United - Liverpool net spending in Modern Times

[Corkonian1]

You're deflecting as much as Carra did on the pitch in his prime

tbh I'd imagine Klopp has a lower net spend than far more than 5 or 6 clubs during his tenure, but that's not really the point he was making.

I assume he was commenting on the relative cost to assemble the Liverpool XI who finished the game, and won, relative to the Chelsea XI...no?

That Neville sister is getting it right more often these days.

 

[Nollaig O Muracu]

You're deflecting as much as Carra did on the pitch in his prime

tbh I'd imagine Klopp has a lower net spend than far more than 5 or 6 clubs during his tenure, but that's not really the point he was making.

I assume he was commenting on the relative cost to assemble the Liverpool XI who finished the game, and won, relative to the Chelsea XI...no?

Fergie reportedly had a positive net spend from 2005 to 2013 (seen it in a few places, not going to check). But most of that was down to the Ronaldo money in 2009.

He still spent plenty of money, and Utd bought players for very tidy sums. It's what big clubs do. When the current era at Liverpool ends, their net spend will go back to what it was in the 90s and 2000s as they try to get back into the top echelons.

Net spend is meaningless imo.

 

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

Adjusted for inflation Fergie spent £3.5 billion on transfers, stunning considering a lot of 'the' team came through the youth system.

That's some inflation. You need to link your workings.
If you take the figure of 570m that he spent and adjust it for inflation(using a basic inflation calculator) from 2000 to 2024 it comes in at 1.2 billion. Now considering he didn't spend all that money in 2000, it will most likely be less. Still a ridic amount though.

 

[Handy Run]

Net spend is meaningless imo.

Oh cunt rare mon Amy.

A low net spend, spent well, leaves a club in a very flexible and healthy position

 

[Corkonian1]

Nollaig

What period defines the current era, do you mean the Klopp era? Granted the new manager will be a huge factor in any 'echelons' reached but a young team and kids winning trophies augurs well for the future. I posted here before the state Liverpool are in when Klopp leaves is key and part of how he should be judged as a manager, the re-build and the jig-saw have shown Klopp once again has done a great job. Fergie fell down in this regard. Liverpool will be in a good place after Klopp and then it's up to the new guy.

 

[Philby]

That's some inflation. You need to link your workings.
If you take the figure of 570m that he spent and adjust it for inflation(using a basic inflation calculator) from 2000 to 2024 it comes in at 1.2 billion. Now considering he didn't spend all that money in 2000, it will most likely be less. Still a ridic amount though.

There's basic inflation but there's also transfer price inflation (...which far outstrips actual inflation).

For example, if you're after a midfielder in his early/mid 20s who can slot straight into a side with ambitions for CL semis and beyond you'd be paying £80m+

Deflate that amount, via basic inflation, to mid-90s level and you have an amount far bigger than the going rate for such a player in the era.

Any multi-decade analysis which doesn't factor in transfer price inflation (driven by the increasing revenues in the game) is beyond pointless.

 

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

There's basic inflation but there's also transfer price inflation (...which far outstrips actual inflation).

For example, if you're after a midfielder in his early/mid 20s who can slot straight into a side with ambitions for CL semis and beyond you'd be paying £80m+

Deflate that amount, via basic inflation, to mid-90s level and you have an amount far bigger than the going rate for such a player in the era.

Any multi-decade analysis which doesn't factor in transfer price inflation (driven by the increasing revenues in the game) is beyond pointless.

But he said...

Adjusted for inflation Fergie spent £3.5 billion on transfers, stunning considering a lot of 'the' team came through the youth system.

 

[Philby]

But he said...

Both of you referred generically to inflation. Neither referred to transfer price inflation.

You referred to the CPI, but the price of bread doesn't correlate too strongly with the price of world class footballers.

I'd like to see the workings behind the 3.5bn figure for Fergie. Feels a bit high, but who knows.

 

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

Both of you referred generically to inflation. Neither referred to transfer price inflation.

Correct, hence my post replying to him with same, as there is inflation figures for calculation.
Transfer inflation is much harder to calculate as you have no data as such just a guesstimate. Say for example, Napoli bought Maradona for what 6 or 7 million back in the 80s, now he would probably be worth 300 mill in today's money but unless someone forks out then it's not a proof for a calculation. Now factor in the Saudi's who have inflated transfers fees beyond all recognition.

 

[Philby]

Correct, hence my post replying to him with same, as there is inflation figures for calculation.
Transfer inflation is much harder to calculate as you have no data as such just a guesstimate. Say for example, Napoli bought Maradona for what 6 or 7 million back in the 80s, now he would probably be worth 300 mill in today's money but unless someone forks out then it's not a proof for a calculation. Now factor in the Saudi's who have inflated transfers fees beyond all recognition.

The best attempt I've seen at comparing spend across decades is Paul Tomkins' approach.

Transfer Records, and Why They Mata - The Tomkins Times

tomkinstimes.com