Summer 2020 Transfer Thread

[3 Stacks]

19 minutes ago, Horus said:

And this is when the circle comes back around. Werner wanted us, he would have accepted a wage in line with what we pay, so I don't think the massive wages he gets at chelsea are relevant, because that's what it cost them for him to go there. I think Covid gave FSG the easy out to say no.

 

I mean, you can't possibly know that, but alright. Unless with your eye avatar, you're an all-seeing itk. 

[dockers_strike]

1 minute ago, Horus said:

The club was sold with a commitment to 60k. I specifically remembered because they negotiated that down from a new stadium. I'm actually glad they did that for 2 reasons; one because it's Anfield, and two, because we'd need to sell players every year to even survive if we extrapolate our current transfer approach out. 

No, it really wasnt sold with any condition on ground capacity. Increasing ground capacity was an owner aspiration.

[Horus]

Just now, 3 Stacks said:

I mean you can't possibly know that, but alright. Unless with your eye avatar, you're an all-seeing itk. 

You're right, it is an unknowable, but I think it's an assumption I feel comfortable making. i do admit though, I could be completely wrong, but I think it's fair to suggest all those times flitting his eye lashes at us, his agent would have known exactly what he could expect here, unless of course we're the only club in the world who deals with clubs rather than players and agents.

[Barrington Womble]

3 minutes ago, Horus said:

This is exactly it. If we're skint now when our competitors aren't, when will we ever have cash?

 

 

We were told when they first arrived, it wasn't because there was no money, it was because we couldn't attract the players without European football. They we get in the CL and there was all manner of excuses why we weren't buying, but we were assured we'd see it in the next window, we were keeping our powder dry. Then we pulled in loads of money and got to a CL final and we were assured our signings weren't the coutinho money until klopp let that one out of the bag. Then we won the CL and we did no business because apparently we were more clever than everyone else and it's impossible to improve our team. Then we win the PL, but they can't use last year's excuse because klopp blew it out of the water by saying we could improve the team, that was obvious, but covid was the issue, uncertainty was the issue. And as our competitors spend, where are we? Just another feeble excuse. Any of these things might stand up in isolation, but if people can't see this ownership with all the evidence that's there, you can't help them. They don't want to see it. It's like a white bloke looking at his family tree for a reason his kid is black instead of realising his bird was getting fucked by the black lad next door. 

 

 

[Horus]

Just now, dockers_strike said:

No, it really wasnt sold with any condition on ground capacity. Increasing ground capacity was an owner aspiration.

That's why I said commitment not condition. Of course, flowery language that wouldn't stand a chance of doing anything legally, but that's what the club was sold with.

[Barrington Womble]

7 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Sorting the stadium wasnt an agreement of sale. RBS did not stipulate that and the court case didnt hinge on it. It was an owner aspiration, nothing more.

 

What previous owner of Liverpool paid for any part of the ground development? Answer none, the fans did together with other footballing income from Europe and cup runs.

It was an agreement of sale. Not a condition of sale. The reason being and nesv said this at the time, there was no point making it a condition of sale as that was unenforceable under UK law. So they made us 2 promises. 1 was to deliver the stadium project. 2 was to under promise and over deliver. They've failed on both. 

[dockers_strike]

Just now, Horus said:

That's why I said commitment not condition. Of course, flowery language that wouldn't stand a chance of doing anything legally, but that's what the club was sold with.

When Henry came to Anfield after buying the club, he said 'why would you move from here?' not 'We must increase capacity immediately' etc.

 

Sorry but Im repeating myself to two posters at least. There was neither a committent nor condition of sale at the time of sale to increase capacity or move. The question was open as it had been since the 80s and a new build first mooted.

 

If people want to believe there was all these committements or conditions of sale, Im never going to change their minds. That aint my intention though. So, we're just going around in a circular argument.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

12 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Sorting the stadium wasnt an agreement of sale. RBS did not stipulate that and the court case didnt hinge on it. It was an owner aspiration, nothing more.

 

What previous owner of Liverpool paid for any part of the ground development? Answer none, the fans did together with other footballing income from Europe and cup runs.

So why the fuck shouldnt FSG pay for the stadium or the training ground revamp? It's literally one of the things that are set apart from FFP as something owners can spend unlimited amounts on.

