Investment in the squad in 2009 has not been good enough; the manager clearly wasn’t allowed to buy quality and quantity. I accept the limitations of the clubs finances, but some figures don’t make sense. By my calculations, in 2009 Benítez has spent £37m but recouped £60m.
But that’s not all. Add that almost half of the Johnson fee was paid out of last summer’s Crouch debt, and that means a profit of £30m at a time when investment in the squad was paramount. Benítez wanted Upson, he wanted Turner. He was given £1.5m, and went for what he could afford. You can’t keep cutting corners and expect a manager to pull a rabbit out of the hat every year.
Liverpool have a squad that costs £158m – four clubs have squads between £200m-£270m. That gap should have closed this summer, but it didn’t. I’m pretty certain that Benítez does not have the squad he thought he would be able to assemble, having to sell players like Crouch, Arbeloa and Bellamy (all of whom would have been brilliant back-ups if money permitted), but not always having the profits to reinvest in the team.
Like all managers, Benítez has bought some duds. But whereas other clubs can afford to write them off, Liverpool cannot.
Also, the inability to pay really big wages beyond the main players means that quality cannot easily be kept in reserve. Hence youngsters only making their way in the game holding key positions in the squad.
Voronin showed at Hertha Berlin that he’s a decent player, but he was up for sale this summer. With no money to spend, and Hertha pulling out of the deal, I’m guessing the manager decided to keep him and plan for the season with what he had. Long-term, players like Nemeth will supersede him, but like N’Gog, he lacks experience (which he’s now getting in Greece).
The loss of Sami Hyypia has also been a massive blow. He was offered a new contract and a coaching role, but at 36 he could only be 4th choice. However, what a brilliant 4th choice.
As for his replacement, Kyrgiakos, he’s not looked particularly convincing, although he’s getting unfairly slaughtered for a bad ten minutes in Lyon. Patience, and settling in, just isn’t allowed. He has the physical power and presence that was needed, and some vital top- level experience, but has a worrying lack of pace that, unlike Hyypia, he might not be good enough to get by without.
(The ultra-irritating Henry Winter, on a real anti-Rafa trip, Tweeted that “Kyrgiakos is no Alan Hansen” – which is pathetic, seeing as Hansen wasn’t a ‘cheap as chips’ 4th choice defender; Kyrgiakos is supposed to be Alex Watson, not Hansen. It’s like saying that Tomas Kuszack is no Peter Schmeichel. No shit, Sherlock!)
Liverpool now have some very promising 16-18 years olds, and a couple of very good 18-20-year-olds. But too much time was lost with Rick Parry and Steve Heighway protecting a failing Academy system, and then with Parry’s own appointments failing to help rectify the situation. Only in 2009 did Benítez get his men in charge, and it could be years before that bears fruit.
A manager has to either have overall control of his Academy, or at least trust the men in charge; if they are working at cross purposes, it’s not going to help the man upon whose shoulders success rests. When all other clubs were flouting the rules on catchment areas, Heighway refused to; perhaps admirably, but counter-productively.
Local scouting was hellishly amateurish (octogenarians working for beer money), and a problem is that it could take years for the recent changes to bear fruit, at least as far as local talent is concerned. Of those scouted who have emerged recently, only Martin Kelly looks to have a real chance of succeeding long-term, with the rest outside bets.
The young reserve team is showing a lot of promise once again, and there are some exciting talents therein, so hopefully some of the recently scouted Europeans will make the grade before too long.
Players like Mavinga, Palsson, Poloskei and Gulacsi all look to have something special about them, with the apparent necessary physicality to go with their ability. The beastly Ayala has already done well in the first team, and there are some talented, tricky little players such as Pacheco, who are unproven in handling the extra physical pressures of first-team football.
> Investment in the squad in 2009 has not been good enough; the manager > clearly wasn’t allowed to buy quality and quantity. I accept the > limitations of the clubs finances, but some figures don’t make sense. > By my calculations, in 2009 Benítez has spent £37m but recouped £60m.
> But that’s not all. Add that almost half of the Johnson fee was paid > out of last summer’s Crouch debt, and that means a profit of £30m at a > time when investment in the squad was paramount. Benítez wanted Upson, > he wanted Turner. He was given £1.5m, and went for what he could > afford. You can’t keep cutting corners and expect a manager to pull a > rabbit out of the hat every year.
