Transfer Policy

[Cooger]

What are everyone?s opinions on Rafa?s style?

 

I personally like the way he does business. He is pretty tight with his money, which is a welcome contrast when you compare him to Houiller, for example. However that doesn?t mean he won?t spent big money if he feels the player is worth it, like we saw with Alonso. I think that is the whole point with the way he does his transfer business. He pays what he feels a player can offer the team, not how much he is perceived to be worth on the market. Sometimes this maybe less, sometimes more? But he is willing to pay over the odds, if he feels a player is worth that value for what he will offer to our team.

 

When he paid 7 million for Crouch for example, a lot of supporters weren?t happy with who we had signed and how much we paid for him. But Rafa knew he was the player at the time that would make us improve. The season before we had struggled away from home, when Crouch arrived (and Sissoko)? we were more physical away from home. Crouch enabled the team to keep the ball better and give our top players more chance to stamp their authority on games and for the team to control games.

 

Had Arsenal paid 7 million for Crouch, I don?t think he would have been worth 7 million. He wouldn?t have suited their style of player as much and been worth that money to them. But Rafa knew he was worth that amount to our club.

 

Sometimes it might mean we do miss out on the players Rafa and the fans really want... for example Simao and recently Alves. But Rafa didn?t think they worth worth the amount of money we would have had to pay. Especially when Pennant a player who is significantly cheaper is available. Pennant might not be in the class of the above players, but he is young, talented and given that he is also English it is highly likely his value will appreciate. Rafa says it is all about getting the right leg for the table. People can debate who is the right leg, but I like his transfer policy. Others might think we miss out on our top targets, but when there are significantly cheaper alternatives, I don?t see that as a big problem.

 

What does everyone else think about Rafa?s transfer strategy?

[Maldini]

I agree

[Cooldude]

Whenever Rafa has splashed a pretty high amount of money for someone, they've turned out to be top drawer with the exception of Morientes

 

Refuses to overspend or overpay for a player while still having an immensely good strike rate with the players he bought.

 

Love it and hope he continues doing it

[Andy Mac]

Add to that.

 

If he thinks a player isn't performing or has given us as much as they can give ( I suppose it could be considered as a bad buy) He ships them out pronto. ie Nunez/ Kronkamp/Josemi/

Edited November 7, 2006 by Andy Mac

[Cooger]

Yes one of the main differences between Rafa and Houiller, is Rafa's failures have cost the club little financially!

[Benitez]

 

When he paid 7 million for Crouch for example, a lot of supporters weren?t happy with who we had signed and how much we paid for him. But Rafa knew he was the player at the time that would make us improve. The season before we had struggled away from home, when Crouch arrived (and Sissoko)? we were more physical away from home. Crouch enabled the team to keep the ball better and give our top players more chance to stamp their authority on games and for the team to control games.

 

Had Arsenal paid 7 million for Crouch, I don?t think he would have been worth 7 million. He wouldn?t have suited their style of player as much and been worth that money to them. But Rafa knew he was worth that amount to our club.

 

Sometimes it might mean we do miss out on the players Rafa and the fans really want... for example Simao and recently Alves. But Rafa didn?t think they worth worth the amount of money we would have had to pay. Especially when Pennant a player who is significantly cheaper is available. Pennant might not be in the class of the above players, but he is young, talented and given that he is also English it is highly likely his value will appreciate. Rafa says it is all about getting the right leg for the table. People can debate who is the right leg, but I like his transfer policy. Others might think we miss out on our top targets, but when there are significantly cheaper alternatives, I don?t see that as a big problem.

 

What does everyone else think about Rafa?s transfer strategy?

 

Dunno bout that, I think he'd be just what they need, a plan B to add to their one and only plan! And he's far better than Adebayor who they did spend £7 mill on. But wenger would never sign a player like Crouch, doesn't fit in with the aesthetics.

