, the first team squads, United and Arsenal (to a greater extent) have much more quality at younger ages.

This is true United and Arsenal just have a better youth system than the other big 4. Theres always someone coming into the first team and does well. Chelsea and Liverpool have young players just not of the same quality.

MementoMori

Prufrock wrote: »

There is a lack of young talent at Liverpool and Chelsea. Now is the time to invest in young players who have the potential to make it into your first team. United and Arsenal have a good bunch of youngsters there who are already being blooded to see what they can do. If you can't match the spending power of your competition then you have to catch players early so you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for them.

It was more to this post that I was replying, which was saying there was a lack of young talent at Liverpool. While Liverpool are slightly behind in terms of blooding youngsters, it's quite clear that Liverpool are trying to catch players early and so far seem to be doing a reasonably decent job of it.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

In terms of comparison I'm not sure it is erroneous for PHB to leave out the ones you've added. There is a discrepancy between the amount of youth in Liverpool's first team squad and United/Arsenal. It's difficult enough as it is for people to know if the youngsters who are already in the first team squads are going to make the grade without delving into reserve and youth teams.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere and participation in the first team seems like as sensible as any. If they're not in the first team now it's difficult to foresee them having much of an impact on their club's fortunes for a couple of years at least.

Probably reasonable enough in terms of drawing the line at the first team but in addition to those that have featured for Liverpool's first team the following three should probably be included
- Nemeth who is playing regularly and doing well at AEK
- San Jose who is starting consistently the last while for Bilbao in La Liga [played something like the full 90 minutes for the last 9/10 games for them; and bagged 2 goals in them games - not bad going for a twenty year old CB]
- Mihaylov while he hasn't featured much for Twente has started competive games for the Bulgarian senior team, which is not bad going for a 21 year old

PHB wrote: »

Sorry I took it from ESPN as that is generally the squad that would be called on for PL games. If you want to go into reserves, we can. My point was a simple one though. Looking at the squads, the first team squads, United and Arsenal (to a greater extent) have much more quality at younger ages.

I hope I explained this above. I would have a slight quibble about calling a 24 year old a "young player" but overall the central thrust of your arguement is correct

PHB wrote: »

How much it cost to get them there is pretty irrelevant, because they are there now, and we're discussing the future.

Sorry but this was just a massive guffaw. I think if Liverpool spent something like £50m more the young prospects in the squad would look substantially better - at least I'd hope so. I know of at least two of the players Wenger signed for a few million [Diaby and Dennilson] that Rafa was reportedly seriously interested in but simply couldn't compete in terms of paying such relatively serious for youth prospects.

I understand the rest of your point and would broadly agree with it [maybe some quibbles about some of the prospects]as well but I was initially replying to the comparison of Liverpool being on a similar level to Chelsea when talking about youth prospects and there being a "lack" of youth prospects at Liverpool. I was making the counter-argument that there was not a lack of youth prospects at Liverpool.

Also I wonder if a mod might maybe split off the youth prospect stuff off to a similar thread as it has kinda derailed an interesting thread.

MementoMori

Prufrock wrote: »

This is true United and Arsenal just have a better youth system than the other big 4. Theres always someone coming into the first team and does well. Chelsea and Liverpool have young players just not of the same quality.

I think the key here is in the past this might have been true but things have improved substantially in the last years or two.

Premier Reserve League Winners 2007/2008; Currently top of the reserve league .
FA Youth Cup Winners 2006 and 2007; Finalists last season

Comparing this to years previous when Liverpool youth system just did abysmally. Just list the miniscule number of players who came through at Liverpool since the Gerrard/Carragher era to have any sort of respectable career. Warnock is pretty much the only one who has had any sort of premiership career, while Guthrie at Newcastle has a decent shot of getting back and had good experience with Bolton. Compare that to the number of Utd and Arsenal youths who have gone on to have decent careers in the last decade or so and it's clear that Liverpool have had massive ground to make up. However they have made very solid progress in the last while and to say that currently there are no decent young prospects at Liverpool is clearly just wrong.

Time to wear your trousers rolled Prufrock:p

PHB

Well to be honest, I really wouldn't care about the reserve leagues. United took the decision a while ago that they were just too low a quality in terms of developing players, so alternate between keeping them in the first team squad and then loaning them out. Arsenal do the same, with a ****load of players loaned out.