It becomes a bit repetitive, but again, when funds are limited it's absolutely necessary to spend wisely.
In my view Johnson was not needed and is a luxury you can't afford. In the last couple of seasons Liverpool have been one of the teams scoring most goals, so an attacking right back with defensive lapses is not good business when he costs £18m. He was probably worth around the £10m that Liverpool offered...but then the Crouch money came into the equation. £7-8m that Liverpool won't be seeing. And what message does it send to Degen and the youngsters?
Aquilani is a great player....when fit. Problem is that doesn't happen too often. £20m is a huge gamble on a player who has averaged just 20 games per season in his 5 years at Roma. He is obviously bought to replace Alonso, but won't be in top form until around christmas. That's not Benitez being unlucky with injuries, he knew that when buying him. That's fine if you are planning long term and wants to use this season to 'rebuild' and create a team for the future.
But then he brings in Kyrgiakos. A total panic buy. He is clearly not PL top 4 material, and again it sends a negative message to the youngsters.
It's quite telling that the youngsters who have actually been given a chance have done pretty well. Insua, Kelly and Ayala in particular. The thing is they would never have played a minute if Rafa hadn't been forced to play them.
> Liverpool have a squad that costs £158m – four clubs have squads > between £200m-£270m. That gap should have closed this summer, but it > didn’t. I’m pretty certain that Benítez does not have the squad he > thought he would be able to assemble, having to sell players like > Crouch, Arbeloa and Bellamy (all of whom would have been brilliant > back-ups if money permitted), but not always having the profits to > reinvest in the team.
Benitez has brought in more than 70 players in less than 6 years and is now having a very large squad. He was only forced to sell Crouch and Arbeloa because they got fed up at Liverpool.
> Like all managers, Benítez has bought some duds. But whereas other > clubs can afford to write them off, Liverpool cannot.
Benitez has bought far more duds than others, wasting a considerable amount in the process. On top of that he has mismanaged a lot of the players who weren't duds. Alonso, Crouch, Riise, Hyypia, Arbeloa and others leaving are entirely down to Benitez bad man management. Babel's failure to impress is down to Benitez' lack of patience and confidence in young players. And how can anyone expect Voronin to suddenly be a top class saviour when he has only played 5 minutes here and there?
No club can afford to just write off investments in players.
> Also, the inability to pay really big wages beyond the main players > means that quality cannot easily be kept in reserve. Hence youngsters > only making their way in the game holding key positions in the squad.
> Voronin showed at Hertha Berlin that he’s a decent player, but he was > up for sale this summer. With no money to spend, and Hertha pulling > out of the deal, I’m guessing the manager decided to keep him and plan > for the season with what he had. Long-term, players like Nemeth will > supersede him, but like N’Gog, he lacks experience (which he’s now > getting in Greece).
So how can anyone expect Voronin to give his everything for Liverpool when he is clearly not wanted? Of course he is a proffessional, but he just can't be there 100% mentally. And no player can suddenly perform at top level if you only have 5 minutes of match practice here and there. Same goes for Babel.
> The loss of Sami Hyypia has also been a massive blow. He was offered a > new contract and a coaching role, but at 36 he could only be 4th > choice. However, what a brilliant 4th choice.
I don't think Hyypia would have had any problem being 4th choice. IIRC he was told the season before that he was part of Benitez' plans for the season when he signed a 1-year entension....then a few weeks later he was left out of the CL squad. Again bad man management. Why should he trust Benitez once again?
> As for his replacement, Kyrgiakos, he’s not looked particularly > convincing, although he’s getting unfairly slaughtered for a bad ten > minutes in Lyon. Patience, and settling in, just isn’t allowed. He has > the physical power and presence that was needed, and some vital top- > level experience, but has a worrying lack of pace that, unlike Hyypia, > he might not be good enough to get by without.
If he has vital top level experience, he shouldn't need a lot of time to settle in. 30 years old ffs. Experience? Playing Partick Thistle and Motherwell. Oh right, he did play a few games in the CL 3-4 years ago. That's a signing I will never understand. Again the message to the youngsters is 'I'd rather bring in a 30 year old nobody than play you'. Very encouraging...