 

The comments bout Rafa not thinking certain players worth the money, maybe thats part of it, but also its part of being priced out. I think that had we not needed 2 strikers this summer, Rafa would have been willing to pay the money for Alves. He's not afraid to spend on the right players (like Xabi, Pepe, Kuyt). But a lot of it depends on budget and restrictions. He hasn't the luxury Maurenho has, or Ferguson has, where you can pay outrageous prices. So he has to be a bit clever. And that ain't a bad thing! The other side to this is you have to risk a bit on 'bargains' and hope they pay off. His transfer record and style is good.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Benitez

[Cooger]

Yes I think the option was a cheaper winger and Kuyt.

 

Or Alves and a cheaper striker.

 

Pennant was good value in my opinion. He hasn't been outstanding, but he has had some decent games. He will give the team width and put in crosses given the chance. I think Rafa made the right choice... especially since the start Kuyt has made.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Hydie

[cymrococh]

Add to that.

 

If he thinks a player isn't performing or has given us as much as they can give ( I suppose it could be considered as a bad buy) He ships them out pronto. ie Nunez/ Kronkamp/Josemi/

Don't really see any of those as a bad buy as we didn't lose significantly on them.

 

We should have kept Nunez as well.

[Kopfaithful]

Yes one of the main differences between Rafa and Houiller, is Rafa's failures have cost the club little financially!

 

 

I don't think it is just a question of what they cost financially (although that is obviously important), to me it was houlliers pigheaded attitude when he knew players were failing, rather than just get shut, he'd somehow either just keep playing them (like cheyrou) or attempt to find a new niche for the player (like igor at centre back) - it was as if he thought if we offloaded at a loss it someone suggested he couldn't judge talent, when we all know every manager gets some wrong. Rafa seems to get someone in to do a specific job and if he doesn't measure up, is pushed out the door pretty quickly. We lost on Morientes, but for me what is more important, is we decided to cut our loses, ship him out and replace him with Kuyt. That type of decision making is what will move the team forward - and is also fairer to the player as well imo.

 

Yes I think the option was a cheaper winger and Kuyt.

 

Or Alves and a cheaper striker.

 

Pennant was good value in my opinion. He hasn't been outstanding, but he has had some decent games. He will give the team width and put in crosses given the chance. I think Rafa made the right choice... especially since the start Kuyt has made.

 

imo, if cisse hadn't broken his leg we'd have signed bellamy, kuyt and alves. the loss of a immediate fee for cisse priced us out of the alves deal.

Edited November 7, 2006 by js

[Cooger]

Cisse is another example.

 

He cost us 14 million, which seems alot of money. However I think he was probably worth that at the time and he would have thrived under Houiller's counter attacking approach. But he certainly wasn't worth 14 million to Rafa, as he didn't have the all round game to fit into the 'team mentality'. Bellamy is a far more complete player to Cisse, who will fit in more. Other than goals and pace, Cisse offered little. Bellamy has the pace and should provide goals, but he will also keep the ball better, make more intelligent runs, pass to teammates etc. Another shrewd bit of business... and we haven't even sold Ciise yet.

 

I don't think it is just a question of what they cost financially (although that is obviously important), to me it was houlliers pigheaded attitude when he knew players were failing, rather than just get shut, he'd somehow either just keep playing them (like cheyrou) or attempt to find a new niche for the player (like igor at centre back) - it was as if he thought if we offloaded at a loss it someone suggested he couldn't judge talent, when we all know every manager gets some wrong. Rafa seems to get someone in to do a specific job and if he doesn't measure up, is pushed out the door pretty quickly. We lost on Morientes, but for me what is more important, is we decided to cut our loses, ship him out and replace him with Kuyt. That type of decision making is what will move the team forward - and is also fairer to the player as well imo.

imo, if cisse hadn't broken his leg we'd have signed bellamy, kuyt and alves. the loss of a immediate fee for cisse priced us out of the alves deal.

