Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 72

Thread: Liverpool 3rd Biggest Spenders The Past 10 years

  1. #1 Default Liverpool 3rd Biggest Spenders The Past 10 years 
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    150
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19416223

    Shocking... and still only one title challenge. Hey ho, on we go!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #2  
    Captain Mauser is offline Charm School Teacher
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    32,632
    Yes... This tells the whole story.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #3  
    petefarrelly is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,445
    How much of that is net though, probably about 150m. Unlike Chelsea and Citys who would be huge. Also i think its a bit flawed that Article, i dont think we have spent that much more than Utd
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #4  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,992
    This was a shocking table for me. We have spent over 400m on players in the last 9 or so seasons and have not come close (apart from 1 year) to chalenging for the PL title. Looking at the numbers, our spend relative to Man U, Spurs, everton and Arsenal shows just how mismanaged and badly let down the club has been by some managers and staff.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #5  
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,597
    Here's the net spend figures, if anybody is interested.

    Note the net spend in Rafa's final season.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #6  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by petefarrelly View Post
    How much of that is net though, probably about 150m. Unlike Chelsea and Citys who would be huge. Also i think its a bit flawed that Article, i dont think we have spent that much more than Utd
    I dont think net makes much difference really - Ronaldo alone probably takes 50m off their total and Arsenal are probably in a net profit over the period as I am sure Everton are - but regardless of this, Man U have god knows how many titles in these years, Chelsea have a few and now so do Man C.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #7  
    petefarrelly is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,445
    Quote Originally Posted by ScotMercer View Post
    This was a shocking table for me. We have spent over 400m on players in the last 9 or so seasons and have not come close (apart from 1 year) to chalenging for the PL title. Looking at the numbers, our spend relative to Man U, Spurs, everton and Arsenal shows just how mismanaged and badly let down the club has been by some managers and staff.
    Spurs have spent huge as well yet have never mustered a title challenge and only won 1 CC.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #8  
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    19,316
    Its not shocking at all. United had one of the best teams in the world ten years ago and only needed to occasionaly swap out a player which is much easier than building from scratch.

    Our total spend is so high because Rafa came in and turned over a hell of a load of players to try and gradually improve the first 11. Rafa had a 5 year plan to challenge, and he achieved that with remarkable accuracy and was unlucky to miss out on the title.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #9  
    smokintony is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    50,214
    Even with H&G we were outspending those who still finished above us
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #10  
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by OLI1879 View Post
    Its not shocking at all. United had one of the best teams in the world ten years ago and only needed to occasionaly swap out a player which is much easier than building from scratch.

    Our total spend is so high because Rafa came in and turned over a hell of a load of players to try and gradually improve the first 11. Rafa had a 5 year plan to challenge, and he achieved that with remarkable accuracy and was unlucky to miss out on the title.
    And he almost won two Champions League titles along the way (bagging one, of course) and scooped an FA Cup.

    He may well have won the title in 09-10, but of course the rug was pulled from under him and the rest is history.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #11  
    Captain Mauser is offline Charm School Teacher
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    32,632
    Quote Originally Posted by ScotMercer View Post
    This was a shocking table for me. We have spent over 400m on players in the last 9 or so seasons and have not come close (apart from 1 year) to chalenging for the PL title. Looking at the numbers, our spend relative to Man U, Spurs, everton and Arsenal shows just how mismanaged and badly let down the club has been by some managers and staff.
    You name two clubs that have barely been relevant and another that hasn't been in the running for nearly eight years.

    Who are the "managers" you are referring to?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #12  
    Captain Mauser is offline Charm School Teacher
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    32,632
    Quote Originally Posted by ScotMercer View Post
    I dont think net makes much difference really - Ronaldo alone probably takes 50m off their total and Arsenal are probably in a net profit over the period as I am sure Everton are - but regardless of this, Man U have god knows how many titles in these years, Chelsea have a few and now so do Man C.
    Are you on a wind-up?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #13  
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    19,316
    Quote Originally Posted by ScotMercer View Post
    I dont think net makes much difference really - Ronaldo alone probably takes 50m off their total and Arsenal are probably in a net profit over the period as I am sure Everton are - but regardless of this, Man U have god knows how many titles in these years, Chelsea have a few and now so do Man C.
    United already had the best team in the league by far. Of course net spend makes much difference. It makes all the difference!

    If I give you Fulham's squad and say sell them all and then use the money to create a title winning squad. You probably would have 80 million to spend in one season but you'd have to buy a whole squad!

    Then nonsense articles like this will say Fulham Spent 80 million last season and only finished 10th!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #14  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by petefarrelly View Post
    Spurs have spent huge as well yet have never mustered a title challenge and only won 1 CC.
    Its debateable but even so, having maybe 1 club with as similarly shockingly bad transfer track record as us is little comfort !
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #15  
    smokintony is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    50,214
    Quote Originally Posted by OLI1879 View Post
    United already had the best team in the league by far. Of course net spend makes much difference. It makes all the difference!

    If I give you Fulham's squad and say sell them all and then use the money to create a title winning squad. You probably would have 80 million to spend in one season but you'd have to buy a whole squad!

    Then nonsense articles like this will say Fulham Spent 80 million last season and only finished 10th!
    Man U weren't "given" that team they had to build it, I bet it didnt cost that much neither
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #16  
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    19,316
    Quote Originally Posted by ScotMercer View Post
    Its debateable but even so, having maybe 1 club with as similarly shockingly bad transfer track record as us is little comfort !
    You are clueless. Both us and Spurs have bought fantastic players in the last 10 years, a lot of which have ended up at the best and richest clubs in the world.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #17  
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    97
    Embarrassing
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #18  
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    19,316
    Quote Originally Posted by smokintony View Post
    Man U weren't "given" that team they had to build it, I bet it didnt cost that much neither
    And they did build it. How long did it take to build? at least 7 years.

