Football 2011-2012

[strummer77]

Exactly! the old net spend massaging comes in, massaging things away.

Edited May 10, 2012 by strummer77

[Benj]

Oh, I'd thought you'd been saying Cahill had.

Should be able to get quite a lot then. He's still young as well isn't he?

[Benj]

But net spending is the actual way the world works. Just putting gross spend is the actual "massaging" of the figures as it only tells part of a much bigger story. It's almost absurd to think of transfers any other way.

In fact even transfer fees only tell part of it. Really wages and signing on fees are just as key, if wages are the major factor in success.

Genuinely reckon Everton's biggest problem is this huge inferiority complex and obsession with Liverpool. All we've heard recently is about how " we want to finish above Liverpool" etc etc. Not a genuine positional target like trying to finish in Europe... just "above Liverpool". Such a terrible attitude and goal to have it's a joke!

Edited May 10, 2012 by Benj

[eFestivals]

And I didn't say otherwise, this conversation started as you said it was funny (ignoring net spend) that people were moaning about LFC falling so much further behind Utd despite only spending 15 or so more million than them in the Summer, nicely ignoring the 57 million they'd spent 6 months earlier, a period in which Utd only spent 3.5

I was talking *net* spend from the summer - where Utd outspent Liverpool. Given Utd's starting position and greater spend, then it's not hugely surprising that Utd have stretched the gap between them & Liverpool

If you add in the previous window, LFC's net spend was somewhere around £7M - which I'm sure you can notice is a massive difference to the £57 gross spend, and explains the massive difference there'd be between a £57M players upgrade and a piddly £7M one.

It's quite possibly the case that even over those two windows that Utd's net spend was slightly greater than Liverpool (if it's not then the difference is very small either way).

Utd were at around the top of the league and had a top of the league spend, and so have maintained their position at the top of the league.

Liverpool were (I think?) 6th and had the 3rd top spend. With everything being equal only a fool would expect that 3rd biggest spend to elevate them to third in the league given their starting position.

With everything else being equal, it would be very realistic to assume that Utd would stretch the gap between them and L'pool given all of the above - and that's what has happened.

None of that is swerving that Liverpool should have perhaps done better all the same, but looking at things in that way puts a different perspective on how things have panned out. It's a more than fair counter to the likes of you who wish to knock L'pool in every way you can, including by contradicting the point you make with one hand with the point you make with the other.

One thing you would though expect, having the starting position they had, and having then spent £100 million is to perhaps be above Everton after 37 league games !

You'd have a good point if they'd upgraded the squad by £100M.

As they haven't, you have to start again to make any point at all.

[kaosmark2]

Genuinely reckon Everton's biggest problem is this huge inferiority complex and obsession with Liverpool. All we've heard recently is about how " we want to finish above Liverpool" etc etc. Not a genuine positional target like trying to finish in Europe... just "above Liverpool". Such a terrible attitude and goal to have it's a joke!

[kaosmark2]

I was, I wasn't really thinking about it, it was more a comment that no striker would have got a load in the system we were playing back then.

He's 24 I think, Chelsea are supposed to be sniffing round, can't see him going for under 22 millionish

[strummer77]

Wouldn't disagree with that, I suspect you'd be the same with Utd though if it was a realistic goal and you could just narrow down that 35 point gap

[Benj]

You'd have a good point if they'd upgraded the squad by £100M.

As they haven't, you have to start again to make any point at all.

[Benj]

I'd hope not. When we finished above United in 2002 but it was annoying because we couldn't track down Arsenal in first. Not a success story, perhaps a meagre consolation prize but that's about it. Saying that I'd bite your hand off for second in the next few years...

Shame they lost all three then

Edited May 10, 2012 by Benj

[eFestivals]

Genuinely reckon Everton's biggest problem is this huge inferiority complex and obsession with Liverpool. All we've heard recently is about how " we want to finish above Liverpool" etc etc. Not a genuine positional target like trying to finish in Europe... just "above Liverpool". Such a terrible attitude and goal to have it's a joke!

Let 'em have it. It's the only thing they ever win - just very occasionally - if they win anything at all.

