OP
If someone paid me over the odds for a clapped out old ferrari I wouldn't feel that that justified paying 3 times over the odds for a new ford fiesta. I would pay the asking price and pocket the extra. Anyone who suggests otherwise should steer clear of buying cars......or footballers
No hindsight involved from me Robbing. I was praying that the deal would feel through that day because I thought it was a total waste of money. Every player has a price and I've got no problem with buying Carroll for a reasonable price. But the 20+ million that we spent over the odds on Carroll is money that could, and should, have been spent on other players.
What Henry said about Net Spend is, on the one hand, understandable....ie that they wanted zero net spend out of Carroll + Suarez from the departure of Torres + Babel. The books were balanced and that's a good thing.
However, balancing the books could be achieved in a much more productive & beneficial way. I think LFc were slightly desperate in that transfer window.
When you consider that Spurs bought their entire midfield for less than £35m, that puts it in perspective, Sure it took a couple years for them to peak but is that not what LFC should be looking at, building sustainably for a team that will mature over time.
Who would you have bought?
Personally, I'd of bought no-one rather than paying £35 for Carroll.
I wouldn't have bought anyone on that day. I would have pocketed the cash until the summer, and done some careful scouting in the meantime.
I heard a rumour that the reason the owners did this was because there were some sort of tax implications. I have no idea whether this is true but it could explain their insistence on simply maintaining a 15Million differential between the two fees
Devonshirespur (U6316)
I find this stuff about Spurs squad scost bizarre. Especially when people complain about LFC. That is the difference between the two clubs I guess - expectation.
Yes - Spurs have not spent much in the last couple of seasons and made good profit on other players.
People forget their absolute clangers and crappy league positions though.
Bentley - £15m and no-one bats an eye lid!
Hutton - £9m!!
Selling Defoe and then buying him back for more!!
If NET spend does not matter how can Spurs account for buyin back Keane for about £12m and then not playing him and then letting him go for about £2m.
Spurs have had no end of failure to get to the point they are now which is notmcuh better than where Jol had them.
It's only because people expect so much of us.
FSB (U11355)
Who would yo have bought in the summer?
I would also have bought nobody - why spend twice the price on a panic buy that cant play for ages anyway??! I could almost understand it if he was fit and playing and banging them in at the time, but he was recovering from an injury that he'd made worse because he drunkenly fell off a bar stool. And we paid 35million.
I honestly would have preferred it if we'd forced torres to stay an extra 6 months and lost 20million on his transfer price - at least we would have seen him play with suarez. A demotivated torres would have been better than carroll.
it's not hindsight, it was a joke transfer and everyone knew it at the time.
Molbys
Top quality article.
This 'net spend' is something used by fans to justify bad purchases.
As you say, at the end of the day, you have still spent x amount on kak.
<hindsightsmiley>
------------------------
Aren't you using hindsight in your post that is critical of some of Spurs' signings?
RipleysCat (U1862)
Yes. That's kind of my point.
Throw in Palacios (although extreme mitigating circumstances), Pav, Bassong and Gomes if you like.
My point is they spent over £230m in 5 seasons, qualified for the CL once, won nothing and you don't get this circus.
I ask myself why?
Molbys
Top quality article.
This 'net spend' is something used by fans to justify bad purchases.
As you say, at the end of the day, you have still spent x amount on kak.
--
Cheers bud. It does wind me up when people use the argument that we are ONLY 30 million pounds worse off after drastically reducing the quality of our squad. Like we should be pleased with that!!!?
I think the squad is of better balance and quality.
Actually, I was rash there - the quality isn't drastically reduced, it's probably better. The first team is of poorer quality in my opinion though.
Molbys Pie Shop (U9212)
That happens when you dtrop out of the CL I reckon.
Cheers bud. It does wind me up when people use the argument that we are ONLY 30 million pounds worse off after drastically reducing the quality of our squad. Like we should be pleased with that!!!?
......................
Not wumming here, but the first time I really saw people using the net spend argument was in defence of Rafa.
