Liverpool's Net spend vs other teams

[Zoob]

I just have to post something about this, because although the press don't care about minor things (such as facts) I do.

 

So many papers are talking about the pressure on Rafa, and how he needs to deliver having spent so much money. There is indeed pressure on Rafa - there is always pressure on Liverpool managers - and having been able to get the big, expensive signings that he's been talking about since he arrived, expectations are understandably high.

 

But when you're talking about spending money and the pressure that this puts on managers, I think it's only fair to see the net spend of other clubs too.

 

Getting accurate net spend figures can be tricky - deals are structered in ways that the press don't always appreciate, and there are an increasing number of deals where the transfer fee is 'undisclosed'.

 

So in calculating a table for net spend, I've used the figures from This German site which seems more comprehensive than any other I've found.

 

It's not entirely accurate (i.e. Torres is shown as about 23 million, and it doesn't include our Hungarian signings), but I'm assuming that any errors will be spread evenly - i.e. won't be specific to Liverpool or any other team. I converted the figures from Euros to pounds.

 

 

So the net spend table is: (in Millions of pounds)

 

Spurs £41.9

Man U £37.2

Man city £34.7

Sunderland £27.9

Liverpool £22.7

Portsmouth £21.1

Fulham £19.0

Chelsea £14.3

Newcastle £14.1

Middlesbro £9.9

Everton £8.2

Derby £6.8

Birmingham £6.0

West Ham £4.8

Villa £4.1

Bolton £3.5

Blackburn £3.1

Reading £0.9

Wigan £0.0

Arsenal +£9.7

 

 

So basically, in terms of this season, we're right up there with Portsmouth and Fulham (Fulham have managed to spend a quite staggering amount on very mediocre players, much like Charlton last year). Surely the pressure is on Jol and Keane as much as it is on Rafa? with that kind of Spending Sunderland have to stay up, and Spurs have to get into the CL...

[kop205]

Given that reaching the Champions league Final was worth an estimated, what, £20million, I really don't see why we have to justify our spend anyway, or why Rafa should be considered 'under pressure' as so much of what we've spent has been effectively generated by the success of his sides.

[Sion]

And Spurs still think 5th would be good

 

Small time losers.

 

I think we've done very very well in the market this year in terms of spends, especially upfront we effectively swapped Bellamy, Cisse and Garcia for Torres and Voronin.

[David Hodgson]

I just have to post something about this, because although the press don't care about minor things (such as facts) I do.

 

So many papers are talking about the pressure on Rafa, and how he needs to deliver having spent so much money. There is indeed pressure on Rafa - there is always pressure on Liverpool managers - and having been able to get the big, expensive signings that he's been talking about since he arrived, expectations are understandably high.

 

But when you're talking about spending money and the pressure that this puts on managers, I think it's only fair to see the net spend of other clubs too.

 

Getting accurate net spend figures can be tricky - deals are structered in ways that the press don't always appreciate, and there are an increasing number of deals where the transfer fee is 'undisclosed'.

 

So in calculating a table for net spend, I've used the figures from This German site which seems more comprehensive than any other I've found.

 

It's not entirely accurate (i.e. Torres is shown as about 23 million, and it doesn't include our Hungarian signings), but I'm assuming that any errors will be spread evenly - i.e. won't be specific to Liverpool or any other team. I converted the figures from Euros to pounds.

So the net spend table is: (in Millions of pounds)

 

Spurs £41.9

Man U £37.2

Man city £34.7

Sunderland £27.9

Liverpool £22.7

Portsmouth £21.1

Fulham £19.0

Chelsea £14.3

Newcastle £14.1

Middlesbro £9.9

Everton £8.2

Derby £6.8

Birmingham £6.0

West Ham £4.8

Villa £4.1

Bolton £3.5

Blackburn £3.1

Reading £0.9

Wigan £0.0

Arsenal +£9.7

So basically, in terms of this season, we're right up there with Portsmouth and Fulham (Fulham have managed to spend a quite staggering amount on very mediocre players, much like Charlton last year). Surely the pressure is on Jol and Keane as much as it is on Rafa? with that kind of Spending Sunderland have to stay up, and Spurs have to get into the CL...

 

 

Interesting stuff. God forbid anyone suggest Bascombe might have been on to something.