While Arsenal's youth system is expensive, it does mean that they won't have to spend as much in the future. As such, their long-term team prospects are in better shape. While Liverpools system might be cheaper, they will still have to spend in the future. As such, their long-term team prospects are in worse shape.

leninbenjamin

MementoMori wrote: »

I think if Liverpool spent something like £50m more the young prospects in the squad would look substantially better - at least I'd hope so.

I know of at least two of the players Wenger signed for a few million [Diaby and Dennilson] that Rafa was reportedly seriously interested in but simply couldn't compete in terms of paying such relatively serious for youth prospects.

You really refuse to let yourself see the bigger picture here, don't you?

Arsenal spend less money on transfers p.a. than Liverpool. That Arsenal have that money to spend over others on youth is not because they have more money to burn, but rather because they prioritise it. Benitez could easily have bought Diaby, Denilson, Walcott, Ramsey and a few others if he so wished, but instead he didn't. Instead he chooses to spend the bulk of his money on more established players, buying the likes of Dossena, Johnson, Mascherano, Kromkamp, Morientes, Keane and Kuyt etc. At Arsenal it's the opposite, the bulk of the money goes into young prospects and the experienced buys tend to be a lot less frequent.

Tbh, there's no less risk in either, it all boils down the expertise of the scouts and managers, but it's clear that Arsenal's approach in the past few years has been much more sustainable and productive.

Dont be at yourself

The problem is, Wenger's production line has been producing first team players for years. Rafa can't afford to buy in 16, 17, 18 year olds and wait for them to make the first team. He has needed to address the first team every year he's been at the club.

leninbenjamin

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

The problem is, Wenger's production line has been producing first team players for years. Rafa can't afford to buy in 16, 17, 18 year olds and wait for them to make the first team. He has needed to address the first team every year he's been at the club.

And Arsenal's first team hasn't had problems either?

MementoMori

leninbenjamin wrote: »

You really refuse to let yourself see the bigger picture here, don't you?

Arsenal spend less money on transfers p.a. than Liverpool. That Arsenal have that money to spend over others on youth is not because they have more money to burn, but rather because they prioritise it. Benitez could easily have bought Diaby, Denilson, Walcott, Ramsey and a few others if he so wished, but instead he didn't. Instead he chooses to spend the bulk of his money on more established players, buying the likes of Dossena, Johnson, Mascherano, Kromkamp, Morientes, Keane and Kuyt etc. At Arsenal it's the opposite, the bulk of the money goes into young prospects and the experienced buys tend to be a lot less frequent.

Tbh, there's no less risk in either, it all boils down the expertise of the scouts and managers, but it's clear that Arsenal's approach in the past few years has been much more sustainable and productive.

I don't follow you bit about don't following.

On the Diaby and Denilson buys from what I've heard it was the board (i.e. Parry) telling him that he couldnt afford to spend millions on youth prospects.
Might have had something to do with the fact that Parry's son was a coach under the previous youth regime, although this is just speculation on my part.
It simply wasn't an option to buy these players when the price went over the million mark. From this I doubt Walcott and Ramsey were ever realistic options either given the price they ended up going for. I know there was talk about Liverpool being interested in them (Ramsey moreseo) but in both instances it was simply a case of too rich for our blood. Kinda like the time the board wouldn't sanction an extra million to buy Alves.

In the last while Rafa has come out and expressly said that the Arsenal/Barcelona method is the model we intend to try and emulate at youth level.

To reiterate my point wasnt that Arsenal and United don't have decent youth prospects but to put forward the case that Liverpool do actually have some youth prospects as well. There is also the point that Liverpool have spent considerably less on young players than United and quite a bit less than Arsenal (especially when you consider the wages on offer at Arsenal)
This is in spite of a previously utterly disastrous period at Liverpool combined with a period where the whole youths/Academy situation was a politcal football in the boardroom.

leninbenjamin

MementoMori wrote: »

I don't follow you bit about don't following.

Well, to be blunt, you phrased it as if Liverpool had no alternative, that those prices were above your means. This is simply not the case, it was a decision, whether it was Parry, the board or Rafa is irrelevant to this thread.

