Matthew also kindly suggests that the Liverpool manager should turn to some more imaginative excuses, because The Times sports correspondant feels with this piece he has vindicated the bemoans of Benitez, and quashed this apparent myth created by the Spaniard that Chelsea, Manchester United, and Manchester City can outspend Liverpool, if they choose to.
•"Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez bemoaned his side’s lack of financial power".
...compared to richer clubs. Which can not really be argued with considering Chelsea, whether they choose to spend or not, have proven with a £212m outlay in player transfers in two seasons alone.
The same can now be said for Manchester City and their astronomical transfer budget that produced £181m in three seasons, thanks to outside investment into Eastlands, not including a number of very well paid players.
Benitez is not trying to play the pauper who has no money whatsoever, as some hacks and rival fans like to dress it up as.
His issue is simple; that he does not have the financial power utilised by the teams Liverpool are expected to beat to the Premier League title. He has a limited transfer budget, relatively small in comparison to teams like City and Chelsea.
•"Benitez wasted no time in splashing the cash on his arrival on Merseyside."
What else was he going to do? wait a season or two first? you make it sound like Benitez is a money grabbing prostitute who has just been picked up by a dashing millionaire and then given his credit card to buy some new clothes.
•"In his first season at the club his net spending totalled £31m, including £20m on the misfiring strike partnership of Djibril Cisse and Fernando Morientes".
It was actually Gerard Houllier and Rick Parry who sanctioned and purchased Djibril Cisse for £14m. The ink on the contract happened to dry just after Houllier left the club and the current manager took control of the reigns.
Therefore, Benitez' actual first season net spend, with the correct transfer fees used, was a profit of £19.15m (spent £27.25m, recouped £46.4m) and he only sanctioned £6.5m of the £20.3m misfiring strike force, Matthew speaks of.
The Liverpool boss signed a world-renowned, experienced and proven goal scorer that, at the time, a great many neutrals and experts considered a coup at just over £6million.
Much like Diego Forlan and Andriy Shevchenko being considered potential success' in England, before both players failing in their quest for greatness in the Premier League, and both coming at a loss greater than that of Fernando Morientes.
Agreed, Morientes certainly didn't work out for the club, but hindsight is a shallow way to attack a manger for putting his faith in a good bet.
To also highlight a manager's net spend after his first transfer window should be considered a little unjust. If there is considerable work to be done in the overhauling of the squad, as there was with the 2003-04 group of players, then there will undoubtedly be a large outlay, if the budget allows for it.
As to the actual transfer fees payed for the players Rafa bought in 2004; and taking in to account the small oversight with Djibril Cisse resulting in an extra £14m being added to Rafa's spend total; it is £27.45m spent on seven players in his first transfer window, and £28.6m recouped from the sale of those initial transfers.
The transfers of players sold in that window that where bought by Houllier, should have no bearing on Rafael Benitez as a manager in the transfer market. If the net spend argument is going to be used, it at least needs to be realistic.
People basing this argument on players that Rafa has bought (as well as a player worth £14m who he didn't), against players sold (Owen, Murphy, Henchoz, and Babbel) that where nothing to do with Benitez in the first place, are simply missing the true picture.
Benitez can not be judged for making a loss on the original transfer fees of players bought by other managers; as he did not agree to either the transfer of the player, or the sort of fee that should be initialy outlayed for them.
Therefore, the net spend argument does not paint an accurate picture of Benitez in the transfer market, especially when it is compared to the net spend of other managers operating in the same 2004-09 parameters, using only players they have bought and sold themselves.
•"At the same time, Ferguson was making an upfront payment, also of £20m, for Wayne Rooney, who has since confirmed that he was, and still is, the brightest prospect in English football".
Well, in reality, the transfer fee agreed for Wayne Rooney was still £27m (or the same amount Rafa spent on his first seven players), regaurdless of the payment scheme, and is still more expensive than any player that Liverpool has purchased in the last five seasons.
