Comments on: Julian Dicks cost Liverpool more than Robbie Keane did

By: Ethan

Ethan — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:31:58 +0000

It just goes to show that you can’t please all the people all the time. Paul Tomkins’s article may have unintentionally highlighted what we have all known for some time now; a manager will either get criticized for spending too much (Man U, Chelsea) or not winning titles if he can properly manage his spending (Liverpool). The above comments underline that point.

By: BD Condell

BD Condell — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:26:14 +0000

Personally, Ahmed, I only boast about trophies. Everything else is 2nd best and they’d spend hand over fist if they could get their hands on the money.
It’s a false pretence they put forward.

By: Ahmed Bilal

Ahmed Bilal — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:40:07 +0000

Arsenal fans seem to get a lot of satisfaction from it, although they have 3 league titles and a CL finals appearance to brag about.

On the other hand, Liverpool have a CL win, a finals appearance and a semifinals appearance to boast about, all in the last 4 years.

By: BD Condell

BD Condell — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:06:26 +0000

Jay Lee:”And if you look at the Liverpool squad, it doesnâ€™t cost as much a Manchester Unitedâ€™s but it a quite effective.”

What do you mean ‘quite effective’? You either win things or you don’t. Utd made their own success and as a result generated the money that enables them to outspend others. They’ve managed the club excellently and constantly reinvested in the team.

10 PL titles speaks for itself.

Do you really get satisfaction from the ‘we spend less but still have a very good team, even though it hasn’t won the league for 18 years’ rationale?

Yawn!

By: Jay Lee

Jay Lee — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:32:14 +0000

Forget the statistics for a second. If you put those figures into facts,it means that liverpool’s spending on players over the last 20 years has been much less then Man U’s. Money can sometimes buy a club the title coupled with a decent manager.
Man United proved that the last 16 years. Liverpool won the Champions League with a next to nothing squad in 2005.
And if you look at the Liverpool squad, it doesn’t cost as much a Manchester United’s but it a quite effective.

By: BD Condell

BD Condell — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:09:37 +0000

But what IS the point? Good points by Anteater and what he really emphasises is the words of the great Benjamin Disraeli: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Taken as a whole the artcile really tells us nothing.

As for his jibe at Ferguson and Man U. Indeed, I am prpeared to accept the stats wholeheartly here, just to be magnanimous.

Conclusion: Fergie has spent big to get his man when he really wants someone. Result: 10 PL titles.

Maybe Mr Tompkins can remind me how many Liverpool have won?

By: Liverpool_Fan

Liverpool_Fan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:28:21 +0000

Paul Tomkins articles are usually a very attractive read but he went throwing too many statistics around but I think we all know were he is coming from and he has a very valid point.

By: anteater

anteater — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:47:26 +0000

Well, I’m no rocket scientist either, Rob. Usually I like what Paul Tomkins writes, but, as I said above, taking the record fee as reference data does not make any sense at all, at least to me it doesn’t. Just imagine Chelsea or Man City paying 60m or more for a player (and that is not unlikely, isn’t it). That would make Keane a bargain, at 20m. Please give me a break.

My example of the bottle of milk aimed to point out that every day data like that is usually used in economics to determine stuff like inflation rate and such (and I am no economist either).

Regarding the bubble to burst and exponential growth I used micro organisms as an example. Don’t even know if that is transferable to football clubs, but looking at the current global financial market situation I guess it is. Micro organisms have about as much to do with football clubs like bottles of milk (may I point out that I am neither a micro biologist nor a milk man).

By: MDH

MDH — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:32:49 +0000

Doesnt stop him from being a waste of money

By: Rob Parker

Rob Parker — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:06:19 +0000

Thanks for the science input, but since you note in the final paragraph of your comment that there is a “bubble” to burst, why take something outside the bubble into consideration (eg a bottle of milk)when you acknowledge that football fees are not proportional to everyday living.

I don’t think Paul Tomkins is a rocket scientist and this is probably a crude method if you examine it that closely, but it does put transfer fees into context for the time they took place.