Tomkins: End shocking transfer myth

[The Birdman]

We won't catch up until A. Fergie goes, a new manager after all that time is bound to have a certain effect or B. We get proper financial backing.
Doesn't matter who our manager is

[kingfunk]

See SSN, kuwaiti gorup in talks, but negotiations "going really badly" because price too high.

[squaddie]

We won't catch up until A. Fergie goes, a new manager after all that time is bound to have a certain effect or B. We get proper financial backing. Doesn't matter who our manager is

Surely the fact that we dont have a new stadium like the scum etc, makes a massive difference with being able to buy at least a couple of 25 mil upwards signings each season? (Rather than one that was a record signing for the club.)

[mersey86]

We won't catch up until A. Fergie goes, a new manager after all that time is bound to have a certain effect or B. We get proper financial backing.
Doesn't matter who our manager is

We need a new stadium as well.

[BG1973]

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

Chelsea £207m
Manchester United £206m*
Spurs £188m
Manchester City £140m
Liverpool £127m



And there you have it.. the only meaningful figs on the subject. It's clear our squad is relatively weak in areas and here is the true reason why.

Until we stop doing most of our shopping in Topman and start doing more in Harrods it always will be. We shop in Harrods once in a blue moon. United and chelsea have store cards! And the thing is this should now start happening. The squad is not perfect but it is at a stage where we only need a couple of additions per year. What obviously needs to happen though is that Rafa clearly identifies where we're weak and buys players that will significantly improve us. We can't afford any more flops like Keane.

Here's hoping..

[bobbyfallon]

"Okay, it must end NOW! I've reached breaking point. The shocking transfer myth must be put to rest, once and for all.

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 £206m*
Spurs £188m
Manchester City £140m
Liverpool £127m

(*£226m 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. "

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

[Red_Polo]

Think about it.

[Fivex]

Net spend <> Total cost

D'****ing'oh bobby lad

[pondus]

As I pointed out in the other thread where this article was posted (way way before this one ) there is a flaw in the aricle.

Rafa's net spend is £80.2 mill. He has sold players for £108 mill. All according to lfchistory.

[rudedog]

As I pointed out in the other thread where this article was posted (way way before this one ) there is a flaw in the aricle.

Rafa's net spend is £80.2 mill. He has sold players for £108 mill. All according to lfchistory.

where is the flaw? the article states the exact same thing as you have posted

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.

[edit] sorry - i see what you mean now, brain wasn't engaged before.

[pondus]

where is the flaw? the article states the exact same thing as you have posted




[edit] sorry - i see what you mean now, brain wasn't engaged before.

[cumbriankop]

Net spend <> Total cost

D'****ing'oh bobby lad

squad includes players here before rafa arrived. no conspiracy here

[Darkon]

Surely, gross spend is a better indicator. Net spend is more of a concern to the accountants.

At £200m. thats 10 players at £20m each, plus Stevie.

Okay, you have to buy for a squad, and not every purchase will come off, but Rafa has really failed to create a side taht doesnt rely on Gerrard or Torres. When Houllier left, we desperately needed a couple of wide players who could run with the ball, and were match winners. Rafa has failed to address this problem.

I could actually see Barry being bought as a left sided midfielder, but either way, Reira is not a long term answer, and neither is Kuyt.

There are 2 reasons why gross spend is not a better meassurement...

First of all, it tells you nothing about what has been available each season, and compared to how many players where needed. Some of the seasons only around 15m have been available, so the average does not mean a thing in that case, as Rafa coulden't buy a 20m player. Secondly if he wanted 3-4 players, then even less would be available for each.

Secondly and as pointed out by others, it says nothing about would be available for purchase if no players had been sold. If rafa recouped 80m then that is on average a further 16m each season to spend on players. So the average each season without sales would be only 24m, only reaching 5 expensive players in your example...

And have to add the third, namely that by selling some players you also loose some of the talent in the squad, so that you will end up with less net talent than the gross number would suggest.

Net spend is hence a better meassurement IMO.

[rudedog]

squad includes players here before rafa arrived. no conspiracy here

Only Hyypia - £2.5million

[cumbriankop]

net spend also includes sale of players in squad rafa did not buy.

his actual in and out of players he bought and then sold ie total he brought in and amount of players he sold and the value we got for them, i agree would be a interesting view of things - taking the view that thats what youre hinting at

the level of turnaround of players, hinting at flops, and where or whether we've turned a profit strictly on his buys would be interesting