Tomkins: End shocking transfer myth

[EwarWoo]

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

But if you're going to exclude these players from the net, are you going to exclude the players he bought to replace them?

To have a fair measure you have to include all surely? It's not like he found them under a park bench and released them for free as he couldn't fit them in his squad.

Saying that but he as done pretty well on his turn arounds. I did work out a while back his in's and out's (only including players both bought and sold by himself) and I seem to rmemeber it came back with a small profit.

Can't swear it but as it was one of those for interest things that got threw away afterwards.

[EwarWoo]

Just re-ran the excercise, came out with just shy of 3.7m profit

http://img13.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rafap.jpg

[Tatterdemalion]

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..

That is much more like the truth.

[Charly]

I disagree.

Gross spend is a better indicator.

Net spend simply tells us the level of investment made by the owners. Net spend shows good business acumen (or not). It shows what has been recouped on players already at the club, and players who were never good enough or didnt settle.

Gross spend is telling us exactly how much Rafa is spending on players. IF someone asked what was needed in terms of cash to win the league, they would be talking in gross terms, not net, because player sales dont come into it when you are judging rafa on his transfers sucess. If you are judging him as a businessman, then net spend is more relevant.

Rafa had had £200m to spend on players. It donent matter where it has come from, players sales or borrowed from the banks, its all the same to Rafa. Obviously there is a restriction to the amount of gross cash available, so more can be generated by selling players, but we should be judging the manager by his sucess on the pitch relative to the total he has spent on players, not who he has sold, and for how much. Again, that is only of interest from an accounting point of view.

We gave Rafa apporximately £200m to spend on players, that was financed from various sources (including player sales). Regardless, he as had £200m to sit down, and choose to sign players with.

That money being well spent is another matter. I think £200m should have bought us more than one match winner (in Torres), and have enough to fill out a squad. Fair enough, we have potentially a great squad, with many decent youg players, but he has failed to secure a decent back-up striker, or match-winning wide players.


I hope that helps people to understand why gross spend is a better indicator. I used to think Net spend was more relevant. But I changed my mind, when ultimately, it comes down to who Bentiez has signed, as opposed to sold, that wins you trophies.

[Neil Young]

I disagree.

Gross spend is a better indicator.

Net spend simply tells us the level of investment made by the owners. Net spend shows good business acumen (or not). It shows what has been recouped on players already at the club, and players who were never good enough or didnt settle.

Gross spend is telling us exactly how much Rafa is spending on players. IF someone asked what was needed in terms of cash to win the league, they would be talking in gross terms, not net, because player sales dont come into it when you are judging rafa on his transfers sucess. If you are judging him as a businessman, then net spend is more relevant.

Rafa had had £200m to spend on players. It donent matter where it has come from, players sales or borrowed from the banks, its all the same to Rafa. Obviously there is a restriction to the amount of gross cash available, so more can be generated by selling players, but we should be judging the manager by his sucess on the pitch relative to the total he has spent on players, not who he has sold, and for how much. Again, that is only of interest from an accounting point of view.

We gave Rafa apporximately £200m to spend on players, that was financed from various sources (including player sales). Regardless, he as had £200m to sit down, and choose to sign players with.

That money being well spent is another matter. I think £200m should have bought us more than one match winner (in Torres), and have enough to fill out a squad. Fair enough, we have potentially a great squad, with many decent youg players, but he has failed to secure a decent back-up striker, or match-winning wide players.


I hope that helps people to understand why gross spend is a better indicator. I used to think Net spend was more relevant. But I changed my mind, when ultimately, it comes down to who Bentiez has signed, as opposed to sold, that wins you trophies.

When judging a manager's transfer record, using only gross spend makes no distinction between buying one player for £100m and buying 20 players on a one in/one out basis for £5m each. That's bonkers.

[EwarWoo]

Rafa had had £200m to spend on players. It donent matter where it has come from, players sales or borrowed from the banks, its all the same to Rafa.

Hypothetical scenario.

Manager: I want to buy x. He costs 20m.
Owner: Sorry mate, you only have 18m to spend.
Manager: Bugger it, I'll sell Y for 4m to make up the difference. He mainly sits on the bench, we can replace him next window when we have the cash.

Why net spend is extremely relevant and gross is not a true indicator.

