Football 2011-2012

[kaosmark2]

Net spend is as fair a way as you can judge it, not looking at the underlying individual numbers underneath though can skew things massively, as you hinted at with Everton earlier.

Everton have a tiny net spend yet Moyes has spent a fortune. You sell a Wayne Rooney as Everton for 25-30 million (whatever it was) and your squad should be much better the next year, no excuses. Liverpool selling Torres for 50 million, their squad should be much better the next year

[eFestivals]

Everton have a tiny net spend yet Moyes has spent a fortune. You sell a Wayne Rooney as Everton for 25-30 million (whatever it was) and your squad should be much better the next year, no excuses. Liverpool selling Torres for 50 million, their squad should be much better the next year

That's only if they're also able to get £50M's worth of value in their spends.

For every over-payment there is by Chelsea with a transfer like Torres', there's an over-paid club that's benefiting as Liverpool did.

So Liverpool got over-paid for Torres, and then went and over-paid for Carroll. What goes around comes around.

Much the same happens at Everton - for every Cahill there's a Saha (or whoever).

[Benj]

indeed. Same with Lescott (£20m+ wasn't he?), if you get a huge amount in, you should find a way to spend it well. Net spend is the assessment of how the club is investing, but you can and should look at major transfers as to whether they're good value.

[Benj]

That's only if they're also able to get £50M's worth of value in their spends.

For every over-payment there is by Chelsea with a transfer like Torres', there's an over-paid club that's benefiting as Liverpool did.

So Liverpool got over-paid for Torres, and then went and over-paid for Carroll. What goes around comes around.

Much the same happens at Everton - for every Cahill there's a Saha (or whoever).

Edited May 10, 2012 by Benj

[eFestivals]

LFC fans seem more forgiving of KING KENNY however, a couple I know have turned and wouldn't mind seeing him being punted upstairs again though

thing is, none of us know if he's blown anything. The signings might not be his.

But the worst of them defo isn't - Andy Carroll (Tho that's starting to look like it might, just might, come good-ish after all).

The others? Who knows? I know he's publicly stated that they were done with his full support, but he couldn't say anything else. And even if he's supported the idea of signing a particular player he might not have been involved in the fee.

I'm not anti criticising him if he's deserving of it, but prove to me that is he is first.

[Benj]

thing is, none of us know if he's blown anything. The signings might not be his.

But the worst of them defo isn't - Andy Carroll (Tho that's starting to look like it might, just might, come good-ish after all).

The others? Who knows? I know he's publicly stated that they were done with his full support, but he couldn't say anything else. And even if he's supported the idea of signing a particular player he might not have been involved in the fee.

I'm not anti criticising him if he's deserving of it, but prove to me that is he is first.

[Benj]

Henry does an Evra

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2012/05/end-is-nigh-john-w-henry-in-kenny.html

Although if you look hard at it, from this angle and in slow mo, I think you'll see that its clearly Kenny who withdraws his hand first! haahhahhahahha

[eFestivals]

I've got no idea, all I know is that they would quite happily have him not managing the team next team, his signings or not, they're only one of the reasons they want him gone, well not gone but not in the position that he is.

Then they're idjuts.

There's few managers who do an outstanding job from the off (unless it's at an already outstanding team), no matter what resources they have at their fingertips.

[Benj]

Then they're idjuts.

There's few managers who do an outstanding job from the off (unless it's at an already outstanding team), no matter what resources they have at their fingertips.

[pink_triangle]

Youth? Either buy young and bring them through or have a youth system. It seems only really Kompany "gets" the club at the moment. They were fucked without him.

[eFestivals]

18 months and 100 million plus resources later?

12 months and less than £50M in resources later.

Fucks sake, what we just spent gawd knows how many pages discussing?

Whether the spending of that < £50M, plus the >£50M money that came in from sales, was his doing I don't know and nor do you, but it seems pretty clear via the sacking of Commolli that he's convinced the club that it wasn't. And they're in a better position to know that you or me.

What I do know is that Commolli is very poorly thought of by his previous employers - who are slow to slag him off - while doing a great job of talking himself up. So I'm guessing that the criticisms of Wenger, etc, are probably right.

