I get annoyed by people who defend Liverpool's transfer policy by saying that the net spend is still only £1.36p over 2 years or some other stupid figure like that.
for me, the bottom line is that, we took chelsea for £50 million on Torres and gave ourselves a load of money to spend. That was £50 million pounds. Over this period, we also sold Babel, Mereiles and probably some others to give us even more money to spend.
What we did next is what makes me feel a bit sick. We had just made crazy money on some player sales, this was money in the bank, and then we inexplicably paid hugely overinflated prices on mostly homegrown british dross, thus throwing away all the good work we did by getting good money for our original players.
People say that it works out at only 30 million net spend or something like that, and it has only cost us £30 million pounds, therefore decent business. I disagree. If we had £85 million to spend on players, and we buy Carroll et al, then we have wasted £85 million pounds. It doesnt matter that others were idiots to give us that money, it was our job not to be idiots by wasting it, and we failed in that. £85 million is £85 million, and I'd rather we spend it on a couple of Rolls Royce's than a fleet of fiestas.
Finally, for those who said that the torres price was linked to the carroll price, then why didnt we just not buy carroll, but still sell torress for £50 million -what difference did it make to Chelsea!!?!?!?! It has been terrible from the club, and when I think what we could have done with that money, I think we would certainly not be in the position we are in now.
STUPID 'NET SPEND' ARGUMENT
posted on 4/4/12
Liverpool DID value Carrol at £35m. Because that is what they paid for him. Do not ignore that fact.
------------------
No, Newcastle valued him at £35m. Liverpool agreed to pay the asking price. There is a difference.
posted on 4/4/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/4/12
No, Newcastle valued him at £35m. Liverpool agreed to pay the asking price. There is a difference.
----------------------------
No?
So why did Liverpool pay £35m for Carroll if that wasn't what they valued him at?
posted on 4/4/12
The valuation of player is made by the team selling. Its they who decide how much he is worth and its for the buying club to decide whether they are willing to pay that price. Its a pedantic point but one that's worth making. I doubt Liverpool ever valued Carroll at £35m but they believed it was a price worth paying given the timing of the transfer and the loss of Torres. .
posted on 4/4/12
The valuation of player is made by the team selling.
--------------------------
And the selling club will OVERVALUE a player. Why? Because it's in THEIR interests to do so.
A buyer will either agree to meet that price - and such a transaction ensues - or they won't.
Newcastle named a price for Carroll. Liverpool agreed to it. The value of that transfer was £35m. The reason being TWO parties agreed to that price.
Liverpool justified that value for Carroll just as much as Newcastle did.
posted on 4/4/12
don't forget the 3.5m a year wages for Carroll
net spend
posted on 4/4/12
A buyer will either agree to meet that price - and such a transaction ensues - or they won't.
Newcastle named a price for Carroll. Liverpool agreed to it. The value of that transfer was £35m. The reason being TWO parties agreed to that price.
Liverpool justified that value for Carroll just as much as Newcastle did.
-------------------
You getting into a muddle about value, worth and price but that's easily done.
The price, not the value, of the transfer was £35m, as that was the cost of the transaction. But that doesn't mean Liverpool actually valued him at £35m. Given the timing of the transfer, the loss of a very important player and the need to replace him, LIverpool agreed to pay the £35m, mainly because they knew they'd receivde £50m from Chelsea. I've always said that this was a very anomalous transfer because of the circumstances. If we go by what John Henry said, and that is, Newcastle named their price for Carroll and Chelsea had to pay £15m more for Torres, it doesn't really matter what Liverpool's valuation of Carroll was. Their perceived worth of Carroll given his age, his experience and ability could have been £10m, but because Chelsea were willing to pay £15m plus the price of Carroll which was £35m for Torres and because Torres was definitely going because he's handed in a transfer request, it doesn't really matter how much Liverpool valued him at. Whether this was good business or not is doubtful.
posted on 5/4/12
Liverpools value of Carroll was irrelevant as they stood to make the signing and 15 million cash regardless of what Newcastle asked
thus, Carrolls fee was 35 million because Newcastle knew that Chelsea would push the boat for Torres
I hope this clears everything up
deary me
posted on 5/4/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 5/4/12
Interesting. Nothing more patronising than someone who feels that an emoticon does the work for them I suppose.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that my saracsm was lost on you, never mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toblerone: "I said they weren't interested in a return on their investment, cash is not their driver never has been."
I and say you are wrong to say that. How can they possibly NOT be interested in making a return on their investment? Is that how people who become ridiculously rich operate? If it is, how on earth did they become ridiculously rich in the first place?
------------------------------------------------------------
They inherited a desert state that was sat on one of worlds largest oil reserves, at a guess.........they've not got CV's that would challenge Richard Branson ffs.
But in any case, you've totally missed the point I was making, which was that the losses being accrued at City are small beer compared to the power of the advertising that they're receiving from owning the 'brand' & developing it, so that it becomes one of Europes best known football clubs.
Think of the cost that they would have to incur in order to have their state & airline promoted to the level that City are currently providing them with? They are only getting this level of coverage due to some of the stella names signed & the increasing success that's coming with it.
So when I said they're not interested in a return, I was 100% right, getting a cash return from owning Manchester City is nowhere on their agenda. Yes they won't want to held to ransom & spend more than is necessary, but that's not the same thing as what they're looking to gain from owning the business - say comapred to Liverpools owners, who's agenda is totally different.
---------------------------------------------------------
But then, when it comes to City, the fact that they have invested so much, and overseen a revenue increase (which is fact) suggests that not only do they care, but they see it in and of itself as a way for them to make money. And the time frame they've imposed, well the very least anyone else (looking in from the outside) should do is wait and see whether or not it comes to fruition. That would be 2018. And not when an insignificant individual on a message board deems it so.
-----------------------------------------------------
They're already massaging the accounts via the ridiculous sponsorship deals that are being funded by their other businesses, which UEFA have already stated that they will take a keen interest in when examining Citys accounts.
With the current cost base City has little or no chance of balancing the books via legitimate means, as to maintain their 'level' they'll always have to spend big in the transfer market, as well as having to fund a collosal wage bill. Whilst revenue has increased it's still a world away from the level that is required to fund the clubs heinous over spending. Chelsea have already proved how hard it is to take this 'model' & make it self sustaining. Your suggestion that they might see this venture as profit making is pure folly.