Could even extend it to next window:
Manager: I found a replacement for Y. The *******s want 6.5m but as we're supposedly rich and the markets changed. We're deperate but with Z's long term injury. This windows screwed.

Which is why I personally think comparing spending between clubs with limited and unlimited funds will never work. Sometimes they have to rob Peter to pay Paul which works out more exxy long term.

Our net does look favourable, but if it didn't it wouldn't mean too much.

[Cormack74]

On the same theme as Tomkins:

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11096_5022474,00.html

John Dillon says Rafa Benitez's record is not good enough for him to be afforded total control over Liverpool's transfer policy.

Reports in the Sunday newspapers suggested that the Liverpool boss may have to sell players before he is allowed to spend any money in the summer.

The reports come amid protracted negotiations over the Spaniard's new deal with one of the stumbling blocks thought to be who has the final say over signings.

Dillon, of The Sunday Express, argued that Benitez should not be given total power over the club's transfer dealings because he has signed too many "average" players during his spell in charge.

"I should think he needs to sell to buy," said Dillon.

"He's bought so many players over the time that he's been there - and a lot of them have turned out to be very average players.

"There's been an argument at Liverpool about him having complete control over transfers, but I think he needs to up his game in the transfer market to prove he's worth having complete control.

"He builds teams rather than buying spectacular individuals. Fernando Torres is that, but he's also an out-and-out striker.

"There always has to be a crisis with Benitez. He's like Mourinho in a way, he creates situations to feed off, either to motivate himself or the team."


However, Sam Wallace of The Independent disagreed, suggesting Benitez has done well with the resources he has been given.

Wallace argued that Liverpool have done well to compete with Manchester United, even they don't have anywhere near the same spending power as the Old Trafford club.

"I don't quite agree with John's assessment of his transfer record," Wallace said.

"I think it's actually quite decent.

"This is lighting the blue touchpaper in Liverpool because there have been pages and pages written in fanzines on his players in and players out. People will talk about all the young players in the academies that we don't know about.

"What I would say is as great a club as Liverpool is, it's not the great commercial powerhouse of Manchester United. It doesn't have the infrastructure, the stadium or the matchday revenue.

"They are simply not as powerful as Manchester United and in those terms I don't think he's done a bad job.

"He's not managing a club that in terms of its finances is comparable with Manchester United and yet he's expected to compete with them.

"And he has bought some fantastic players - Alonso, Torres, Skrtel, Agger, Reina - these are good players.

"I feel he brings players like Craig Bellamy in for a certain period of time and then moves them on to try to improve on them. That is building a club.

"Plus he hasn't gone anywhere. He's lasted a lot longer than Jose Mourinho did in English football!"

[Guest]

I disagree.

Gross spend is a better indicator.

Net spend simply tells us the level of investment made by the owners. Net spend shows good business acumen (or not). It shows what has been recouped on players already at the club, and players who were never good enough or didnt settle.

Gross spend is telling us exactly how much Rafa is spending on players. IF someone asked what was needed in terms of cash to win the league, they would be talking in gross terms, not net, because player sales dont come into it when you are judging rafa on his transfers sucess. If you are judging him as a businessman, then net spend is more relevant.

Rafa had had £200m to spend on players. It donent matter where it has come from, players sales or borrowed from the banks, its all the same to Rafa. Obviously there is a restriction to the amount of gross cash available, so more can be generated by selling players, but we should be judging the manager by his sucess on the pitch relative to the total he has spent on players, not who he has sold, and for how much. Again, that is only of interest from an accounting point of view.

We gave Rafa apporximately £200m to spend on players, that was financed from various sources (including player sales). Regardless, he as had £200m to sit down, and choose to sign players with.

That money being well spent is another matter. I think £200m should have bought us more than one match winner (in Torres), and have enough to fill out a squad. Fair enough, we have potentially a great squad, with many decent youg players, but he has failed to secure a decent back-up striker, or match-winning wide players.


I hope that helps people to understand why gross spend is a better indicator. I used to think Net spend was more relevant. But I changed my mind, when ultimately, it comes down to who Bentiez has signed, as opposed to sold, that wins you trophies.

Players are paid in installments, so it's not as if he's spending outrightly this amount. Even then, he's got a budget to work for, i.e at the end of the day, he needs to sell players to balance the outgoings.

