Should they stay or should they go??

Houllier: The man has come over hard times lately but in all fairness has brought Liverpool on a great deal from when Evans and Souness were at the helm. I don't think he has the ability to make Liverpool in the team Liverpool want. It was the same when he was French coach he setup a great basis for success but was never able to put the final touches on it. He's created a good solid unit of players but has sacrificed the attacking side of the game leaving players attitude approaching games very negative. I say "You've done a great deal for Liverpool and that will never be forgotten but perhaps it's time for a change"

Moyes: I don't think anyone has ever really questioned Moyes' ability. He knows and so do every other Evertonian know that last season they overachieved for the squad they had at the time. This season Moyes has been without one key player for a long time and it's not Wayne Rooney, it's Joseph Yobo. He was Evertons rock at the back last season and with him missing the spine of the side is disrupted. Also Wayne Rooneys form has been rollercoaster to say the least this season but you expect him to shake that off as he gets older. Moyes is doing an excellent job with the resources he has available and I think thats the sign of an top-class manager.

Ferguson: I wouldn't quite say the wheels are off the wagon yet for Fergie but he certainly has made a number of major errors this season. When Beckham left obviously he was a major loss but not one that couldn't be replaced and when United fans were looking for the big name replacements such as Ronaldinho and Duff they were given Kleberson and Bellion! Uniteds squad now is looking extremely streched at the moment no more than two years ago people would've looked at Uniteds bench and said "Look at the strenght in depth they have" now it's more like "He could fill a gap but isn't he a bit young though". Quite simply Ferguson I think looked to bring in fresh new young talent this season bu perhaps brought in too much and at such a high level it's proving to be too big a risk. Also when Ferdinand was suspended it didn't happen overnight but over the space of 2 months before a sentance was given, during this time Ferguson had ample opportunity to bring in a short-term stop-gap like what Laurent Blanc did to replace Jaap Stam for a couple of months whilst the defence regrouped and steadied the boat. Ferdinands suspension couldn't have arrived at a more opportune moment, i.e. The January Transfer Window, in which Ferguson would have been able to bring in a "Blanc" like figure but he failed to capitalise and is paying the price...Big-Time. Expect big money signings of VanNistlerooy proportions during the summer, nothings worse than when Ferguson wants to get even. He'll have his job until he decides to leave 15 years of success is not easily forgotten!

Ranieri: Doing a fantastic job under an immense amount of pressure! Quarter-Finals of the Champions League and Second in the Premiership only to one of the best teams this league has ever seen.........What exactly is he doing wrong? Only gripe I have with Ranieri is his obsession with buying central midfielders(although with Russian Alexi Smertin you have to wonder who's buying the players?), Chelsea have very little strength indepth in wide areas with Duff, Gronkjaer and Stanic(Who's currently injured). Was surprised at the announcement that Robben would sign as I feel they need a top quality right winger not another for the left surley Duff has proven his worth as one of the worlds best. The money at Chelsea I feel has been a curse to Ranieri aswell as a gift on one hand Ranieri is free to sign who he wants(to a certain limit) but also if the team loses even one game the press are on his back. I don't think many Chelsea fans expected to win the league with all their new players in the first season but will be delighted with progress so far. Put it this way to keep this simple.....Nobody in the press expected Chelsea to win the League though when they do exactly what the press predicted they hound Ranieri! Ranieri to stay on!

 

Ferguson STILL insists him selling Beckham was the right thing. this is why i can't stand this man nowadays , he just never admits when he's wrong.

 

People criticised Ferguson for letting Hughes, Bruce, Pallister, Ince, McClair and Kanchelskis go. Do you think that any manager is going to admit he's wrong? I don't think so!
Obviously he saw Beckham as a distraction to the Team, when Bayern were asked about whether they'd sign him they said "they'd rather sign a footballer than a celebrity". Beckham was sold for 35million euro a price which seems like great business for any club considering the options he has to bring in players of a similar standard.

 

Houllier: Has NOT spent £125m. When are people going to let that one go? His net expenditure since taking sole charge has been about £12m a season. Which is slightly more than Aston Villa. Has also done more for the club than any manager since Joe Fagan.

Moyes: Overachieved last season, underachieved this. It's his first premiership assignment and there is no basis in fact or rational analysis to suggest anyone else could do a better job.

