http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/liverpool-fc-analysis-money-alone-6856300The Beatles might have reached top spot with Can't Buy Me Love , but Liverpool FC boss Brendan Rodgers is looking to reach the summit with his own take on it.
Money, the Northern Irishman says, doesn't necessarily buy you success.
In the modern game, it is the fiercest of dichotomies. Short ball versus long ball, possession versus counter attack, good versus evil. All have now been usurped by the battle between teams who spent a lot and teams who spend a little.
“Clubs spend a billion quid and it does not guarantee anything. We will be in the market for good and top players, but there is more to it than that,” Rodgers said.
“Once you put your ideas in place and once the players start to crack it, then we will have success. Money can’t buy that.”
A history of the Premier League, at least, would suggest otherwise. Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea and Manchester City all won the title with strong financial backing, while Manchester United are third in the all-time list of net spend.
The Reds are fourth in that list, and to portray them as paupers would be wrong – only Chelsea and City have spent more on transfers than Liverpool since 1992, while those two and United are the only two above them in terms of net spend.
But given the financial clout of both Chelsea and City, and when considering the steps taken by Fenway Sports Group to offer more value for money at Anfield on the pitch, the Reds' second-place position very much agrees with Rodgers' viewpoint.
According to the reliable Transfermarkt website, Liverpool's squad this season costs a combined total of £175m in transfer fees.
Granted, that does not take into consideration wages spent, while transfer figures are an approximation based on whatever information is available.
But it helps to confirm how Liverpool are not part of the highest echelon of league spenders; they are sixth in terms of squad cost, close to Arsenal and Spurs, but far away from City, Chelsea and United.
Chelsea's squad cost £345m, while City's currently amounts to £380m – the highest in the division. United (£335m), Tottenham (£205m) and Arsenal (£185m) also possesses more expensive squads than Liverpool.
Net figures – taking income and subtracting it from expenditure - is also a useful gauge when correlating success with spend.
In the past decade, seven of the eventual champions were among the top three in terms of net spend, although only Chelsea - in their back-to-back title wins of 2005 and 2006 – were top of both the football and net spend table.
That does ignore City in 2012 however, who were second in net spend for 2011/12, but did spend nearly £200m over the 24 months previous.
This season, Liverpool are 10th with £21.2m net spend; the purchases of Mamadou Sakho and Simon Mignolet are balanced with the sales of Jonjo Shelvey, Andy Carroll and Stewart Downing.
Of the teams who finished above them last season, four have a higher net spend this season. City have spent a net amount of £92m, while United (£68m), Chelsea (£49.5m) and Arsenal (£34m) also surpassed the Reds.
Meanwhile, Tottenham's £3.3m profit is aided by a world record transfer fee for Gareth Bale; Everton, as usual, performed well in the market and made £15.7m.
In the Anfield club's pursuit of a first title for 24 years, Rodgers may take heart from United's efforts in 2007.
Despite Chelsea's consecutive championships – curated by Jose Mourinho, but aided by Roman Abramovich – United won the title in 2007 even though their outlay was just £4.1m, the 13th highest.
Ultimately, Rodgers is right. Money does not automatically equate to success - there must be coaching to supplement it.
To simply attribute money to the success of Blackburn, Chelsea or City does disservice to the managerial abilities of Kenny Dalglish, Mourinho and Roberto Mancini. Queens Park Rangers spent nearly £43m and finished bottom of the Premier League last season, after all.
“It is about coaching and man-management and dealing with people,” Rodgers added. “Having a great staff. Finding a cause for the players to fight for. All of that comes into it and that is something we have done in the period I have been here.”
Luis Suarez cost the Reds £22.8m but his value increases, to extraordinary levels, with every shimmy and nutmeg; Daniel Sturridge, a £12m signing from Chelsea, is now worth over double that.
The values of Raheem Sterling and Philippe Coutinho have rocketed too, while very few would now find fault with the fee Liverpool paid for Jordan Henderson, one who is an integral part of the set-up.
Still, to find themselves so prominent in a title race after spending so little this summer is an achievement. Across Europe's top five leagues, both last season's and this season's leaders are prominent spenders.
Paris St-Germain made a transfer loss of nearly £130m last season, and have been outspent by Monaco alone this year; in Spain, champions Barcelona spent more than anybody in 2012, while current leaders Real Madrid outspent the rest of the league last summer.
Juventus were Italy's highest spenders last season (though making a profit for this season), while Bayern spent £61.5m to wrestle the Bundesliga back from Borussia Dortmund in 2012/13.
But while English football does appear have a hierarchical structure, where the richest clubs remain at the top, the continent proves it is possible to reach the climb the mountain without fingers made of gold and silver.
Dortmund are one of the most prominent examples, winning the Bundesliga in 2010/11 by spending a net total of £1.85m. Top goalscorer Lucas Barrios, signed from Chilean side Colo Colo in 2009, cost just £3.7m. A season later, Dortmund retained the title despite Bayern outlaying over £40m in transfer spend.
Rafael Benitez's Valencia won their first La Liga title for 31 years in 2002, despite making a transfer profit of £33.5m – largely attributed to Gaizka Mendieta's big-money move to Lazio. Two seasons later, Los Che would do it again, winning the title while making £.3.1m.
It is also happening this season. Though Atletico Madrid and Roma are not top of their respective leagues, they have looked to challenge – an impressive feat given Atletico have made a profit of £38.5m this season, while Roma have accumulated £36m in transfer fees.
Of course, the Reds' net spend of just over £20m cannot compare to that – but in comparison with those they are battling with, it is evident that money doesn't mean everything.
It sometimes can. Roma won Serie A in 2001 after spending £84m, while the modern examples of Chelsea and PSG also demonstrate how crucial funds can be.
But Liverpool are coping just fine without excessive spending. Detractors will reference the summer of 2011, and the purchase of Carroll in that January – but of those signed in that six-month period, only Jose Enrique, Sebastian Coates, Henderson and Suarez remain.
Comparisons with Dortmund have been made in recent weeks, both on and off the pitch - to win trophies in spite of the financial backing of rivals would further add to those.
Money doesn't buy you trophies, but it can help – so, too, can good management and improving players. The Reds, and Rodgers, will hope the latter proves stronger than anything else