I said at the time, it wasn't Rafa's job to make money for the owners, it was his job to buy the best players for Liverpool FC.
The only thing I would say about net spend is that it draws attention to the fact we are losing players to gain players. One reason Man City have progressed is that they have been buying additional players not swapping them. I do agree though we haven't spent wisely, especially compared to the likes of Newcastle.
RipleysCat (U1862)
Yes. That's kind of my point.
-------------------
Understood. I have to say the exact same thought crossed my mind. I had wrote a fairly lengthy post to this thread, then read it back to myself and the word "hindsight" came to mind. So I proceeded to not bother submitting my post at all!
The only thing I would say about net spend is that it draws attention to the fact we are losing players to gain players.
...............
Aggers, this isn't anything new. United will lose players in the summer, we do every summer.
I can't be bothered to read all the posts to see if someone has said this but you clearly have no understanding of finance, supply and demand or football.
In general the net spend argument has to be considered because it tells you where you really are as a club. If you are bankrolled by billionaries like Chelsea and Man City, the net spend means nothing. They have so much cash that they can buy anyone and it doesn't matter what they sell. But for most other clubs, they have to wheel and deal, sell players to buy others.
If we look at Rafa, he spent something something in the region of £240m on players, but he sold £140m odd. And this is why for me net spend is important. Rafa had to wheel and deal. When we bought Torres, we had to make some money for the club so sold Bellamy. When we bought Mascherano, Sissoko was sold, when we looked at buying Barry, we considered selling Alonso. This tells us a lot. Imagine if we didn't have this policy. Imagine if we were able to buy Torres and still keep Bellamy, have Sissoko as a back up to Mascherano. Our squad would have been so much stronger. And that was the problem we have had for decades. We have at various times had a very good first XI but always lacked a deep squad. (I don't wnat to turn this into a Rafa net spend debate by the way,k its just an example)
Now if you look at Mancini at Man City, he has spent £240m on players and only sold £56m. That means he has bought on top of the squad he already has, which is why they've been able to develop not only a strong first X1 but a very strong squad. When they bought Aguero, they didn;t really have to free up any money by sellig anyone. Chelsea have done the same. They've spent £160m since Jan 2010 and sold barely anyone, which means that they've added to the squad rather than replace players.
We have had to replace players. We didn't buy Carroll on top of Torres, we bought him to replace him. We didn't buy Downing on top of Benayoun and Riera, they'd gone so we had to find replacements.
What we've had to do was overspend slightly to fill massive gaps in our squad, because the squad was mismanaged under the previous regime. Under H&G Rafa was allowed to spend £122m but we sold £120m worth of players in that time. Thats not investing. Its selling to buy.
When it comes to what Kenny has bought, you do need to look at where we are as a club. We aren't in the Champions League so can't attract the very best. We needed to fill some important gaps in the team - we needed a striker when Torres left. Apparently we were looking at Llorente as well as Carroll, but we got Carroll. Llorente probably thought that Bilbao can offer Europa League giving him more exposure, and Liverpool can't. So we got Carroll. Maybe now that we are in the Europa League we can attract a Llorente without having to sell anyone on.
What we did when we bought Downing, Henderon, Carroll and Adam was the start of a rebuild. We'll add more players to the squad, and we'll keep what we have as good squad players. We didn't spend £200m all in one summer because our finances don't allow that, i.e. we're not owned by a sugar daddy investor. This team is far from being the finished article yet and that's why we need to show some patience and allow for the plan to be implemented. FSG know this, they've talked a lot about the long term strategy to make this club successfull again. Kenny and Commolli know this. Some of our fans kinow this. But unfortunately there are a very vocal group who want success yesterday and it is very annoying.
