Net Spend - Liverpool vs the other 4th place challengers

[Philby]

Anyone have any stats on Liverpool's net spent during Rafa's reign as compared to Citeh, Villa and Spurs?

 

Cheers.

[sean]

Villa, Spurs, City - Lots and loads

Liverpool - potless

[Rimbeux]

1. City 220m

 

 

2. Liverpool 113m

 

 

3. Spurs 96m

 

 

 

4.Villa 92m

 

 

Wages, last reports City £100m, liverpool £90m, Spurs, Villa £50m and under

Wages over 5 years, 1. Liverpool, 2. City, 3. Spurs, 4. Villa

[CaptainXabi]

It's a wonder we haven't been relegated.

[Frosty Jack]

More relevant is the last 3 years since 7/2/07. 38m.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Negativland

[fyds]

Except that last year we were competing for the top and in most of those 5 years we did better than 4th, won a CL, an FA Cup, a Super Cup and the others won feck all and have as yet not qualified for the CL ever.

[dorgie]

Except that last year we were competing for the top and in most of those 5 years we did better than 4th, won a CL, an FA Cup, a Super Cup and the others won feck all and have as yet not qualified for the CL ever.

 

Indeed. And we are having the shi_ttiest of shi_tty seasons from so many perspectives and yet if we win tomorrow we're a point off 4th place. The other 3 think they're in dreamland the season they're having.

[Billy Dane]

If we hadn't conceded goals in the last minute(s) in at least 5 games this season, we would be higher in the league, still in the CL and still in the FA cup. Hopefully the coaches at the club are working on this rather than sitting there with calculators.

[dorgie]

Can we expect Richard Keyes to ask tomorrow night "Considering the awful time Liverpool are having this season, on and off the pitch, why is it that Villa, Spurs and Manchester City have spent so big and yet failed to put daylight between themselves and Liverpool on the league table ?"

[Coyler]

Spurs and Villa, having earned no CL money, have spent 85% and 80% of our net spend respectively with 0% of the results. Interesting.

 

What is the three-year figure, by the way?

 

If we hadn't conceded goals in the last minute(s) in at least 5 games this season, we would be higher in the league, still in the CL and still in the FA cup. Hopefully the coaches at the club are working on this rather than sitting there with calculators.

Benayoun's kick and Carragher's brainfart were hardly indicative of bad coaching, to be fair.

[Billy Dane]

Spurs and Villa, having earned no CL money, have spent 85% and 80% of our net spend respectively with 0% of the results. Interesting.

 

What is the three-year figure, by the way?

 

 

Benayoun's kick and Carragher's brainfart were hardly indicative of bad coaching, to be fair.

 

 

True, but they can do some work on concentration levels which contribute to the silly errors.

[Rimbeux]

Spurs and Villa, having earned no CL money, have spent 85% and 80% of our net spend respectively with 0% of the results. Interesting.

 

What is the three-year figure, by the way?

 

 

Benayoun's kick and Carragher's brainfart were hardly indicative of bad coaching, to be fair.

 

|Spurs and Villa also spend £40m plus less than us per season on wages, that's the main difference and why they appear to spend loads in the market from nowhere. Spurs spend way more than Arsenal on transfers, we all do, Arsenal keep their better players and get their young talent by paying them more. There is still a vast distance between ourselves and Spurs and Villa in terms of football spending, it's fairly even with Arsenal.

[Coyler]

True, but they can do some work on concentration levels which contribute to the silly errors.

I think if it had been Darby and N'Gog you might have a point, but it was our elderly vice captain and the captain of an international football team we're talking about. It's the dreaded malaise. Everything motivational and coachable was massively improved on Saturday.

[Sion]

|Spurs and Villa also spend £40m plus less than us per season on wages

 

I'd be very surprised if this is still the case in Spurs' case. They'll have increased their wage bill, with us decreasing ours.

[Rimbeux]

I'd be very surprised if this is still the case in Spurs' case. They'll have increased their wage bill, with us decreasing ours.

 

 

Last years figures.

 

We then gave Gerrard, Torres, Agger, Rafa, Kuyt etc significant rises, got Johnson in on reportedly top wages, we'll have gone up no doubt.

 

Crouch took a cut to go to Spurs from Pompey (who had a bigger wage bill than Spurs). Spurs dont pay big and spend within their means. Who have Spurs put on big money in the past 6-12 months?

 

Can we expect Richard Keyes to ask tomorrow night "Considering the awful time Liverpool are having this season, on and off the pitch, why is it that Villa, Spurs and Manchester City have spent so big and yet failed to put daylight between themselves and Liverpool on the league table ?"

 

Would only be really relevant/true for City in terms of spending, but they have actually sacked their manager for not getting that daylight going on

[Sion]

Last years figures.

