Summer 2018 Transfer Thread

[Boss]

To give a serious answer, Transfermarkt is a great resource, but they list the transfer fees for all players in all the big leagues, and a lot of the smaller ones. They get the transfer fees from the press reports, but I doubt they put a lot of scrutiny into it.

 

Also, they convert all transfer fees into Euros at the time of the transfer, but I believe they then convert it back into Sterling at the current exchange rate, that's why the individual transfers go to decimal points.

 

LFCHistory is by far the best source for our transfer fees, but even they are missing info and rely on the press. 

 

Okay, i'm perfectly happy to use LFC History then. As you say they get some of their info from the press, so they'll be some disparity there, but it won't be vast. 

 

2016 / 2017

 

Spent - 63.9m

Received - 85.75m

[The Woolster]

If you look into it in our accounts, there are 2 ways of looking at transfer fees, the balance sheet value way, which is akin to the way most think about transfers fees, and the cash spent and received on transfers.
 
Looking at it he balance sheet way we had player additions of £76.3m, and sales of £72.6m, so a net spend of £3.6m.
 
I've got the details at work, but over the past 5 seasons (excluding the season just gone) by this method, we've spent on average £43m ish from the top of my head.
 

My preferred way is to look at the cash spent and received though as this includes the cost of doing transfers, mainly agent fees, but also legal fees, perhaps signing on fees too. The disadvantage is that it also includes the cash flows from transfers in previous seasons, as fee payments are usually spread out, but I'm pretty sure it is how football clubs will look at things. 
 
For 2016/17 we spent £97.2m on transfers, and received £58.4m, so a net cash spend of £38.8m. We spent £13.8m on agent fees that season, which accounts for over half the difference between balance sheet additions of £76.3m and the cash spend of £97.2m, so the rest might be payments agreed from previous seasons, and possibly signing on fee for Matip (that might go into wages though, I'm not sure).

 

Over the 5 seasons to 2017, the average is something like £46m spent.

 

Accounts can be found here if of interest to anyone 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00035668/filing-history

[The Woolster]

 

Ahh, Sky Sports, bastion of the truth...

[The Woolster]

Okay, i'm perfectly happy to use LFC History then. As you say they get some of their info from the press, so they'll be some disparity there, but it won't be vast. 

 

2016 / 2017

 

Spent - 63.9m

Received - 85.75m

 

The best, but still not correct...

 

In the received you have included all of the potential add-ons, which amount to £13.7m, which I think are probably unlikely to have been paid in most cases anyways (although you missed £4.5m that come under the 'free' sales), compared to £2m of add-ons from what we've bought. I've seen the Mane deal mentioned in the press as more like £34m as well for instance. Also this does not take into account anything that we paid to get Matip for 'free'.

 

And, as mentioned, no agent fees. 

[Moo]

Ahh, Sky Sports, bastion of the truth...

I'm sure every club pays agent's fees and signing on fees so the table showing where we are in comparison to other clubs is probably quite accurate, and that is a concern. I know you're looking at the LFC accounts in isolation and responding to those who say we don't spend what we earn, but as a supporter (are you?) are you honestly saying you're happy with where we are in that table and feel there's no need to question it at all?

[Anubis]

I don't care about the accounts. They haven't invested nearly enough into the team in the past at crucial times. Now is their chance to do so.

[TheHowieLama]

Now is their chance to do so. I and I

 

 

[Moo]

I don't care about the accounts. They haven't invested nearly enough into the team in the past at crucial times. Now is their chance to do so.

They won't and at some point this summer the mantra will be "it's Klopp's choice".

Twelve times bitten and twice shy.

[3 Stacks]

They won't and at some point this summer the mantra will be "it's Klopp's choice".

Twelve times bitten and twice shy.

 

Klopp's gotten the players he's wanted, including a top class forward in Salah, and the CB and midfielder he's coveted in VVD and Keita. We're in the Champions League final and have already qualified for next year's tournament, making us an attractive proposition which will likely mean Klopp will get the players he wants once more.