If the term "making an upfront payment of..." is going to be used, then surely the same can be said for Benitez and any "upfront payment", of whatever amount, for whatever player he purchases.
When people highlight Robbie Keane as a marker to Benitez in the transfer market, they will quote the £19m that was agreed between the two clubs.
Yet, when they compare that £19m to the £12m Liverpool initialy got in return for Keane in January, the same people will fail to mention that the £12m is the "initial payment" by Spurs, and the full transfer fee, with all contract triggers achieved, will end in the original £19m that Liverpool payed to Tottenham initially.
As Matthew demonstrates in his interpritation of the transfer fees.
Also worth a mention, I guess, would be that Wayne Rooney was purchased to play alongside the free scoring striker, Ruud Van Nistelrooy. Whilst Liverpool's highest goal scorer in previous seasons, Michael Owen, wanted to leave the club at the start of Rafa's first season in charge, to adapt his game and experience football on the continent, despite Benitez asking him to stay.
The Red's manager did not have the immediate luxery of spending £27m on a player to add to a team already boasting an established leading Premier League goal scorer, like the example in the article using Alex Ferguson's purchase of the young striker Wayne Rooney, with Van Nistelrooy already performing for the United frontline.
The Liverpool manager had to use his alloted transfer kitty to seriously strengthen in several key areas across the first team, reserve team, and youth line-ups. 2004 was the start of a longterm, rebuilding program at his new club. Something that had long already been started at United, Chelsea, and Arsenal, when Benitez arrived on Merseyside.
This transfer budget juggling required of Benitez resulted in the shrewd purchase of a £10.5m relatively unknown from Spain, who was later sold on for a healthy £20m profit.
•"With Roman Abramovich a year into his Chelsea spending spree at the time of Benitez’s arrival..."
This was a spending spree that witnessed £153m in one year being outlayed on some of the best footballers the game has to offer. The Russian Billionaire's largest contribution in one sitting was before Rafa had even joined the club, and by the close of the Liverpool manager's first transfer window, the figure for the Stamford Bridge Owner had reached £212m.
A large percentage of Rafa's total spend in five years, being spent by Chelsea in just two Premier League seasons.
That transfer spending bonanza and sickening wage bill is still holding strong, and that well built, and quickly constructed Chelsea team is still pretty much together some five years later, adding to the dificult task of winning the league during the Benitez' reign.
No acknowledgement to the severity that Abramovich "spending spree" had on inflating the Premier League transfer fees and player wage demands in Rafa's first crack at the English Market.
Although, Benitez still managed to uncover a potential England goalkeeper for £750,000, before squeezing £5m to pump back in to the kitty, from loans and the transfer fee to another club.
•"...only the West London club could match the Spaniard’s outlay".
They more than matched the Spaniard's outlay in 2004; they doubled the £27m he used on seven players in his first season, with room to spend a little more, as Chelsea's transfer budget finished at around the £59m mark.
This was the same season that Manchester United spent £27m on one player, Wayne Rooney, who was added to a squad that had £59m spent on new faces the season prior to Benitez' arrival at Anfield, and a further £89m over the two seasons before that.
A grand total of £148m in three seasons at Old Trafford before Rafa's appointment, and £175m by the time the 2004 window had closed.
A group of players that included a £13m loss on Juan Veron who was purchased for £28m; a £5m loss on the highly rated Diego Forlan, who couldn't flourish under Ferguson. A £3.5m loss on the £6m Kleberson after struggling through just 30 games for the club, despite being hailed by Ferguson as the successor to Veron.
The £175m Old Trafford kitty also saw the £2m loss on Djemba-Djemba, who was aquired for £3.5m and touted with the potential of replacing Roy Keane, but was sold after even less games than Kleberson.
When Rafa came to power in 2004, United had now pumped £175m in to the first team, which contained the £30m Ferdinand, £19m Van Nistelrooy, and £27m for the 19 year old Wayne Rooney.