Ferguson: Nine weeks ago, United were top of the league with the best defensive record. United made a mistake not buying someone to cover Ferdinand but was that Ferguson's mistake, or a collective one? As to the whole Beckham thing, spare me. That is such a red herring. Suffice it to say, United will be marked up as second favourite for the league next season ... again.

Ranieri: Should stay. The players want him to stay, the team he has assembled is worthy of development by him. Of course, makes no odds to Abramovitch, who clearly just doesn't fancy the guy. Whatever happens, the manager of Chelsea will, for the foreseeable future, always be no more than five games from the sack. The continental revolution at the Bridge is thereby complete.

 

Add This up it isn't 125m but it is 116.4m:
FRODE KIPPE 700,000

JEAN MICHEL FERRI 1.7M

RIGOBERT SONG 2.6M

DJIMI TRAORE 550,000

SAMI HYYPIA 3M

TITI CAMARA 2.6

STEPHAINE HENCHOZ 3.5

SANDER WESTERVELD 4M

VLAD SMICER 4.2M

DIETMAR HAMMAN 8M

EMILE HESKEY 11M

BERNARD DIOMEDE 3M

NICK BARMBY 6M

CHRISTIAN ZIEGE 5.5M

GREGORY VIGNAL 500,000

DANNY SJOLUND 1M

IGOR BISCAN 5.5M

JOHN ARNE RIISE 4.6M

CHRIS KIRKLAND 6M

JERZY DUDEK 4.85M

MILAN BAROS 3.6M

ABEL XAVIER 800,000

EL-HADJI DIOUF 10M

BRUNO CHEYROU 3.7M

SALIF DIAO 5M

HARRY KEWELL 5M

FLORENT SINAMA PONGOLLE 3M

ANTHONY LE TALLEC 3M

STEVE FINNAN 3.5M

TOTAL SPENDING £116.4million
He's been at Liverpool for 5 years now thats about £20+million a year on average and has recouped only £50million over this period. Nobody is questioning what he has done for the club but Liverpool are stuck in a rut now. Nobody questions what he did for France but he couldn't take them on that extra step. As for your theories on Aston Villas spending during Houlliers time at Liverpool are slightly off seeing as they have only spent 68million during this period but have recouped 38million!

Get your facts right before asking people to "let things go". Arsenal have spent roughly about the same amount as Liverpool and are now miles ahead in terms of class what does this tell you about the standards of players brought into highbury compared to Houlliers signings?

 

add another 2 for ziege

 

Some of those figures are wrong, but even if we accept them as gospel, it ignores the fact that you are talking about gross expenditure on players coming in. Whereas I clearly said net.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

So by ignoring players going out, you essentially develop an argument with a financial basis from one highly selective viewpoint.

A point which is valid for Aston Villa, but not for Liverpool, it would seem. Where Houllier is concerned, it makes better press to use a different yardstick ...

You can stick with your bubblegum tabloid view of the world, or you can make some effort to shed such ignorance.

The total impact on Liverpool's coffers from Houllier's buying and selling in the transfer market is a shade over £60m.

In and of itself an unremarkable total in an unremarkable aspect of the debate as a whole. Plus, of course, it's a figure taken before you factor in the income from two CL campaigns, the treble year and two further UEFA seasons, plus the progression up the league until last season and all the attendant increases in League and TV revenue. Which, in general estimates of a total, probably comes in at around £50m.

Add in normal revenue and which ever way you dice it, the financial impact of the Houllier reign is in the black. The financial view of this matter is profoundly assinine in any case given the many other factors that a true fan would be more focus upon but as I said, that doesn't make great press. Anything more astute and insightful and the idiots writing for the papers that the morons amonst us choose to read find that too taxing a paradigm to try to rise above.

As for our current position, it's not what any Liverpool fan wants, but at least we have the comfort of being able to address the issue from the a position of knowledge and insight, not tabloid hooey and whatever half-arsed approximation we can crib off the internet.

Now there's a fact to get straight.

I say again - let it go. It's a matter of personal dignity more than anything else. Who wants to be just another internet gobshite flying off half-cock on issues they know insufficiently well to be commenting upon in any seriousness?

 

Its not the fact that Liverpool have had the money to spend on these players but the fact that these players cost 116.4m(and yes these figures are right or cose to the truth) and liverpool are nowhere near the standard of Arsenal who have spent a similar amount.

"Has NOT spent £125m", I'm afraid he has about this amount: Simple problem if I spend £6 pounds on apples and sell them for £3 I still spent £6!

It's 116.4m that could've been spent wiser just cos Liverpool can afford it doesn't meen it should be accepted that 116.4m over 5 years and liverpool are lying 7th in the premiership!

Why should a Liverpool supporter be worried about Aston Villa. Fact of the matter is things haven't being going well for near two years now it's not a blip on the record it's an oil spill and it's getting worse by the week. Thank you Houllier but I'm afraid you have to step aside.

PS: I like to build my own opinions and I'm quite aware how the media have portrayed Houlliers situation but this has no bearing on mine. CL qualification would be an improvement on last season but it's only fourth, Liverpool FC have never settled for this in the past why should it start now. Arsena, Chelsea and United are pulling away from LFC quickly and if something isn't done soon we'll end up like another Newcastle, chasing the pack!

 

Even at first glance your figures total inaccuracies worth at least £15m, if you insist we can go through them.

No financier you, clearly. And we haven't even got around to the nature of the payments yet. Just one example off the top of my head, just £130,000 of the "£1m" we paid for Sjolund ever changed hands. Another - Chris Kirkland will have 25 England caps by the time a full £6m has made it's way from the LFC coffers to those at Highfield Road.

Bottom line - he has spent a lot of money where a lot needed spending. He has also brought in a large amount of money in return, both directly from the transfer market and from the exploits of his team(s) on the field.

He has emphatically not done anything that warrants the enduringly simplistic and boring focus upon this single aspect of the debate. So one more time - let it go.

As to the rest of it, like I said - no Liverpool fan wants to be in the position we are in, but I'm afraid that does not translate into a willingness to indulge the ill-informed views of simpletons whose interest in the facts and actualities of the situation is zero.

I'll pass on the free advice, thanks.

 

Arsene Wenger and Arsenal have done a phenomenal job and gotten great value out of their transfers. Thierry Henry, Patrick Viera, Robert Pires . . . have all been excellent values. He has had a few clunkers (Sylvain Wiltord, Kanu, etc). He has gotten excellent values for players he has sold (Overmars, etc). Their wage structure is very high - a factor that must be taken into consideration too.

No other major premiership club has gotten the value that Houllier has from his transfers. Ferguson has spent a fortune to get his results, including such wretched purchases (value even if not wretched quality) as Veron and Forlan.

Bobby Robson has spent extravagent amounts of money as well (greater gross spending than Houllier and far less in return transfers). Robert, Cort, Bellamy, Bramble, Woodgate, et al have all been premium type purchases. And Newcastle have not been as successful.

Leeds spent even more money and has gotten pennies on the dollar for their sales.

Tottenham have spent a great deal (Dean Richards, Doherty, Keane, Kanoute, Postiga, Ziege, Zamora, etc have not been cheap) over the same period of time and they have gotten scarcely anything as a return.

I won't even get into Chelsea.

Two other factors worthy of consideration: Unlike Spurs or Leeds for instance - Houllier's purchases have been (by and large) younger players who have long careers ahead of them: Le Tallec, Sinama-Pongelle, Kirkland, Vignel, Diouf, Heskey, Riise, Kewell, etc. All of these players continue to have value and have many years of service left to supply the club should they continue at the club.

Second, Liverpool very rarely pays a premium on expensive established players. Apart from Heskey and Diouf (the first of whom is in the top 20 of active and lifetime premiership goalscorers and the second of whom is only 22 and already 2 time African PotY), Houllier has not laid out tons of money on any given player. Hamann has been a bargain considering the market when his transfer took place. Houllier tends to favor the purchase of value players like Hyppia, Henchoz, etc. When you are a bargain hunter - mistakes are going to be made. That is the price you pay for guessing on players in earlier stages of their development.

Considering the trophies that Liverpool has won over the period of Houllier's stewardship relative to other teams - your criticism is overblown.

 

Speaking of which... I seem to remember hearing that Liverpool get paid whenever Fowler scores? Was that ever true, and if so, is that still in effect?

 

You lost me here. While I agree with Matt that Houllier's spending is vastly overblown (that he managed to get so much for Fowler is remarkable), Houllier has definitely not received as much value from his transfers as other clubs.

I'm not United fan, but Veron is hardly "wretched", and to ignore his astute purchases of so many other players strikes me as odd. Stam=title. Rio, while waaay too expensive also brought a title, and until his suspension had United atop of the league with the fewest goals allowed this year.
If you don't like how people cherry pick Liverpool's signings, don't do it with others.

