From Houlding To Henry

I'd never heard Everton before mate, I'd always thought it was a London club he came to buy and Spurs were the intended option until he flew over Stamford Bridge.

Do you mean the Gronkjaer goal in the final game of '03 league season when they beat us 2-1 to snatch the final CL place that season? The myth goes that qualifying for that saved them going bankrupt. He set up Desailly for their first in that game too if I remember rightly.

Yes that's the one - think I had the FA cup on the brain yesterday!

Back to the original point regarding dunlop liddell shankly, it's hard to ignore the fact that the likes of Chelsea and Man City have achieved their success through spending huge amounts of money.

It's not only the case in football but in all professional sports.

We were never in for Cole either but thankyou for addressing the substantive point.

I'm surprised that you think money doesn't buy success. It's not a guarantee, as you point out you have to buy the right players, but by pretty much every measurable metric it's the most important factor.

If Abramovich had bought Everton, as he originally planned, I think it's hard to argue that they would have won far more than us in the subsequent years. Perhaps it's due to his vast knowledge of football but more likely it would be the petrodollars invested in the club.

Well I'll be honest, I'm glad we weren't in for Cole who I believe to be vastly overrated. Not a bad player just overrated. For the money we would of spent and the wages he'd of wanted, I don't think it would of been justified. I would of been happier if we'd gone in for Clyne, who can play at left back, around that time. That could of been a bargain up there with the Sami Hyypia one.

And no money doesn't buy success. It helps, obviously because you can buy a better class of player. And even if it doesn't work out, it doesn't set you back all that much. For example, City can afford to spend over 30 million on Robinho and not bat an eye lid at it. But that also proves my point. A record for the Premier League and one of the biggest flops in the League. Fast forward to Chelsea to breaking the British record by taking Torres down to Stamford Bridge and again proving that just because you spend a bomb, doesn't buy you success. Some clubs don't have that luxury and need big money transfers to succeed or it puts them under serious pressure. Using Everton as the example, the 20 odd million spent on Lukaku sets them back because they don't have a lot money behind them.

Maybe Everton would of won more than us had Abramovich taken them over. Then again maybe they wouldn't. Don't forget, even Chelsea didn't win anything in his first year - they needed a quality manager to manage their egos. And they haven't exactly dominated the English game, especially in between Mourinho's stints. City, with their millions, have amassed two League titles both of which came down to the last game. They've hardly walked away with despite their money.

Spending your money wisely is better than spending billions.

Well I'll be honest, I'm glad we weren't in for Cole who I believe to be vastly overrated. Not a bad player just overrated. For the money we would of spent and the wages he'd of wanted, I don't think it would of been justified. I would of been happier if we'd gone in for Clyne, who can play at left back, around that time. That could of been a bargain up there with the Sami Hyypia one.

And no money doesn't buy success. It helps, obviously because you can buy a better class of player. And even if it doesn't work out, it doesn't set you back all that much. For example, City can afford to spend over 30 million on Robinho and not bat an eye lid at it. But that also proves my point. A record for the Premier League and one of the biggest flops in the League. Fast forward to Chelsea to breaking the British record by taking Torres down to Stamford Bridge and again proving that just because you spend a bomb, doesn't buy you success. Some clubs don't have that luxury and need big money transfers to succeed or it puts them under serious pressure. Using Everton as the example, the 20 odd million spent on Lukaku sets them back because they don't have a lot money behind them.

Maybe Everton would of won more than us had Abramovich taken them over. Then again maybe they wouldn't. Don't forget, even Chelsea didn't win anything in his first year - they needed a quality manager to manage their egos. And they haven't exactly dominated the English game, especially in between Mourinho's stints. City, with their millions, have amassed two League titles both of which came down to the last game. They've hardly walked away with despite their money.

Spending your money wisely is better than spending billions.

Thing is thoug there is little to differentiate one club spending "wisely" in comparison to another. Nearly every club will have a transfer "hit rate" of between a third and two third of players working out  therefore the amount you spend becomes the most impportant factor in success.

I do feel you have changed your tune a bit though - previously you were saying that the owners have relatively little bearing on the team once they cross the white line; in this post you seem to acknowledge that the money "helps".

As for having the right manager - the owners decide on that too.

My perosnal feeling is that owners are far more important to a club's success and failure nowadays than managers are.

Thing is thoug there is little to differentiate one club spending "wisely" in comparison to another. Nearly every club will have a transfer "hit rate" of between a third and two third of players working out  therefore the amount you spend becomes the most impportant factor in success.

I do feel you have changed your tune a bit though - previously you were saying that the owners have relatively little bearing on the team once they cross the white line; in this post you seem to acknowledge that the money "helps".

As for having the right manager - the owners decide on that too.

My perosnal feeling is that owners are far more important to a club's success and failure nowadays than managers are.

