Catch - is that you?

[zigackly]

He's stalking me.

[zigackly]

I don't particularly think you need an A-level in statistics to see that the clubs with the most money will be able to pay large transfer fees and wages for the best players and the best managers. I don't think that is all there is to it but I do think it is a major, major factor.

 

And I don't really disagree with that, but I think the 93% (notice it's getting bigger) is a gross exagerration which appears to come from some questionable analysis, and I really dislike the way it gets used to browbeat every single discussion into ignoring the football and focussing on the money. I think it's fair to question the validity of statistics when they are used in inference.

 

At the moment we are being asked to believe that all we can expect is fifth because of our wage bill, and if that doesn't chime with the last five years of results it must be because we have overachieved.

 

That shit stinks to me. Anyone can see that there are periods in every season where we go on woeful runs of results against teams on much lower wage bills. Money didn't hold us back from winning the league last season. Our performances did in that mass of home draws. And equally money is not the reason our performance has collapsed this season.

Edited February 17, 2010 by zigackly

[Paul]

Christ on a bike!!! I only posted this for a laugh. I never seriously expected the debate to be done again. Now it has started though, I'll add my tuppence ha'penny.

 

Clearly money is a massive factor and it's the money spent on wages that attracts the players; they couldn't give a toss what their old club gets out of the deal, by and large. However, the key thing for a club is not having the most money; it's being the best at spending it and there is simply no precise mathematical formula that can sum up the overall value for money a club gets from a player in a squad-based game. Unfortunately for this forum, it's ultimately a matter of opinion.

 

My opinion is that our manager has been wasteful with a large proportion of the money he's had available to him - and especially when it comes to wages, if the figures for some of our "free" cackers that we see quoted in various places are even 50% accurate. He's spent outrageous sums of money on poor players who barely get a game, ultimately draining the coffers of funds that could be better spent elsewhere and blocking the path to the first team of young players who are generally much, much cheaper and exponentially more motivated to succeed.

 

Which also brings us to other areas of the manager's responsibilities, like tactics, motivation, coaching, etc. Money is very important, but so is having a management team at the top of its game in all aspects of its work.

[kop]

Christ on a bike!!! I only posted this for a laugh. I never seriously expected the debate to be done again. Now it has started though, I'll add my tuppence ha'penny.

 

Clearly money is a massive factor and it's the money spent on wages that attracts the players; they couldn't give a toss what their old club gets out of the deal, by and large. However, the key thing for a club is not having the most money; it's being the best at spending it and there is simply no precise mathematical formula that can sum up the overall value for money a club gets from a player in a squad-based game. Unfortunately for this forum, it's ultimately a matter of opinion.

 

My opinion is that our manager has been wasteful with a large proportion of the money he's had available to him - and especially when it comes to wages, if the figures for some of our "free" cackers that we see quoted in various places are even 50% accurate. He's spent outrageous sums of money on poor players who barely get a game, ultimately draining the coffers of funds that could be better spent elsewhere and blocking the path to the first team of young players who are generally much, much cheaper and exponentially more motivated to succeed.

 

Which also brings us to other areas of the manager's responsibilities, like tactics, motivation, coaching, etc. Money is very important, but so is having a management team at the top of its game in all aspects of its work.

 

I'm not going to let this opportunity pass; Paul, that was very naive of you.

[G Richards]

I think it is an obvious point. The more money you spend on wages the better players you attract and the better you will do in general. I'm happy that that accounts for 90% of it, especially the nearer to the top you get (an anomaly might be easier further down the league e.g. a well drilled promoted side on very low wages sometimes comes up and makes a good go of it, but this is usually amongst a mid ranking group that is much of a muchness).

 

So what of the other 10%?

 

Well, the manager makes up for most of that in my view. Motivation, tactics, training. Who knows, perhaps the fans could make up some of this 10% too. Over the years we've certainly thought that at Anfield, especially if it has been do or die.

 

One other thing to point out is that Rafa has been up against it with the other managers. Ferguson is arguably the most successful manager of all time. If you debate that (and most reds would like to, because we can't stand him!) then you would still have to grudgingly concede he is one of the best of all time. Arsene Wenger is the best Arsenal manager in decades (not sure if he surpasses Chapman, so that's why I said 'decades' and not 'of all time'). Mourinho is arguably the best manager of his generation. He has won the league in three countries and is still a young man, relatively speaking. Man Citeh are new enough to this group, so they haven't had a top, top class manager in place yet, though Mancini seems an improvement over Hughes. I suspect once they crack the top four they may get a further upgrade in manager.

 

All this is to say that not only has Rafa been battling with the fifth largest wage budget; he has also come up against some of the best managers we have seen.