Moyes discovered how it is when he put out a weakened side in the hope of getting to the FA Cup Final. Fuck that say the Everton fans, they'd rather beat Liverpool.

[Benj]

Teams with little hope of getting into Europe year on year will usually have their fans wanting to win their derbies. At the beginning of the season I was saying "Avoid relegation and beat Sunderland" because I didn't think we'd have a chance of challenging for Europe. If you haven't got hope of better, then the local rivalries have to matter to provide some joy.

[eFestivals]

So for starters is Fernando Torres now not utterly shite again? I lose track on LFC fans rating of him.

One minute he's a laughing stock and you robbed them for £50, on the other the squad has not been improved by you spending the money you got on him elsewhere. Please clarify your current position here

I'll start off by clarifying that there is no "you" that should be being applied to me. I'm clarifying that I ain't no Liverpool fan, merely a fan of football.

(and in case you've not worked it out, that *DOES* explain a liking for Liverpool over ... say ... Everton ).

I've no interest in which team Torres might play for. My interest in him starts and ends with the enjoyment I get from watching him - which has mostly been "not a lot" since he went to Chelsea.

That aside, he was playing well when he left Liverpool. The money they got for him plus a tad more was spent on other players - making it a £7M player upgrade and not a £57M player upgrade.

...and so you're saying they've only improved the squad by a further £60 million

except they didn't. They *SPENT* a further £60M

Off the top of my head, they had £20M+ come back in from sales from the squad - which makes that a less-than £40M upgrade.

So that makes what you wish to label as a £120M (or whatever) spend over two windows as actually less than £50M.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your points, eh?

and are still not better than an Everton squad that lost 2 of their best players and then only spent 3-4 million improving their's!

So you can enjoy bragging about how little you've spent. Enjoy.

It's not like your club gives you much else to enjoy.

Edited May 10, 2012 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

Let 'em have it. It's the only thing they ever win - just very occasionally - if they win anything at all.

Moyes discovered how it is when he put out a weakened side in the hope of getting to the FA Cup Final. Fuck that say the Everton fans, they'd rather beat Liverpool.

Edited May 10, 2012 by strummer77

[kaosmark2]

That aside, he was playing well when he left Liverpool.

[strummer77]

Not really. He had been struggling since about 2 months before the Euros, for Liverpool and Spain. It looked like a blip at the time, but his bad form didn't start with the move to Chelsea. It started 8 months before that.

[Benj]

I'll start off by clarifying that there is no "you" that should be being applied to me. I'm clarifying that I ain't no Liverpool fan, merely a fan of football.

(and in case you've not worked it out, that *DOES* explain a liking for Liverpool over ... say ... Everton ).

I've no interest in which team Torres might play for. My interest in him starts and ends with the enjoyment I get from watching him - which has mostly been "not a lot" since he went to Chelsea.

That aside, he was playing well when he left Liverpool. The money they got for him plus a tad more was spent on other players - making it a £7M player upgrade and not a £57M player upgrade.

[eFestivals]

Not really. He had been struggling since about 2 months before the Euros, for Liverpool and Spain. It looked like a blip at the time, but his bad form didn't start with the move to Chelsea. It started 8 months before that.

Hmmm, while part of that might be true, he was still playing better than he's played at Chelsea.

But anyway, as you say, it was thought of as a blip and that's very relevant to his value.

The only point I'm really trying to make is that "player-out/player-in" is a very different thing to the "only player in" version of history than Benj is presenting. I'm saying nothing different about this for Liverpool as I would for any other club.

It would be no ridiculous of Benj to be saying that it was no loss to Utd when Skippy went to Real Madrid AND if he'd gone for nothing rather than £80M or whatever it was.

[Benj]

He's not been worth £50m for Chelsea, but he was easily a £50m loss for us. Whether its because we sold him or his legs went in those months before, we lost a top 20 goal a season striker. We had to replace that.

[kaosmark2]

He had 9 that season before he left I think. Not fantastic but still heading for 20 goals. It wasn't great but was hardly the disaster the second half of the season was for him.

[Benj]

Hmmm, while part of that might be true, he was still playing better than he's played at Chelsea.