 

I agree that if Rafa's spent this amount net, then it's hard for anyone to realistically expect us to make a quantum leap forward. we may do, but the manager shouldn't necessarily be under any more pressure to deliver.

 

That is, unless, much more money was available but Rafa has chosen not to spend it, for whatever reasons. I can't be alone in wondering where the truth lies, a) Rafa has worked to a tight(ish) budget, or b) Rafa's holding back on spending them Yankee dollars until the right players become available.

 

I'd hope it's the latter, but find it hard to believe that 'the right players just aren't out there'.

[Stevie H]

That is, unless, much more money was available but Rafa has chosen not to spend it, for whatever reasons. I can't be alone in wondering where the truth lies, a) Rafa has worked to a tight(ish) budget, or b) Rafa's holding back on spending them Yankee dollars until the right players become available.

 

I'd hope it's the latter, but find it hard to believe that 'the right players just aren't out there'.

who else would you have bought this summer though? the only players other clubs have bought who i really would've liked to have seen us go after are probably malouda and ribery. torres and babel are good signings, as are benayoun and voronin.

 

i don't think we'd have signed lucas and leto if budget were a big factor.

[Zoob]

Interesting stuff. God forbid anyone suggest Bascombe might have been on to something.

 

I agree that if Rafa's spent this amount net, then it's hard for anyone to realistically expect us to make a quantum leap forward. we may do, but the manager shouldn't necessarily be under any more pressure to deliver.

 

That is, unless, much more money was available but Rafa has chosen not to spend it, for whatever reasons. I can't be alone in wondering where the truth lies, a) Rafa has worked to a tight(ish) budget, or b) Rafa's holding back on spending them Yankee dollars until the right players become available.

 

I'd hope it's the latter, but find it hard to believe that 'the right players just aren't out there'.

 

 

But it's hardly as if the somewhat crazy net spending of Spurs, Man City, Fulham, Sunderland etc are going to guarantee them success. No point spending money just for the sake of it. I think if you'd have offered liverpool fans the players we've ended up with at the end of last season, we'd be delighted.

 

What this table of net spending doesn't seem to show is the outlay on young players that will hopefully produce a couple of great players over the next few years.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Zoob

[cymrococh]

who else would you have bought this summer though? the only players other clubs have bought who i really would've liked to have seen us go after are probably malouda and ribery.

is it becoz zey are franch?

[Stevie H]

is it becoz zey are franch?

mais bien sur.

 

le singe est dans l'arbre.

[Mike]

net spend. f*** net spend and horse it came in on.

[Knox_Harrington]

I agree that if Rafa's spent this amount net, then it's hard for anyone to realistically expect us to make a quantum leap forward. we may do, but the manager shouldn't necessarily be under any more pressure to deliver.

He should be because he's had a genuine amount of money to invest from a strong base and last season was a large step backwards domestically.

[Benitez]

net spend. f*** net spend and horse it came in on.

 

 

I still find it odd/amusing how some (mentioning no names ), are using the fact the club managed to sell players we didn't want, as some sort of bad thing cos it's making the 'net spend' to little.

 

Anyway, the most staggering thing about that post, is how much Sunderland have spent

[Knox_Harrington]

I still find it odd/amusing how some (mentioning no names ), are using the fact the club managed to sell players we didn't want, as some sort of bad thing cos it's making the 'net spend' to little.

It's precisely this which makes the "net spend low = Rafa's not under any additional pressure" argument fall apart. He hasn't had to sell to buy. The only player he has sold who he may have wanted to keep was Garcia and there were other factors at play. Similarly last season. He's had significant funds to invest in the first team squad.

[Gunga Din]

the other thing this year is that we were able to but before we sold. in recent years we were having to sell to raise the funds, where as this year that didnt seem to be the case, and we were therefore able to go after our main targets.

[Guz]

And Spurs still think 5th would be good

 

Small time losers.

 

I think we've done very very well in the market this year in terms of spends, especially upfront we effectively swapped Bellamy, Cisse and Garcia for Torres and Voronin.

 

5th would bea decent result for Spurs given they were even bigger of a joke club about 5 years ago and the top 4 being difficult to break into. But they need to start challenging for the cups a lot stronger this season.

 

I wonder with the likes of Newcastle, Pompey, Villa, Spurs, City, Everton, West Ham etc. strengthening their squads if the premier league is going to slowly become more like La Liga with the teams between 5th and 10th more capable of taking points off the top 3/4.