True - NUFC has spent more money than people realize.

Their problem were their wages, not really transfer fees. As for pennies on the dollar - Rio ring a bell?

You forgot Rebrov. We definitely agree here.

Feel free - which of our transfers haven't really worked out? Last year we only brought in one new player - DeUseless, on a free. This year, who hasn't been worth the value? Cole? I guess, although he came fairly cheaply. Duff? Crespo? Makelele? Geremi? Veron's been injured, but I suppose there's your potshot. Glen Johnson, who's actually played for England now? (Not that he's ready for games at the senior level, but he's 20!)
Say what you will, Chelsea have gotten decent value for our purchases. And we have in the past, too - Gallas was a steal, for instance.

Perhaps, although you've failed to mention signings for the future like Traore, Diao, Biscan, etc. It goes both ways. Plus, how well Riise and Diouf will do in the future is very much open to debate.

OK.....but with bargains also come busts. If you want to aspire to the same heights you once reached, I think you need to be a bit more proactive than to keep looking for diamonds in the rough. You might find a few, but most will just be coal.

That I agree with.

 

Note that I said MAJOR premiership clubs. It is somewhat easier for a Charlton or Birmingham to get good value for a player than a Man Utd or a Liverpool because the midtable to bottom premiership clubs have more room to improve.

Houllier has spent less or roughly equivalent money than Man Utd, Arsenal, Leeds, Newcastle, Chelsea and on a net basis - Tottenham and Middlesbrough (I would have to dig really deep to prove this, but I think it would be true). And Liverpool's results have only been bettered by ManUtd and Arsenal. I suppose it is arguable that Leeds peaked as high as 'Pool, but it was a shorter peak. Liverpool have garnered an impressive array of silverware to say the least.

That is why I argue that Houllier has gotten better value than any other major premiership club, barring Arsenal. Results adjusted on a cost basis.

Note that I specifically wrote wretched value if not quality. Veron is a gifted player - but considering his wages and his transfer fee (even if you account for the net sale - which our little Spur boy doesn't permit) he was a terrible value. He was a difference maker in very few matches for Man Utd and he did not help them to the Champs League trophy that he was specifically purchased to deliver.

I don't argue that SAF has not been successful over the balance of his career. But there are a few factors at work: ManUtd purchase premium players and there are very few players that they can sign that represent a qualitative improvement to their side.

In the past, they have relied heavily on their development program (as Liverpool have) to provide new players. However, over the time period in consideration (Houllier's stewardship), Manchester United has not gotten the return on their transfer dollar that they got in other years. They have had less success in the league and in the trophies department (it looks like over the last three years - they will have two trophyless ones barring an FA cup). They still have a phenomenal record and can be considered successful in maintaining the quality of their side. But I don't think you can say they have been as effective in getting the best results on a dollar basis as Liverpool and Arsenal over the same period. This is an opinion and you wouldn't bug me too much if you disagree on the Man Utd front.

They spent lots on Seth Johnson (I think he's the player I have in mind), Danny Mills, Olivier Dacourt, Rio Ferdinand, Nick Barmby, Robbie Fowler, Dominic Matteo, Mark Viduka . . . the list goes on and on. They spent a pretty penny - no doubt about it. It was not just high wages. They also spent it in the transfer market. And Rio has been one of the few good sales (along with Woodgate - although he was worth so much to the club that I have to wonder if that was a good piece of business).

Look at how poor their return was on Fowler, Mills, Dacourt, Bowyer, Kewell and others. They have been stripped clean. It makes me have a bit of sympathy for West Ham after seeing the raid on Leeds.

There is a lot that remains to be seen regarding Chelsea's purchases. We don't know what kind of honors the team is going to be winning in the next 2 - 3 years. But when you consider that the team has not simply sat on its hands the past four seasons (remember the time period in consideration heree) and the return on that investment in terms of league position and trophies - the cabinet has been pretty bare.

Consider that Chelsea has had twice as much net spending this season as Houllier has spent over his entire stewardship with the club. Unless Chelsea goes very deep into the Champions League, routinely places in the top 2 and 3 of the league (even if they don't win a championship) and picks up some secondary hardware (UEFA Cup, League Cup, FA Cup, etc) they will not have done better than Houllier in the results department. And they have spent twice as much money. I am not saying Abramovich made bad purchases. But the team has a long way to go before they surpass the level of performance that 'Pool has established under Houllier.

