What Joe Cole's Signing Really Tells Us About Liverpool's Ambitions

Joe Cole has been greeted on Anfield in a manner more befitting of the second coming of the Messiah then the arrival of an out of contract, injury prone footballer.

Everyone connected with the club from captain Steven Gerrard to manager Roy Hodgson has been anxious to overstate the significance of Cole's signing.

While snapping up a player on Cole's calibre for next to nothing might appear a good bit of business on Hodgson's behalf it does not necessarily signal the start of an exciting new Anfield era. Cole was only available because Chelsea decided not to retain his services, had the champions elected to offer him a new contract he would probably have signed it.

Cole has put in a handful of excellent campaigns in Chelsea colours, notably in 2007/08 when he claimed 10 goals and was named the club's player of the season and in 2005/06 when he hit the net 11 times and was named in the PFA team of the year.

However Cole has only really excelled in three of his seven campaigns at Chelsea. Injuries have played their part but five goals from his final two seasons at the club is not a particularly impressive return. Cole has suggested that he was not released for footballing reasons but his injury record may well have played a part in Chelsea's decision to remove him from the wage bill.

Another thing which those connected to Liverpool are eager to overlook is that Chelsea were able to replace the unwanted Cole with none other than under contract Liverpool midfielder Yossi Benayoun. Effectively Liverpool have swapped a player Chelsea did want, Benayoun, for a player Chelsea didn't want, Cole. The fact that they received £5.5 million should be scant consolation for Liverpool fans as a large proportion of this sum will probably have been used to lure Cole to Anfield.

The term free transfer is actually a little misleading. While Liverpool did not have to pay a fee to Chelsea for the services of Cole his status as a free agent would have been reflected in his salary demands and signing on fees. It is quite possible that Cole will ultimately cost Liverpool more than Benayoun will cost Chelsea.

Benayoun averaged ten goals a season in the three years at Liverpool and has never missed more than ten Premiership games in a season in his five years in England. Cole, by contrast, missed ten Premiership games or more in four of his seven seasons at Chelsea.

In an increasingly competitive Premiership players who have failed to live up to expectations for whatever reason will often be moved on. This was the case with Eduardo's recent departure from Arsenal and with Chelsea's decision to release Michael Ballack and Deco. The elite teams in the Premiership cannot afford to have inconsistent or injury hit players either in their increasingly restricted squads or on their rapidly expanding wage bills.

The top team will almost never sanction the departure of an under contract first team regular unless there are extenuating circumstances. If a club is prepared to offer an exorbitant transfer fee, such as the one which saw Kolo Toure and Emmanuel Adebayor swap Arsenal for Manchester City, a deal might be done. Also if a player's contract is expiring and a club risks losing him for nothing they might be more willing to sell. Gareth Barry's move from Aston Villa to Manchester City and Ashley Cole's move from Arsenal to Chelsea both ocurred under these circumstances.

It is almost unheard of for a first team Premiership player under a long term contract to move from one big club to another for a moderate transfer fee. Benayoun's contract does not expire until 2013 and in today's transfer market the £5.5 million which Liverpool received from Chelsea is a pittance. Benayoun's departure sends the signal that Liverpool have now become a selling club who will be forced to cash in on their most marketable assets while shopping for bargains to replace them.

The piece of Premiership business which saw in form Benayoun swap Anfield for Stamford Bridge and out of contract Joe Cole move in the opposite direction sets a worrying precedent for Liverpool. While rival clubs are systematically improving their first teams, often with extensive investment, Liverpool's is being slowly depleted.