Soooooooo what do we need?????

[Reece]

zaki would be nice

Hmmm not sure. Would be interesting to see when his last goal actually was.

[pondus]

Not the right thread perhaps, but I found this new article from Tomkins, not too long this one :-), it shows you the total cost of todays most expensive squads in the prem. Good article I thought, I know many on here don't like Tom, but read it anyway.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drill...90304-1429.htm

I've tried in the past, but the media misinformation continues to gather pace like some ill-founded rumour. It's dangerous, because it causes unjust criticism.

Let's make one thing clear: Liverpool have nowhere near the most expensive squad in the Premiership.

No. Where. Near.

Indeed, there are three clubs who have spent at least 50 per cent more on their current squad than Liverpool.

Shocked? Well, you should be if you believe what's spouted out on TV. But it's true. And one of the clubs is not a name you'd necessarily expect.

It doesn't help that some people – such as Jamie Redknapp last night – focus on Rafa's gross spend, rather than the net amount. Effectively, this means counting all the right-backs he's bought as one big outlay, rather than looking at how he's replaced one with another for roughly the same £2m fee.

Working with just the gross spend, you add the £2m of Josemi to the £2m value of Kromkamp (even though it was a swap), to the £2.6m paid for Arbeloa. But none of these players were at the club at the same time, and each was traded to get to the point where an outright success was secured, as happened with the final purchase.

So even though the total cost of getting Arbeloa was just the £2.6m paid, people will use a figure almost three times as high. That is illogical.

(Another note, Jamie: Liverpool have three right-backs on the books, not just one; but the promising Darby, like Arbeloa, was injured and Degen has had a first season ruined by various ailments. So it's wrong to criticise the manager for an unbalanced squad and playing a midfielder out of position when three right-backs are unavailable.)

It's like the housing market: you don't just go in and buy a mansion straight from school. (Okay, so maybe some footballers do, but not the normal people of this world. As someone stuck with renting, I'm speaking generally here!)

You start with an affordable house; you then use the money from selling that to buy your next property. Most people can only get to own a big house having traded their way up over a number of years.

Yet when someone asks how much you spent on your house, you don't add all the houses you've ever bought together, do you?

If you own a £220,000 house, you don't say £470,000 because you add the £90,000 starter home and the £160,000 step up. That would be moronic.

According to the excellent and reliable www.LFCHistory.net, Rafa's gross spend is approximately £188m, but his net spend is only £108m, given that around £80m has been recouped.

(I'd hazard a guess that a large proportion of the £108m net spend has also been recouped through Champions League progress rewards, particularly with the Reds being the top-ranked team based on his five-year tenure.)

So it's easy to pluck a figure of '£195m' from the air, live on air, and make it seem like that should make a team champions, or ultra-close challengers.

But it's only the cost of the current squad that counts. Because that's all a manager can choose from; he can't go back in time and select a player he sold in order to trade up, just as you can't just turn up to one of your old houses and let yourself in.

You simply cannot add Rafa having spent £5.8m on Sissoko to the £18m on Mascherano, because the two were never part of the same set-up; one was bought and sold for a profit, and as with a house, the money reinvested in a step-up. If Sissoko isn't bought and then sold, Mascherano probably doesn't arrive.

Is that really too tough to grasp?

From my own experience in writing 'Dynasty', I can attest that researching transfer fees is never easy, given the amount of undisclosed fees and various add-ons (for various things, like appearances, trophies won, national caps and the cultivation of unexpectedly daring hairstyles).

But taking each fee as the most a club has expect to pay when add-ons are activated, I've calculated the cost of the most expensive squads in the league, and listed them below.

(Note: while it's impossible to be 100 per cent accurate with the figures in the public domain, I'd say that overall it's at least 95 per cent of the true amount, and with rival teams I've actually been generous and excluded a couple of players whose cost just isn't listed anywhere I could find.)

The most expensive squads (excluding players out on long-term loan) are as follows:

Chelsea £207m
Manchester United £197m*
Spurs £188m
Manchester City £140m
Liverpool £127m

(*£217m if Carlos Tevez's deal made permanent, given that it is initially a unique two-year £10m agreement, and very different from 99.9 of transfer deals. Effectively United are winning games with a £30m player.)

So what does this tell us?

Let's start with the leaders. United's squad contains the most home-grown players, such as Giggs, Scholes, Neville, O'Shea, Brown and Fletcher, who all arrived for free.