> (The ultra-irritating Henry Winter, on a real anti-Rafa trip, Tweeted > that “Kyrgiakos is no Alan Hansen” – which is pathetic, seeing as > Hansen wasn’t a ‘cheap as chips’ 4th choice defender; Kyrgiakos is > supposed to be Alex Watson, not Hansen. It’s like saying that Tomas > Kuszack is no Peter Schmeichel. No shit, Sherlock!)
> Liverpool now have some very promising 16-18 years olds, and a couple > of very good 18-20-year-olds. But too much time was lost with Rick > Parry and Steve Heighway protecting a failing Academy system, and then > with Parry’s own appointments failing to help rectify the situation. > Only in 2009 did Benítez get his men in charge, and it could be years > before that bears fruit.
If you have very good 18-20 year olds, they really need to start playing more in the first team to keep developing. They can't be 'promising talent with great potential' until they are 23 and then suddenly be expected to just step into the spotlight overnight.
> A manager has to either have overall control of his Academy, or at > least trust the men in charge; if they are working at cross purposes, > it’s not going to help the man upon whose shoulders success rests. > When all other clubs were flouting the rules on catchment areas, > Heighway refused to; perhaps admirably, but counter-productively.
> Local scouting was hellishly amateurish (octogenarians working for > beer money), and a problem is that it could take years for the recent > changes to bear fruit, at least as far as local talent is concerned. > Of those scouted who have emerged recently, only Martin Kelly looks to > have a real chance of succeeding long-term, with the rest outside > bets.
> The young reserve team is showing a lot of promise once again, and > there are some exciting talents therein, so hopefully some of the > recently scouted Europeans will make the grade before too long.
> Players like Mavinga, Palsson, Poloskei and Gulacsi all look to have > something special about them, with the apparent necessary physicality > to go with their ability. The beastly Ayala has already done well in > the first team, and there are some talented, tricky little players > such as Pacheco, who are unproven in handling the extra physical > pressures of first-team football.
And whose fault is it that the majority of the youngsters are unproven? The truth is that Liverpool really has no clue about what to expect from the youngsters. Show some confidence in them, allow them to make mistakes and learn and then watch them grow. It looks like Rafa won't play them until he is certain they will not make mistakes or he is forced. Catch 22.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:17:39 -0800, Google Beta User wrote: > THis is cut-n-pasted. What's your assessment?
> Liverpool have a squad that costs £158m – four clubs have squads between > £200m-£270m.
Here we go again. Christ what a thick bastard this Tompkins is.
Let me say it one more time: the only thing that matters when assessing the buying record of a manager is the monetary *value* of the squad he has assembled. Not the cost. Not the net cost. The value.
Do people understand this simple distinction? Are they really that stupid?
Who in his right mind, buying a new car, tells himself the value of that car is the same as the net cost? So he got 5,000 for his old car and put it towards his 10,000 new car? Yes, the net cost is 5,000, but the *value* of the car in his possession is 10,000, as you would very quickly find out if you approached that man afterwards and offered him 5,000 cash for his new car.
It follows that the *value* of the Liverpool squad Benitez has assembled from Day One is the total outlay, irrespective of returns. And the total outlay is 230 million, and that is the only figure we as fans should be concerned with. Do we have a squad whose cumulative monetary *value* is 230 million, or one which is overvalued at 230 million?
I say the latter.
Two questions should be asked if the squad is overvalued at 230 million. One: who is to blame for overvaluing the squad? And two: what is the real value of the squad?
The answer to the first is Benitez, the man who goes out and blows 11 million on Babel, 8 million on Dossena, and 20 million on Aquilani.
The answer to the second is, I would say, somewhere between 50 and 75 million. The value of a squad which could be lying in 9th place Sunday evening and out of the Champions League in November should be rated no higher than that.
HTH
PS - note for the retarded: value, not cost, remember?
-- "Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice"- GK Chesterton
On Nov 6, 10:16 am, Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxv...@iol.ie> wrote:
> > Liverpool have a squad that costs £158m – four clubs have squads between > > £200m-£270m.
> Here we go again. Christ what a thick bastard this Tompkins is.
> Let me say it one more time: the only thing that matters when assessing > the buying record of a manager is the monetary *value* of the squad he > has assembled. Not the cost. Not the net cost. The value.