Yes, I've heard Rafa mention the Arsenal/Barca model on many occasions but when one compares the investment that's actually been made by Pool to Arsenal/.Barca/United, all Rafa's statements can only be taken as lip service (unless the full picture of who is in control at Pool becomes clear).

And you do have a few decent prospects, but nowhere on the level of United/Arsenal/Chelsea. For example, Nemeth, one of the original Rafa prospects is now 21 and still on loan at a time when Liverpool are crying out for a another striker. This does not bode well for the club.

All in all, Liverpool need to seriously up the level of investment in youth for the long term future, as I'm sure you'd agree.

MementoMori

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Well, to be blunt, you phrased it as if Liverpool had no alternative, that those prices were above your means. This is simply not the case, it was a decision, whether it was Parry, the board or Rafa is irrelevant to this thread.

Yes, I've heard Rafa mention the Arsenal/Barca model on many occasions but when one compares the investment that's actually been made by Pool to Arsenal/.Barca/United, all Rafa's statements can only be taken as lip service (unless the full picture of who is in control at Pool becomes clear).

And you do have a few decent prospects, but nowhere on the level of United/Arsenal/Chelsea. For example, Nemeth, one of the original Rafa prospects is now 21 and still on loan at a time when Liverpool are crying out for a another striker. This does not bode well for the club.

All in all, Liverpool need to seriously up the level of investment in youth for the long term future, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Cheers for clearing this up.

I do think it matters that is was Parry (i.e. effectively the board) who was saying these young players were effectively too expensive because it means that is wasn't Rafa saying it. If it was Rafa who had been doing this given he will most likely still be in charge for the future I would be worried at the level of investment available.

Even this week this was talk of a link-up with Genk in the Belgium league similar to the tie-up Utd have with Antwerp in order to facilitate signing young South Americans and Africans. This is something that should have been in place a long time ago but is only getting sorted now that Rafa is fully in charge.

Nemeth is an interesting one without doubt but effectively at the start of the season the choice was between himself and Voronin. I can understand the logic in picking Voronin who had come off the back of a decent season in the Bundesliga over Nemeth who had been out injured for a long chunk and had no first-team experience whatsoever. Both players have had diametrically opposed seasons with Nemeth performing very well for both AEK and at the U-21 World Cup, while Voronin has had a nice holiday in Miami.:( I said just yesterday that we could do with recalling Nemeth from AEK in terms of cover but I'm not 100% sure that's possible. On the plus side Nemeth has gained solid experience this season and undoubtedly progressed. It's kinda doubtful he would have progressed as far playing at reserve level this season and maye picking up some cameo minutes with the first team. I would be expecting Nemeth to be part of the squad next season.

Getting further off-topic one thing that I have noticed is that there seems to be a starge kind bit of a gap in the squad age wise in terms of those aged 24 to 22. There are no 24 year olds, 3 23 year olds (Lucas, Babel and El Zhar) no 22 year olds. To have only three players in that three year span can't be a good sign.

We do have 6 players of varying significance at 21 [Insua, Nemeth, Spearing, Darby, Mihaylov and Plessis] - I don't think Thelfall, Brouwer and Duran have any shot whatsoever and I would be expecting them to leave on frees in the summer.

N'gog and San Jose are the two twenty years olds in the squad and both have had very positive seasons so far.

Of the 19 year olds Kelly, Pacheco, Ayala, Gulacsi, Eccleston, Bouzanis all look like serious prospects. 4 of these have been competitive appearances for the senior team, while Gulacsi has made the bench in a position where we are pretty strong - keeper. Bouzanis looks as a serious prospect as well - first choice keeper at Accrington Stanley at 19 but is currently behind Gulacsi in the pecking order. The rest of the 19 year olds are made up of Simon, Mendy, Hansen, Irwin, Weihl, Saric, Flora and Oldfield who I would be surprised if they made any impression at Anfield.

Going down a level Lauri Dalla Valle at 18 is probably the brightest prospect and was supposedly target of a £5m bid from Fulham at the start of the season - Don't know how accurate this is but there was talk of Chelsea offering £1m for him at 16. There are a host of other prospects as well but getting down to that level really is entering a crapshot.

Instant Karma

Prufrock wrote: »

This is true United and Arsenal just have a better youth system than the other big 4. Theres always someone coming into the first team and does well. Chelsea and Liverpool have young players just not of the same quality.