But anyway, as you say, it was thought of as a blip and that's very relevant to his value.

The only point I'm really trying to make is that "player-out/player-in" is a very different thing to the "only player in" version of history than Benj is presenting. I'm saying nothing different about this for Liverpool as I would for any other club.

It would be no ridiculous of Benj to be saying that it was no loss to Utd when Skippy went to Real Madrid AND if he'd gone for nothing rather than £80M or whatever it was.

[kaosmark2]

Hmmm, while part of that might be true, he was still playing better than he's played at Chelsea.

But anyway, as you say, it was thought of as a blip and that's very relevant to his value.

The only point I'm really trying to make is that "player-out/player-in" is a very different thing to the "only player in" version of history than Benj is presenting. I'm saying nothing different about this for Liverpool as I would for any other club.

It would be no ridiculous of Benj to be saying that it was no loss to Utd when Skippy went to Real Madrid AND if he'd gone for nothing rather than £80M or whatever it was.

[eFestivals]

Ah...OK, I get it so Torres is £28 million quid better than Luis Suarez, thank you for clarifying that point.

the reality of the club accounts says he is.

Just as the league is the only reasonable measure for any team's strength/weakness against the other teams, the price paid for players is the only real measure we have for the relative merits of players.

And while everything in hindsight says that Torres wasn't worth that much, there was far far less of that at the time, and most of the criticism there was was more about the stupid level transfer fees in general had got to, rather than Chelsea massively over-paying for Torres because he was shit.

And while Liverpool might have got the clean end of the stick in that deal rather than the shitty end (cos Chelsea over-paid), these things probably about even out. Earlier today there was much talk here of your own manager's failings with strikers, as well as compliments over the extremely good value signings they've turned out to be - which is all the same things.

Ah, yes the NET spend massage. So they've only spent £36 million more than Everton in 12 months and £80 million more A YEAR in wages and are still below them. Sorry that does make a big difference

Yep, there's been some hugely impressive management at Everton with very limited money - something I've commented on many times over the years.

And meanwhile, if I'm remembering rightly*, last time I commented about that was in response to you* posting to say "sack Moyes and sack the board", because the frugality you now want to take credit for wasn't to your liking.

(* or someone else if I'm remembering wrongly)

you're the one banging on about net Spend and how much less LFC have spent than we all think and therefore there further decline against UTD is as bad as we all thought!

I'm pointing out to you that net spend is of more relevance than gross spend. That change in perspective puts a different light on things to the version you put forwards.

Im not bragging about Everton spending Fuck all Im laughing at Liverpool for spending SHIT LOADSand still not being better than Everton!

Yet.

[eFestivals]

Torres was never worth 50 million on the form he was showing, he is not a 50 million loss from the team.

I don't think there's many who'd disagree with you. But follow thru on that and you've got even less to laugh at, yet again.

So one version of the truth is this .... Liverpool got hugely lucky in getting £50M for him, xmas had come. But just as they ripped Chelsea off, they got ripped off on Carroll who is not a £35M player in just the same way.

Suarez was signed before it was known that Torres was leaving, so nothing of that is involved.

So, we're left with Carroll costing £15M less than Torres. Is Carroll's true (crap) value about £15M less than Torres is worth? Yep, he is.

So overall Liverpool broke even on those trades, because they were overpaid by about £20M for Torres, and they overpaid by about £20M for Carroll. Evens.

From Liverpool's point of view, while they could have done better by not overpaying for Carroll and being £20M richer, I doubt they're too upset about it all. It might have gone the other way, with a low price paid for Torres and them buying Carroll for the same £35M.

[Benj]

Yeah, you can criticise individual purchases as being bad value, but overall spend should be looked at net.

[Benj]

Yep, there's been some hugely impressive management at Everton with very limited money - something I've commented on many times over the years.

And meanwhile, if I'm remembering rightly*, last time I commented about that was in response to you* posting to say "sack Moyes and sack the board", because the frugality you now want to take credit for wasn't to your liking.

(* or someone else if I'm remembering wrongly)

Edited May 10, 2012 by Benj