Yeah, think you made that point when the Mancs used to try and say they weren't flexing $$$ when they got Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves in virtually one shot.
>> Investment in the squad in 2009 has not been good enough; the manager >> clearly wasn’t allowed to buy quality and quantity. I accept the >> limitations of the clubs finances, but some figures don’t make sense. >> By my calculations, in 2009 Benítez has spent £37m but recouped £60m.
>> But that’s not all. Add that almost half of the Johnson fee was paid >> out of last summer’s Crouch debt, and that means a profit of £30m at a >> time when investment in the squad was paramount. Benítez wanted Upson, >> he wanted Turner. He was given £1.5m, and went for what he could >> afford. You can’t keep cutting corners and expect a manager to pull a >> rabbit out of the hat every year.
> It becomes a bit repetitive, but again, when funds are limited it's > absolutely necessary to spend wisely.
> In my view Johnson was not needed and is a luxury you can't afford.
You show ill or poor concieved ignorance of how transfers work. Portsmouth owed Liverpool fc money for Crouch, Portsmouth fc were in almost free fall turmoil, what do you do? Get a player who is good, get a player who is poor or sit back and lose all the money owed?
>>> Investment in the squad in 2009 has not been good enough; the manager >>> clearly wasn't allowed to buy quality and quantity. I accept the >>> limitations of the clubs finances, but some figures don't make sense. >>> By my calculations, in 2009 Benítez has spent £37m but recouped £60m.
>>> But that's not all. Add that almost half of the Johnson fee was paid >>> out of last summer's Crouch debt, and that means a profit of £30m at a >>> time when investment in the squad was paramount. Benítez wanted Upson, >>> he wanted Turner. He was given £1.5m, and went for what he could >>> afford. You can't keep cutting corners and expect a manager to pull a >>> rabbit out of the hat every year.
>> It becomes a bit repetitive, but again, when funds are limited it's >> absolutely necessary to spend wisely.
>> In my view Johnson was not needed and is a luxury you can't afford.
> You show ill or poor concieved ignorance of how transfers work. Portsmouth > owed Liverpool fc money for Crouch, Portsmouth fc were in almost free fall > turmoil, what do you do? Get a player who is good, get a player who is > poor or sit back and lose all the money owed?
Oh that's a new one. But you're really just confirming that Johnson wasn't really needed. So Portsmouth owes you money. According to you, they weren't going to pay, so Benitez said, oh well whatever, give us Johnson then...oh and have another £10m. So you were forced to deal with Portsmouth regardless of what players they had available to salvage the Crouch money. Ok. I haven't heard that one before, I have to admit.
And from last seasons Portsmouth squad, Kranjcar or Defoe would have been far better for Liverpool...probably even Distin or Campbell.
On Nov 6, 11:52 pm, "JN Andersen" <justj...@stofanet.dk> wrote:
> Oh that's a new one. But you're really just confirming that Johnson wasn't > really needed. So Portsmouth owes you money. According to you, they weren't > going to pay, so Benitez said, oh well whatever, give us Johnson then...oh > and have another £10m. So you were forced to deal with Portsmouth regardless > of what players they had available to salvage the Crouch money. Ok. I > haven't heard that one before, I have to admit.
Arbeloa wanted to go. As early as summer of 2008 there were rumbles of that. He didn't sign a contract offer either.
It isn't like the ALonso situation, in which there the player was clearly hawked around.
As ARbeloa was gone, we needed a right-back too.
> Just because Lescor decides he And from last seasons Portsmouth squad, Kranjcar or Defoe would have been > far better for Liverpool...probably even Distin or Campbell.
Krancjar off the bench...? Would've cost about 10-15m, then people'll be talking about more experiments. Defoe was not going to be a backup - that's the problematic situation with a top striker in a 4-2-3-1 system. We were linked with Distin. However, given that we couldn't afford 3m or so for Turner.....
> On Nov 6, 11:52 pm, "JN Andersen" <justj...@stofanet.dk> wrote:
>> Oh that's a new one. But you're really just confirming that Johnson >> wasn't >> really needed. So Portsmouth owes you money. According to you, they >> weren't >> going to pay, so Benitez said, oh well whatever, give us Johnson >> then...oh >> and have another £10m. So you were forced to deal with Portsmouth >> regardless >> of what players they had available to salvage the Crouch money. Ok. I >> haven't heard that one before, I have to admit.