No the amount doesn't matter. If it did then the entire table would be a case of top = highest spender. 2nd = 2nd highest spender. 3rd = 3rd highest spender...20th = 20th highest spender (lowest). But it doesn't work like that. QPR have spent more than West Ham over a five year period, West Ham are looking at the possibility of European football next year, QPR are looking at yet another year in the Championship next year. So clearly the money spent doesn't matter - the quality of player does matter.

Now clearly the better players tend to cost more. Then again, you can find a Sami Hyypia for 1.5 million or Mangala for 30 million.

And how I've changed my tune I don't know. Money helps bring the players in, that's not saying the owners go out and do anything on the pitch. So you've misunderstood that completely. Money helps breaks the transfer record with Fernando Torres. The owners can't make Torres score. So once they've crossed the white line, there's F**k all the owners can do. Same tune I've always said.

I suppose the owners importance being more than the manager's is why Ranieri, Grant, Scolari, Villas-Boas, Di Matteo and Benitez all failed to win the League under Abramovich. Yet Mourinho, has won two League Titles in three and a bit year at Chelsea and looks set to make that three in four (and a bit) this season. Of course though, that's more to do with Abramovich than Mourinho.

In his book, Reina states:

"The way I saw it, Stevie and Carra are the two principle members of our squad, the ones who the people love and if they had said something maybe it would have put Hicks and Gillett under real pressure.
"In their view, it was more important to try to keep things as normal as possible".

Steven Gerrard has revealed that it is was not his choice to stay silent:

“The only reason I didn’t speak out was because Rafa Benítez didn’t want me to. I asked him if I should say something. He told me to leave it to him.
“When a situation like that happens I don’t think it’s the players’ responsibility to step in. If me and Jamie had a go at them, I don’t think the owners’ were going to say ‘OK, we’ll sell the club £100 million cheaper.”

There is no way you can honestly expect Gerrard or Carra to cross that white line and not be affected. Even if they were 100% committed to the match it's still going to weigh on your mind. We were all very much vociferous during those times holding aloft a great array of banners and messages.

Evident the players were really concerned. One can only wonder how Benitez coped - I heard his health suffered from the stress involved thanks to those slimy bas**rds.

Apart from Peter Risdale at Leeds, I don't think I've ever seen so much destruction to a club by its owners.

No the amount doesn't matter. If it did then the entire table would be a case of top = highest spender. 2nd = 2nd highest spender. 3rd = 3rd highest spender...20th = 20th highest spender (lowest). But it doesn't work like that. QPR have spent more than West Ham over a five year period, West Ham are looking at the possibility of European football next year, QPR are looking at yet another year in the Championship next year. So clearly the money spent doesn't matter - the quality of player does matter.

Now clearly the better players tend to cost more. Then again, you can find a Sami Hyypia for 1.5 million or Mangala for 30 million.

And how I've changed my tune I don't know. Money helps bring the players in, that's not saying the owners go out and do anything on the pitch. So you've misunderstood that completely. Money helps breaks the transfer record with Fernando Torres. The owners can't make Torres score. So once they've crossed the white line, there's f**k all the owners can do. Same tune I've always said.

I suppose the owners importance being more than the manager's is why Ranieri, Grant, Scolari, Villas-Boas, Di Matteo and Benitez all failed to win the League under Abramovich. Yet Mourinho, has won two League Titles in three and a bit year at Chelsea and looks set to make that three in four (and a bit) this season. Of course though, that's more to do with Abramovich than Mourinho.

Well, applying your own argument, you could say that West Ham are above us and Southampton are above United, Arsenal and Tottenham so player quality "doesn't matter". But that's plainly nonsense.

Both player quality and money spent on the wage bill to attract the best players matter. The more money you spend, the more likely it is that you will attract the best quality players and go on to achieve top results. Money spent on the wage bill is by far the strongest metric associated with success.

That is a fact. There are entire books devoted to the subject.

Looking at the premiership - this graph illustrates the average squad cost adjusted for inflation - the article is from Paul Tomkins.
http://tomkinstimes.com/2014/11/why-liverpool-never-win-the-league/



I don't disagree that the team with with the best players is most likely to win but - as I've argued on other threads, some of which I have started - unless we can find a way to increase our transfer "hit rate" above those of other clubs, just trying to best the best players we can wil lesult in us finishing approximately fifth every season assuming that our rivals are following the same strategy.

Why? Because money spent is the most important metric for success in the professional game. Burnley are probably one of the hardest running most committed sides in the league. More so than Man City from the games I've seen yet one will be Champions and and one will be relegated.

The evidence is, in fact, so clear cut that Tomkins goes on to say:

"I find it hard to even discuss football with people who don’t know the kind of things contained within this article; the kind of things I’ve been discussing for years now."