 

So what does it matter if an arbitrary number of pounds isn't spent? The important thing is that Klopp gets who he wants and he most likely will, so I don't get the point. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Barcelona based radio station Rac1 are claiming that Barcelona have been contacting clubs across Europe to inform them that they are willing to listen to offers for Dembele.

[TheHowieLama]

If I were them and it was Dembele out and Griezmann in - I would to.

[J-V]

How much did the shitbags originally offer for Coutinho £60m/£70m? Offer them that.

[Guest Alex_K]

Ahh, Sky Sports, bastion of the truth...

A sensible response to that table from an arch optimist or one seeking to defend the ownership would be to say it is distorted by the Coutinho fee, which has not been spent (presuming therefore it will be spent in its entireity this summer). To suggest it is part of Sky Sports agenda or bias, that I don't understand ..

 

I can't wait to go to Kiev next week; I think Klopp's the best manager in the world; I think we have possibly the best team in decades (though 08/09 was immense ..). That said, I'm all too aware that FSG have sought the fattest possible returns (whether in the short term, or when they cash out at $1 bn. +) for the absolute bare minimum. Whether that means riding a season with an attacking bench of Danny Ings & Dom Solanke or creating a patchwork stadium developed at a slug's pace (cannily sold on Anfield-sentiment) while sides like Chelsea & Spurs invest hugely in infrastracture, its all the same to me. Very little seperates them from the previous cowboys in what they've put into this club -- other than the absence of a financial crash.

 

Maybe this summer will be THE summer where we finally create a squad worthy of a powerhouse in Europe, rather than being the BVB of England. But why a Liverpool fan would sit and engage in an exercise of justifying the ownerships' funding of the club so far now .. its confusing to me.

[The Woolster]

I'm sure every club pays agent's fees and signing on fees so the table showing where we are in comparison to other clubs is probably quite accurate, and that is a concern. I know you're looking at the LFC accounts in isolation and responding to those who say we don't spend what we earn, but as a supporter (are you?) are you honestly saying you're happy with where we are in that table and feel there's no need to question it at all?

 

Unfortunately the agent fees table is one we have topped on a number of occasions, something like 4 or 5 times in the last 6 years or so.

 

As I know that they get our transfer spending wrong, why would I put any faith in what they say about other teams? Why do you believe it?

 

My guess is that these 'figures' also include the Coutinho fee, which will have a big effect, and we've had little time to spend it.

 

Also, during that period we've spent £150m or so on the redevelopment of the Main Stand, funds are finite, it will have had an effect on how much we had to spend. The only other cub to spend significantly on their stadium is Spurs, who funnily enough are the team above us...

 

I honestly don't give a shit where we are in that table, what's far more important is how the money is spent. Everton are 4th in that table, what has it done for them? I've also argued for a few years on here that I would not mind us having a few windows of low spend as I think it massively increases the chances that the ARE gets redeveloped, which I think is more important over the medium to long term, so no, not bothered.

 

Interested to hear why you ask if I am a fan? Are fans not allowed to say that we actually have spent money on transfers or something?

[WhiskeyJar]

Arsenal have their sights on completing their transfer business in a £75-million spree before their new manager has been confirmed.

 

The Gunners are reportedly closing in on the signatures of defenders Sokraits Papasthathopolous of Borussia Dortmund and Freiburg’s Caglar Soyuncu as well as Bayer Leverkusen goalkeeper Bernd Leno.

 

The club’s head of recruitment Sven Mislintat has free rein to push through these deals as a replacement for Arsene Wenger has not been found.

 

And that could suggest former Gunners player Mikel Arteta could be appointed the new manager instead of a more established boss such as Max Allegri.

 

Mislintat is aware of all three targets from his time as Dortmund’s chief scout and he actually signed Papasthathopoulos from Werder Bremen in 2013 and believes the Greece international would be perfect for the Premier League.

 

The defender, 29, is expected to cost about £15million as he only has a year left on his contract with Dortmund, and is not expected to sign a new deal.

 

Soyuncu, 21, is reportedly on Manchester City and Roma’s radar but it is understood Arsenal are leading the way for the Turkish international.

 

The youngster cost Freiburg just £2million when he signed in May 2016, but he is now valued at around £35million by the German club.