So that shows that it is a long-established core supplemented by a lot of expensive signings added one by one to a unified collection. In other words, classic, spot-on building of a squad when already established at the very top.

But it shows that even if you work with the unfair use of Rafa's gross spend, it still doesn't match what Ferguson has spent on his current squad, let alone those who have been bought and sold for record fees in the past.

And this is utterly, utterly critical, and beyond the grasp of some people who cannot analyse things with common sense.

After all, what does it matter how much Rafa has spent since 2004 if Ferguson is currently fielding players like Ferdinand (£30m) and Ronaldo (£12.8m) who were bought before then?

Isn't Rafa – in the real world – competing with a team whose construction started well before he arrived?

Unless Ferguson is banned from fielding players like Ferdinand and Ronaldo (which would be illogical), or forced to start from scratch in 2004 (again illogical), it is not a fair comparison, is it? – I mean, come on, use your brain for a second here.

After all, how much as Harry Redknapp spent since he took over at Spurs? I make it almost £50m. How much has Rafa spent since Harry Redknapp took over at Spurs? Nothing. But only a nutter would compare the two in this deeply skewed way.

Rafa has been in his job about five times as long as Harry, so you obviously wouldn't dare compare their teams. And yet Ferguson has been in his job about five times as long as Rafa, and yet the Spaniard is expected to have Liverpool as champions by now.

Chelsea and Spurs are actually the more interesting examples in many ways. I knew Spurs had spent a lot, but to have a current squad that cost almost £200m shocked me. Add together the cost of Bentley, Pavyluchenko, Palacios, Bale, Defoe, Bent, Keane and Modric and you more-or-less end up with the cost of Liverpool's entire squad.

I could be sarcastic – or media-style sensationalistic – and say that with that much spent, any manager should be able to win almost all of his matches, but it wouldn't be fair or logical. It's far more complex than that, and even a good manager like Redknapp has his work cut out.

Chelsea and Spurs have had seven managers between them since 2007. This means different men making expensive signings and ending up with a mixed squad. Based on expenditure, both of these clubs are massively underachieving this season. Almost certainly to blame for that is the hierarchy having itchy fingers when it comes to firing managers.

Of course, this analysis doesn't include wages, either. You don't get the very top players in the world without also having to pay them a king's ransom. Michael Ballack must be most expensive free transfer ever, with wages reported to be around £130,000 a week, or about £30m over five years. Again, Liverpool are no way near the highest payers, either.

So there you have it. By all means print it out and pass it around; 'pass it on', as the saying goes, including to those in the media who could do with reading it. By all means quibble over some of the finer details, as there is a tolerance of a few percent on the accuracy of the figures, but the overall gist is very much sound and robust.

Note: as all good schoolteachers tell you to do, my workings are there to see, and will be available to view on my website.

[pondus]

Soooooooo what do we need?????

We need to spend. A lot more than we have done.

We need stability, meaning changing manager isn't a good idea, as the one we have is generally doing a great job.

[Craig_H]

Tomkins is Tomkins, never take him seriously because he has about as much balance as a one legged turkey.

There's arguments for both sides obviously, but the fact does remain that Rafa COULD have kept some of the players he sold instead of replacing them at a heavy cost - and that cost could've been combined to sign a superstar player, instead of 3 average at best ones.

[Shaggy]

Not the right thread perhaps, but I found this new article from Tomkins, not too long this one :-), it shows you the total cost of todays most expensive squads in the prem. Good article I thought, I know many on here don't like Tom, but read it anyway.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drill...90304-1429.htm

I've tried in the past, but the media misinformation continues to gather pace like some ill-founded rumour. It's dangerous, because it causes unjust criticism.

Let's make one thing clear: Liverpool have nowhere near the most expensive squad in the Premiership.

No. Where. Near.

Indeed, there are three clubs who have spent at least 50 per cent more on their current squad than Liverpool.

Shocked? Well, you should be if you believe what's spouted out on TV. But it's true. And one of the clubs is not a name you'd necessarily expect.

It doesn't help that some people – such as Jamie Redknapp last night – focus on Rafa's gross spend, rather than the net amount. Effectively, this means counting all the right-backs he's bought as one big outlay, rather than looking at how he's replaced one with another for roughly the same £2m fee.

