|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,870
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,870 |
Am afraid you must not of been supporting Liverpool when Houllier was manager because you will of known NET spent was never mentioned under him, Houllier was just judged and the money he spent and how good they were, thats why he was slaughtered for the likes of Diouf for about 11 million and took alot of stick for Cisse 16 million even though he had already left after Cisse arrived. The Porto point is not silly at all, I have just used your logic in that according to you it all goes on the differences in buying and selling players not what they actualy cost so Raul never cost us a penny because we had just sold Mascherano for more money, also applying your logic Dalglish was'nt Liverpool's record signing either as we sold Keegan for more just the month before neither was Dean Saunders or Stan Collymore because we probably sold a few players beforehand which means the fees we paid those players Clubs was'nt proper money, see how ridiculous this NET spent rubbish is. Mate you seriously need to quit while you are behind. None of your "logic" makes any sense. The reason net spend comes into consideration with Rafa is because he wasn't given enough funds to compete with all the big spenders. He had to sell to buy which is not what the other managers had to do. They only sold to reduce their squad size down to what they are allowed to have. Yes he was given more than other Liverpool managers but the reason is that players are more expensive to buy now than they were when Souness, Houllier, etc were in charge. This is why net spend is always considered because it gives a more balancced comparison. I'm not defending Rafa for his poor signings but he surely has to be credited for the good ones also. Either way we have to now move forward and forget about Rafa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Club
Unregistered
|
|
Reclaim The Club
Unregistered
|
Is it no coincidence that when we finished 2nd and needed to add to the squad that we already had, that when the owners where getting 30 million for alonso etc and we where getting less that half. At the end of that season we should of have transfer funds to spend, but we had to sell to buy. Look at this chart I've just searched for http://apture.s3.amazonaws.com/0000012be...201990-2010.pngnotice we made a profit in the seasons 2008/09 and especially 2009/2010 it's no coincidence that the club has gone frm 2nd to 7th, we needed to add quality to the team not just make replacements but we only lossed Alonso from that season because Big Sami hardly figured, it was virtualy the same players, you dont go from second and two losses to a position of seventh and twelve losses by losing just Alonso, it just shows what a poor manager the Spaniard was...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Club
Unregistered
|
|
Reclaim The Club
Unregistered
|
Am afraid you must not of been supporting Liverpool when Houllier was manager because you will of known NET spent was never mentioned under him, Houllier was just judged and the money he spent and how good they were, thats why he was slaughtered for the likes of Diouf for about 11 million and took alot of stick for Cisse 16 million even though he had already left after Cisse arrived. The Porto point is not silly at all, I have just used your logic in that according to you it all goes on the differences in buying and selling players not what they actualy cost so Raul never cost us a penny because we had just sold Mascherano for more money, also applying your logic Dalglish was'nt Liverpool's record signing either as we sold Keegan for more just the month before neither was Dean Saunders or Stan Collymore because we probably sold a few players beforehand which means the fees we paid those players Clubs was'nt proper money, see how ridiculous this NET spent rubbish is. Mate you seriously need to quit while you are behind. None of your "logic" makes any sense. The reason net spend comes into consideration with Rafa is because he wasn't given enough funds to compete with all the big spenders. He had to sell to buy which is not what the other managers had to do. They only sold to reduce their squad size down to what they are allowed to have. Yes he was given more than other Liverpool managers but the reason is that players are more expensive to buy now than they were when Souness, Houllier, etc were in charge. This is why net spend is always considered because it gives a more balancced comparison. I'm not defending Rafa for his poor signings but he surely has to be credited for the good ones also. Either way we have to now move forward and forget about Rafa. if your claiming Benitez was'nt given enough funds to compete with United and Chelsea then how has Arsene Wenger kept Arsenal in contention for all Cups throughout the same seasons and has spent less NET as you say and has a record transfer fee paid of 17.5 for Reyes all those years ago, Benitez has spent close on 20 million and more on Keane, Torres, Aqualani, Johnson and Mascherano alone and all cost more than Reyes, United's net spent over the last few seasons is even lower than Benitez and Fergie is building new teams.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,391
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,391 |
I don't put it down just to alonso leaving, but last year I heard alot of the players wernt happy about the lack of investment going back into the squad, it'd pissss me off too. You work your [oops] off to win the title, you come up short an are looking forward to the next season, a couple of additions to the squad to make it better. Instead we lost alonso, spent 5 mill on aquilani, and brought in Johnson, we were still at square one. No one added upfront, no right winger, left back we was short, playing an inexperienced left back didn't help. There was alot of factors that went against us which ultimately made us under achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,264
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,264 |
Because of the sell to buy policy?