 

The Gunners have reportedly been monitoring Leno for months as they look to find a long-term replacement for Petr Cech.

 

It is thought the club would like to get all three deals finalised for the first day of the transfer window on June 1, however, official announcements may not happen until a new manager has been confirmed.

 

The north London club is in need of a shake-up at the back having lost 18 games and conceding 69 goals in the 2017/18 campaign.

 

They will also have to find someone to step in for Laurent Koscielny, who was ruled out for six months after sustaining a nasty Achilles injury in Arsenal’s Europa League semi-final defeat against Atletico Madrid.

 

And should they sign Papasthopolous and Soyuncu, Arsenal will apparently be ready to listen to offers for Shkodran Mustafi, who has failed to live up to his £35million price tag after signing the German from Valencia.

[amli]

How much did the shitbags originally offer for Coutinho £60m/£70m? Offer them that.

And get Salah, Firmino, Van Dijk and Milner out in the press every day spouting about Dembele having Liverpool DNA in his blood.

[The Woolster]

A sensible response to that table from an arch optimist or one seeking to defend the ownership would be to say it is distorted by the Coutinho fee, which has not been spent (presuming therefore it will be spent in its entireity this summer). To suggest it is part of Sky Sports agenda or bias, that I don't understand ..

 

I can't wait to go to Kiev next week; I think Klopp's the best manager in the world; I think we have possibly the best team in decades (though 08/09 was immense ..). That said, I'm all too aware that FSG have sought the fattest possible returns (whether in the short term, or when they cash out at $1 bn. +) for the absolute bare minimum. Whether that means riding a season with an attacking bench of Danny Ings & Dom Solanke or creating a patchwork stadium developed at a slug's pace (cannily sold on Anfield-sentiment) while sides like Chelsea & Spurs invest hugely in infrastracture, its all the same to me. Very little seperates them from the previous cowboys in what they've put into this club -- other than the absence of a financial crash.

 

Maybe this summer will be THE summer where we finally create a squad worthy of a powerhouse in Europe, rather than being the BVB of England. But why a Liverpool fan would sit and engage in an exercise of justifying the ownerships' funding of the club so far now .. its confusing to me.

 

I'm not saying that Sky are biased or have agenda, I'm saying that they are massive bullshitters, don't have a clue, and don't care if they get things right or wrong.

 

And I get engaged in this exercise because when I see it stated that we have a negative transfer spend, I know it to be very wrong. I don't care if people like or dislike FSG, and there are valid reasons to have issues with them, so there's no need to use bullshit about what we spend.

 

And congrats on getting a ticket (presuming you're not going without)!  

[Boss]

The best, but still not correct...

 

In the received you have included all of the potential add-ons, which amount to £13.7m, which I think are probably unlikely to have been paid in most cases anyways (although you missed £4.5m that come under the 'free' sales), compared to £2m of add-ons from what we've bought. I've seen the Mane deal mentioned in the press as more like £34m as well for instance. Also this does not take into account anything that we paid to get Matip for 'free'.

 

And, as mentioned, no agent fees. 

 

The add-on's have been included on both sides (spent and received). The compensation fees for the free transfers cover £4.5m. So that covers the extra £4m for Mane in the event his transfer was £34m. it's still a negative net spend - unless Matip received a £20m signing on bonus, which is impossible.  

 

By your own estimation £43m has been spent in 5 years. That's £8.6m a year. United spent £155m net just this season - if you account for transfer fees and agent fees. That's not even getting into the insane wages they pay or the £20m signing on fee for Sanchez or anything else. £8.6m net per season is not good enough.

[The Woolster]

£43m on average, as in per year, or £219m in total. £230m+ in cash terms

[sir roger]

I accept that there will be additional costs , transfer fees may be slightly skewed and that the January 2018 ins/outs may not be in the accounts you are working off , but I am very dubious that the SSN & LFC History figures are incorrect by an average of £40m per season over the last 5 years.

[The Woolster]

Don't think anyone has totted up the 5 years of LFC History figures to compare yet, and the 5 years of accounts is 2012/13 to 2016/17, the Sky numbers are 2014 to now I think, so not like for like.

