Quantcast
Sky Sports News this morning - Page 2 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
ritchie

Sky Sports News this morning

Recommended Posts

I really hate Sky and there biased agenda. The Hicks interview is such a staged managed event. Alan Myers has been his mouth piece ever since he got invited to Hicks ranch and sat there with his open-fire and LFC mug.*Sky should deal with facts and here are some facts they fail to give out since Hicks and Gillette took over in 2007.

 

Total spent on players: £172,080,000

 

Total recouped on players - £144,900,000

 

Total Net Spend under Gillett and Hicks - £27,180,000

 

Difference between actual net spend and Hicks' claims - £122,820,000

 

Not bad going for a team that reached the champions league each year up until last season thereby generating about 30m per season from champions league revenue alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are they trying to make out Rafa's gross spend is his net spend?

 

It's as if they're trying to credit what Hicks is saying and paint him as the victim.

Rafa's signings,

in and out since February 2007,when Waldorf and Statler showed up.

 

IN

 

Torres

Aquilani

Keane

Mascherano

Johnson

Babel

Riera

Dossena

Lucas

Skrtel

Benayoun

Cavalieri

Leto

Shelvey

N'Gog

Kyrgaikos

 

OUT

Alonso

Keane

Crouch

Sissoko

Bellamy

Cisse

Carson

Riise

Garcia

Dossena

Arbeloa

Gonzalez

Pongolle

Leto

San Jose

Guthrie

Voronin.

 

I reckon that's a NET SPEND of approx £40m,

 

over 6 transfer windows, so sorry Tommy that's about £6.6m per window!!

 

We can reduce that to £32m if we factor in Roy's signings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They'll be egging him on to sue.

 

To them it's just a circus. Murdoch's malign influence again.

 

The news isn't reported any more, it's created and shaped.

 

It's the media verson of the office/pub Iago, whispering in everyone's ear and then saying "you're not letting him get away with that are you?"

 

Playground shite; "fight! fight! fight! fight!" etc

 

 

Great way of putting it mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the cunts just 2 mins ago on Soccer AM just had ad advert for Everton vs the 'Liverpool red sox' - i'm fucking fuming with that. They are such a bunch of overgrown donkey balls. Fucking hate Sky the cunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're completely missing the point mate.

 

Sky are trying to paint Hicks as the victim by using Rafa's gross spend on transfers whilst completely disregarding any money recouped in that period.

 

They haven't said that in any report I've seen. I think it's you who is missing the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still to work out why they (and the Beeb in fairness) showed almost 3 days of miners from the other side of the world being rescued. Glad they got out and all that, but they didn't do this in anything like the same depth for the floods in Pakistan which caused incredible devastation and death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've posted that numerous times and from several different sources. I've also challenged a few people on here to post any source that shows Ferguson outspent Rafa in those 6 years.

 

I'm still waiting. Maybe you can find one. Let me know when you do.

 

If you add the fees for Ferdinand & Van Nistelrooy with the Times Online spend thing, you'll notice Rafa spent £231m and Ferguson spent £234m, so it's marginal, but you're still wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who fucking cares about all of this net spend crap?! Rafa had some money but the money was fucking borrowed, that's the issue here! Rafa had to go and the owners had to go. They're both gone and now we can move on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They haven't said that in any report I've seen. I think it's you who is missing the point.

 

Pathetic response. What a snide, weak-ass post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with half an interest in Liverpool on the pitch could rummage up a reasonable group of Rafa's wasteful signings.

 

That's where Hicks falls down, he wouldn't recognise these players if they shoulder-charged Myers off his nob.

 

Benger, ha ha ha ha ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether he had a point about Rafa was rendered pointless when he used Ferguson in his argument.

He's clearly learned fuck all since he bought us has he?Trying to use that champagne socialist cunt's statements to prove a point, surprised he didn't use a Thatcher statement in his little fairytale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The responsibility for correcting these false reports lies with Purslow and Broughton who should direct Nash to come forward in a press conference or official statement with the true figures. But perhaps it suits them to continue to let Ferguson, Fatheaded Brucie, Redknapp, Hansen, Lawrenson and assorted odds and sods distort Rafa's distinguished record as manager. Or maybe they are following Carragher's philosophy of not "brawling " so we will be liked by Sky and the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you add the fees for Ferdinand & Van Nistelrooy with the Times Online spend thing, you'll notice Rafa spent £231m and Ferguson spent £234m, so it's marginal, but you're still wrong.

 

Which "Times on-line spend thing".?