Crouch,Bellamy,Keane and torres looks better then
Voronin,Ngog,Torres
See where money dictates the quality,selling to downgrade
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,391
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,391 |
Reclaim, don't forget utd sold ronaldo.
Also, as for united, when have we been able to spend 15 million on the likes of nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, carrick etc and have them in the bench.
I could honestly say that if benitez was given 150 in two seasons to spend on players before having to sell, we wouldn't be having this conversation and we wouldn't be in the position where in. Look at his transfers each season and look at who went out and who came in
people seem to forget that rafa got rid of those who wernt upto scratch ( Gonzalez for example) morientes etc
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,444
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,444 |
, spent 5 mill on aquilani, LOL he is a 20 million pound player next thing you will be saying is roma paid us for aquilani , NET spend nonsense , if you spend 10 pounds in a shop but sell something for 10 pounds you have still spent 10 pounds in the shop you haven't got it for nothing , Its GROSS not NET , NET is an excuse for covering up Mr Benitez ineptness in the transfer market .
|
|
|
|
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
i hate the net spend excuse. as has been pointed out wegner has made a bloody profit year in year out.how does he manage to have such good sides. simple fact is net spend or no rafa spent his money on sh*t and he had a transfer merry go-round policy, cause he can't pick a player. You don't prove that someone is a bad manager by showing that they aren't as good as Wenger at working without money. If Fergie doesn't do as well as Mourinho, that doesn't make him crap. This is faulty logic. A lot of top managers aren't as good as Wenger at working without spending. It is irrelevant In addition, Arsenal is specifically geared to fast-tracking youth into the first team, and selling players once they hit 30 in order to buy more youth. Prior to Rafa's appointment we didn't even have an academy to speak of. We do now, but the current manager refuses to play the fruits of our labours their, and somehow suggests in the press that Rafa is to blame for this. But don't worry, it must be Rafa's fault that Arsenal haven't won anything for 5 seasons. Net spend is not an excuse. It's a reflection of reality. What is the going rate on the Greek now? 3-4 million? Obviously a bad player to be going for that price, right? Excuse me, but how do you afford 3-4 million when your transfer budget is 0? By selling someone. Selling someone who may actually prove to have been a better player than the one you bought, because you can never be 100% sure about what you're buying from a different league at this price range. Oh and if the Greek is worth 3-4 million, then that represents a net gain of 1.5-2.5 million; free money to spend on another player. So don't say net spend isn't considered by anyone - how can you tell whether your buys are of generally good or poor quality? Net spend! You think getting 80 million for Ronaldo was fantastic business for Man U? Of course it was. But mainly it's fantastic because Ferge bought him for a pittance; if he'd cost Man U 75 million to sign instead, I'm not sure he would have been sold so easily. And where did this amazing signing, along with Kaka [and all the associated negative net spend we supposedly never hear about] get Real Madrid last season? Can we say Ronaldo is therefore a failure? No, we can't because he's a quality footballer regardless of his price tag. Nothing is more important than investment in the squad - with cash in the budget you have a free hand to buy people who are proven quality footballers, rather than having to gamble on players like the Greek or Dossena. Net spend is just a reflection of what the manager has had to work with in the absence of squad investment. Net spend doesn't force him to buy and then sell Dossena; not having any money does. Net spend just shows you why we couldn't have bought Robinho instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
but we only lossed Alonso from that season because Big Sami hardly figured, it was virtualy the same players, you dont go from second and two losses to a position of seventh and twelve losses by losing just Alonso, it just shows what a poor manager the Spaniard was... You don't go from where we were when rafa took over to winning the european cup, runners up to the european cup, regular top 4, and a 2nd place in the premiership by being a poor manager. Anyway compare that to someone who goes from 7th in the premiership, and a team that was able to finish 2nd the year before, to the worst start in around 60 years. What kind of manager is that You also forgot that we sold Arbeloa that season, Reclaim, a full back problem that even Roy hasn't solved despite having a full transfer window to handle it. Take out 2 critical first team players from any side and your results will suffer. Don't remember Man U winning the league without Ronaldo last season, and I can't them winning it this season either. Fergie must be such an awful manager! I'm surprised he hasn't been sacked already! What did he think he was doing selling that player for 80 million anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,391
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,391 |
I can't believe fergy didn't buy a couple of 30 million pound players! Why's that! Same boat that we where in, servicing debt
|
|
|
|
|