 

The numbers I use come from our accounts, prepared by people who know the exact amounts that come in and out, and independently audited.

[The Woolster]

The add-on's have been included on both sides (spent and received). The compensation fees for the free transfers cover £4.5m. So that covers the extra £4m for Mane in the event his transfer was £34m. it's still a negative net spend - unless Matip received a £20m signing on bonus, which is impossible.

 

By your own estimation £43m has been spent in 5 years. That's £8.6m a year. United spent £155m net just this season - if you account for transfer fees and agent fees. That's not even getting into the insane wages they pay or the £20m signing on fee for Sanchez or anything else. £8.6m net per season is not good enough.

Oh, and my point is the add-ons should not be included for either side. the add-ons are contingent on various things happening, but until they have happened, they are not part of the fee.

 

And the point about Mane possibly being £34m is not balance it out, but to show they might be wrong, and if the Mane fee might be wrong, so might the others

[Grinch]

Arsenal have their sights on completing their transfer business in a £75-million spree before their new manager has been confirmed.

 

The Gunners are reportedly closing in on the signatures of defenders Sokraits Papasthathopolous of Borussia Dortmund and Freiburg’s Caglar Soyuncu as well as Bayer Leverkusen goalkeeper Bernd Leno.

 

The club’s head of recruitment Sven Mislintat has free rein to push through these deals as a replacement for Arsene Wenger has not been found.

 

And that could suggest former Gunners player Mikel Arteta could be appointed the new manager instead of a more established boss such as Max Allegri.

 

Mislintat is aware of all three targets from his time as Dortmund’s chief scout and he actually signed Papasthathopoulos from Werder Bremen in 2013 and believes the Greece international would be perfect for the Premier League.

 

The defender, 29, is expected to cost about £15million as he only has a year left on his contract with Dortmund, and is not expected to sign a new deal.

 

Soyuncu, 21, is reportedly on Manchester City and Roma’s radar but it is understood Arsenal are leading the way for the Turkish international.

 

The youngster cost Freiburg just £2million when he signed in May 2016, but he is now valued at around £35million by the German club.

 

The Gunners have reportedly been monitoring Leno for months as they look to find a long-term replacement for Petr Cech.

 

It is thought the club would like to get all three deals finalised for the first day of the transfer window on June 1, however, official announcements may not happen until a new manager has been confirmed.

 

The north London club is in need of a shake-up at the back having lost 18 games and conceding 69 goals in the 2017/18 campaign.

 

They will also have to find someone to step in for Laurent Koscielny, who was ruled out for six months after sustaining a nasty Achilles injury in Arsenal’s Europa League semi-final defeat against Atletico Madrid.

 

And should they sign Papasthopolous and Soyuncu, Arsenal will apparently be ready to listen to offers for Shkodran Mustafi, who has failed to live up to his £35million price tag after signing the German from Valencia.

 

Wouldn't worry about that, Arsenal will have closer to 7m to spend once these agent fees are factored in.

[Ne Moe Imya]

How much did the shitbags originally offer for Coutinho £60m/£70m? Offer them that.

 

I can't remember exactly, but I think the Coutinho fee is £105m in installments and then another £37m in incentives? And they paid around £60m up front and the other £45m will start to be paid this summer?

 

If so, then they owe us £45m as it stands, with probably somewhere in the vicinity of £25m of incentives which Phil will reach (might not get some of the more ridiculous Balon-D'Or-type ones). I'd tell them we'll cancel all of that and give them £10m for Dembele.

[aRdja]

I can't remember exactly, but I think the Coutinho fee is £105m in installments and then another £37m in incentives? And they paid around £60m up front and the other £45m will start to be paid this summer?

 

If so, then they owe us £45m as it stands, with probably somewhere in the vicinity of £25m of incentives which Phil will reach (might not get some of the more ridiculous Balon-D'Or-type ones). I'd tell them we'll cancel all of that and give them £10m for Dembele.

Didn’t they just sign Dembele last summer? Why would they want to sell him on? He’s meant to be one of the best talents around.