Working with just the gross spend, you add the £2m of Josemi to the £2m value of Kromkamp (even though it was a swap), to the £2.6m paid for Arbeloa. But none of these players were at the club at the same time, and each was traded to get to the point where an outright success was secured, as happened with the final purchase.

So even though the total cost of getting Arbeloa was just the £2.6m paid, people will use a figure almost three times as high. That is illogical.

(Another note, Jamie: Liverpool have three right-backs on the books, not just one; but the promising Darby, like Arbeloa, was injured and Degen has had a first season ruined by various ailments. So it's wrong to criticise the manager for an unbalanced squad and playing a midfielder out of position when three right-backs are unavailable.)

It's like the housing market: you don't just go in and buy a mansion straight from school. (Okay, so maybe some footballers do, but not the normal people of this world. As someone stuck with renting, I'm speaking generally here!)

You start with an affordable house; you then use the money from selling that to buy your next property. Most people can only get to own a big house having traded their way up over a number of years.

Yet when someone asks how much you spent on your house, you don't add all the houses you've ever bought together, do you?

If you own a £220,000 house, you don't say £470,000 because you add the £90,000 starter home and the £160,000 step up. That would be moronic.

According to the excellent and reliable www.LFCHistory.net, Rafa's gross spend is approximately £188m, but his net spend is only £108m, given that around £80m has been recouped.

(I'd hazard a guess that a large proportion of the £108m net spend has also been recouped through Champions League progress rewards, particularly with the Reds being the top-ranked team based on his five-year tenure.)

So it's easy to pluck a figure of '£195m' from the air, live on air, and make it seem like that should make a team champions, or ultra-close challengers.

But it's only the cost of the current squad that counts. Because that's all a manager can choose from; he can't go back in time and select a player he sold in order to trade up, just as you can't just turn up to one of your old houses and let yourself in.

You simply cannot add Rafa having spent £5.8m on Sissoko to the £18m on Mascherano, because the two were never part of the same set-up; one was bought and sold for a profit, and as with a house, the money reinvested in a step-up. If Sissoko isn't bought and then sold, Mascherano probably doesn't arrive.

Is that really too tough to grasp?

From my own experience in writing 'Dynasty', I can attest that researching transfer fees is never easy, given the amount of undisclosed fees and various add-ons (for various things, like appearances, trophies won, national caps and the cultivation of unexpectedly daring hairstyles).

But taking each fee as the most a club has expect to pay when add-ons are activated, I've calculated the cost of the most expensive squads in the league, and listed them below.

(Note: while it's impossible to be 100 per cent accurate with the figures in the public domain, I'd say that overall it's at least 95 per cent of the true amount, and with rival teams I've actually been generous and excluded a couple of players whose cost just isn't listed anywhere I could find.)

The most expensive squads (excluding players out on long-term loan) are as follows:

Chelsea £207m
Manchester United £197m*
Spurs £188m
Manchester City £140m
Liverpool £127m

(*£217m if Carlos Tevez's deal made permanent, given that it is initially a unique two-year £10m agreement, and very different from 99.9 of transfer deals. Effectively United are winning games with a £30m player.)

So what does this tell us?

Let's start with the leaders. United's squad contains the most home-grown players, such as Giggs, Scholes, Neville, O'Shea, Brown and Fletcher, who all arrived for free.

So that shows that it is a long-established core supplemented by a lot of expensive signings added one by one to a unified collection. In other words, classic, spot-on building of a squad when already established at the very top.

But it shows that even if you work with the unfair use of Rafa's gross spend, it still doesn't match what Ferguson has spent on his current squad, let alone those who have been bought and sold for record fees in the past.

And this is utterly, utterly critical, and beyond the grasp of some people who cannot analyse things with common sense.

After all, what does it matter how much Rafa has spent since 2004 if Ferguson is currently fielding players like Ferdinand (£30m) and Ronaldo (£12.8m) who were bought before then?

Isn't Rafa – in the real world – competing with a team whose construction started well before he arrived?

Unless Ferguson is banned from fielding players like Ferdinand and Ronaldo (which would be illogical), or forced to start from scratch in 2004 (again illogical), it is not a fair comparison, is it? – I mean, come on, use your brain for a second here.

After all, how much as Harry Redknapp spent since he took over at Spurs? I make it almost £50m. How much has Rafa spent since Harry Redknapp took over at Spurs? Nothing. But only a nutter would compare the two in this deeply skewed way.