In one budgeted term, he will need to balance the books. Not something Man.Utd or Chelsea are really concerned with because they've got huge resources. They can even out their spending on a longer term, unlike us.

Using gross spend is ridiculous, because he's always had to sell before/after buying players.

[Vermilion]

Also it's not just about cost, attraction has a lot to do with it when good players are on offer for reasonable money, Vidic for example, one of UTD's stalwarts, we could have afforded him, but he was always going to choose them...****.

Rooney, another of their lynch pins, who else could have bought him, not us for sure, so many things have a bearing on the side UTD now find them selves with, not all cash driven...but all combine to give them an advantage over us.

[Red_Polo]

I disagree.

Gross spend is a better indicator.

Net spend simply tells us the level of investment made by the owners. Net spend shows good business acumen (or not). It shows what has been recouped on players already at the club, and players who were never good enough or didnt settle.

Gross spend is telling us exactly how much Rafa is spending on players. IF someone asked what was needed in terms of cash to win the league, they would be talking in gross terms, not net, because player sales dont come into it when you are judging rafa on his transfers sucess. If you are judging him as a businessman, then net spend is more relevant.

Rafa had had £200m to spend on players. It donent matter where it has come from, players sales or borrowed from the banks, its all the same to Rafa. Obviously there is a restriction to the amount of gross cash available, so more can be generated by selling players, but we should be judging the manager by his sucess on the pitch relative to the total he has spent on players, not who he has sold, and for how much. Again, that is only of interest from an accounting point of view.

We gave Rafa apporximately £200m to spend on players, that was financed from various sources (including player sales). Regardless, he as had £200m to sit down, and choose to sign players with.

That money being well spent is another matter. I think £200m should have bought us more than one match winner (in Torres), and have enough to fill out a squad. Fair enough, we have potentially a great squad, with many decent youg players, but he has failed to secure a decent back-up striker, or match-winning wide players.


I hope that helps people to understand why gross spend is a better indicator. I used to think Net spend was more relevant. But I changed my mind, when ultimately, it comes down to who Bentiez has signed, as opposed to sold, that wins you trophies.

Gross spend is an utterly idiotic indicator.

If you moved from one £3m house to another and they are both equally good value for money, you wouldn't expect visitors to say on completion of the house tour "you've dropped three million quid and your home is no ****ing better than the previous one" whilst licking the window, would you?

[einar]

IMO when people say that Rafa could have bought 1 player for 30m instead of 3-4 lesser players I´m not sure that is true. Parry had a big say in what a player was worth. Let´s not forget that when Rafa took over our record signing was Cisse for 14m. I have had the feeling for a long time now that Rafa has wanted to buy players for more money but was not allowed to by the board or Parry. All these players that we have missed out on, Alves, Villa, Simao, Silva, Aguero, to name a few, where deemed to expensive by someone. And I don´t think that someone was always Rafa. So when people say Rafa could have bought this one and that one for 30m+, I´m not sure that is true. And then these same people bash him for buying Pennant or Bellamy. These where not first choices. They where the best he was allowed to buy.

[Craig_H]

So the board didnt let him buy top players? Ok mate.

[einar]

So the board didnt let him buy top players? Ok mate.

I actually belive that. Parry said in a few interviews that it was Liverpool that decided the worth of a player and not the seller. I do belive that many players including David Villa could have been Liverpool players but the board said the price was too high.
So yes, the board did not let him buy top players because they felt the wherer to expensive.

[Charly]

Gross spend is an utterly idiotic indicator.

If you moved from one £3m house to another and they are both equally good value for money, you wouldn't expect visitors to say on completion of the house tour "you've dropped three million quid and your home is no ****ing better than the previous one" whilst licking the window, would you?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

All I am saying is Rafa spent £200m

Look at it another way.

If you are going to buy a new top for £20, and sell your old one for £10. You have spent £20 on tops.

When you ask Rafa how much will it cost to assemble a championship winning team, he will count the cost of the players he needs, say £150m. Spending that £150m and then recouping £50m, he has still spent £150m

[Charly]

Using gross spend is ridiculous, because he's always had to sell before/after buying players.

But not to judge how much a manager needs to spend on players to win a title.

Ridiculous is a strong word, considering I have justified its use.