 

He has definitely made mistakes; the biggest of which seems to be not sending the team out to win, but instead to contain the opposition and nick it. We thought the second half of last season turned a corner but alas, it didn't last long.

 

In my view that sort of approach is the best bet to buck the trend. As a fan I have to believe it, otherwise I may as well not bother, as it is already a forgone conclusion based on wages paid.

Edited February 18, 2010 by G Richards

[Section_31]

I think in the modern age money will be less of a factor than having a good scouting system, a good youth system and a manager able to get the best out of what he's got. Unfortunately, we've got none of those things.

 

You can have all the money in the world, but there isn't actually that much quality out there. If you look at the money Citeh spunked in the past year or so, we could have had Tevez, Barry, Wright-Philips, Cruz etc for a fraction of their prices if we'd scouted and pursued them earlier in their careers. The mancs' best ever team was composed mainly of their own youth players, our best players of the last twenty years have been youth players, Wenger's first (and best, IMO) side was composed of players he'd picked from the likes of AC Milan and PSG's reserves for a snip.

 

The players are there, you just need to find them, and get the best out of them. Buying John Terry and paying him 800 grand a week is not the answer.

[Hermes]

Buying John Terry and paying him 800 grand a week is not the answer.

 

But you'd be 90% right. :whistle:

[Ian Sea]

If we finished 5th played at our full potential then I'd have no compliants. If that was the best we could do then fine; so be it.

 

Finishing 5th by playing shite, lackluster and boring football I can't cope with. I don't think we've reached anywhere near an acceptable level (never mind our potential) this season, and it's got fuck all to do with money. I think with the players we've got we should be doing better. If that means finishing above teams who pay more in wages then again, so be it.

[lifetime fan]

If money is spent wisely then of course whoever spends more should expect to be more successful.

 

Say us and the mancs both want a left winger come the summer, and we will both be after one.

 

We can only afford Charles N'Zogbia for £10m and pay him £50k a week, the mancs go out and spunk £35m on Ribery and pay him £115k a week, all other things being equal who would you expect to be more successful?

[Paul]

If we finished 5th played at our full potential then I'd have no compliants. If that was the best we could do then fine; so be it.

 

Finishing 5th by playing shite, lackluster and boring football I can't cope with. I don't think we've reached anywhere near an acceptable level (never mind our potential) this season, and it's got fuck all to do with money. I think with the players we've got we should be doing better. If that means finishing above teams who pay more in wages then again, so be it.

 

Exactly. If it wasn't so bleedin' obvious that we've been playing utterly sterile and inept shite this season then it'd be easier to accept the supposed limitations of our place in the wages league table.

[Kennys_spell]

Of course there is a very close correlation - noone can sensibly deny that. But to say it is the only determinant is plainly wrong. For instance we would have paid Gareth Barry anywhere between 80k-100k a week and he would have joined in 2008 - he was happy with those terms, but the clubs couldn't agree the fee; City pay him £150-160k per week in 2009. By implication that means he's almost twice a better and more effective player for City than he would have been for us? It's nonsense to argue therefore that wages are a determinant of performance - all they do is REFLECT the wealth and spending of clubs. So in other words it's not the wages in themselves that determine the finishing position: an extra 20-30k per week doesn't motivate players at this level. Rather wages are just a factor in showing the wider economic conditions in which clubs operate.

 

 

So it doesn't reflect anything else - like, oh I don't know, the depth of talent they are willing to pay this sort of money to for this talent to sit on the bench week after week?

 

Right oh.

[Kennys_spell]

I didn't have you down as deliberately stupid, so you must be misunderstanding something.

 

20 coin tosses, 20 outcomes = entire population.

 

No? But wait ...

 

 

How many more teams should be considered "Spending in the premiership" equation?

[Kennys_spell]

And I don't really disagree with that, but I think the 93% (notice it's getting bigger) is a gross exagerration which appears to come from some questionable analysis, and I really dislike the way it gets used to browbeat every single discussion into ignoring the football and focussing on the money. I think it's fair to question the validity of statistics when they are used in inference.

 

At the moment we are being asked to believe that all we can expect is fifth because of our wage bill, and if that doesn't chime with the last five years of results it must be because we have overachieved.

 

That shit stinks to me. Anyone can see that there are periods in every season where we go on woeful runs of results against teams on much lower wage bills. Money didn't hold us back from winning the league last season. Our performances did in that mass of home draws. And equally money is not the reason our performance has collapsed this season.

 

Now it appears to be you thats getting mired in semantics and double-speak.

 

Bottom line - there are TWO footballers,

 

One is Prem standard, the other is Zingari league standard.

 

You have finite funds to purchase one of them.

 

Your opposition has no such limit.

 

Which team do you think will get the player - which player do you think will get the better player?