> Arbeloa wanted to go. As early as summer of 2008 there were rumbles of > that. He didn't sign a contract offer either.
> It isn't like the ALonso situation, in which there the player was > clearly hawked around.
> As ARbeloa was gone, we needed a right-back too.
You had Degen, Kelly, Darby and Carragher capable of playing there.
>> Just because Lescor decides he And from last seasons Portsmouth squad, >> Kranjcar or Defoe would have been >> far better for Liverpool...probably even Distin or Campbell.
> Krancjar off the bench...? Would've cost about 10-15m, then people'll > be talking about more experiments.
Spurs paid £2.5m for Kranjcar.
> Defoe was not going to be a backup > - that's the problematic situation with a top striker in a 4-2-3-1 > system.
In a 60-game season, surely Defoe would have been good enough to get 30-40 games. Maybe the reason for many of Liverpool's injuries is that some players play too much and are forced back too early exactly because the backups are terrible.
> We were linked with Distin. However, given that we couldn't > afford 3m or so for Turner.....
That's hard to believe. Didn't Liverpool pay £1.5m for Kyrgiakos?
>>>> Investment in the squad in 2009 has not been good enough; the manager >>>> clearly wasn't allowed to buy quality and quantity. I accept the >>>> limitations of the clubs finances, but some figures don't make sense. >>>> By my calculations, in 2009 Benítez has spent £37m but recouped £60m.
>>>> But that's not all. Add that almost half of the Johnson fee was paid >>>> out of last summer's Crouch debt, and that means a profit of £30m at a >>>> time when investment in the squad was paramount. Benítez wanted Upson, >>>> he wanted Turner. He was given £1.5m, and went for what he could >>>> afford. You can't keep cutting corners and expect a manager to pull a >>>> rabbit out of the hat every year.
>>> It becomes a bit repetitive, but again, when funds are limited it's >>> absolutely necessary to spend wisely.
>>> In my view Johnson was not needed and is a luxury you can't afford.
>> You show ill or poor concieved ignorance of how transfers work. >> Portsmouth owed Liverpool fc money for Crouch, Portsmouth fc were in >> almost free fall turmoil, what do you do? Get a player who is good, get a >> player who is poor or sit back and lose all the money owed?
> Oh that's a new one. But you're really just confirming that Johnson wasn't > really needed.
So we didn't need him despite selling our starting right back during the closed season?
>So Portsmouth owes you money. According to you, they weren't going to pay, >so Benitez said, oh well whatever, give us Johnson then...oh and have >another £10m. So you were forced to deal with Portsmouth regardless of what >players they had available to salvage the Crouch money. Ok. I haven't heard >that one before, I have to admit.
I never said they weren't going to pay, i intimated that they had financial troubles and that Liverpool could end up with the money owed from the Crouch transfer not being paid........remember Leeds?
> And from last seasons Portsmouth squad, Kranjcar or Defoe would have been > far better for Liverpool...probably even Distin or Campbell.
What does Defoe, Kranjcar, Distin or Campbell have to with Liverpool fc?
>>> Oh that's a new one. But you're really just confirming that Johnson >>> wasn't >>> really needed. So Portsmouth owes you money. According to you, they >>> weren't >>> going to pay, so Benitez said, oh well whatever, give us Johnson >>> then...oh >>> and have another £10m. So you were forced to deal with Portsmouth >>> regardless >>> of what players they had available to salvage the Crouch money. Ok. I >>> haven't heard that one before, I have to admit.
>> Arbeloa wanted to go. As early as summer of 2008 there were rumbles of >> that. He didn't sign a contract offer either.
>> It isn't like the ALonso situation, in which there the player was >> clearly hawked around.
>> As ARbeloa was gone, we needed a right-back too.
> You had Degen, Kelly, Darby and Carragher capable of playing there.
Degen is someone you have clearly said isn't upto premiership grade, to have the audacity to use him as a positive in your arguement shows what a prick you are.
Kelly and Darby are youth players, right?
Carragher can play RB.........but who would be playing in central defence with Agger and Skrtl injured?
It really isn't so simple as you make out is it?