 

I don't think Houiller should be remembers of being 'all bad'. We need to remember he did alot of good for the club. He got rid of the spice boy image, made the club more professional and most importantly brought back success to Anfield. I think he made the revolutionary changes after Evans and Souness. Benitez's period has been more of an evoltionary process and long may it continue.

[Guatered]

I think you've just got bear in mind that buying players is such a tricky business to get right. Every top manager has bad buys to his name, oftentimes ones you wouldn't have predicted. I thought at the time that Veron would be good at Utd (ha!) and I was certain that Morientes would do the business with us. I never thought Jeffers would make it at Arsenal but it's hard to doubt Wenger's successs overall in the transfer market.

 

I think the main point is that Benitez's buys have on the whole been successful and, as has been pointed out, he doesn't hang around in getting rid of failing players or trying to prove himself right.

 

On an aside- one player we know he was after but missed out on- Vidic. Anyone regret that we didn't get him now? Seems to have settled well.

[Cooger]

On an aside- one player we know he was after but missed out on- Vidic. Anyone regret that we didn't get him now? Seems to have settled well.

 

No happy with Agger. His distribution is superior in my opinion. Think he is unlucky not to be in the team first choice given his form this season. Maybe he would have been if he didn't break his wrist.

[Benitez]

 

On an aside- one player we know he was after but missed out on- Vidic. Anyone regret that we didn't get him now? Seems to have settled well.

 

 

not at all, especially as we got 2 central defenders for the same price. And Dan Agger is more the style of defender we where really needing, someone comfortable on the ball and who can pass. Cos we didn't have one like that! We have the aggressive, strong central defenders in Carra and now Paletta.

 

Didn't Rafa comment about Vidic's interest only being in the big wages. Thats another thing he doesn't seem to put up with, which isn't a bad thing.

[Maldini]

imo, if cisse hadn't broken his leg we'd have signed bellamy, kuyt and alves. the loss of a immediate fee for cisse priced us out of the alves deal.

Agreed, that really f***ed us over

[Dominus Maximus]

Bellamy 6 mil... Don't like that...

[Spike]

Welcome Hydie, good to see some well thought out constructive posting

[ion]

The most important point in the post, I think, is that players are of different value to different clubs. I remember we all squirmed at 17 million for Duff, but if my ever-fading memory serves me right, at the end of that season we failed to get into the Champions Lge by a couple of points. Given that 17 million at the time for Duff would most likely have benefitted the team over the season by at least a couple of points, simply from an accountant's point of view it would have been worth it. The price has to be balanced against what the player can bring to a specific team, and not some perceived hypothetical value based on how many keepy-uppies he can do.

[Cooger]

But there is no way we could have justified signing Duff at the time, when Kewell was bought for 5 million. We didn't know he'd turn into a Redknapp and not be on the pitch half the time and at the time Kewell was the better value.

[Leo No.8]

Certainly agree about Rafa's policy on players who don't come off, he moves them right on. I'm not one who goes in for getting at Houllier but failure to do the same is a criticism you could level at Ged.

 

What I love most about Rafa's transfer dealings is he spends the money like its his own. You always feel he has the long-term financial condition of the club in mind and I don't think its just Parry and Moores' constraints. He only spends around the £10m mark when its a player he really, really wants and knows will be a success.

 

Kuyt looks an absolute steal for £9m in all honesty, but then his scoring record and stature merited that kind of fee. Looking back Ged paying £10m for Diouf whose record in front of goal in France was dreadful for a striker was very wasteful. Cisse at the time you could justify even if he did turn out disasterously; his profile and record were similar to Kuyt's even if they couldn't be more different as strikers and footballers.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Leo No.8

[Gomez]

The most important point in the post, I think, is that players are of different value to different clubs. I remember we all squirmed at 17 million for Duff, but if my ever-fading memory serves me right, at the end of that season we failed to get into the Champions Lge by a couple of points. Given that 17 million at the time for Duff would most likely have benefitted the team over the season by at least a couple of points, simply from an accountant's point of view it would have been worth it. The price has to be balanced against what the player can bring to a specific team, and not some perceived hypothetical value based on how many keepy-uppies he can do.