Sportingintelligence.com has shown that the wage bill accounts for 85% predictive power in the success of the club (the NFL is 14% by comparison):
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704407804575425523276093124

Simon Kuper and Stefan Syzmanksi (Sp) wrote "Soccernomics" and clearly showed the correlation between wage expenditure and final league position:



The evidence is so strong that the entire face of the game has changed with the introduction of FFP.

What evidence do you have to the contrary?

As for your point about owners VS managers, Chelsea won plenty without Mourinho. City won without Mancini and I can guarantee you they will go on to win more without Pellegrini.
 

They did sack Kenny, in a way that I didn't like either. But, as much as it disappointed me, Kenny was never their manager. They knew F**k all about football and wanted to get the fans on side as soon as possible. What better way to do that than bring Kenny Dalglish home? The fans appointed Kenny. Eighteen months to two years in the world of football and FSG thought they knew best. They went in the direction that they've pushed the club in ever since. A young manager with a bright future who wouldn't cost the earth.

So while they have sacked Kenny, to some extent I can understand it if not accept the way it went about.

The man here is royalty, and you don't sack him. Nothing can justify it.

That season, there was the "probably" fiasco, Gerrard out for half the season, Lucas out for the other half. Results understandably were affected. None of that mattered to them, only 4th spot counted. So out he went.

Kenny was, in my opinion, never their man. So I think he would have been sacked for that, not because they don't care about the Cup competitions.

They're not Glazer, Lerner, Kenwright, Peter Johnson, Dave Whelan, Freddie Shepherd, Phil Gartside or David Gould either. Which I'm quite happy about.

As for their man, they had no man at all ready to succeed Kenny, when Kenny was hauled to Boston. And the man they eventually appointed was their second choice. They hadn't a clue then, and they don't really have it now either.

A few months later, they refused to sanction the signing of Clint Dempsey over a measly couple of million. Last summer, they blew €20 million on one of the worst players ever to set foot in Anfield to replace Suarez. To me, they're more Lerner than Learning, a bunch of Yankers that know the price of everything and the value of not a lot.

If they do the right thing by LFC Billy it wouldn't bother me if they couldn't spell football.

As it turns out, they can't. Our sport is "sawk-er". Football to them is something you pick up on an artificial pitch in Denver and throw it at someone resembling a bodyguard.

Rushie I don't reckon wanted to go in first place. IMO that was the clubs guilt trip.

I believe that was more of a peace gesture after the wall collapse in Belgium.

I don't mean to butt-in on your and BBB's POV but, I'd have to disagree with you on not being able to attribute blame on H & G for our on-field performances.

How can any team perform when there was so much discord and changes within the boardroom, broken promises to disillusioned players (Torres & Masch) and playing for a club whose very existence was under severe threat (specifically the 'local' lads)?  Not to mention playing in front of a home crowd who weren't 100% supporting the team because we were making our feelings known and 'heard' with regards to Waldorf & Statler.

There were way too many factors involved for it not to affect at least some certain players - no matter how professional they're supposed to be.

As professionals, it was their job to go out and win games, and leave the long knife battles to the boardroom.

Well Hicks and Gillett didn't shell out for Djimi Traore. They instead opted for Paul Konchesky. But in answer to your question, no I don't think it makes a great deal of difference. Many people on here will tell you that I've never bought into the idea that money buys success. If you spend it badly, it doesn't matter how much is spent - Robbie Keane or Alberto Aquilani.

I agree that money doesn't buy success, but the Keane signing wasn't a waste of money. Instead he was  used brutally as a political football between the coach and the board. I've never seen it before at this club, and I hope I never see it again. One of them has gone on to win more league titles and honours since, the other is off dressing up Charity Shields in the back of beyond as "success" these days.

I'm surprised that you think money doesn't buy success. It's not a guarantee, as you point out you have to buy the right players, but by pretty much every measurable metric it's the most important factor.

You can put away your articles, and get out a copy of last week's football results. That's more proof should it be needed, that cash will not win anything in this game on it's own.

Evident the players were really concerned. One can only wonder how Benitez coped - I heard his health suffered from the stress involved thanks to those slimy bas**rds.

Apart from Peter Risdale at Leeds, I don't think I've ever seen so much destruction to a club by its owners.

Blackburn, Portsmouth?

I'm sure his health was considerably better when the "slimy bas**rds" gave him a brand new, multi-million quid, 4 year contract we couldn't afford. If he kept his mouth shut the following year and got us enough results, he probably would have served it out in full, the club was up for sale at the time. But he couldn't be trusted to do that, so out he went and soon enough, out they went too. Instead it was Kenny and Brendan who had to pick up the pieces the lot of them left behind, with a much weaker squad to choose from and a board that are only interested in us making manc income from the neighbour's expenditure.