02 Feb 2015 08:21:57
EMS, saw your post re us being 5th highest spenders in world football, even above city and Monaco, I guess that's gross spend, what about net spend? Any idea?
Not a clue mate but Considering Suarez is the only player we've sold for a decent fee in the last 2 years I would hazard a guess we're probably third only to United and PSG. Madrid and Chelsea have made big sales.
Regardless of whether my estimate is correct, this is largely irrelevant as our revenue is far behind the likes of City, Chelsea, United and Madrid.
We simply cannot afford to spend how much we have been any more and until we get a decent scouting/transfer system in place, and Rodgers starts using academy players as squad players, this club will only go backwards into the debt we were fortunate to clear once. Comolli/Dalglish/Rodgers/Committee have crippled us for years.
The issue is not spending money, its how mismanaged and illogical the spending was.
how many games
Borini, Aspas, l.Alberto, Sahin, Assaidi, Yesil, Moses, Cissoko, Lambert, Balo, illori, manqullio have played for us in total.
Per Game to pound ratio for these will be huge, that could have been well saved or well spent.
You are quite simply wrong Red till death.
It doesn't matter if you spend 270m on 27 squad player or 5 world class players. You still spent 270m and that is still more than the club can afford.
The club is in debt, failing FFP and under performing on the pitch. Sorry if that realism hits you in the face like a tonne of bricks but people on here need to start accepting facts. We're spending too much money and not making enough in return through sales, sponsors, prize money etc. FACT.
EMS I think he means that given that none of these players are given the opportunity to play regularly here or successfully on loan despite costing large sums and obviously being quite talented we inevitably fail to develop them well and sell them for anything close to their original sum.
If there's anything about Chelsea I can respect it is their ability to maximise value for their fringe players in most cases. Luiz, Lukaku, De Brunye, Mata even Sturridge and Meireles (even though Sturridge looks a bargain now). We are repeatedly unable to do this and in some cases stunt development by several years. If we were able to develop a strategy to maximise their value it would go some way to offset costs.
Lmred, the difference between Chelsea and LFC is that Chelsea sign lots of players even if they are not required immediately for the squad with a definite progressive plan for every individual case. They make sure that the market value of these players does not dip due to lack of game time and their timing of selling players is just perfect. We just sign players and then forget why they were signed in the first place. We either stick them on the subs bench regularly or loan them out without getting assurances that the other party would give them enough game time to make real progress. Ilori, Aspas and Alberto are classic examples of such cases. Its just my opinion though. The club needs to work out its loan system better and distinguish between players they need now and for the future.
Again the "net spend" argument which IMO, is a false argument. We spent 270m on players who were not good enuff, never got a chance or whose talent were never maximised. Those are the facts. Using the "net spend" is only a tool to soften the blow of clueless spending to me. I studied finance in Uni and it doesn`t matter how much you recouped because if you are spending 100m a season and fighting for 4th, you are wasting money because your investment is not being maximised while other teams are spending same amount and are fighting for the title. Their money is working for them while ours is NOT. That is the bottom line, IMO. It really doesn`t matter how much we rake in if we are not maximising the returns on our investments.
That is true Imred, however I would rather cut out the financial risks compeltely and focus on developing our own academy players right now.
When we have sustainable success and a financial foundation like Chelsea do, then we can start playing around in the part ownership, loan, and parent club markets. It is too risky to run that kind of opertation during a building/transitional process; which we are currently in due to shocking management at every level throughout the club.
Indian Buzzer, it's really not like that.
Chelsea's transfers are just handled far better than our own.
Profits on Schurrle, Luiz,Mata,Lukaku to name but a few.
They really have hit the nail on the head,
Also worth mentioning that by the time FFP was introduced, Chelsea's squad was already worth like £500 million, so they've got it sussed out.
WelshBoyDave, i was not talking about Chelsea's established first team players. I was talking about the likes of De Bruyne, Lukaku etc. These 2 were 2 very highly rated young players who were sent out on loans to clubs where they would be key members of the squad and came back better players with valuable experience. Since Chelsea could not find a regular place for them in their squad, they cashed in on them for big money once they had shown everyone how good those two could be with regular game time. It was a win - win situation for Chelsea.