 

This is from the same paper a year ago:

 

How Liverpool's transfer spending compares

Matthew Fearon

Published: 25 October 2009

 

 

 

On the eve of this season, Liverpool manager Rafa Bentitez bemoaned his side's lack of financial power. However, an analysis of the spending habits of the 'Big Four' since his appointment in June 2004 shows that the Spaniard has outspent Sir Alex Ferguson by £80m. Furthermore, when money raised through player sales is taken into account, Benitez' net spending dwarves Ferguson's by £95m and only Chelsea have spent more on player recruitment during the same five-year period.

 

Benitez wasted no time in splashing the cash on his arrival on Merseyside. In his first season at the club his net spending totalled £31m, including £20m on the misfiring strike partnership of Djibril Cisse and Fernando Morientes. At the same time, Ferguson was making an upfront payment - also of £20m - for Wayne Rooney, who has since confirmed that he was, and still is, the brightest prospect in English football.

 

With Roman Abramovich a year into his Chelsea spending spree at the time of Benitez's arrival, only the West London club could match the Spaniard's outlay. Their most expensive signing that summer was the £24m Didier Drogba but his 102nd goal for the club against Blackburn yesterday suggests much better value for money than the £6.3m Benitez paid for Morientes, who managed just 12 goals throughout his Liverpool career.

 

While Benitez was spending £41m on eight players in that first season - none of whom are still at the club - Arsene Wenger was splashing out £2m on four players, two of whom - Manuel Almunia and Emmanuel Eboue - have become crucial members of the Arsenal side, while a third, Vito Mannone has burst on to the scene this season. In fact, since June 2004, Wenger has earned his club £27m from his transfer dealings and has spent £154m less that Benitez.

 

The extent of the Liverpool manager's spending comes as a surprise, his method of recruitment offers up a telling explanation; as the figures show he likes to spread his wealth thinly. Since joining the club, he has signed 23 players for less than £3m, while during the same period Ferguson has brought in just seven bargain-basement players, the last of whom was the out-of-contract Michael Owen - the first player Benitez allowed to leave the Anfield.

 

It is worth noting that the world record fee of £80m Manchester United received from Real Madrid for Cristiano Ronaldo this summer undoubtedly massages their 2004-09 net spending figure, although such largesse did not stop Florentino Pérez boosting Liverpool's coffers by £30m in return for the services of Xabi Alonso.

 

While in the six months before Bentiez's appointment, Ferguson spent £26.7m on Louis Saha, Alan Smith and Gabriel Heinze, he was at least dipping into a £40m war chest funded by the sales of David Beckham to Real Madrid for £25m and Juan Sebastian Veron to Chelsea for £15m. Even taking Ferguson's pre-Benitez spending into account, the Liverpool boss still comfortably outspends the Scot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of crap in that. I also thought Rafa wasn't great at transfers, but it wasn't 31m in his first season, and Cisse wasn't his choice but was certainly an asset to be used (not very well and fucked at Blackburn anyway)

 

Almunia? Seriously?

 

And Rafa has won a trophy since Wenger last won one so he doesn't get to be the shining example that makes Benitez look shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a lot of crap in that. I also thought Rafa wasn't great at transfers, but it wasn't 31m in his first season, and Cisse wasn't his choice but was certainly an asset to be used (not very well and fucked at Blackburn anyway)

 

Almunia? Seriously?

 

And Rafa has won a trophy since Wenger last won one so he doesn't get to be the shining example that makes Benitez look shit.

 

But he did spend more than Ferguson, no publication I have seen has said differently and nobody on here has so far found one.

 

The "Rafa had no money or little money" comments are total bullshit. It is a complete myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But he did spend more than Ferguson, no publication I have seen has said differently and nobody on here has so far found one.

 

The "Rafa had no money or little money" comments are total bullshit. It is a complete myth.

 

I agree, but people don't get to throw bullshit into the mix just because they are broadly correct.

 

Not Fearon, not Hicks.

 

Not anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
murdoch and his empire absolutely hate the New York Times, guess who is involved in owning NESV, yes thats right, the New York Times.

 

Well well. We can probably expect a protracted campaign of negativity from those shitcunts then. Although why anyone watches it baffles me. SSN is the television equivalent of reading the daily star whilst jabbing yourself in the balls with cocktail sticks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well well. We can probably expect a protracted campaign of negativity from those shitcunts then. Although why anyone watches it baffles me. SSN is the television equivalent of reading the daily star whilst jabbing yourself in the balls with cocktail sticks.

 

Who do you hate more Mike? TalkTalk or Sky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×