 

We then gave Gerrard, Torres, Agger, Rafa, Kuyt etc significant rises, got Johnson in on reportedly top wages, we'll have gone up no doubt.

 

 

 

 

 

In the past 12 months we've got Alonso, Hyypia. Pennant, Arbeloa, Keane all off the wage bill. That's at least £250k a week. New signings might take £150-180k a week off that. Which means only if the new contracted players were given more than 20k a week increases, we're at least even.

Spurs on the other hand have brought in Crouch, Defoe, Bassong, Kranjcar, Palacios, Keane and Cudicini . All who will have been on decent to high wages. With the only notable outs being Bent and Zokora. There's a shortfall there.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Sion

[Maldini]

Right now Ant is wondering why his hears are tingling.

[PeeG]

Spending of teams since May 2008 below from here http://www.anfield-o...able-of-shame/. Doesn't include this transfer window so we will have made profit. The teams we are challenging for 4th have the three highest spends.

 

Current Premier League Teams

 

Net transfer spending since May 2008

 

Man City £215,090,250

Aston Villa £74,608,700

Spurs £58,606,500

Stoke £45,421,150

Sunderland £32,026,650

Wolves £18,449,700

Fulham £16,220,250

Bolton £15,686,250

Hull £14,324,550

Birmingham £10,715,600

Chelsea £9,865,650

Burnley £6,421,350

Everton £3,337,500

Liverpool £1,921,500

Wigan -£14,284,500

Arsenal -£19,001,500

West Ham -£21,902,900

Man Utd -£24,831,000

Blackburn -£30,099,800

Portsmouth -£52,465,500

Edited January 19, 2010 by PeeG

[Sion]

 

 

Everton £3,337,500

Liverpool £1,921,500

 

 

that's painful reading. We're absolutely f***ed.

[Rimbeux]

In the past 12 months we've got Alonso, Hyypia. Pennant, Arbeloa, Keane all off the wage bill. That's at least £250k a week. New signings might take £150-180k a week off that. Which means only if the new contracted players were given more than 20k a week increases, we're at least even.

Spurs on the other hand have brought in Crouch, Defoe, Bassong, Kranjcar, Palacios, Keane and Cudicini . All who will have been on decent to high wages. With the only notable outs being Bent and Zokora. There's a shortfall there.

 

Spurs level of decent to high is nowhere near ours, we can return to this when the figures come out, but I doubt Spurs will have gone up significantly as to make any comparison with ours relevant other than to show us spending significantly more. Again, many of our rise were significant, including near doubling Rafa's. The figures later in the year will tell all

[PeeG]

that's painful reading. We're absolutely f***ed.

 

Should really me like -£4m for us now as well.

[Flanders]

Spending of teams since May 2008 below from here http://www.anfield-o...able-of-shame/. Doesn't include this transfer window so we will have made profit. The teams we are challenging for 4th have the three highest spends.

 

Current Premier League Teams

 

Net transfer spending since May 2008

 

Man City £215,090,250

Aston Villa £74,608,700

Spurs £58,606,500

Stoke £45,421,150

Sunderland £32,026,650

Wolves £18,449,700

Fulham £16,220,250

Bolton £15,686,250

Hull £14,324,550

Birmingham £10,715,600

Chelsea £9,865,650

Burnley £6,421,350

Everton £3,337,500

Liverpool £1,921,500

Wigan -£14,284,500

Arsenal -£19,001,500

West Ham -£21,902,900

Man Utd -£24,831,000

Blackburn -£30,099,800

Portsmouth -£52,465,500

With the 'Big Four' all in the bottom half of the table, does this mean all four are punching above their weight?

[Eskimo]

Stoke £45m 'kinell

[surf]

1. City 220m

 

 

2. Liverpool 113m

 

 

3. Spurs 96m

 

 

 

4.Villa 92m

 

 

 

lfc history has rafa's net spend at 82m, a good 30m lower than your figure. the truth is probably in the middle, putting us on a par with spurs and villa

[Rimbeux]

lfc history has rafa's net spend at 82m, a good 30m lower than your figure. the truth is probably in the middle, putting us on a par with spurs and villa

 

 

and have Masch down as a free btw. I got it from the transfer league, which I've looked through and make about right, it also has everyone on the same terms so it's like with like

 

With the 'Big Four' all in the bottom half of the table, does this mean all four are punching above their weight?

 

 

Indeed, but then you have to take into account how much better the other three were than us back in May 08 and how they could easily afford selling and not really replacing some of their best players to really understand net spend, and not how much better we were than the 18 month big spenders back in May 08, as we obviously weren't much ahead of them based on points haul or the investment prior to their pushes; only then can you make a case for our current position being punching our weight, (That the figures are riddled with holes is an aside)