Don't quite know what you mean here - the point I was trying to make was that even if Liverpool's "failures" (such as Troare, Riise, Diouf, Diao, etc) never demonstrate the class to help the team - their relative youth and pedigrees still make them valuable commodities in other leagues. If required, Houllier could sell Smicer, Cheyrou, Vignel, Diao, Diouf, etc. He may not get everything back - but he would still find some eager buyers in France, Spain, etc. This is a far cry from the situation that Spurs or Leeds find themselves in when they have rosters stuffed with players like Richards, Batty, etc on high wages. They will never be able to sell them, they eat up the wage bill and they don't help the team. 'Pool has very few of this type of player (Diomede was one of the few examples).

I agree - and stated as much in my original post. Houllier has judiciously sprinkled his purchases/signings of youngsters (Le Tallec, Baros, Biscan) with experienced players (Hyppia, Henchoz, Heskey) and even some bona fide stars (Kewell, Hamann, Babbel).

I think there are plenty of grounds on which Houllier can be justly criticized (man management, tactics, player development of elite players, etc). But I think criticism of his spending is very much overblown.

 

Really? Of the examples listed, you take out Arsenal and United by default. Then tell me which clubs have achieved more than Houllier's Liverpool since 1998?

He was a wretched buy for United. SC did make that distinction. And he didn't mention Ferdinand or Stam, nor did he say or imply that Ferguson is bad in the transfer market. (and, at £28.1m, a third of the total outlay Houllier is responsible for over five years)

And for palpably less by way of return. See my first point above.

True only to that point. Your own comment on Fowler ring a bell? Add to that the Kewell deal, the sale of Bowyer for £750,000 just 8 months after being offered £9m for him, the loss of Fowler for less than half what they paid form him 12 months previously ... Ferdinand is about their only hit in that series of frankly ridiculous misses.

Depends on your parameters. Is 'value' on that scale of expenditure (£15m and £100,000 a week for Veron, for instance) even a word you can use without turning the debate into a sick joke?

Was Damien Duff's contractually mandated price of £17m a true reflection of his worth in today's market? Was it necessary to pay £16m for Makalele, a player in open and hostile conflict with his club and on the way to somewhere, for some figure without a shadow of a doubt? Did relegated and financially desperate West Ham get the better end of a £12m piece of business with Abramovich's Chelsea?

All that concludes in is the obvious fact that all managers buy players who don't work out. I once built a full side from Wenger's more ridiculous buys in another thread of this type and I' telling you, it was a freak of a side. And I didn't even have to include Franny Jeffers to make it so.

This is the strongest argument you can reasonably level at Houllier. He gambled on youth and potential in 2002 when we had just finished second and he lost that gamble.

 

Oh come on Matt! I meant the transfer market and you know it.

I took his post to imply that United had not spent well, similarly to Houllier. My counter was that although United do overspend, they have spent pretty well. This year being an exception, for the most part.

I wasn't disagreeing with you on this point. I was actually agreeing.

True, but he's quite the hit. Again, my only comment is that labeling Leeds a club that gambled badly on transfers was incorrect. Its not that they overpaid FOR Seth Johnson, its that they overpaid HIM.

To be fair to Seba, he actually looked decent until he got injured, and our best vein of form (before that stupid international break in the fall) came with him in the lineup.

Are Glen Johnson and Joe Cole worth 12M? Yes. Is Duff worth 17M to us? Yes, probably more. Was Makelele worth what we bought him for? Debatable. But, in the end, I'd rather overpay to get the man I want. Taking repeated flyers on players who MIGHT pan out is not the right strategy for a team that's shooting for the top.

Hey - I was NOT arguing that Houllier is an atrocious buyer of talent. He has, however, been less successful than some others, that's all. This neither makes him a terrible nor an awesome manager. I was just refuting a few of SC's points, which I didn't think were fair. Lay off the double espressos Matt.
Btw, even though Wenger has had a series of bad purchases, like anyone else, his successes are greater than those of Houllier. If you had a choice between Gerard and Arsene right now, whom would you choose? I know who I'd go with.

Which is why I was glad that Chelsea went for players with a lot of potential but who were mostly proven, with a few youngsters (Cole, Johnson) thrown in. Looking to the future is one thing, signing starlets when you've finished second the year before is another.

