News24

£7.5m per point for Liverpool

2011-10-05 12:38

London - Liverpool's new owners spent £7.5m for each Premier League point they picked up between last October's purchase of the club and the end of last season, a leading British soccer survey said on Wednesday.

The fourfourtwo.com annual football rich list said the Fenway Sports Group owned by John Henry had paid more than two million pounds more for each point than the world's richest club Manchester City had done since being taken over by Abu Dhabi investors in September 2008.

Liverpool's cash-strapped city rivals Everton, in contrast, spent £48 192.77 per point between Bill Kenwright buying the club in 2004 and the end of last term.

City owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is again the richest person in English football, worth £20 billion, according to the list.

England's Fabio Capello is the richest manager with a personal wealth of £38 million compared to second-placed Manchester United boss Alex Ferguson with £27 million.

David Beckham remains the richest English player with an estate estimated at £135 million.

Reuters

Comments
  • TRUE Red - 2011-10-05 13:27

    and in that period, only 1 team scored more points than us, i.e. Chelsea we bought Suarez for 23m & Andy for 35m = 58m total BUT we sold Torres for 50m & Babel for 6m = 56m total So we actually only spent 2m in total ! LOL at false reporting, but nothing new when it comes to the media & LFC

      GHT - 2011-10-05 13:45

      Does this article state that they spent 7.5mil on players? No it doesn't. It says 7.5mill per point. This article is most likely a ratio on amount spend to buy the club to total points earned. That's why clubs bought a long time ago has a better points to expense ratio. LOL at false reporting? I don't think so. LOL at idiot sounds better.

      GHT - 2011-10-05 13:45

      Does this article state that they spent 7.5mil on players? No it doesn't. It says 7.5mill per point. This article is most likely a ratio on amount spend to buy the club to total points earned. That's why clubs bought a long time ago has a better points to expense ratio. LOL at false reporting? I don't think so. LOL at idiot sounds better.

      TRUE Red - 2011-10-05 13:58

      no dumba$5, it doesn't say so but it gives that impression by doing comparisons ! OBVIOUSLY they would have spent the most because they BOUGHT the whole club, just not player's, but then why compare it to other teams who were not bought in the same season ?

      TRUE Red - 2011-10-05 13:58

      no dumba$5, it doesn't say so but it gives that impression by doing comparisons ! OBVIOUSLY they would have spent the most because they BOUGHT the whole club, just not player's, but then why compare it to other teams who were not bought in the same season ?

      GHT - 2011-10-05 14:12

      Look. In that period, something like 300mil (might be wrong as I can't remember exactly) was spend by by the new owners. Add to that the extra +-200mil they spent on buying players and other expenses, they spent the most by far. This isn't a study to see which club uses it's money most effectively. This was done to see how much each of the owners spent to get a point in the EPL. Liverpool spend 7.5mil per point and Everton 45k. It doesn't matter that other clubs wasn't bought in the same time period because that wasn't the purpose of the study. So next time when you call somebody a dumba$5, make sure you understand the argument you are trying to make. Again. LOL at idiot.

      GHT - 2011-10-05 14:12

      Look. In that period, something like 300mil (might be wrong as I can't remember exactly) was spend by by the new owners. Add to that the extra +-200mil they spent on buying players and other expenses, they spent the most by far. This isn't a study to see which club uses it's money most effectively. This was done to see how much each of the owners spent to get a point in the EPL. Liverpool spend 7.5mil per point and Everton 45k. It doesn't matter that other clubs wasn't bought in the same time period because that wasn't the purpose of the study. So next time when you call somebody a dumba$5, make sure you understand the argument you are trying to make. Again. LOL at idiot.