Rafa has been in his job about five times as long as Harry, so you obviously wouldn't dare compare their teams. And yet Ferguson has been in his job about five times as long as Rafa, and yet the Spaniard is expected to have Liverpool as champions by now.

Chelsea and Spurs are actually the more interesting examples in many ways. I knew Spurs had spent a lot, but to have a current squad that cost almost £200m shocked me. Add together the cost of Bentley, Pavyluchenko, Palacios, Bale, Defoe, Bent, Keane and Modric and you more-or-less end up with the cost of Liverpool's entire squad.

I could be sarcastic – or media-style sensationalistic – and say that with that much spent, any manager should be able to win almost all of his matches, but it wouldn't be fair or logical. It's far more complex than that, and even a good manager like Redknapp has his work cut out.

Chelsea and Spurs have had seven managers between them since 2007. This means different men making expensive signings and ending up with a mixed squad. Based on expenditure, both of these clubs are massively underachieving this season. Almost certainly to blame for that is the hierarchy having itchy fingers when it comes to firing managers.

Of course, this analysis doesn't include wages, either. You don't get the very top players in the world without also having to pay them a king's ransom. Michael Ballack must be most expensive free transfer ever, with wages reported to be around £130,000 a week, or about £30m over five years. Again, Liverpool are no way near the highest payers, either.

So there you have it. By all means print it out and pass it around; 'pass it on', as the saying goes, including to those in the media who could do with reading it. By all means quibble over some of the finer details, as there is a tolerance of a few percent on the accuracy of the figures, but the overall gist is very much sound and robust.

Note: as all good schoolteachers tell you to do, my workings are there to see, and will be available to view on my website.

I will read this shortly but I see from a quick scan he is laying into Sky/Keys/Redknapp for their laughably short-sighted mocking of Benitez and his spending last night. £195m. Yeah, ok.

Some Manc **** at work saw it and this morning went to town on Benitez. I told him that gross spending is not relevant. Net spending is what matters. He said "the bottom line is Benitez has spent £195m - FACT".

The irony of that comment! 'The bottom line' is an accounting term referring to a profit & loss statement of a business. Do you know what the bottom line of that statement is? NET profit!!! Gross comes in at the very top.

So in fact it is the complete opposite of the BOTTOM LINE!

He must've felt a right cunt.

[Le Chef]

we have somone like this wee fella................his name is benayoun and right now he is far and away the best player in a liverpool shirt.

Not as good as lil luis - Luis could change a game even if he came on as a sub. Bennys not got that in him I'm afaraid

[memzey]

Furry muff.

I think we are 3 first team players short of a title winning team, and we could also do with Rafa's philosophy evolving to a more offensive one (especially when we're facing average opponents). I hope we've seen 2 holding midfielders against the fulhams of the prem at home for the last time, and that's all I'm going to say on that.

As for the players:

1: A top class forward to complement or rotate with Torres. This guy needs to be able to help us unpick defences when he's deployed with FT and lead the line when he's on his own.

2: A pacy and attacking right winger, capable of beating his man and chipping in with his fair share of goals

3: The same for the left wing

[pondus]

There is actually a flaw in this article. Tomkins say that according to LFCHistory his net spend is £108 mill, but that is incorrect. The true figures are:

Rafael Benítez bought 51 players for £189,866,000
Rafael Benítez sold 56 players for £108,075,000

Which would be a net spend of about £81.8 mill

Someone should send him an email.

[Shaggy]

Okay so I’ve read Tomkins’ article.

People can harp on about imbalance all they like but this is crystal clear. These are facts. I wonder if Rashid has read it? I don’t always agree with Tomkins but he has nailed this ‘issue’ once and for all. Our squad is the 5th most expensively assembled in the league. I’ve been on record on here as saying we aren’t underachieving and “we are where we should be”. I was wrong. We should be 5th.

Fantastic stuff. Great to be able to put this **** to bed once and for all. Well done Paul.

[Kenneth]

There is actually a flaw in this article. Tomkins say that according to LFCHistory his net spend is £108 mill, but that is incorrect. The true figures are:

Rafael Benítez bought 51 players for £189,866,000
Rafael Benítez sold 56 players for £108,075,000

Which would be a net spend of about £81.8 mill

Someone should send him an email.