 

If Chelsea's strategy was one that was sustainable as a business plan - you could talk rationally about it this way. As it is, you are a team spending your sugar daddy's funny money. Market value was of little consequence to him. Chelsea is Abramovich's toy and the outlays that the team has made would not be sustainable without his continued investment. It will be interesting to see what shape the books are in (if anyone gets a good look at them) in the next few years. Especially the cost of wages relative to the club's turnover.

I am not arguing sour grapes here - I am just suggesting that to advocate Chelsea as an example of a method for building a championship team is about as rational as the new president of Haiti seeking to turn around their economy and model it after Saudi Arabia's.

Apart from the oil under the ground (Abramovich's money) your team was a barren desert (in debt and possibly facing administration).

 

Fair enough - I did not notice that you said major. In that case, your argument is much stronger, but United's position is debatable. While they overpaid for Rio, he was worth it. And Ruud was worth any price. They've had more glamorous misses, but overall they've bought decently, imho.

While that's true, I would argue that some of your best players that formed the basis of the side have come through the youth ranks. So that mitigates this point, although it does so far all managers, to be fair. Was your treble season really due to Houllier's astute purchases?

That is true. However, I'm not sure paying 14M for 2 years of Seba is really all that awful.

On a per cost basis, absolutely. However, ManUtd needs to win to preserve their image. All their Asian fans won't follow them if they're mired in 5th place. So they HAVE to spend. I'm not sure per cost basis is necessarily fair in regards to United. They overspent for Rio, for example, but the title they won with him is worth more to them than thos extra 10M.

I didn't think the players above cost fantastic sums, to be honest. I think the problem wasn't how astute their purchases were (Dacourt is starring for Roma, Ferdinand and was a good sale, Kewell was a great buy, Viduka was a good buy, etc.)
Their problem was financial mismanagement, which is a different animal than bad transfers.

We won the FA cup in 1999/2000, and lost in the final 2001/2002. Not awful, mind you. And we spent absolutely no money last year. Its not like we have/will do this every year.

We're arguing different things here. If you're arguing "on a per dollar basis Houllier hasn't done that badly" I agree. But I can use that argument to say that Bolton have done better because they're in the black, and if you restrict yourself to only top clubs - why the difference?
We'll see how Chelsea does next year. I have high hopes we'll remain amongs the "big 3" on the talent we have now and on the young talent we've signed. (Robben, Johnson's development, Adu's eventual move to the Bridge , etc.) We'll see.

Yes, I've always thought a Diomede and Bogard central defense pairing would be a great post-modern joke of a sort.
My point was that while they're still young, there are still a number of players I don't think will turn things around while wearing Liverpool's shirt. Cheyrou and others among them. (Yes, despite beating us at the Bridge.)

In general, I agree.

 

Whoa, slow down. I never said "build your club like Chelsea". I said that our puchases weren't overpriced. Can you really argue with Duff at 17M? Or Cole and Johnson for 12M?

 

Correct me if I am wrong. Including this season, Manchester United have won . . . two honors . . . over the past three years. A championship and a charity shield. They may yet win the FA Cup this year. In that time, they purchased Veron, Van Nistelrooy, Ferdinand, Ronaldo, etc. The championship was huge, no doubt. But they are not the juggernaut they were five - six years ago. And they didn't spend the funny money we are talking about now in the midst of their heyday.

Per cost basis and results are twin aspects that must be considered in a rational discussion of the value of transfer spending. That is why a manager like Houllier is worthy of respect and why a manager like Robson is probably overrated in this context (though not over the balance of his career).

If you cannot afford it - it was never a good purchase. It was a gamble and Leeds might lose their club over it. Do you think that wages alone put them in this situation? O'Leary spent between £70 and £80 million pounds to build his team. Venebles spent more. I don't care how good the players were - they could not cover their interest payments. Balancing your budget on the prospects of making it to the semifinals of Champions League each year is stupid.

Spending millions of pounds on players that you cannot afford represents "a bad transfer".

Bolton is excluded from this discussion because we are talking about ambitious, big premier league clubs. There is a different plateau that these clubs operate on compared to the Boltons, Charltons, etc.

The managers and directors of ambitious clubs have to do the following with their transfer monies: a) sign players who will be good enough to allow the teams to win trophies b) sign players whose transfer fees and salaries will not bankrupt the club c) balance the quality versus the quantity of the players they purchase so that they have a large enough squad to play the 15 - 25 more matches a season that an ambitious club plays relative to a smaller club (without falling out of form due to tired/injured players) in the form of longer cup runs, continental competition, one-off cups, etc.

