Parry set to leave Liverpool post

[JP Woody]

Im not just talking about this season regarding rotation im talking about Benitez's whole Liverpool career.I think if Benitez had been more successful in the transfer market we wouldn't be having this discussion.I think a canny few of his signings either haven't been good enough or simply not settled at the club,if they had he could then change his team around no problem and i think he would still of won the games.

 

[Zebedee]

It's interesting but when Benitez came to Liverpool, he called Owen, Gerrard and Carragher into his office to talk about the team. Gerrard's words were, "I don't think you realise just how bad we are."

Without the hundreds of millions to spend to make instant worldclass changes, I think Benitez has done a good job in gradually building the squad up in terms of quality. I don't know whether you recall our team in his first season, but it wasn't good. Compared to then, this current squad is light years ahead. That's been done by stop-gap signings and wheeler dealing on the market, buying for the future, selling at a profit or for part-exchange for a better quality player.

Not sure how else he could have done it given just how skint our club has been in relative terms in comparison with the top teams. To give you an idea of just how relatively ill-matched we are to even other European teams, Torres took a pay-cut to come to us. Our wage budget is a fraction of that of the Mancs. Our transfer budget in the summer is our profit from the CL.

It's not a bad transfer record really. Compare it to that of Ferguson's first five years when he was blowing cash like there was no tomorrow and getting very little in the way of results.

 

[JP Woody]

Liverpool have improved since Benitez came to the club,no doubt about it.Im not gonna compare him to Man Utd or any other team regarding his transfers,but he has made some bad ones,Torres was a fantastic signing and one of the best in Liverpool's history which is quite an achievement.I hope Benitez gets it right and can topple Man Utd's English domination.

 

[Gatid]

what i win for middlesbrough i must say...Benitez sometimes doesnt make sense at all.

nabil el zhar up front? are you kidding me...

meh i cant flame liverpool. because im an arsenal fan who dropped points again!.

 

[deelang]

Our wage budget is a fraction of that of the Mancs.

LFC make 50% of what MUFC do on a matchday. This was part of the problem the owners had with Rick Parry's record.

Compare it to that of Ferguson's first five years when he was blowing cash like there was no tomorrow and getting very little in the way of results.

Not really true. Ferguson's first full season he only signed Viv Anderson(£250k) and McClair (£850k) and finished second - hardly 'very little in the way of results.'

The transfer splurge, when it happened, was 1989/90 (Pallister, Wallace, Ince, Phelan, Webb), the season of the first cup win and the beginning of the end for Liverpool's domination.

When he eventually won the title in 1993 the team was hardly full of expensive signings (Schmeichel £650k, Irwin £850k, Bruce £850k, Sharpe £80k, Kanchelskis, Cantona £1.2m etc.) In fact IIRC it was more cheaply assembled than the Liverpool team of the time. And of course in subsequent years there was a net receipt in transfer monies as Hughes (£2m), Ince (£8m) and Kanchelskis (£5m) were all sold and replaced internally.

Of course one thing Ferguson has never done is sign a forward for £20m and then sell him six months later for 75% of the price. Whatever the reason is for this was, whether it be Parry or Benitez, it is probably also the reason Liverpool are not acheiving.

 

[Lee]

In fact IIRC it was more cheaply assembled than the Liverpool team of the time. And of course in subsequent years there was a net receipt in transfer monies as Hughes (£2m), Ince (£8m) and Kanchelskis (£5m) were all sold and replaced internally.

IIRC you're wrong. I'll try and dig up some of the articles about this but the Manchester United team was a lot more expensive, relative to the transfer record at the time, than any of the Liverpool teams (ever?). It's only really Graeme Souness who's spend a lot of money, and we all know how bad his time in charge was.

Of course one thing Ferguson has never done is sign a forward for £20m and then sell him six months later for 75% of the price. Whatever the reason is for this was, whether it be Parry or Benitez, it is probably also the reason Liverpool are not acheiving.

Yeah, Ferguson just does that with midfield players. But for about 54% of the original price.

Paid: £28m
Sold: £15m

 

[deelang]

IIRC you're wrong. I'll try and dig up some of the articles about this but the Manchester United team was a lot more expensive, relative to the transfer record at the time, than any of the Liverpool teams (ever?). It's only really Graeme Souness who's spend a lot of money, and we all know how bad his time in charge was.

It was exactly to the Souness era I was referring - it might well be that the United side of 93 was cheaper than the Liverpool side, possibly for the first and only time, precisely because Souness had splashed the cash so unsuccessfully.

Yeah, Ferguson just does that with midfield players. But for about 54% of the original price.

Paid: £28m
Sold: £15m

Nice try, but Veron had two years, not six months, he was given a chance, and he did win a Premier League winners medal* which was a lot more than what Keane acheived at Anfield.

*Not just that, but he was quite an integral part of the 2003 United title win: so much so that he essentially replaced Beckham as the creative force in the midfield, forcing the departure of the latter to Madrid some weeks later.