 

Instead they're spending all of our revenues on it. They should fucking pay for it given that they've invested the square root of fuck all so far.

[dockers_strike]

Just now, FrenchEyeGlass said:

So why the fuck shouldnt FSG pay for the stadium or the training ground revamp? It's literally one of the things that are set apart from FFP as something owners can spend unlimited amounts on.

 

Instead they're spending all of our revenues on it. They should fucking pay for it given that they've invested the square root of fuck all so far.

Why the fuck do you want owners like chelsea and city?

[aws]

Most of our extra income has gone in those improved contracts to make sure we can keep hold of our existing players. That has been prioritised over buying new players. 

[Horus]

2 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

When Henry came to Anfield after buying the club, he said 'why would you move from here?' not 'We must increase capacity immediately' etc.

 

Sorry but Im repeating myself to two posters at least. There was neither a committent nor condition of sale at the time of sale to increase capacity or move. The question was open as it had been since the 80s and a new build first mooted.

 

If people want to believe there was all these committements or conditions of sale, Im never going to change their minds. That aint my intention though. So, we're just going around in a circular argument.

Who said anything about immediately? Pretty sure I remember them quipping abut spade in the ground mistakes of past owners, so wouldn't give a time table, but there was def a commitment to 60k. Anyway, we're going round in circles, and this thread isn't about the stadium. 

[FrenchEyeGlass]

1 minute ago, dockers_strike said:

Why the fuck do you want owners like chelsea and city?

How the fuck is this owners like Chelsea or City you mong? 

 

They bought an asset for 300m and its currently worth 1.5bn. Asking them to leverage some of that equity to invest 100-150m on the stadium/training ground work (as they are perfectly entitled to do under FFP) is completely fair because its going to further increase the price of the asset THEY OWN. 

 

That would free up 100-150m in revenues over the past few years that could have been invested in the playing squad.

 

This is nothing like what City or Chelsea do. No cooking of books needed, no stupid investment in the playing squad, still completely sustainable. 

[FrenchEyeGlass]

Just now, aws said:

Most of our extra income has gone in those improved contracts to make sure we can keep hold of our existing players. That has been prioritised over buying new players. 

 

Still doesn't wash. What about the money we're to be saving on Sturridge, Clyne, Lallana, Lovren? Does that just disappear into thin air?

 

Also incredible that our player contracts are improved so much that they are all still underpaid based on the market standard.

[Horus]

1 minute ago, aws said:

Most of our extra income has gone in those improved contracts to make sure we can keep hold of our existing players. That has been prioritised over buying new players. 

We know our contracts are loaded with bonuses for success, so I get this. I think we may have overloaded them on the basis we probably wouldn't be in for the 2 biggest trophies every year, so may have ended up paying millions more than they thought possible. 

[Horus]

9 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

When Henry came to Anfield after buying the club, he said 'why would you move from here?' not 'We must increase capacity immediately' etc.

 

Sorry but Im repeating myself to two posters at least. There was neither a committent nor condition of sale at the time of sale to increase capacity or move. The question was open as it had been since the 80s and a new build first mooted.

 

If people want to believe there was all these committements or conditions of sale, Im never going to change their minds. That aint my intention though. So, we're just going around in a circular argument.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9067977.stm

 

Broughton said the deal would mean Hicks and Gillett losing about £140m but added the new owners had pledged a 60,000-seat stadium - either by redeveloping Anfield or on a new site.

[BeefStroganoff]

4 minutes ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

How the fuck is this owners like Chelsea or City you mong? 

 

They bought an asset for 300m and its currently worth 1.5bn. Asking them to leverage some of that equity to invest 100-150m on the stadium/training ground work (as they are perfectly entitled to do under FFP) is completely fair because its going to further increase the price of the asset THEY OWN. 

 

That would free up 100-150m in revenues over the past few years that could have been invested in the playing squad.

 

This is nothing like what City or Chelsea do. No cooking of books needed, no stupid investment in the playing squad, still completely sustainable. 

This is the standard retort you have to deal with pal. And its constant. No one is saying we should splash billions. Why people don't understand this is incredible.

 

I still haven't received a sufficient answer to where all our money goes from prize winnings, partnerships, merchandise and match day revenue.

[Barrington Womble]

5 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

When Henry came to Anfield after buying the club, he said 'why would you move from here?' not 'We must increase capacity immediately' etc.