Give Kenny a chance on his own, and see what happens - but even then they shouldn't be too hasty. Not because he's Kenny, but because clubs are far too quick to sack managers. It's unlikely that anyone would get the sort of instant success that is the expectation of those saying it's time for him to go.

Putting aside the fact of their poor league position, things are far from being as grim as that league position suggests anyway. While their form fell off a cliff in the 2nd half of the season a part of that is likely to be because of Lucas, who'll be back for next season.

And then there's their worst-in-Europe conversion rate with one of the best in Europe chances made - which is likely to change to something else next season, and see better results.

(and yes, it is far more likely that the chances rate will stay similar while the conversion rate improves a lot (if only to the average), and not anything else. Stuff like Suarez's previous scoring rate suggests that)

They've seen no improvement,

I disagree with that a fair bit (if working from how they were under Woy, rather than 2nd half of last season).

There's (in the main) been an improvement on the pitch, just not an improvement in results. Stuff like the number of very good chances they've made, but not scored from. As I say, I can't see that staying the same.

think the whole Suarez thing and his handling of the press in the main is gash and don't want his reputation tarnished any further.

The Suarez thing they did very very poorly. And the press has been poor, tho in part because they smell blood.

I don't much give a shit for his rep. I'd like to see him succeed just cos it'd be a nice story. I won't be heartbroken if he doesn't tho.

If they are no better next year, what then, bump him up mid season, fire him? How long should he get?

There's to many variables to that to give an answer for any time but now - and for now I'd say no. I'd bump him mid-season in some circumstances but not in others.

There's no guarantee that who might come in will do better don't forget.

[Benj]

12 months and less than £50M in resources later.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Benj

[eFestivals]

Didn't he take over Jan 2011?

as interim manager. He was only appointed manager in the summer.

As interim manager it's exceedingly likely that his responsibilities started and ended with putting a team on the pitch from the players that were available.

He has been given £100+ to invest in the team, he has not spent it well, EEEZ FAX as Fat Rafa would say.

Nope.

Firstly, he has been given less than £30M(ish) to invest. He's been able to spend more than that, but the extra is not investment.

The spending in January 2011 wasn't his doing.

It's exceedingly likely that Charlie Adam wasn't his doing. Everything about that looks like a deal that was agreed in January 2011, before he was even appointed interim manager.

So there's actually only Downing, Henderson, Enrique, Bellend, Coates, and Doni that might be his (unless I've forgotten someone?). So of the £120M+ he gets accused of having spent, it looks like only around £50M *might* be his doing - but also might be all Commolli.

As I've already said, it seems pretty clear that LFC have accepted it was Commolli's doing and not Kenny's, by the sacking of Commolli.

So it actually looks like he's spent nothing. The facts certainly point that way.

massage it away though with net spend though. £100+ quid! To buy what he (or Commoli ) bought HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

Not all of them are donkeys.

Bellend was a free, and on cheap(ish) wages. No brainer.

Downing. He'll never be a great player, but it's fair comment to say he had a worse season than might have realistically been expected. Jury still out.

Henderson. One for the future. Looks much better when Gerrard isn't in the team. Might well be Gerrards more than adequate replacement (not as good, but more than adequate, perhaps).

Enrique. Started great, turned to shit. Could go either way.

Coates, and Doni. Both ones for the future, both look very good once they've had a bit more experience.

It really isn't anything like you want to believe. Not yet, at least.

Edited May 10, 2012 by eFestivals

[Benj]

So it actually looks like he's spent nothing. The facts certainly point that way.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Benj

[eFestivals]

If UTD had spunked that 80 million back on players straight away, plus 40 million (NET!) more and not improved one iota, I'd be laughing my head off at them too!

Then laugh away!

They've spent something around that amount since he left, at a guess.

They got to two CL finals in his last two years at the club if I'm remembering rightly. They've got to one since, but just one - and of course blew Europe badly this season.

So I'd say it's clearly the case that they've not improved. A fair argument can be made for them having gone the other way.

It seems you've missed that one with your desire to slag just one club. I wonder what might have blinded you?