Not at all, City have one of the best youth academies in England.

invincibleirish

Utd & Arsenal are great at buying other teams young players but this talk of brilliant youth systems seems a little off. When was the last time a genuine homegrown talent emerged out of the top 4?

Not that it matters because membership of the top 4 is all down to an ability to splash the cash, be it on youngsters or big names, no cash and the glory will end. Arsenal might be the exception to the rule recently, but they were still well able to go out and splash £15m on an Arshavin when required.

Financial doping is a scourge on the PL but the inevitable end product of 20+ years of greed. It will take something like Man Utd or Pool doing a Leeds on it to change things drastically and i for one can't wait.

L'prof

Des wrote: »

haven't read the whole post yet, but "footballistically" is an awesome word.

Robbed shamelessly from the most awesome manager out there too

leninbenjamin

invincibleirish wrote: »

Utd & Arsenal are great at buying other teams young players but this talk of brilliant youth systems seems a little off. When was the last time a genuine homegrown talent emerged out of the top 4?

That's not really relevant, at least not in the context of this discussion. Yes, scouting and buying players at very young ages has now become the new model, but it still requires the clubs train and nurture said talent as you would any child.

The point is that the model is a hell of a lot more sustainable, with correct training and development even those players not destined for the first team can still bring in a significant return on investment. As cash and profits dry up the ability to add value to players is essential in cutting costs in the long term, either through the development of a first team player or a player that can then be sold on to another professional team. So while it's correct to say financial clout is everything, the sustainability of a clubs practices are really coming under scrutiny.

And where once clubs were able to scout the country (United were able to poach a 13 year old Beckham from Tottenham and be able to call him 'homegrown'), clubs are still restricted by the 60 minute rule, so it's not fair to compare to previous generations. You can be sure all clubs would prefer to take from their local patch if it were possible (much, much less expenses).

But for the record Stuart Taylor, Sidwell, Ashley Cole, Justin Hoyte and David Bentley have all come through Arsenal's academy in recent years. In the first team squad at the mo. are Wilshere and Gibbs. Not as dismal on the home grown front as some would have you believe.

MementoMori

leninbenjamin wrote: »

clubs are still restricted by the 60 minute rule, so it's not fair to compare to previous generations. You can be sure all clubs would prefer to take from their local patch if it were possible (much, much less expenses).

I did see an interesting graphic a while back comparing the absolute population within 60 minutes of Highbury compared to within 60 minutes of Anfield. Surprisingly the population in the greater London area is substanially higher than the population within 60 minutes of Anfield - the fact that the population of the Irish Sea is effectively nil, really screws things up for Liverpool.;)

~Rebel~

MementoMori wrote: »

I did see an interesting graphic a while back comparing the absolute population within 60 minutes of Highbury compared to within 60 minutes of Anfield. Surprisingly the population in the greater London area is substanially higher than the population within 60 minutes of Anfield - the fact that the population of the Irish Sea is effectively nil, really screws things up for Liverpool.;)

therecklessone

PHB wrote: »

You missed the point I was making. Chelsea's expenditure is much higher than their revenue. They need to be continuously maintained by Ambrovomich. If he leaves, they'll need to undergo a massive, massive re-structuring.

I sort of covered that, seriously dude, have a read...;)

PHB wrote: »

As for the issue of the loans. If Ambrovomich wants to get his money back, is there no way for him to do it?

There's ways for him to take money out of the business. he could pay himself a dividend for example, or sell off assets. As to whetehr he can just announce "right, you all owe me £700m again", I'd imagine companies law might have a thing or two to say about that, but I'm no expert and am open to correction.

Pepe LeFrits

Interesting new article on Premiership Finances on the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jan/17/premier-league-owners

Roman Abramovich, at Chelsea, has also invested hugely, £700m, converted into shares too, but even City and Chelsea face the looming halt being called by Uefa and their "fair play initiative". The European governing body, putting detail into the gut instinct of Michel Platini, their president, that all the debt and sugar daddy investment is not sustainable or good for the game, have dictated that from 2012-13 no club who run consistently at a loss, or rely on benefactor investment, will be allowed to compete in the Champions or Europa Leagues.

I haven't heard of this before. Is it official or just in the talkshop stage?

