FSG's Transfer Policy - Can Liverpool Afford To Buy A Title Winning Side?

 The January transfer window is now well and truly shut, we've moved on 30 year old Joe Cole and brought in 23 year old Daniel Sturridge and 20 year old Philippe Coutinho. Cole's minimal on pitch contribution and £100,000 weekly wage have been replaced by two players who's combined wage is probably quite close to Cole's alone and have long futures ahead of them. These moves have been typical of our transfer strategy since Fenway Sports Group assumed control of our club just over two years ago.

 We've not been buying established, big name stars at the peak of their powers the way some other clubs can do and have done. Look at Man Utd over recent times, they watched as Leeds paid £18 million for Rio Ferdinand and Spurs paid £12 million for Dimitar Berbatov, and once these players looked like they were top Premier League players at the right stage of their careers they paid around £30 million a piece for them. This is in no way a criticism of how they spend their money, it's an observation on a transfer strategy and it's probably the way we'd all do it if it was within our means. But it isn't. 

 Which all begs the question, can Liverpool actually ever afford to buy a team capable of winning the Premier League title?

 Let's have a look at the side that won the league last season, Manchester City. I've had a look at their starting XI for large parts of the season and seen what it has cost them (incidentally it was interesting to note there wasn't a 'home grown' player in the bunch, every single man had been bought in).

Joe Hart: Shrewsbury to Man City £100,000
Pablo Zabaleta: Espanyol to Man City £6,450,000
Vincent Kompany: Hamburg to Man City £6,000,000
Joleon Lescott: Everton to Man City £22,000,000
Gael Clichy: Arsenal to Man City £7,000,000
Gareth Barry: Aston Villa to Man City £12,000,000
Yaya Toure: Barcelona to Man City £24,000,000
Samir Nasri: Arsenal to Man City £25,000,000
David Silva: Valencia to Man City £25,000,000
Edin Dzeko: Wolfsburg to Man City £27,000,000
Sergio Aguero: Atletico Madrid to Man City £38,000,000

 Total cost = approx £192,550,000

 So that's over £192 million for eleven players. Can Liverpool afford to do that? No. Not a chance. Should Liverpool gamble by spending that much in the hope of landing the title? No. Remember Leeds, don't spend beyond what you can afford or it will come back and get you. 

 Basically Liverpool can't afford to buy a side that can win the Premier League, so why bother turning up as there's no chance we'll ever be competing right at the top ever again.

 Or can we afford it? Take a look at these eleven transfers.

Joe Hart: Shrewsbury to Man City £100,000
Pablo Zabaleta: San Lorenzo to Espanyol £2,500,000
Vincent Kompany: Hamburg to Man City £6,000,000
Joleon Lescott: Wolves to Everton £5,000,000
Gael Clichy: Cannes to Arsenal £0
Gareth Barry: Aston Villa to Man City £12,000,000
Yaya Toure: Metalush Donetsk to Olympiakos £825,000
Samir Nasri: Marseille to Arsenal £12,000,000
David Silva: Valencia to Man City £25,000,000
Edin Dzeko: Zeljeznicar to Teplice £25,000
Sergio Aguero: Independiente to Atletico Madrid £18,000,000

 Total cost = approx £81,450,000

 So that's just under £82 million for a title winning side. That's roughly the fees paid for Carroll, Downing, Henderson, Adam and Enrique. So can Liverpool afford to buy a side that can win the Premier League? Absolutely!

 Before anybody tries to point it out, I know I've somewhat over simplified this whole thing, it's not as easy as just going out and buying the players, putting them in your team and then winning every game. The players need to develop, they need to be at the right point of their career, in fact you need eleven (or more realistically fifteen) players to all be at the right stage of their careers at the same time. Then when all the elements come together you can genuinely put together a title challenge.

 What I'm trying to say in this article is that Liverpool can challenge at the top, but not by buying the finished articles, we have to get the players when they are younger and, more importantly, cheaper. That's why Wesley Sneijder was never an option. He was at a stage in his career that the majority of our squad wasn't, it would have been a lot of money spent on a player who would not peak alongside his team mates, by the time some of them reach their best he will be retired (or playing in China for huge amounts of money). To this end I have to say I'm fully supportive of our transfer policy, though I think the addition of a little more experience if it can be found at a decent price rather than on inflated wages would obviously help.

 Who has been our best player over the last decade? Easy, Steven Gerrard. Without him we almost certainly wouldn't have won any of the trophies we have done this century, which is a scary thought. If he hadn't come through our ranks could we ever have afforded him? Yes, but only if we'd bought him at 18 or 19 years old, which is how we're currently recruiting players and why we're paying out the sums we have done on players like Jordan Henderson, because if they turn out to be what we hope they will be then by the time they reach 22 or 23 they'll be out of our price range.

 There is one big note of caution for clubs adopting this type of recruitment policy though, and it's something that has already happened to us. We had a team containing some of Europe's top talent in Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano, Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard. This quartet would have got into any team in Europe and came very close to winning us the title but never got the chance to try to build on the second place finish they achieved a few seasons back as some of the biggest and wealthiest clubs in the world saw what they could offer and started picking them off.

 Alonso went to Real Madrid. It's a shame we lost him but I've never totally agreed with people saying we shouldn't have chosen to sell him. Real had just bought Kaka and Ronaldo and it was obvious there was a big project going on there and once Alonso found out they wanted him he must have wanted the move himself. And the club got £30 million for a player we paid less than half of that for a few years earlier. The problem with Alonso wasn't selling him, it was trying to replace him with somebody completely inadequate.

 Mascherano went to Barca and Torres left for Chelsea. With all three players we recouped more than we paid, which is another good argument for buying young and one that most club owners just can't ignore. The key to maintaining a challenge is replacing like with like when things are going well. When we sold Alonso we were selling a central midfielder at the peak of his game with a complete range of passing, and we received a fee that reflected this. We should have spent the entire fee on the closest thing to Alonso we could find out there, rather than a young player with promise but a track record more of injuries than of success. It looks like Spurs may soon have a similar issue with Gareth Bale if the reports linking him with Real Madrid are true, a good player brought in young who fulfills his potential before the team fulfills theirs and moves on to somewhere currently enjoying a successful spell rather than staying in the hope of future success where he is.

 We need to continue buying the way we have been, but we should always have a back up list so we know if any member of the squad leaves for any reason we already have the replacement lined up. There's no guarantee that our buying policy will bring the title, but given our resources it's easily our best bet for success.