      TRUE Red - 2011-10-05 14:14

      again, DUMBA$$, you don't comprehend - LFC was the ONLY club that changed ownership during the course of last season, so how can you compare to other clubs, for the SAME period, even they they were bought long ago & obviously collected more points since then versus the initial purchase price ? 200 mil on players ? Try under 50m in total if one takes sales into account. If you can't understand this, and the idea behind the headline, then I truly feel sorry for you. That is all brightspark

      TRUE Red - 2011-10-05 14:14

      again, DUMBA$$, you don't comprehend - LFC was the ONLY club that changed ownership during the course of last season, so how can you compare to other clubs, for the SAME period, even they they were bought long ago & obviously collected more points since then versus the initial purchase price ? 200 mil on players ? Try under 50m in total if one takes sales into account. If you can't understand this, and the idea behind the headline, then I truly feel sorry for you. That is all brightspark

      GHT - 2011-10-05 14:31

      Ok. This is a snapshot in time. When John Henry goes to bed at night. He will know that he payed 7.5mil per point for the entire time that he has owned a EPL club. Same applies to Bill Kenwright with his 45k per point. It doesn't matter how long each of them has owned a club. It's a fact that each of them has payed the respective amounts. By doing this kind of comparison each year over a long period of time it will show you what is the ideal amount to invest to be competitive. Both of these to clubs are at the extreme ends of the pole. Liverpool needs to stop spending for a while so that their points and potential trophies can bring their average down while Everton needs to spend some cash because 45k per point is clearly not helping them in the silverware department. I guess the ideal would be Man U with about 2mil each. You need to understand the purpose of this study, which you clearly can't.

      GHT - 2011-10-05 14:31

      Ok. This is a snapshot in time. When John Henry goes to bed at night. He will know that he payed 7.5mil per point for the entire time that he has owned a EPL club. Same applies to Bill Kenwright with his 45k per point. It doesn't matter how long each of them has owned a club. It's a fact that each of them has payed the respective amounts. By doing this kind of comparison each year over a long period of time it will show you what is the ideal amount to invest to be competitive. Both of these to clubs are at the extreme ends of the pole. Liverpool needs to stop spending for a while so that their points and potential trophies can bring their average down while Everton needs to spend some cash because 45k per point is clearly not helping them in the silverware department. I guess the ideal would be Man U with about 2mil each. You need to understand the purpose of this study, which you clearly can't.

      TRUE Red - 2011-10-05 14:39

      I understand perfectly, but here is what you don't get. Henry has spent 7m per point BECAUSE he has owned the club for a short period ! The longer he owns it, the lower the price per point will be due to more games = more points. Everton were bought in 2004 - how many games / points since then versus the initial cost + spend ? Same with Utd. Let's assume Utd were bought by the Qatari guy's just before the last game of the season for say 800m. They draw the game, earning a point. That means they paid 800m for that point in that season, since change of ownership - how can you then compare it to other teams price per point since ownership in the SAME season ? I can't make this any easier to understand, so that is all

      TRUE Red - 2011-10-05 14:39

      I understand perfectly, but here is what you don't get. Henry has spent 7m per point BECAUSE he has owned the club for a short period ! The longer he owns it, the lower the price per point will be due to more games = more points. Everton were bought in 2004 - how many games / points since then versus the initial cost + spend ? Same with Utd. Let's assume Utd were bought by the Qatari guy's just before the last game of the season for say 800m. They draw the game, earning a point. That means they paid 800m for that point in that season, since change of ownership - how can you then compare it to other teams price per point since ownership in the SAME season ? I can't make this any easier to understand, so that is all

      thundyr - 2011-10-05 20:50

      What exactly was the point of this comparison? Every time Liverpool scores a point in the EPL the cost per point goes down, so does that mean his investment is shown to be increasingly wise? No - it means absolutely nothing. Oh, and obviously Everton pounds per point will be lower because the value of the club is much lower for starters. The current owner is almost certainly more concerned about 30m pound annual losses for the last 5 years than the number of pounds he spent to buy EPL points.

      thundyr - 2011-10-05 20:50

      What exactly was the point of this comparison? Every time Liverpool scores a point in the EPL the cost per point goes down, so does that mean his investment is shown to be increasingly wise? No - it means absolutely nothing. Oh, and obviously Everton pounds per point will be lower because the value of the club is much lower for starters. The current owner is almost certainly more concerned about 30m pound annual losses for the last 5 years than the number of pounds he spent to buy EPL points.

      jabski - 2011-10-06 07:13

      theyre not worh R7 a point

      jabski - 2011-10-06 07:13

      theyre not worh R7 a point

  • Bob - 2011-10-05 13:27

    Stupid comparisons, they are not even using the same time periods, not sure what the point (pardon the pun) of this exercise is.