>>> Just because Lescor decides he And from last seasons Portsmouth squad, >>> Kranjcar or Defoe would have been >>> far better for Liverpool...probably even Distin or Campbell.
>> Krancjar off the bench...? Would've cost about 10-15m, then people'll >> be talking about more experiments.
> Spurs paid £2.5m for Kranjcar.
And how is he doing at Tottenham? 4 starts in all competitions, what a vote of confidence that is.
>> Defoe was not going to be a backup >> - that's the problematic situation with a top striker in a 4-2-3-1 >> system.
> In a 60-game season, surely Defoe would have been good enough to get 30-40 > games. Maybe the reason for many of Liverpool's injuries is that some > players play too much and are forced back too early exactly because the > backups are terrible.
Maybe, maybe not..........maybe because it is because of the national teams ability to handle them.............look at Torres, whenever he goes of to Spain he comes back injured.
>> We were linked with Distin. However, given that we couldn't >> afford 3m or so for Turner.....
> That's hard to believe. Didn't Liverpool pay £1.5m for Kyrgiakos?
You should understand the American owners better, making funds available for transfers which we want is not something the yanks are on board with, it is a shame but we have to get on with it.
On Nov 7, 10:36 pm, "Ren" <cyborgoXXXXX...@frontiernet.netXXXX> wrote:
> What does Defoe, Kranjcar, Distin or Campbell have to with Liverpool fc?
> Ren
And even if we'd got them, with Arbeloa GONE, we'd *still* have needed a right-back.
The revisionists are saying Benitez "let" Arbeloa go, but Arbeloa wanted to go. He didn't sign his contract offer. Anyway, I think Johnson is an upgrade. Ancelotti/Chelsea WERE in for him weren't they? Clearly they see something in him. How has Zhirkov played this season so far BTW?
>>>> Oh that's a new one. But you're really just confirming that Johnson >>>> wasn't >>>> really needed. So Portsmouth owes you money. According to you, they >>>> weren't >>>> going to pay, so Benitez said, oh well whatever, give us Johnson >>>> then...oh >>>> and have another £10m. So you were forced to deal with Portsmouth >>>> regardless >>>> of what players they had available to salvage the Crouch money. Ok. I >>>> haven't heard that one before, I have to admit.
>>> Arbeloa wanted to go. As early as summer of 2008 there were rumbles of >>> that. He didn't sign a contract offer either.
>>> It isn't like the ALonso situation, in which there the player was >>> clearly hawked around.
>>> As ARbeloa was gone, we needed a right-back too.
>> You had Degen, Kelly, Darby and Carragher capable of playing there.
> Degen is someone you have clearly said isn't upto premiership grade, to > have the audacity to use him as a positive in your arguement shows what a > prick you are.
What I think about Degen is irrelevant in this case. Rafa signed him because 'he had quality and great potential'. So by not wanting to use him, Rafa is admitting it was another crazy signing.
> Kelly and Darby are youth players, right?
So what? Youth players need first team action sooner or later and if their talent is there, they're just fine as backup.
> Carragher can play RB.........but who would be playing in central defence > with Agger and Skrtl injured?
I'm mentioning Carragher as a 4th option in case the others are out.
And I think I said it would have been better to get Distin or Campbell.
> It really isn't so simple as you make out is it?
It's not that complicated.
>>>> Just because Lescor decides he And from last seasons Portsmouth squad, >>>> Kranjcar or Defoe would have been >>>> far better for Liverpool...probably even Distin or Campbell.
>>> Krancjar off the bench...? Would've cost about 10-15m, then people'll >>> be talking about more experiments.
>> Spurs paid £2.5m for Kranjcar.
> And how is he doing at Tottenham? 4 starts in all competitions, what a > vote of confidence that is.
He is doing great. He has played very well and only missed a single PL match this season, I think. Redknapp is aware that no players can play every game and Kranjcar adds STRENGTH IN DEPTH.
>>> Defoe was not going to be a backup >>> - that's the problematic situation with a top striker in a 4-2-3-1 >>> system.
>> In a 60-game season, surely Defoe would have been good enough to get >> 30-40 games. Maybe the reason for many of Liverpool's injuries is that >> some players play too much and are forced back too early exactly because >> the backups are terrible.