Edited May 10, 2012 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

On a different note- The surely NET spend wise Torres only put back 24 million into the bank as you have to conside the 26 spent on him in the first place, or is that massaged out somehow?

Edited May 10, 2012 by strummer77

[eFestivals]

On a different note- The surely NET spend wise Torres only put back 24 million into the bank as you have to conside the 26 spent on him in the first place, or is that massaged out somehow?

yep, working the net thing on just that one player, he brought a £24M net profit.

And (plucked from the air example) Arteta made you a profit.

What of it? Is making a profit on just one player meant to make a club top of the league or something in your weird world?

Also are you calling KING KENNY a liar as he said they were his decisions!?

Yep, he said that.

A smarter man than you would have realised there's nothing else a manager in his position could say. He can't say "they were nothing to do with me", can he? He's got to work with those players, and give them the belief to go out and try to win matches.

Telling them via the media that he thinks they're shit and wishes they weren't at the club would help him how exactly?

Fuck me, you or the people you've been listening to need a brain recharge.

[strummer77]

So to sum this tedious debate up...

Basically, the truth is LFC have spent a fair bit in net and not done greatly out of it yet. In fact so far its not really worked.

However its not as bad as it appears by Benj using the futile purely expenditure terms... which he's mainly using because the idea of us doing mediocrely "massages" away the pain of the failures in success and attitude of his own club?

Edited May 10, 2012 by strummer77

[eFestivals]

I think you've just about got it Strummer.

[strummer77]

Net spend isn't just favoured by me because it makes us come out better, but is just genuinely what I think is the fairest way of doing it. If anything net spend makes us look poor in comparison to Arsenal/United who are also spending little net in relation to what they recoup. It's why Man City's spending is so shocking, because they aren't recouping/earning the funds through other ways. It's all going out!

Still think wages are the big one though. Man City attract players because of wages, not because of the headline transfer fees they pay.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

They have found a way around the net spend rules (net spend is part of the fair play rules that have just come in yeah?) but I believe the legality of it is being looked at by Uefa.

Also, to be fair, Chelsea are still making a net loss, and have not yet gone into profit from since when Abramovich took over, and that regime has been in place for ten years now.

I'd give City a chance to actually recoup it first, as they've only been major spenders for three and a half years, and only been in two major European competitions for three years. When it's a bit longer term, and they're failing to recoup funds, I think then it's cause for concern.

[kev72]

At last Carroll shows the player he can be, but we need to spend in the summer. A couple of defenders with a bit of pace wouldn't go amiss !

[strummer77]

At last Carroll shows the player he can be, but we need to spend in the summer. A couple of defenders with a bit of pace wouldn't go amiss !

[eFestivals]

Also, to be fair, Chelsea are still making a net loss, and have not yet gone into profit from since when Abramovich took over, and that regime has been in place for ten years now.

while they've always made a loss, and all of those losses along with the 'loans' that Roman has made remain on the books within the various Chelsea companies (not necessarily the team-on-the-pitch company tho), Chelsea have defo found a way around the FFP rules by moving the debt (or some of, at least) to another company within the structure.

I wish I could remember the precise details of what they've done.

But it just gets to show how easy it is to manipulate the FFP rules. It'll be even easier for Utd, because some of the companies within their structure have their accounts hidden* in Delaware.

(* the accounts of companies in the UK are publicly accessible. Companies in Delaware are not).

I'm not entirely sure if the Glazers moved those companies to Delaware to circumvent the FFP rules tho, they might have been done for other reasons (such as to hide the amount of debt). But the fact of the companies being there can be used to help get around the rules.

I doubt there's any club around the top levels of football who won't be manipulating things to circumvent those rules, in the exact same way as they probably all take the piss over what they pay in taxes. It's what companies do.

[eFestivals]

Defenders? I would have said that's the place with the least worry if Agger stays fit! Need Wingers and a couple of CMs.

From one angle I agree with you, but unless the plan is for Agger to play left back and give Coates the centre, they need some cover for left back - Enrique has gone to shit, either opposing players have him completely sussed or his confidence has been blown somehow else.