A really long winded one that mentions the point about 82 million about 2 lines from the end.

[pondus]

A really long winded one that mentions the point about 82 million about 2 lines from the end.

[murder_inc]

Tomkins is Tomkins, never take him seriously because he has about as much balance as a one legged turkey.

There's arguments for both sides obviously, but the fact does remain that Rafa COULD have kept some of the players he sold instead of replacing them at a heavy cost - and that cost could've been combined to sign a superstar player, instead of 3 average at best ones.

No agenda hey?
You cant read either by the looks of it. The facts and figures are there for all to see but go ahead, slaughter it.
In actual fact, Tomkins was not balanced enough as Rafa's net spend is about 81m not 108m.

[dww]

do we need better players, or do we just need a change of tactics, formation, motivation and attitude?

I remember looking at the utd midfield when they played chelsea and thinking it was teh worst utd midfield I had seen in more than 15 years, chelsea man for man were far better in midfield.

But the chelsea midfield were bossed by that utd team, completely.

In my opinion, we have the talent and the ability, but the team consistantly underperforms, isn't set up correctly against the lesser teams and has an overeliance on science over sense.

Yes we're great against teams that are "better" than us and we revel in being underdogs - we are masters at stopping other teams from playing and nicking a goal, but we cannot break teams down, up the tempo and be relentless.

All this talk about who would we bring in points to adding somebody additional to the squad who, as an individual, can be a match winner on their own. Somebody who will be unpredictable and win a match with a piece of brilliance.

Attack + Midfields in the Chelsea - Man United game:
Chelsea: Mikel, Ballack, Lampard, Deco, Cole, Drogba
United: Giggs, Fletcher, Park, Ronaldo, Rooney, Berbatov

I really think that is a better player for player than us (arguably from both teams except Mikel who is a very average holding player). The fact is that people have under rated Fletcher for a while - largely because he grew into being an excellent player later than many think is the cut off point for player development. The midfield and attack is also nicely balanced in terms of flair, hardwork and intelligence. I do feel that we lack invention and intelligent leadership in attack. Obviously Rafa has largely assembled the squad so he bears some responsibility for this but he has also raise our level substantially.

I do think we are at the point where we need small changes that enhance the players already in the squad rather than an overhaul or desperately requiring superstars. It is quite possible that a new approach/mentality would provide this but I tend towards the feeling that we need some changes in playing staff too.

[squaddie]

'I do think we are at the point where we need small changes that enhance the players already in the squad rather than an overhaul or desperately requiring superstars. It is quite possible that a new approach/mentality would provide this but I tend towards the feeling that we need some changes in playing staff too.'

[BrianF80]

do we need better players, or do we just need a change of tactics, formation, motivation and attitude?

I remember looking at the utd midfield when they played chelsea and thinking it was teh worst utd midfield I had seen in more than 15 years, chelsea man for man were far better in midfield.

But the chelsea midfield were bossed by that utd team, completely.

In my opinion, we have the talent and the ability, but the team consistantly underperforms, isn't set up correctly against the lesser teams and has an overeliance on science over sense.

Yes we're great against teams that are "better" than us and we revel in being underdogs - we are masters at stopping other teams from playing and nicking a goal, but we cannot break teams down, up the tempo and be relentless.

All this talk about who would we bring in points to adding somebody additional to the squad who, as an individual, can be a match winner on their own. Somebody who will be unpredictable and win a match with a piece of brilliance.

IMO we've struggled in those games as much because we've played with two holding midfielders neither of who understand how to participate in attack and because both of the much vaunted attacking wing backs have for one reason or another been a bust.

The plan at the beginning of the year sounded good Gerrard could play in attack or central midfield, we had Keane so we could play 442 and have Gerrard in CM. We had inside forwards (Kuyt, Babel, Bennayoun) who could cut in and be paired with proper attacking wing backs whose strengths were overlapping and crossing. Even the Barry option would have given more mobility in midfield if you really wanted to attack and pair him with Gerrard.

It all sounded really good on paper

I think we are likely to see another attempt at putting together the same sort of game plan because the super winger we all crave either doesn't exist, his team won't sell or we can't afford him. Admit it super wingers wise there is only Ribery and Silva and I just don't see us being able to get them, so we have to find a way, again, to improve using 2nd tier players.

On the bright side though, the next transfer window cannot possibly go as bad as the last.