Transfer Spending Myths: Liverpool

[blanconi]

Conventional thinking would suggest that manure outspends Liverpool in the transfer window. In fact you would be hardpressed to find someone to attest otherwise. While browsing the net yesterday I run into this:





http://www.transferleague.co.uk/

Manure only spent around 11mil more than us and made about 13 more from sales. So what gives? I was interested to hear the opinions of people who follow this stuff more closely. I for one am very surprised if thse figures are in fact true.

[liverbird]

Conventional thinking would suggest that manure outspends Liverpool in the transfer window. In fact you would be hardpressed to find someone to attest otherwise. While browsing the net yesterday I run into this:


http://www.transferleague.co.uk/

Manure only spent around 11mil more than us and made about 13 more from sales. So what gives? I was interested to hear the opinions of people who follow this stuff more closely. I for one am very surprised if thse figures are in fact true.



So why are we tracking from 1992 until 2009? What is the source? Public audited financial disclosure or rag journalist speculation? Why not 2004 to 2009 for a relevant comaprison to today's market and today's teams. Finally you need to look at the significant deficit in talent that Benitez inherited -- nothing to sell and a big need to buy.

[Red Bird]

So why are we tracking from 1992 until 2009? What is the source? Public audited financial disclosure or rag journalist speculation? Why not 2004 to 2009 for a relevant comaprison to today's market and today's teams. Finally you need to look at the significant deficit in talent that Benitez inherited -- nothing to sell and a big need to buy.

And then notice that some of the figures are plain wrong. Allegedly Fernando Torres cost £26.5 million and Sissoko was sold to Juventues for £8.2 million :eek: About £5 million out on each count, I'd say. What about the undisclosed fees? Tabloid trash, bar room tittle-tattle and wishful speculation, all with with an analytical tab on it, to misquote one of your ex-presidents' lawyer.

[blanconi]

So why are we tracking from 1992 until 2009? What is the source? Public audited financial disclosure or rag journalist speculation? Why not 2004 to 2009 for a relevant comaprison to today's market and today's teams. Finally you need to look at the significant deficit in talent that Benitez inherited -- nothing to sell and a big need to buy.

If we were to account for years 2004+ only then as per the second table on the site we actually outspend united. But that argument can easily be quelled as by that time fergie had arleady the backbone of his current team in place.

I also take the figures with a grain of salt but I was still surprised to see that the spending of the two teams was so close.

So you think these figures are inaccurate?

[TrueLion]

Benitez has spent £195m since he joined Liverpool, not sure how much he was recouped in sales though, a large quantity I'm guessing.

[revelationx]

Benitez has spent £195m since he joined Liverpool, not sure how much he was recouped in sales though, a large quantity I'm guessing.

He has recouped ~£108 million in outgoing players.

[el-capitano]

TOMKINS: END SHOCKING TRANSFER MYTH (http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG163483090304-1429.htm)

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.

(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.)

Go into the link to read more about the detail- but he covers it all. ;)

[usscouse]

What boggles the mind is when they toss figures around, like $100 mill for Kaka.
Building a stadium for Liverpool was supposed to cost that much. (I doubt that now though.)
You can see how "only the rich" can compete.
I know how to equalize this. Other than having Diana Moonglampers the equalizer general sort it out.

Abandon the leagues as we know them. Just have 6 teams per country (example. Europe) dumping the poorer, or football challenged cities and provide fast trains to the 6. The government can decide based on football savy and place of birth on which team you support.
Of course team like Everton and ManUre would have to go, bowing to the team the city chooses as best for the people. Manure being outside of the City and Everton being outside. full stop. An East and West London making the Southern section. One in the Birmingham area for the Midlands and one up North.
Think of the money that is now going to some 60 major clubs in Engerland and channeled into just 6 clubs and what that could buy.
That would be something like just 60 clubs in a 3 tiered European super league.... Ooops a call to dinner, sorry.

OK so I threadjacked, sue me.

How many of you know Diana Moonglampers?