Sign in if you want to comment
STUPID 'NET SPEND' ARGUMENT
Page 2 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 4/4/12
OP
If someone paid me over the odds for a clapped out old ferrari I wouldn't feel that that justified paying 3 times over the odds for a new ford fiesta. I would pay the asking price and pocket the extra. Anyone who suggests otherwise should steer clear of buying cars......or footballers
posted on 4/4/12
<hindsightsmiley>
posted on 4/4/12
No hindsight involved from me Robbing. I was praying that the deal would feel through that day because I thought it was a total waste of money. Every player has a price and I've got no problem with buying Carroll for a reasonable price. But the 20+ million that we spent over the odds on Carroll is money that could, and should, have been spent on other players.
posted on 4/4/12
What Henry said about Net Spend is, on the one hand, understandable....ie that they wanted zero net spend out of Carroll + Suarez from the departure of Torres + Babel. The books were balanced and that's a good thing.
However, balancing the books could be achieved in a much more productive & beneficial way. I think LFc were slightly desperate in that transfer window.
When you consider that Spurs bought their entire midfield for less than £35m, that puts it in perspective, Sure it took a couple years for them to peak but is that not what LFC should be looking at, building sustainably for a team that will mature over time.
posted on 4/4/12
Who would you have bought?
posted on 4/4/12
Personally, I'd of bought no-one rather than paying £35 for Carroll.
posted on 4/4/12
I wouldn't have bought anyone on that day. I would have pocketed the cash until the summer, and done some careful scouting in the meantime.
I heard a rumour that the reason the owners did this was because there were some sort of tax implications. I have no idea whether this is true but it could explain their insistence on simply maintaining a 15Million differential between the two fees
posted on 4/4/12
Devonshirespur (U6316)
I find this stuff about Spurs squad scost bizarre. Especially when people complain about LFC. That is the difference between the two clubs I guess - expectation.
Yes - Spurs have not spent much in the last couple of seasons and made good profit on other players.
People forget their absolute clangers and crappy league positions though.
Bentley - £15m and no-one bats an eye lid!
Hutton - £9m!!
Selling Defoe and then buying him back for more!!
If NET spend does not matter how can Spurs account for buyin back Keane for about £12m and then not playing him and then letting him go for about £2m.
Spurs have had no end of failure to get to the point they are now which is notmcuh better than where Jol had them.
It's only because people expect so much of us.
posted on 4/4/12
FSB (U11355)
Who would yo have bought in the summer?
posted on 4/4/12
I would also have bought nobody - why spend twice the price on a panic buy that cant play for ages anyway??! I could almost understand it if he was fit and playing and banging them in at the time, but he was recovering from an injury that he'd made worse because he drunkenly fell off a bar stool. And we paid 35million.
I honestly would have preferred it if we'd forced torres to stay an extra 6 months and lost 20million on his transfer price - at least we would have seen him play with suarez. A demotivated torres would have been better than carroll.
posted on 4/4/12
<hindsightsmiley>
posted on 4/4/12
it's not hindsight, it was a joke transfer and everyone knew it at the time.
posted on 4/4/12
Molbys
Top quality article.
This 'net spend' is something used by fans to justify bad purchases.
As you say, at the end of the day, you have still spent x amount on kak.
posted on 4/4/12
<hindsightsmiley>
------------------------
Aren't you using hindsight in your post that is critical of some of Spurs' signings?
posted on 4/4/12
RipleysCat (U1862)
Yes. That's kind of my point.
Throw in Palacios (although extreme mitigating circumstances), Pav, Bassong and Gomes if you like.
My point is they spent over £230m in 5 seasons, qualified for the CL once, won nothing and you don't get this circus.
I ask myself why?
posted on 4/4/12
Molbys
Top quality article.
This 'net spend' is something used by fans to justify bad purchases.
As you say, at the end of the day, you have still spent x amount on kak.
--
Cheers bud. It does wind me up when people use the argument that we are ONLY 30 million pounds worse off after drastically reducing the quality of our squad. Like we should be pleased with that!!!?
posted on 4/4/12
I think the squad is of better balance and quality.
posted on 4/4/12
Actually, I was rash there - the quality isn't drastically reduced, it's probably better. The first team is of poorer quality in my opinion though.
posted on 4/4/12
Molbys Pie Shop (U9212)
That happens when you dtrop out of the CL I reckon.
posted on 4/4/12
Cheers bud. It does wind me up when people use the argument that we are ONLY 30 million pounds worse off after drastically reducing the quality of our squad. Like we should be pleased with that!!!?