Those are the criteria that ambitious managers must be held to. Merely getting results (a trophy here or there) or half results (making it to the finals or finishing in second or third place once in awhile) is not enough. Spending money wisely is not enough. It takes both.

Per my critique of the recent ManUtd decisions - winning major trophies (league champ, champ league) makes the cost basis part of the equation far less important.

That is why Arsenal is so impressive (best value and best results over the past three seasons) - as much as I hate the team. If they ever win champions league, Wenger should rightfully be considered as good as SAF in the annals of premier league managers - because he will have achieved so much, while spending relatively little and while playing in a league that was more competitive than it was during most of ManUtd's long run in the 90s.

This is also why Spurs (we spend tons and can't ever finish better than 7th place) are so worthy of our abject disgust (especially in light of their arrogant twitty fans).

And that is why Newcastle fans are somewhat deluded for being satisfied with the meager return that all of their trouble and money has bought them. Even if they are "the working man's club" or "a romantic club" or whatever.

And it is why I actually feel sorry for Leeds fans, even though I loathe their club more than Arsenal and Man Utd.

This constitutes my last post on the subject. It has been fun for the most part.

 

In the present marketplace - yes. I think that Chelsea could have gotten those players for less money. I think they basically ended up bidding against themselves.

And I don't think Abramovich minded at all! He liked making the splash I think.

Wayne Bridge was an okay deal.

Duff and Joe Cole were probably not the most egregious purchases though. In my mind, Chelsea got ripped off more in the Veron, Johnson, Smertin and Makalele deals. I also don't think that Crespo was that great a deal. Having Forssell at home plus more playing time for Gudjohnsson (sp) and Hassalbaink would have done the job just as well if not better.

Mutu will probably be pretty good in the long run, but he still has a ways to go.

I don't understand Cole in light of Scott Parker, though. One or the other was a good buy (though no one else would have paid so much for Parker). But not both.

 

What an interesting thread!

Originally posted by spurs11
Gerard Houlier – He signed Harry Kewell for a bargain price at only 5 million but most of his other signings over the past couple of years have been very poor. I think he has spent something like 125 million at Liverpool so far and he hasn’t brought much success to the club. In my opinion he has to go.

Saying he hasn't brought much success to the club over the past few years kind of shoots this post down right away.
If you had said at the begining, that he hasn't brought what the fans want most, would have given you credibility.
"Hasn't brought much success"...arf.


David Moyes – Everton finished 7th last season but find themselves in big trouble this season. They have won the last two games though and our improving dramatically. I think Moyes has done an okay job this season and I think he should stay another season.

They haven't done as well this season, thats pretty plain to see.
However, even if they had not been an underachieving team this season they would still be ih the pack with 'toon, 'pool, Addicks etc etc, as the 3 teams at the top are so far removed from them in talent that no amount of overachieving would have had them in contention for a top 3 finish!



Alex Fergusson – After winning the league last season and getting of to a great start at the beginning of this season they now find them selves 3rd in the league and very inconsistent at the moment. I think the selling of David Beckham and the absence of Rio Ferdinand has really effected them. But I do believe Fergie will end up staying on at united for the next couple of seasons.

As has been pointed out the Beckam factor is only being rolled out now - why was it not even mentioned earlier in the season when they made their best ever start to a Premiership season?
Fucked up in the January window without a doubt - however, i think he gambled that his side could do a Real Madrid, ie you may score 2, but we'll score 3!

Claudio Ranieri – He has splashed out on loads of cash this season and is still finding it difficult to win games and to win them comfortably. They are out of the FA Cup, League Cup and are well behind Arsenal in the league. I think if Chelsea can progress further in the champions league then Ranieris job will be safe. I hope the board have faith in him and will stick with him for another season.

Ah, the toughest one of all to call.
I fully believe that the decision on Ranieri has already been made, a good run in the Champs league will have no alterations on the end result at this stage of the season.Whatever that decision is known only by Abramovich and his men.I am of the opinion however, that he will be going the way of Birch and Bates.
"Difficult to win games"...funny that, as when United won all those titles during the 90's they where being lauded as the greatest thing since sliced bread because of their "ability to grind out results", yet, when Chels do it........

"Winning comfortably"...WTF is that?