[Kennys_spell]

If we finished 5th played at our full potential then I'd have no compliants. If that was the best we could do then fine; so be it.

 

Finishing 5th by playing shite, lackluster and boring football I can't cope with. I don't think we've reached anywhere near an acceptable level (never mind our potential) this season, and it's got fuck all to do with money. I think with the players we've got we should be doing better. If that means finishing above teams who pay more in wages then again, so be it.

 

I don't understand this - surely if were a team that when playing at its best we can only finish fifth, then by definition (even playing at our best) we can only expect there to be some crap football along the way. Anything higher would be overachieving wouldn't it?

[Whelan]

Bottom line - there are TWO footballers,

 

One is Prem standard, the other is Zingari league standard.

 

 

In all fairness that argument is a bit of a sly one.

 

We are not talking about those differences, I would argue we are talking about the ability to have one premiership standard player as opposed to having the choice of three!

 

All money does is either make it easier or make it harder, depending. The shite for years have been praising Moyes for his ability to almost get champions league football on a budget that doesn't compare to the big four, and yet they themselves casually ignored that fact that Everton were spending as much, if not more than the teams below them.

 

The wages argument is a bit of a misnomer as Man City have bought a lot of decent players but have had to pay big wages, as that is how they have attracted the likes of Bridge, Lescott and Barry and that would distort the wages structure. But take Man City out and those players would be lucky to earn half their current wages.

 

At the end of the day some people shop for clothes at Harrods, some people shop for clothes at Matalan, but neither of them have an excuse for being a scruffy cunt!

[Kennys_spell]

In all fairness that argument is a bit of a sly one.

 

We are not talking about those differences, I would argue we are talking about the ability to have one premiership standard player as opposed to having the choice of three!

 

All money does is either make it easier or make it harder, depending. The shite for years have been praising Moyes for his ability to almost get champions league football on a budget that doesn't compare to the big four, and yet they themselves casually ignored that fact that Everton were spending as much, if not more than the teams below them.

 

The wages argument is a bit of a misnomer as Man City have bought a lot of decent players but have had to pay big wages, as that is how they have attracted the likes of Bridge, Lescott and Barry and that would distort the wages structure. But take Man City out and those players would be lucky to earn half their current wages.

 

At the end of the day some people shop for clothes at Harrods, some people shop for clothes at Matalan, but neither of them have an excuse for being a scruffy cunt!

 

Wasn't meant to be sly at all and I don't think it is sly.

 

The scenario was to present the base difference between being able to afford "Better" players (or even to be able to afford taking a chance on players that MIGHT be better).

 

Take it down to it's base level and that's the crux of the argument right there. Pay the money for the better player or don't - but the performance will reflect what is paid.

[Whelan]

Wasn't meant to be sly at all and I don't think it is sly.

 

The scenario was to present the base difference between being able to afford "Better" players (or even to be able to afford taking a chance on players that MIGHT be better).

 

Take it down to it's base level and that's the crux of the argument right there. Pay the money for the better player or don't - but the performance will reflect what is paid.

 

Sly was the wrong word, sorry about that. I just think it isn't about Premiership versus lower league, at least it isn't to me. Although that might be the case this summer when we end up with Jovanavic, Ellstrom and Govou for Aquilani, Riera, Babel and Benny.

[Lucky Pierre]

The only way Liverpool will ever win the League is by paying higher wages than their rivals - it's not rocket science

 

only a new stadium will allow Liverpool to win the title

 

OK, Dave.

[zigackly]

Bottom line - there are TWO footballers,

 

One is Prem standard, the other is Zingari league standard.

 

Right, we're in the Zingari league. Come on, at least try to display some intellectual honesty.

 

Even if it's just acting.

[Kennys_spell]

Right, we're in the Zingari league. Come on, at least try to display some intellectual honesty.

 

Even if it's just acting.

 

So - reduce the discussion to something completely unrelated and hope no one notices.

 

I think you might have got away with it.

[zigackly]

Yes! Yes you have.

 

Mainly because I can't be arsed arguing against your ridiculous strawman though.

[Kennys_spell]

Yes! Yes you have.

 

Mainly because I can't be arsed arguing against your ridiculous strawman though.

 

 

Shhhh - I think you might have got away with it.

[zigackly]

You really think we are reduced to buying bottom of the barrel players because a couple of other teams have more money? Really?

 

In that case how come we are buying in the £20M range each summer?

[Lucky Pierre]

You really think we are reduced to buying bottom of the barrel players because a couple of other teams have more money? Really?

 

In that case how come we are buying in the £20M range each summer?

Because we're selling £30M players?

[zigackly]

How many of those have we sold?

 

Anyway, we're told Aquilani is a £30M player, so that's ok.