      Harold - 2011-10-05 15:47

      Bob this is the 1st time that I agree with you and to a certain extent with True Red. Consider this guys - The Reds owners purchased those players on long term contracts and their expenditure should be judged over a longer period. Sometimes surveys can twist reality and this to me seems the case.

      Harold - 2011-10-05 15:47

      Bob this is the 1st time that I agree with you and to a certain extent with True Red. Consider this guys - The Reds owners purchased those players on long term contracts and their expenditure should be judged over a longer period. Sometimes surveys can twist reality and this to me seems the case.

      Bob - 2011-10-05 15:56

      Harold, finally we meet common ground, now do you agree we are gonna give the scum a footballing lesson on the 15th, now don't spoil it by disagreeing with me.

      Bob - 2011-10-05 15:56

      Harold, finally we meet common ground, now do you agree we are gonna give the scum a footballing lesson on the 15th, now don't spoil it by disagreeing with me.

      jabski - 2011-10-06 06:59

      if you do bob it would be worth a lot more than 7.5 mill per point to you, especially seeing as our result is always the first one you look for

      jabski - 2011-10-06 06:59

      if you do bob it would be worth a lot more than 7.5 mill per point to you, especially seeing as our result is always the first one you look for

      Bob - 2011-10-06 08:11

      jabski we would just be continuing our run of home form against the scum when we beat them again.

      Bob - 2011-10-06 08:11

      jabski we would just be continuing our run of home form against the scum when we beat them again.

      jabski - 2011-10-06 08:28

      if losing to you lot means us winning the league again, i would be very happy. one question bob, did you support liverpool or even watch football last time they won the league or were you sat round the braai with a cold castle debating the days rugby results? wannabee

      jabski - 2011-10-06 08:28

      if losing to you lot means us winning the league again, i would be very happy. one question bob, did you support liverpool or even watch football last time they won the league or were you sat round the braai with a cold castle debating the days rugby results? wannabee

      Bob - 2011-10-06 14:31

      jabski, started supporting them in 64 after living in Liverpool for a while, and you the scum ? after they took advantage of the pools troubled last twenty years I guess, I reckon you just another plastic scum supporter, most Chelsea fans are similar, most of em only crawled out of the woodwork once the Russian had bought a load of mercenaries and tried to buy trophies, which to some degree he achieved, as I keep trying to explain to you supporting Liverpool is a whole different game, you are supporting the greatest club the soccer world has ever seen, players actually join Liverpool just for the experience of being a part of the Liverpool experience, hearing their name chanted by the most famous crowd ever "the kop", you just don't know what you missing, nothing comes close to comparing with them.

      Harold - 2011-10-06 14:38

      Bob your form in the last 3 matches read LLW. Your winning streak of 1 will end soon 'cos you can bet SAF will alert the ref to Saurez's antics. After getting away with the elbow to Parker's throat and the red card incident of Rodwell's, he is due for some ill fortune of his own.

      jabski - 2011-10-06 14:51

      fair enough so you actually used to stand on the kop in the old days? before the all seater stadiums? terracing was the only way to watch football as you probably know bob

      A(N)ON - 2011-10-06 15:11

      Hey Bob no fair - when you left Liverpool for the land of milk and honey you raised the average IQ of Analfield and lowered that of our beloved land

      TRUE Red - 2011-10-06 15:12

      actually Harold, it's LWW ;-)

  • huts25 - 2011-10-06 10:38

    This is utterly retarded. If I (hypothetically) bought Man U right now for 1billion and they played one game and got 3 points would it make sense to say I paid a billion for 3 points? Fenway didn't buy Liverpool for half a season, they invested for the long term and statistics like this are meaningless.

  • A(N)ON - 2011-10-06 11:58

    Agree you can manipulate numbers to pretty much convey any message you want to - unfortunately this statistic is useless and tells the reader nothing.

  • YNWA6 - 2011-10-06 14:49

    Here's a good article which looks at Liverpool's spendings in a different, and more correct, manner: http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2011/08/the-great-net-spend-rope-trick-and-more-moneyballs/#.Tly6JBGSR8M.twitter

  • Elli - 2011-10-06 15:10

    www.liverpoolfc.co.za

  • pages:
  • 1