Yes, we're out of the FA Cup, League Cup and are behind Arsenal...but, we're still a damed fine team and tough to beat.
Winning the title this year wasn't seen as out of reach, but it was looked upon by most as one season too early.
As for the Cups...i thought given the sheer strength of our "Squad" that we would take the league cup and as United will soon find out, drawing Arsenal this particular year is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.

 

Ferguson will never be sacked and I don't think he'll take early retirement either. I'll bet anything he lasts until the end of this contract. The talk of a crisis this year is rubbish, just a mistake not to bring in someone to cover Ferdinand. He's much too canny, I've seen ManYoo wobble a few times over the last decade, and he's always turned it around. It's only the emergence of Chelski this year which has made things more glaring.

Moyes is a talented manager, if he'd been able to sign Sean Davis then I'm sure Everton would be a lot more comfortably midtable. He won't be sacked or removed in the summer even if by some slight chance Everton go down this year.

Ranieri - this guy is a great entertainer, but he's on his way. Very good squad builder, but someone else with a bigger profile is going to come in, win the trophies and get the glory. Such is life.

Houllier - Had a great first couple of years, but things have slipped. I still think his team can squeak into 4th place this season, which would make for an interesting summer, as I think squeeking into 4th place is the best they can manage with him in charge and I don't think they'll do anything in the Champions league. Anything less than 4th place and he's gone, 'moved upstairs' or something. I would like to see him go, dull, irritating and has not done enough to advance and take advantage of one of the best youth systems around.

 

That's a different issue.

We agree there

Duff wouldn't have left for less than 17M since he had a buyout clause, so its a moot point.

JFH will leave - he's fading, and his whining gets annoying. Forsell will likely be brought in to replace him. Eidur.....is not the same player he was two years ago. His stupid red card in the Arsenal game really hurt, and his play has been very uneven all year.
For 17M, Crespo was not a bad buy at all. Veron was a buy I don't think we needed, to be fair, whereas now I think many would agree Johnson is worth the 5(?)M we paid for him. Did we overpay? Maybe a little bit, but we got the players we wanted. Its better than buying Traore and Diao for peanuts and hoping they work out.
As for Smertin - I flat out forgot about him.

I think so too. He's been remarkably unlucky this year - I can't count the number of times he's hit the bar, the post, or has been denied by stunning goalkeeping. Hopefully next year he'll get some of those to go in. Judging by the goal he scored at Highbury, he's not lacking talent.

The price for Parker was too high by what - 2M? That's not that big a deal, quite frankly. Now, WHY we bought him is a different question. We seem to be digressing to a "was it a good idea to buy player X" as opposed to "was player X cost effective". I didn't think we needed Cole, but that being said, he wasn't overpriced for what we paid for him. Whether or not we need him is a different story.
Real should have bought a defender instead of Beckham - that doesn't make Beckham a poor purchase.

 

Well no, I didn't. Misunderstanding. Your post coule easily read as "Liverpool have not had good value out of Houllier teams".

Well in that case, all I can say is that the very same applies to Houllier. He has bought some wrong'uns since the summer of 2002 but his overall record is one of quality.

I know, I was agreeing with your agreeing.

Well I dunno ... £7m? For Seth Johnson?

Not quite the same thing. Value implies that you have either received more than you could have expected in return for your investment or you have invested less than you might have been forced to do to acquire something. Neither point can be strongly argued in this instance. From the one perspective, you have not received more than you could have hoped for from Cole, whilst Johnson, at £6m after a handful of first-team games, was more of a gamble that paid off than a value purchase. From the other perspective you had no reason to pay £12m to secure the services of these two players.

Is he? He's been injured for what - a quarter of the season. He's a fabulous player and has all it takes to become a true Chelsea legend, but to be "worth" £17m or more to you, surely he would have to play an integral part in earning that amount and much more back for the club? That being the ultimate parameter for discussion of worth, based on transfer fees.

Fact is, had Duff not had that clause in his Blackburn contract, he would not have gone for £17m at the time that he did. Conversely, had the Chelsea/Abramovich thing not happened, Duff would still be a Blackburn player now.

Like I said in my original point ... 'value' depends on your parameters.

True to an extent. In the specific example of Liverpool, we have bought more players that worked out immediately than we have bought players that did not. As I have said many times in debates such as this, for every Cheyrou there's a Hyypia and a Henchoz, or a Hamann and a Baros.