    They also had a load of youth players come through at the right time to make them succseful in a time when football was very different.

    We are talking about our spend in the last 10 years anyway.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #19  
    Captain Mauser is offline Charm School Teacher
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    32,632
    Quote Originally Posted by smokintony View Post
    Man U weren't "given" that team they had to build it, I bet it didnt cost that much neither
    They broke the British transfer record umpteen times assembling that side... Ferdinand was 30 million back at the turn of the millenium!!!

    Do the same league table for the 80's and it's United and Tottenham getting laughed at and yet they won even less then than we've won in the last 10 years.

    Two CL finals for ****s sake.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #20  
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    19,316
    Quote Originally Posted by smokintony View Post
    Man U weren't "given" that team they had to build it, I bet it didnt cost that much neither
    Its also worth noting that when we bought ou record signing for 11 million, United added a defender to their treble winning squad for 30 million!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #21  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by PaoloMossy View Post
    Are you on a wind-up?
    No. I dont think the table would look much different if we did it net. Chelsea and Spurs out on their own and us probably 3rd in terms of spending with spurs closer maybe.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #22  
    smokintony is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    50,214
    Quote Originally Posted by PaoloMossy View Post
    They broke the British transfer record umpteen times assembling that side... Ferdinand was 30 million back at the turn of the millenium!!!

    Do the same league table for the 80's and it's United and Tottenham getting laughed at and yet they won even less then than we've won in the last 10 years.

    Two CL finals for ****s sake.
    Thats true I guess, they have spent big in the past, but even so with what we have spent in last 10 years we should have done better in the league and should not be only the 8th best team in the country going by last seasons final league table
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #23  
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,494
    I posted this in another thread but my feelings remain the same.

    Why is there a date given? Since 03? Why 03? Why not 99, 00, 01 or 02.

    Apparently that year is when the transfer window came into force but IMO it's a pointless stat as transfers are still transfers

    As mentioned in the other thread I don't believe there is an agenda with this story but these reports with a cut off point never highlight the fact that MUFC had regularly gone on hundreds of millions of Abramovich style spending sprees, before anyone had even heard of the Russian.

    Using 03 as the cut off year conveniently misses out the 30 million MU spent on Rio in 02 and the combined 47 million they used to buy Veron and Van Nistelrooy in 01.

    Until we paid 14 million for Cisse in 04 our biggest outlay was 11 million pounds on Heskey in 2000...
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #24  
    smokintony is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    50,214
    Quote Originally Posted by OLI1879 View Post
    Its also worth noting that when we bought ou record signing for 11 million, United added a defender to their treble winning squad for 30 million!
    Good point
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #25  
    petefarrelly is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,445
    According to the calculations ive done since 2003. Up until January 2012 We have spent 391.95m and recouped 262.45m. So a net spent of around 130m over 9 years IMO is not that bad considering
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #26  
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Thespian View Post
    I posted this in another thread but my feelings remain the same.

    Why is there a date given? Since 03? Why 03? Why not 99, 00, 01 or 02.

    Apparently that year is when the transfer window came into force but IMO it's a pointless stat as transfers are still transfers

    As mentioned in the other thread I don't believe there is an agenda with this story but these reports with a cut off point never highlight the fact that MUFC had regularly gone on hundreds of millions of Abramovich style spending sprees, before anyone had even heard of the Russian.

    Using 03 as the cut off year conveniently misses out the 30 million MU spent on Rio in 02 and the combined 47 million they used to buy Veron and Van Nistelrooy in 01.

    Until we paid 14 million for Cisse in 04 our biggest outlay was 11 million pounds on Heskey in 2000...
    Think you are getting a bit conspiracy theory about it

    03 is used as it is the last decade (10 years) - 10 years in a nice round number commonly used in a lot of stats

    The net spend table someone posted sums it up for me:

    1) Chelski and Citeh are the only clubs with the ability to just spend spend spend
    2) Like it or not, we have spent a lot over the recent few years - but then again we are one of the most famous and commercially successful clubs in Europe....
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #27  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    12,736
    Football, the only business in the world where net spend and revenue doesn't seem to matter at all to the majority of simpletons.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #28  
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    14,921
    People get so worked up about whethers it's net spend. That's not the point, we have spent this amount of money and we've failed to use it in a way that has made our team stronger. Yes we've sold some of our best players but we've also been absolutely dire in transfer decisions for several years.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #29  
    smokintony is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    50,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Scazman View Post
    Think you are getting a bit conspiracy theory about it

    03 is used as it is the last decade (10 years) - 10 years in a nice round number commonly used in a lot of stats

    The net spend table someone posted sums it up for me:

    1) Chelski and Citeh are the only clubs with the ability to just spend spend spend
    2) Like it or not, we have spent a lot over the recent few years - but then again we are one of the most famous and commercially successful clubs in Europe....
    Our owners and other clubs owners have the "ability" to some degree, its that they (rightfully or wrongfully) decide not to
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #30  
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,765
    Quote Originally Posted by smokintony View Post
    Our owners and other clubs owners have the "ability" to some degree, its that they (rightfully or wrongfully) decide not to
    Not really

    Chelski and Citeh can pay stupid wages and overflated prices and not care if they are losing millions a year

    ManUre are run by business men looking to make a proft
    FSG are businessmen looking to make a profit
    Arsenal are run looking to make a profit

    Chelski and Citeh are the only clubs in the PL run as playthings - little toys for billionaires to play with
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •