Football 2011-2012

[The Nal]

He asked to go. We tried to keep him that summer but he wanted off. Four seasons out of a Spaniard was a decent return and we sold him for £30m.

He was put off a bit when we tried to sell him a season earlier but then he had been poor the year before, then he had a great season and wanted to go.

[eFestivals]

Yet! Give Jones, Smalling, Hernandez, Cleverly, De Gea and Welbeck another two years (they'll all still be under 24) and see where the team is then.

Some at least will be spread around other clubs I reckon.

Fergie seems to have lost confidence in De Gea, so I'm not sure I see him sticking around. He might, but I think it's more likely now that he'll go than stay.

And with the emergence of Welbeck, I'm not sure that you'll have Hernandez for too much longer either. He's young, and he'll want to play more than he's getting opportunities.

With both I'm not saying they're not capable of being at Utd's standard, but I'm not sure they'll still be there two seasons from now.

[eFestivals]

The Barry debacle? Wonder if he would've wanted to go if that didn't happen?

I think he'd have wanted to go back to Spain anyway, but I reckon he might have stayed a tad longer.

[eFestivals]

you've gotta love 'Arry ... he's now claiming he's too thick to be able to fiddle his taxes.

Which makes me wonder how come he's smart enough to manage football clubs and make himself millions while he does so.

[thetime]

Well done liverpool! Carling cup is an important trophy to win(if they do)

Remember thats how mourinho chelsea started winning trophies, and if I remember right uniteds current succes after 3 lean years of chelsea putting down a marker.

[jammy2211]

Might get to quoting in a bit but on the topic of Spurs vs Liverpool spending:

http://www.transferl...-transfers.html

http://www.transferl...-transfers.html

There isn't a huge deal in it but whatever time period you go for Liverpool out do Spurs for net spend and total spend. Aquianni really hurts their figures I think, along with Downing, Henderson and Keane. Guess you could argue the bulk of Liverpools big spends were more recent so it might take more time to settle in and stuff. Spur made 4th the season after spending around £100m so I guess there's no excuses from Liverpool next season.

As for wages, I don't think you can really ignore how much less Spurs spent. I cba dragging up fiscal reports so am just going off what I remember / just googled now, but (Please correct me if I'm wrong) VDV is Spurs highest at £70k p/w. Torres was much higher then that, but was still less then Gerrard (might of been before a new contract though.) Ol Joey Cole went to L'pool over Spurs due to better wage offer.

Quick google gave me some list of the 'top 100 most paid soccer players'. A quick Ctrl + F shows 5 Liverpool players to 0 Spurs... could easily be more below that too.

http://www.eurosoccerfans.com/top-100-highest-paid-soccer-players/

Edited January 26, 2012 by jammy2211

[eFestivals]

Might get to quoting in a bit but on the topic of Spurs vs Liverpool spending:

http://www.transferl...-transfers.html

http://www.transferl...-transfers.html

There isn't a huge deal in it but whatever time period you go for Liverpool out do Spurs for net spend and total spend.

Hmmmm .... we've had this discussion here before (which is what I was going from).

It was a few years ago now so the most recent years can be taken out of things, but the transfer lists we worked off at that point showed Spurs net-outspending Liverpool since around 2000 by quite a significant amount, and if I'm remembering rightly it was for every year (tho I might be wrong about that).

Soi perhaps it depends which listing you work from for which answer you get.

[jammy2211]

Hmmmm .... we've had this discussion here before (which is what I was going from).

It was a few years ago now so the most recent years can be taken out of things, but the transfer lists we worked off at that point showed Spurs net-outspending Liverpool since around 2000 by quite a significant amount, and if I'm remembering rightly it was for every year (tho I might be wrong about that).

Soi perhaps it depends which listing you work from for which answer you get.

[eFestivals]

I would imagine it's because if you take out the years that Liverpool spent the most and Spurs recouped a load (i.e. the recent years) then Spurs might come out on top. Going from 2005 - 2010 Spur's net spend is around £25m higher, but on a much lower wage bill. Going back to 2000 makes the net spends even closer...

However if you take the figure from today to any date in the past 10 years (Probably more) you'll work out Liverpool have spent more cash and 'net spend' then spurs.... with a higher wage bill.

Whatever you do, theres no way you can say Spurs have outspent Liverpool in recent years, certainly not this century.

the wage bills weren't part of what we looked at previously, just the net transfer fees.

I'd say the difference between what you've presented and what we looked at before here is a difference in the lists we've each worked from (there's no way I can remember which list it was previously). Lists like these are often inaccurate, if for no other reason than sometimes the fees aren't disclosed.

[jammy2211]

the wage bills weren't part of what we looked at previously, just the net transfer fees.

I'd say the difference between what you've presented and what we looked at before here is a difference in the lists we've each worked from (there's no way I can remember which list it was previously). Lists like these are often inaccurate, if for no other reason than sometimes the fees aren't disclosed.

[ralph250]

Surely the most accurate is looking at the cashflow per the accounts.