[yellow jumper]

He should be because he's had a genuine amount of money to invest from a strong base and last season was a large step backwards domestically.

 

he shouldn't be under any undue pressure for his job, notwithstanding a total disaster. and even then.

 

last year was a small step backwards, but it was the first. there were also some mitigating circumstances. and a clear progression in what we were able to achieve at home, if not away. there was also the distorted final third of the year after the united game, where eyes were on europe.

 

our base is now strong, but it hasn't been as strong as either united's or chelsea's, who have been able to add £20 + million players on a regular basis for many years.

 

if we can find some genuine away form we'll be on our way anyhow.

[Knox_Harrington]

he shouldn't be under any undue pressure for his job, notwithstanding a total disaster. and even then.

 

last year was a small step backwards, but it was the first. there were also some mitigating circumstances. and a clear progression in what we were able to achieve at home, if not away. there was also the distorted final third of the year after the united game, where eyes were on europe.

 

our base is now strong, but it hasn't been as strong as either united's or chelsea's, who have been able to add £20 + million players on a regular basis for many years.

 

if we can find some genuine away form we'll be on our way anyhow.

He should be under pressure to produce results, not for his job.

[fabfive]

Isn't the german link incorrect?

 

We've spent money on loads of youth not listed there. Now the amount won't be staggering but still Rafa has bought more players than listed even if they aren't first teamers. So our net spend is higher than listed there.

[Kite]

The net spend completely side-steps the fact that Rafa wanted players and, barring Malouda's desire to join Drogba, got them. Which means that the pressure is indeed on this season more than any other because Rafa has had the opportunity now to preen out the dead wood (or even the preening wood in Cisse's case), and build a team around the players he himself wants. It will be difficult to face another failure at the end of the season if those players then fail to deliver - or at least that's what the media will say. Personally I think it's bollix to expect players to arrive into a league and immediately perform and it will probably be next season before the team starts reaching it's full potential.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Mr Kite

[Tosh]

shurely Sunderland have to have a big net spend

 

It's not as if they have a vast (championship) squad to offload at vast premiership prices. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of the new promotees each season have an inflated net spend. Only a few - like Reading - keep with largely the same squad AND survive

 

Fulham, however, have little excuse. And Spurs seemed to have deep pockets this time last year....

[Zoob]

Isn't the german link incorrect?

 

We've spent money on loads of youth not listed there. Now the amount won't be staggering but still Rafa has bought more players than listed even if they aren't first teamers. So our net spend is higher than listed there.

 

I doubt we're the only team to have bought young players who are not listed on there.

As I said, the link isn't 100% correct, but there is no reason to think that it's going to be significantly more incorrect for us than for any other team, so as an indication of overall net spend, it still tells an accurate story when you compare one team to another.

[CarraLegend]

Didn't Man Utd actually make profit on their "net spend" last Summer? No wonder they done so s*** in the League.

 

Oh.

[Zoob]

Didn't Man Utd actually make profit on their "net spend" last Summer? No wonder they done so s*** in the League.

 

Oh.

 

 

I kind of take the point that looking at net spend for one season only doesn't tell the full story. However, one of the reasons I posted and concentrated on our net spend this close season is because of all the crap that the press are writing about the massive amounts we've spent, when most of the time (and unsurprisingly) they fail to put it into the context of the net spend of other teams.

 

In terms of Man Utd last Summer - they sold RVN and bought Carrick. I doubt they made a profit on their net spend last year, but admitadly their net outlay would have been pretty low

[Gary Gekkaloys]

I kind of take the point that looking at net spend for one season only doesn't tell the full story. However, one of the reasons I posted and concentrated on our net spend this close season is because of all the crap that the press are writing about the massive amounts we've spent, when most of the time (and unsurprisingly) they fail to put it into the context of the net spend of other teams.

 

In terms of Man Utd last Summer - they sold RVN and bought Carrick. I doubt they made a profit on their net spend last year, but admitadly their net outlay would have been pretty low

 

 

Think they also got something like £15 million for Obi Mikel from Chelsea.

[Ginu]

I'm surprised we're still talking about such a stupid topic as net spending when it logically doesn't even make sense to use it as a measure of spending power

[mooks]

I'm surprised we're still talking about such a stupid topic as net spending when it logically doesn't even make sense to use it as a measure of spending power