> Maybe, maybe not..........maybe because it is because of the national > teams ability to handle them.............look at Torres, whenever he goes > of to Spain he comes back injured.
Ah yes of course....nothing is Liverpool's or Rafa's mistake. And of course only Liverpool's stars get injured when with the national team.
The point is you need backup regardless of when and where they get injured.
>>> We were linked with Distin. However, given that we couldn't >>> afford 3m or so for Turner.....
>> That's hard to believe. Didn't Liverpool pay £1.5m for Kyrgiakos?
> You should understand the American owners better, making funds available > for transfers which we want is not something the yanks are on board with, > it is a shame but we have to get on with it.
So where has the transfer funds come from since the yanks arrived?
>>>>> Investment in the squad in 2009 has not been good enough; the manager >>>>> clearly wasn't allowed to buy quality and quantity. I accept the >>>>> limitations of the clubs finances, but some figures don't make sense. >>>>> By my calculations, in 2009 Benítez has spent £37m but recouped £60m.
>>>>> But that's not all. Add that almost half of the Johnson fee was paid >>>>> out of last summer's Crouch debt, and that means a profit of £30m at a >>>>> time when investment in the squad was paramount. Benítez wanted Upson, >>>>> he wanted Turner. He was given £1.5m, and went for what he could >>>>> afford. You can't keep cutting corners and expect a manager to pull a >>>>> rabbit out of the hat every year.
>>>> It becomes a bit repetitive, but again, when funds are limited it's >>>> absolutely necessary to spend wisely.
>>>> In my view Johnson was not needed and is a luxury you can't afford.
>>> You show ill or poor concieved ignorance of how transfers work. >>> Portsmouth owed Liverpool fc money for Crouch, Portsmouth fc were in >>> almost free fall turmoil, what do you do? Get a player who is good, get >>> a player who is poor or sit back and lose all the money owed?
>> Oh that's a new one. But you're really just confirming that Johnson >> wasn't really needed.
> So we didn't need him despite selling our starting right back during the > closed season?
You bought him before selling Arbeloa, and one of the main reasons Arbeloa finally decided to leave was the arrival of Johnson.
Arbeloa might have left anyway, but then it would have been a great chance to see what Degen can do and use the youngsters as backup. What's the point in having them if you're never going to give them adequate minutes?
>>So Portsmouth owes you money. According to you, they weren't going to pay, >>so Benitez said, oh well whatever, give us Johnson then...oh and have >>another £10m. So you were forced to deal with Portsmouth regardless of >>what players they had available to salvage the Crouch money. Ok. I haven't >>heard that one before, I have to admit.
> I never said they weren't going to pay, i intimated that they had > financial troubles and that Liverpool could end up with the money owed > from the Crouch transfer not being paid........remember Leeds?
You presented 3 options. Get good player, get poor player, lose money....you forgot 'get the money' then...
Anyway, if you choose the option of getting a player, I don't think Johnson was the best choice and I think £18m was way too much. I think £10m was offered by Chelsea and Liverpool, so the £8m was thrown down the drain anyway.
>> And from last seasons Portsmouth squad, Kranjcar or Defoe would have been >> far better for Liverpool...probably even Distin or Campbell.
> What does Defoe, Kranjcar, Distin or Campbell have to with Liverpool fc?
You imply that Liverpool got Johnson because they were more or less forced to do business with Portsmouth. If that was the case, then I think Defoe, Kranjcar, Distin or Campbell would have been better options than Johnson.
> On Nov 7, 10:36 pm, "Ren" <cyborgoXXXXX...@frontiernet.netXXXX> wrote:
>> What does Defoe, Kranjcar, Distin or Campbell have to with Liverpool fc?
>> Ren
> And even if we'd got them, with Arbeloa GONE, we'd *still* have needed > a right-back.
You had at least 4 players in the squad who could play at right back. Strengthening other areas was far more vital, which is becoming increasingly clear as the season goes on.
> The revisionists are saying Benitez "let" Arbeloa go, but Arbeloa > wanted to go. He didn't sign his contract offer. Anyway, I think > Johnson is an upgrade. Ancelotti/Chelsea WERE in for him weren't > they? Clearly they see something in him. How has Zhirkov played this > season so far BTW?
He got a knee injury in pre-season. What's your point anyway?
|