 

Utter speculation, buying Duff would be no guarantee that we'd have gained a few more point, our whole season would have been different and we could have just as likely finished lower off 4th place.

 

Duff never has been worth that price, and he never will be. Look where he's ended up, a team that will be relegated this season.

[floyd]

Whenever Rafa has splashed a pretty high amount of money for someone, they've turned out to be top drawer with the exception of Morientes

 

Shame he wasn't suited to this league, because he still is a top drawer player. As is being proved.

[Guatered]

Does anyone know how much of an active role Benitez takes in the specifics of contract negotiations with new players? I.e. - can he decide or set limits on how much they get paid? I don't know the details, but we seem to be avoiding some of the ludicrous wages paid to unproven players in the recent past. I suppose he might be interested to the extent that it will impact on his budget and also the competing egos involved (look at Lampard reportedly wanting more now that Ballack has signed, etc). On the other hand, it would seem odd to have him in there haggling over the figures.

[Benitez]

Does anyone know how much of an active role Benitez takes in the specifics of contract negotiations with new players? I.e. - can he decide or set limits on how much they get paid? I don't know the details, but we seem to be avoiding some of the ludicrous wages paid to unproven players in the recent past. I suppose he might be interested to the extent that it will impact on his budget and also the competing egos involved (look at Lampard reportedly wanting more now that Ballack has signed, etc). On the other hand, it would seem odd to have him in there haggling over the figures.

 

 

I'm sure Elisha has said on 'ere, that Rafa has a severe dislike of paying huge wages!

 

I'm sure he has a say in it, and in the length of contract. When GH was here, it seems everyone was on 5 year deals. Now hardly anyone is apart from a very select few.

[Kopfaithful]

Cisse is another example.

 

He cost us 14 million, which seems alot of money. However I think he was probably worth that at the time and he would have thrived under Houiller's counter attacking approach. But he certainly wasn't worth 14 million to Rafa, as he didn't have the all round game to fit into the 'team mentality'. Bellamy is a far more complete player to Cisse, who will fit in more. Other than goals and pace, Cisse offered little. Bellamy has the pace and should provide goals, but he will also keep the ball better, make more intelligent runs, pass to teammates etc. Another shrewd bit of business... and we haven't even sold Ciise yet.

I don't think Houiller should be remembers of being 'all bad'. We need to remember he did alot of good for the club. He got rid of the spice boy image, made the club more professional and most importantly brought back success to Anfield. I think he made the revolutionary changes after Evans and Souness. Benitez's period has been more of an evoltionary process and long may it continue.

 

I'm not saying Houlliers time was all bad. Far from it - we only need to think back to the treble season (which has to be my most enjoyable season ever), to know that. But from his heart op onwards, he didn't seem to make decisions in quite the same way. As an example, players like titi camara, eric meijer, JM ferri and even to an extent Christain Zeige, came in and were pushed out of the club pretty quickly when they either didn't measure up or better players were available - not too disimliar to how Rafa is now. But the end of his time at LFC, he stopped doing that and that contributed to the side going backwards in the last 2 years. For instance when it was obvious diouf wasn't going to make it as a striker, he didn't try to get rid and get a new striker, he just tried to justify the 10m spend by playing him as a right winger. he will always be remembered as much for what got him sacked as the good times from earlier in his reign.

 

As for him making revolutionary changes - imo, he only made the changes the club (and some senior players) weren't ready for that Souness wanted to make. It took the Souness and Evans years to make the club ready to move on from the Shankly way of doing things.

[John am Rhein]

Crouch seems like a bargain now.

 

One of the things I like about Benitez's transfer dealings is that he seems willing to cut his losses early when a signing isn't working out - Kromkamp etc.

 

This is preferable to letting them languish for years eventually leaving on a free - Diao, etc.

 

Although this may be more down to selecting players of a preferable character in the first place (?)