However, praise must go to the United manager for the £6.5m made from the £200,000 spent on Giusseppe Rossi, and the £6m for doing absolutly nothing selling Obi Mikel to Chelsea for three times the price United had originally agreed to pay for his services.
Not to mention making £25m on David Beckham, who was brought through the United youth ranks, and an obscene £68m profit on Cristiano Ronaldo, over six seasons of patience.
These large transfer fees, whilst equating to brilliant business acumen by Ferguson in some areas, also cover up the many first team and reserve players that have been released with no money recouped on their original fee, or sold at a loss.
•"Their [Chelsea] most expensive signing that summer was the £24m for Didier Drogba, but his 102nd goal for the club against Blackburn yesterday suggests much better value for money than the £6.3m Benitez paid for Morientes, who managed just 12 goals throughout his Liverpool career".
There is no doubt the comparison of Drogba and Morientes will result in better value for money for the Chelsea signing, considering Drogba has had five seasons in England compared to Morientes' one campaign at Anfield.
Hardly a fair parameter to base a thinly veiled suggestion about Rafa's inability in the market.
•"While Benitez was spending £41m on eight players in that first season, none of whom are still at the club...".
Well, as we now know, it was £27m on seven players in his first season, and whilst they may no longer be at the club, they still returned a £19m profit.
The season before the arrival of Benitez, the United manager had spent around £53m on 10 players, of which none are currently with the club. Chelsea put up £153m on 17 players, of which only two are still playing at Stamford Bridge.
It has also been five years since Rafa's first transfer window in 2004.
It is highly unlikely that many of the players would still be at the club, especially considering Morientes would now be 33, and that Carson was going to struggle to force one of the best keepers in the league from the Liverpool teamsheet and been content fighting for an England call-up whilst warming the bench for Liverpool.
The Argentinian, Pellegrino was 33 when signed in 2004 and was only offered a six month contract, brought in simply to aid the transition of the new defensive system, which became one of the most effective in the league over the coming seasons.
There should be no suprise that Nunez and Josemi where ever going to be more than what they were bought for; stop gap, stepping-stone transfers used for short term advantages, not long term plans like many of Benitez' key signings have been.
•"While Benitez was spending £41m on eight players in that first season, none of whom are still at the club, Arsene Wenger was splashing out £2m on four players, two of whom, Manuel Almunia and Emmanuel Eboue, have become crucial members of the Arsenal side, while a third, Vito Mannone has burst on to the scene this season".
So whilst Benitez was making a profit from the players he purchased in 2004; Arsene Wenger bought a youth player that has only just broken through on to the scene this season? Some five years later?
Benitez has done that with Insua and El Zhar in a far quicker time scale, but hold on, Vito Mannnone was signed by Wenger in the summer of 2005, Wasn't he?
Not only is it being loosly suggested that Benitez is incapable of doing what Wenger can do (even though he is, just not in the selective timeframe that's been chosen to base the accusations on), it seems that the player that's being used as an example to back up the misleading suggestion, wasn't actually signed "While Benitez was spending £41m on eight players in that first season".
•"In fact, since June 2004, Wenger has earned his club £27m from his transfer dealings and has spent £154m less than Benitez".
There is certainly no argument from me that Wenger has a gift for spotting great talent at an early age, and developing a player for a large, long-term profit.
Fabregas was signed for free and is worth a considerable amount now, aswell as huge profits on Anelka (£21.5m), Overmars (£18m), Toure (£15.5m) and Adebayour (£18m).
However, Arsene Wenger has had the benefit of time and being at his club for a great many years, with control over scouting and development, shaped to just how he would want it to be.
Arsene Wenger did not start the rebuilding of his club in 2004. Rafa Benitez did, and he has also made a £25m profit on his own signings during that sectioned period of time.
It is also interesting to note that Liverpool trailed the Premier League title holders, Arsenal, by 30 points in 2003-04, and managed a 44 point swing to 14 points ahead of them last season.