The likes of Luiz, Mata and Schurrle were already full internationals when Chelsea purchased them, so i do not see why they would have been loaned out in the first place. They were always going to be sold for big money. I was talking specifically about the loan system, not the transfer system of the clubs as a whole.
{Ed002's Note - Just to be clear. De Bruyne was moved on by Chelsea because the club could not agree to certain demands. Lukaku was moved on because of an incident more than a year ago and an immediate decision was taken not to have him back from his loan last summer.}
EMS, I'm all for the development of youth. I am the biggest fan of Martin Kelly you'll find! I think given the right development Teixeria, Rossiter, Ojo, Sinclair, Wilson to name a few could go on to be fantastic players. The issue I was pointing out was not just that we cannot develop and sell on our 'failed' purchases for a healthy sum. It is an issue all the way across the board.
That we are so poor at transitioning most of our youth team either on loan or at the club that if they do not make it into the Liverpool squad they are let go for almost nothing. I think as a club now it is no longer feasible to say 'lets develop our youth team now and then think about how to maximise value of our fringe players'. A complete overhaul of how we treat both our youth and fringe players needs to be done at the same time. Because fringe players who don't play often take up room in the first team squad that could be development time for our youth.
Bare in mind I am not targeting any of our fringe players. I think Borini, Aspas, Balotelli, Lambert are all good players but Rodgers either won't play them, can't figure out how to get the best out of them etc. Imagine how Borinis career would have developed had he stuck it with Roma after a debut season scoring 9 goals in 24. I am rarely one to write off players because the likelihood is if they are talented enough they will make it eventually at a decent club. The issue with us is that we are unable to translate that talent either at youth level or at first team into any sort of meaningful transfer fee most of the time.
Oh I definitely agree with that mate. Any player already here should be treated with respect and either utilised or sold on in a deal that suits all parties involved.
I simply meant that going forward, we should stop signing players to fill squad rolescthat academy players are capable of filling. By and large, I agree with you.
02 Feb 2015 17:28:53
Ed002, but the important thing here is that both Lukaku and De Bruyne were loaned out to clubs where they played regularly and came back with superior reputations in terms of football experience. Plus Chelsea made a healthy profit on both the players. Even the likes of Piazon, Hazard are playing regular footie and will either be integrated into the first team squad or be sold for decent money.
On the other hand, the likes of Alberto, Aspas, Teixiera are hardly featuring for their clubs, so what happens when they come back next season? Do the club keep them in spite of the fact that their replacements have already been brought or do they sell for huge losses? Its a lose-lose situation from every POV.
{Ed002's Note - That is all correct IB. Chelsea has a plan for each player and folks oversee them. Chelsea has helped out a couple of the clubs (providing facilities) that they have agreements with them to take players on loan. Someone checks where they are living and what they do with their spare time. They are encouraged to do a little charity work in their local communities and go to local schools to assist with training the kids there. It is all structured and planned with each player having a player liaison (often ex Chelsea players). Liverpool has been rather more ad hoc with their loans - largely dumping players on loan during the summer just to move them out.}
02 Feb 2015 17:34:34
Ed002, but the important thing here is that both Lukaku and De Bruyne were loaned out to clubs where they played regularly and came back with superior reputations in terms of football experience. Plus Chelsea made a healthy profit on both the players. Even the likes of Piazon, Hazard are playing regular footie and will either be integrated into the first team squad or be sold for decent money.
On the other hand, the likes of Alberto, Aspas, Teixiera are hardly featuring for their clubs, so what happens when they come back next season? Do the club keep them in spite of the fact that their replacements have already been brought or do they sell for huge losses? Its a lose-lose situation from every POV.
{Ed002's Note - That is all correct. Chelsea has a structured plan for each of the loaned players and have helped the clubs taking them with facilities on occasion. The players each has a player liaison (typically ex Chelsea players) and they are checked on to see how they are living and spending their spare time. They are encouraged to get involved with the local community and do a little charity work, help out with school sports etc..}
We can defo learn a thing or ten from Chelsea`s strategy which is well-thought out.