http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/exclusive-liverpool-vs-man-united.html
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/exclusive-liverpool-vs-man-united.html
Everyone just blatantly believed that Liverpool had no money to spend, but that was not the case.They have spent more than us. Its not about only money, its about how well you have spent it.
It is explained in detail. This was posted in Kop.com.
p.s Posted this thread not to create arguments, just to prove the famous notion wrong.
EXCLUSIVE: Liverpool vs. Man United - Transfer spending comparison: 1990-2010 *Never published before*
How much money have Liverpool FC and Manchester United spent on transfers between 1990 and 2010? For the first time ever, either online or offline, here is a comparison between the two clubs for that time period.
NOTES
* The figures include all transfers up to and including Roy Hodgson's activity in the transfer market.
* The figures (bar Hodgson's transfers and Ferguson's transfers since July 2009) have been compiled from the club's official financial accounts, i.e. a factual, irrefutable source. The club accounts are inalienable; there is a legal duty to provide accurate, correct figures on a yearly basis. Thus, any other figures in the press/on other websites that do not match these figures are WRONG.
For the purposes of this article, I've used the official LFC website for Hodgson's figures and the official Man United website for Ferguson's 2009-10 transfers. Obviously, both are reliable sources.
* Adjustment for inflation is not necessary here. It’s ridiculous to even suggest it (as many did in my last article). I am merely presenting the facts - a like for like comparison between the two clubs.
LIVERPOOL FC vs. MAN UNITED: TRANSFER SPENDING - 1990-2010
EVIDENCE
Below are snippets from every set of accounts detailing the transfer spending figures:
Liverpool
1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Man United
* In the process of being added.
KEY POINTS
Recently, I posted a transfer spending comparison between Rafa Benitez and Alex Ferguson for the years 2004-2010. It showed that Benitez had a higher gross and net spend during that period. Inevitably, the same old lame excuses started flowing: 'what about before 2004?' 'Ferguson had years to build a team'; and the best one: 'You have to look back to 1990 to get an accurate picture'.
So - here it is: a comparison from 1990. And what does it show?
* Contrary to what everyone seems to think, Liverpool has actually spent MORE than Man United since 1990.
* United dominated the Premier League in the 1990s despite having both a lower gross and net spend than Liverpool.
I could go on listing countless conclusions but I'm not going to - these figures prove once and for all that using net spend as an indicator of a manager's effectiveness in the transfer market is absolute nonsense.
The bottom line is this: Man U have spent less on players that Liverpool since 1990, yet they have 11 league titles and 2 Champions League trophies.
What these figures show is the importance of spending your money WISELY. It's not just about money though; the manager has to be good enough to get the best out of the players he has, and far too often, Liverpool managers have failed in this regard.
These figures are damning indictment of how poorly the club's money has been spent by *all* LFC managers. £528m spent on players, and what does the club have to show for it? A spend of £58m per trophy. Given the huge amounts of money *wasted* on the wrong players since 1990, it is no surprise at all that the club has not won the league for 20 years.
Souness had enough money; Evans had enough money; Houllier had enough money, and Benitez had enough money. To varying degrees, all 4 of those managers wasted lots of money on dross, which had a knock on, cumulative effect on the club's ability to consistently compete.
Now - sit back and watch the Pro-Benitez brigade throw out more desperately lame excuses that in an attempt to argue *yet again* that he hasn't had enough money to compete (!).
Excuses to watch out for:
"But United had the benefit of youth players coming through (Beckham, Giggs etc)"
Yes, so did Liverpool with Fowler, Owen, McManaman, Redknapp etc. The difference is in the management of those players. Ferguson got the best out of his youth; Evans, Houllier and Benitez did not.
"But what about inflation!"
Utterly irrelevant here for obvious (already explained) reasons.
"But Benitez had bad owners to deal with"
That didn't seem to matter when Liverpool finished 2nd in 2008, did it? Plus, Benitez has spent 54% of the club's TOTAL available transfer funds since 1990 (!). And the net spend cult has the chutzpah to suggest he has not been funded?!
"But Benitez had to buy to sell"
Using that logic, surely Ferguson had to as well? That didn't make any difference to United's march to success in the 90s though, did it?
"But Liverpool has a lower net spend between 1990 and 2010".
The net spend cult will argue that this means Liverpool have spent LESS than United. God, the idiocy of such an argument is amazing! How can £528m spent on players be less than the £486 spent by United? Any reasonable minded person can see this is nonsense, but that is precisely what the net spent cult will argue. With a straight face.
Here is another example of the net spend cult's ridiculous logic: turn the figures around a minute: if it was Liverpool with a lower spend than United then they would all be foaming at the mouth arguing how we could not compete because of having less money. Apply that to United: how on earth did Ferguson compete over the last 20 years? He spent less money that Liverpool but won more trophies, and this was coming off a barren spell of 26 years without winning the title (!) whereas Liverpool were coming off a 15 year streak of superb form.
"But you have to back to start of Ferguson's reign to get the most accurate picture"
And if I do that and the figures don't reflect what people want them to, I'll be told I have to go back the start of the 80s; then back to the 70s; basically as far back as I can until the figure match what some Liverpool fans want to see.
I'm so sick of this net-spend nonsense. Ultimately though, this article is not about that; it's important to have accurate figures out there, which is why I've provided them.
Going forward, it's clear that the club's money has to spent smartly over the next few years. The RIGHT players have to be bought; no more expensive mistakes; tens of millions cannot continue to be wasted on dross/players who don't fit in/players with injury histories.
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/exclusive-liverpool-vs-man-united.html
Everyone just blatantly believed that Liverpool had no money to spend, but that was not the case.They have spent more than us. Its not about only money, its about how well you have spent it.
It is explained in detail. This was posted in Kop.com.
p.s Posted this thread not to create arguments, just to prove the famous notion wrong.