•"While in the six months before Bentiez’s appointment, Ferguson spent £26.7m on Louis Saha, Alan Smith and Gabriel Heinze..."
Conveniantly failing to add the other £26.4m spent on players during the window before Benitez' arrival, or the money wasted on players like Djemba-Djemba, Bellion, Dong, Kleberson, and Miller.
Louis Saha, Alan Smith, and Gabriel Hienze are also no longer at Manchester United.
•"...he was at least dipping into a £40m war chest funded by the sales of David Beckham to Real Madrid for £25m and Juan Sebastian Veron to Chelsea for £15m".
From the 11 players sold in 2003-04, two players generated £40m; £25m from one developed youth player, and £15m return on a player recently bought for £28m.
There was also nine other Alex Ferguson signings sold on before the arrival of the new Liverpool manager in the summer of 2004. Those nine other players generated a couple thousand pounds in profit, if that, but also included Fabien Barthez, at another heavy loss of £7.8m.
•"Even taking Ferguson’s pre-Benitez spending into account, the Liverpool boss still comfortably outspends the Scot".
What exactly is the parameter for Ferguson's "pre-Benitez spending"? Does that mean everything he has spent since 1986? Would that then include the many years of spending twice as much on transfer fees as anyone else in the league and still finishing way off the pace, until he finally figured out how to win the league?
A mere seven years after taking over the Old Trafford hot seat.
It is an easy trick to pull when attacking Benitez on his total transfer spend since 2004 compared to the rest of the Top Four, ignoring what United and Chelsea already had in terms of quality players and money spent on them when Benitez arrived in 2004, and what the Liverpool manager had in comparison to work with?
•"In conclusion, he could only have been referring to Chelsea when he said on the eve of this season that: “It is always difficult to compete in the Premier League with clubs who have more money..."
So Rafa could have only been referring to Chelsea when he referenced clubs who have more money to invest in transfers (in general, and not just the money spent over the last five seasons?)
Not Manchester City? or Manchester United?
If the comments from Benitez came "on the eve of this season", why have the transfers after that comment been added to the list on the article? Was that to include the £66m swing in favour of Ferguson, in regaurds to the net spend argument?
•"...And even then, Benitez’s net spending over the last five transfer windows eclipses even that of Abramovich".
It conveniantly ignores the point that Chelsea where adding significant purchases (£24m, £19m, £8m) to a squad that already had £153m spent on it the season before Benitez had arrived on Merseyside.
Using the same warped logic the author throws at the Liverpool manager earlier in the article; the london club amassed £153.4m of outgoing transfers, and their net spend for that season was minus £153.1m,.
Bringing just £100,000 in player sales from the 10 transfers away from Stamford Bridge.
That little spree included transfer fees such as £17m, £16.8m, £16.6m, £15.8m, £15m, £13.2m, £12m, £10m, and a handful of £6-7m players.
Of course the second season with Benitez at Anfield saw Chelsea notch up another £111m in player transfers in to Stamford Bridge. This time adding a set of players valued by Chelsea at £30m, £24m, £21m, £16m, and £8m on two occasions.
Liverpool are bound to have a higher net spend over the past five seasons if Chelsea and Manchester United had already significantly added to their core players prior to Benitez' entery in to the English Transfer system.
Give Rafa Benitez £153m in one transfer window without the need to sell players to fund the spending spree, and things might actually be a little fairer to compare.
The 2004-09 timeframe that "experts" use to beat Rafa with conveniantly ignores the reality of the situation.
Thanks must go to Matthew Feason for his great piece of investigative journalism that gets right to the core of reality, and provides the readers with a true representation of a serious issue that involves a person's job, career, and his family's future.
It would be classed as libel (slander/defamation) in any other real world situation.
UPDATE: Interesting to note that a link to this article was placed in the comment thread of Matthew Fearon's masterpeice of fictional journalism, only for it to be removed.
(This Article Was Originally written on 26/10/09 for Bleacher Report)