......................
Not wumming here, but the first time I really saw people using the net spend argument was in defence of Rafa.
I said at the time, it wasn't Rafa's job to make money for the owners, it was his job to buy the best players for Liverpool FC.
posted on 4/4/12
The only thing I would say about net spend is that it draws attention to the fact we are losing players to gain players. One reason Man City have progressed is that they have been buying additional players not swapping them. I do agree though we haven't spent wisely, especially compared to the likes of Newcastle.
posted on 4/4/12
RipleysCat (U1862)
Yes. That's kind of my point.
-------------------
Understood. I have to say the exact same thought crossed my mind. I had wrote a fairly lengthy post to this thread, then read it back to myself and the word "hindsight" came to mind. So I proceeded to not bother submitting my post at all!
posted on 4/4/12
The only thing I would say about net spend is that it draws attention to the fact we are losing players to gain players.
...............
Aggers, this isn't anything new. United will lose players in the summer, we do every summer.
posted on 4/4/12
I can't be bothered to read all the posts to see if someone has said this but you clearly have no understanding of finance, supply and demand or football.
posted on 4/4/12
In general the net spend argument has to be considered because it tells you where you really are as a club. If you are bankrolled by billionaries like Chelsea and Man City, the net spend means nothing. They have so much cash that they can buy anyone and it doesn't matter what they sell. But for most other clubs, they have to wheel and deal, sell players to buy others.
If we look at Rafa, he spent something something in the region of £240m on players, but he sold £140m odd. And this is why for me net spend is important. Rafa had to wheel and deal. When we bought Torres, we had to make some money for the club so sold Bellamy. When we bought Mascherano, Sissoko was sold, when we looked at buying Barry, we considered selling Alonso. This tells us a lot. Imagine if we didn't have this policy. Imagine if we were able to buy Torres and still keep Bellamy, have Sissoko as a back up to Mascherano. Our squad would have been so much stronger. And that was the problem we have had for decades. We have at various times had a very good first XI but always lacked a deep squad. (I don't wnat to turn this into a Rafa net spend debate by the way,k its just an example)
Now if you look at Mancini at Man City, he has spent £240m on players and only sold £56m. That means he has bought on top of the squad he already has, which is why they've been able to develop not only a strong first X1 but a very strong squad. When they bought Aguero, they didn;t really have to free up any money by sellig anyone. Chelsea have done the same. They've spent £160m since Jan 2010 and sold barely anyone, which means that they've added to the squad rather than replace players.
We have had to replace players. We didn't buy Carroll on top of Torres, we bought him to replace him. We didn't buy Downing on top of Benayoun and Riera, they'd gone so we had to find replacements.
What we've had to do was overspend slightly to fill massive gaps in our squad, because the squad was mismanaged under the previous regime. Under H&G Rafa was allowed to spend £122m but we sold £120m worth of players in that time. Thats not investing. Its selling to buy.
When it comes to what Kenny has bought, you do need to look at where we are as a club. We aren't in the Champions League so can't attract the very best. We needed to fill some important gaps in the team - we needed a striker when Torres left. Apparently we were looking at Llorente as well as Carroll, but we got Carroll. Llorente probably thought that Bilbao can offer Europa League giving him more exposure, and Liverpool can't. So we got Carroll. Maybe now that we are in the Europa League we can attract a Llorente without having to sell anyone on.
What we did when we bought Downing, Henderon, Carroll and Adam was the start of a rebuild. We'll add more players to the squad, and we'll keep what we have as good squad players. We didn't spend £200m all in one summer because our finances don't allow that, i.e. we're not owned by a sugar daddy investor. This team is far from being the finished article yet and that's why we need to show some patience and allow for the plan to be implemented. FSG know this, they've talked a lot about the long term strategy to make this club successfull again. Kenny and Commolli know this. Some of our fans kinow this. But unfortunately there are a very vocal group who want success yesterday and it is very annoying.
Page 2 of 7
6 | 7