I don't have Spurs figures, but in comparison to United, Liverpool have spent more over the past decade both gross and net, so I'd be surprised if spent more than Spurs over a decade period, when Spurs didn't have champions league money to help fund.

(in '000s)

Liverpool between the financial years ending '00 to '10, Liverpool spent £402,694 gross, recouped £207,283 for net £195,411.

For the financial years ending '05-'10 (Benitez), they spent £301,120 gross, recouped £144,742 for net £156,378.

In comparison to United:

05-10

Liverpool - £301,120 gross, recouped £144,742 for net £156,378

United - £230,895 gross, recouped £177,501 for net £53,394

00-10

Liverpool - £402,694 gross, recouped £207,283 for net £195,411.

United - £387,831 gross, recouped £224,530, for net £163,301.

Year by Year breakdown

https://docs.google....&hl=en_US#gid=0

prtscns of Liverpool showing back to '04, courtesy of Andersred. He didn't provide further than that, but I wouldn't doubt his veracity. (easy to disprove if false, and wouldn't want credibility impinged).

https://docs.google....wZDIyOTRl&hl=en

(looking for payments to acquire intangible fixed assets, and proceeds from sale of intangible fixed assets.)

prtscns of United last 10 years/

http://andersred.blo...parliament.html

Wages, Spurs have paid far less.

http://swissramble.b...ptimism-or.html

Edited January 26, 2012 by ralph250

[strummer77]

Whatever you do, theres no way you can say Spurs have outspent Liverpool in recent years, certainly not this century.

Edited January 26, 2012 by strummer77

[kaosmark2]

Admittedly there was a BIG difference in net spends this year which evens it up somewhat, but then that isn't including the fairly unique situation of the Adebayor loan which is a £20m player for free. Full credit for them getting him but you don't often get payers of that value thrown at you for for nothing. However they're either going to have to buy him or buy someone of the equivalent standard to keep them at the same level as this year- and that is going to cost them £20m+. They're only delaying spending that money.

[pink_triangle]

Team were all fantastic tonight. Bellamy for no money has been a fantastic signing.

[pink_triangle]

The fact remains that Liverpool are more than capable of holding their own - and better - with the 'big' teams above them. That gets to prove that it's only really with their league position they're failing right now, rather than with who they've bought. The points they've dropped have been almost all against teams they're easily capable of beating as proven by their results against the teams above them.

[strummer77]

Or using that free loan as a way to get back into the Champs Lge and get ~£35mn. Particularly as they're only paying 1/3 of his wages. Spend £20mn on a striker next summer, net gain ~£15mn. If they don't get back into the Champs Lge, or he has a sulk and goes off form (as he usually does, albeit about 18 months after joining a club), then they're not screwed over.

Edited January 26, 2012 by strummer77

[pink_triangle]

Another key point when discussing liverpool in the transfer market, Fergie has a lot easier job than kenny. Fergie bascially has his pick of players that real and barca dont want. Kenny has to pick the best from the players that teams like man u dont want which makes it a lot more challenging. 25 years ago phil jones would probably have ended up at liverpool,, however football is cyclical and the gap between man u and liverpool in the long term will decrease, particualarly when ferige goes.

[Kyelo]

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

[kaosmark2]

Yeah but I mean they'll still have to buy that striker eventually. It's just a delayed outlay. They are playing the system very well and I don't blame them, but I don't think the system should allow senior players to be loaned from one club to another in the same division. U21s maybe, like Wenger says. My opinion though I suppose!

[strummer77]

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

Edited January 26, 2012 by strummer77

[strummer77]

Yeah, I agree with that. But it's a great way to solve it short-term.

[kaosmark2]

Oh it is. Not sure how Harry did it though... considering he's financially illiterate

[thetime]

Basically the Arsenal team that won the league under Wenger was the best £ for £ of the so-called "Premier League era".

Edited January 27, 2012 by thetime

[eFestivals]

Your quote however is "without spending the sums that City, Spurs and Chelski have to reach those heights.".

Wage bills include spending.

you might choose to interpret my words in that way, but that very definitely wasn't what I was meaning.

And clearly, no matter how you twist the figures there is no way Liverpool arn't Spending more then Spurs... different lists will give different figures and whatnot, but non will lead you to any other conclusion.

as others here might remember from that previous discussion, we've certainly compared Liverpool's and Spuirs spending here before and at that time the listings we'd used showed Spurs spending more.

Until that previous discussion I was of the belief that Liverpool would have spent much more, but that certainly wasn't the case with the listings we used at that time.

While your list might be the more accurate of the two, it might not be either. Neither of us has any real way of knowing.

[eFestivals]

Also the defence was pretty poor last season but pretty good this one, I think with players like johnson there are no guarantees the form will continue.

Johnson isn't a worry. If his form drops then he'll be dropped and replaced by the already-better Kelly.

There might be places to worry about whether Liverpool can maintain their form to date, but Johnson isn't one of them.