If I understand it right, that'd mean that Man United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Man City would be banned from European football in two years time? Or would they be able to sell star players (as United did last year), bringing their yearly results into the black to gain access?

leninbenjamin

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I haven't heard of this before. Is it official or just in the talkshop stage?

Talkshop, although it's not new. Platini's made plenty of noises in the past about this, but he seems to have stepped it up a gear recently. It's definitely on the agenda although they are going to face stiff opposition to it, and they will have to be very careful not to encroach on EU fair trade laws and that.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

If I understand it right, that'd mean that Man United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Man City would be banned from European football in two years time? Or would they be able to sell star players (as United did last year), bringing their yearly results into the black to gain access?

The Times ran with it today too (I think that's where the original story came from actually). They suggested a time scale of 3 years before this can be approved and enacted. And it wont be possible to enact it retrospectively so clubs will have a bit of warning to sort their houses out.

It has to be very carefully enacted though not to restrict clubs either. The actual size of debt is irrelevant, it's the ability to repay that's what matters. For example Arsenal's debt is greater than Liverpools yet it does not impact the running of the club to the same extent as the majority of it is in the form of a long term loan with easily manageable repayments.

And it's not just English clubs who will fall foul of this, Roma, Real Madrid and Milan I believe are struggling with debt, and even Bayern, in a league famous for it's fiscal responsibility, are struggling to balance the books. Almost all the big teams could be wiped out in one fell swoop if this were enacted irresponsibly.

mike65

The weekend results suggest that the pretenders really need to get their acts together.

Draw, draw, loss. Brums game was posponed so we'll have to see about them! :pac:

flahavaj

mike65 wrote: »

The season's results suggest that the pretenders really need to get their acts together.

FYP. Its like no one wants 4th, has been all season. Its crazy with how badly things have gone for Liverpool they'll be within a point of 4th if they beat Spurs Weds.

Dont be at yourself

In fairness, it's not like the big three ( ) are running away with either at the moment!

Columbia

Stumbling, is my guess.

And I'd say one of them will fall before it's all over. At the moment, Liverpool seem the likely candidates, but that would all easily change if City splash out stupid money for Torres, as they were rumoured to be thinking of last year.

Villa, Spurs, City and Everton (my team) all seem too damn incompetent to really take advantage of the stumble. The way they've played, there should be pressure now heaped on all four of the Sky clubs, yet three of them are exactly where you'd expect them to be, miles clear in the top three places.

L'prof

Columbia wrote: »

Stumbling, is my guess.

And I'd say one of them will fall before it's all over. At the moment, Liverpool seem the likely candidates, but that would all easily change if City splash out stupid money for Torres, as they were rumoured to be thinking of last year.

Villa, Spurs, City and Everton (my team) all seem too damn incompetent to really take advantage of the stumble. The way they've played, there should be pressure now heaped on all four of the Sky clubs, yet three of them are exactly where you'd expect them to be, miles clear in the top three places.

Are they really stumbling though? I don't thin so, maybe they don't appear to be as consistent as usual but, if you take Arsenal for example, they have only had more points on the board at this stage of the season twice!

Columbia

jasonorr wrote: »

Are they really stumbling though? I don't thin so, maybe they don't appear to be as consistent as usual but, if you take Arsenal for example, they have only had more points on the board at this stage of the season twice!

Aye, perhaps you're right, I was just looking at the League table and thinking about it

Nevertheless, United have already lost 5 games in the league (almost quarter of all the ones they played) and Arsenal have lost 4.

Some of the mid-table teams have closed the gap I think, which has lead to some inconsistency amongst the top few but a great deal of it amongst the second tier teams, allowing the top few to pull away, despite misfiring regularly.

leninbenjamin

Here's a slightly different take on the current top 3's performance. If the top 3 continue to amass points at the rate they have so far this season, the table at the end will look like:

Chelsea 87
Arsenal 81
Man Utd 81

Which makes for a total points haul of 249. So how does this compare?

2008-2009: 259
2007-2008: 255
2006-2007: 240
2005-2006: 256
2004-2005: 265
Average : 255

Slightly below the 5 year average, but not by much. And I think it's generally the case that the top teams lose more points in the first half of the season than they do in the second if I'm not mistaken? So I don't think the top 3 are doing significantly different.