 

Sorry but Im repeating myself to two posters at least. There was neither a committent nor condition of sale at the time of sale to increase capacity or move. The question was open as it had been since the 80s and a new build first mooted.

 

If people want to believe there was all these committements or conditions of sale, Im never going to change their minds. That aint my intention though. So, we're just going around in a circular argument.

On the day they bought us Henry said he would resolve the stadium issue but hadn't made a choice if to stay or see through the design made by H&G, he said it was too early to say, but they would resolve the issue. We could carry on arguing, but you are still convinced they don't have an exit plan, when all business practice would say that's a common sense prerequisite of investment. And you some how think the having an exit plan is something bad, when it would actually indicate they are responsible investors. I'm giving up from here, because you'll be telling me we only wear red to match their Sox next. 

[Barrington Womble]

Just now, Horus said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9067977.stm

 

Broughton said the deal would mean Hicks and Gillett losing about £140m but added the new owners had pledged a 60,000-seat stadium - either by redeveloping Anfield or on a new site.

Sssshh. 

[3 Stacks]

5 minutes ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

 

Still doesn't wash. What about the money we're to be saving on Sturridge, Clyne, Lallana, Lovren? Does that just disappear into thin air?

 

Also incredible that our player contracts are improved so much that they are all still underpaid based on the market standard.

We have the second highest wage bill in the league, don't we? Don't think anyone's underpaid. 

[Barrington Womble]

4 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

We have the second highest wage bill in the league, don't we? Don't think anyone's underpaid. 

Depends how the books are being cooked I think. According to those reports, which I think is what is declared to uefa, we have a larger wage bill than city who have about half a dozen players earning more than our top earners and Chelsea who own about 25% of all footballers in Europe. I can accept we pay less wages than Manchester United and more than spurs and arsenal. 

 

Edit and it should be noted the millions of reports the club have pushed over the last 12.months of how financially brilliant we are and about to catch up with Manchester United as England's richest club. And they've all that aquisitional debt to pay for. They can't have it both ways forever. Either we're rich or we're skint. We can't alternate depending if it's transfer season or not..

[FrenchEyeGlass]

5 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

We have the second highest wage bill in the league, don't we? Don't think anyone's underpaid. 

It depends how accurate this is: https://www.spotrac.com/epl/liverpool-f.c/payroll/

 

If it is, Salah on 200K is nowhere near what he could get elsewhere. Most others on 180 or less. Mane on 100k? 

 

Maybe that is wrong though...not sure if anybody else has a better source?

[3 Stacks]

3 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

Depends how the books are being cooked I think. According to those reports, which I think is what is declared to uefa, we have a larger wage bill than city who have about half a dozen players earning more than our top earners and Chelsea who own about 25% of all footballers in Europe. I can accept we pay less wages than Manchester United and more than spurs and arsenal. 

 

Edit and it should be noted the millions of reports the club have pushed over the last 12.months of how financially brilliant we are and about to catch up with Manchester United as England's richest club. And they've all that aquisitional debt to pay for. They can't have it both ways forever. Either we're rich or we're skint. We can't alternate depending if it's transfer season or not..

Ok, so just to summarize, the arguments in here are: FSG are funneling money from Liverpool to the Red Sox, Timo Werner definitely asked for more money from Chelsea and was going to be accommodating to Liverpool, because presumably he likes money, but he likes us more, and we still didn't do it, and finally, the official documents say we have a high wage bill, up there with any club in the world but actually other clubs are cooking the books, so we don't actually pay our players all that much.

 

Did I get everything? Good talk, all of you. Hard to argue all of those solid, very factual arguments. 

[FrenchEyeGlass]

10 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

This is the standard retort you have to deal with pal. And its constant. No one is saying we should splash billions. Why people don't understand this is incredible.

 

I still haven't received a sufficient answer to where all our money goes from prize winnings, partnerships, merchandise and match day revenue.

 

Exactly. We ask this question (very fairly, might I add, given how much fucking PR is spun every year about how commercially smart and brilliant we are), and yet nobody can give us an answer other than 'contract increases'. I remember when we got told the same under H&G and Rafa (we couldn't buy a player because our transfer budget was being used on contracts) and everybody was apoplectic. 

 

Nobody can also answer why it is acceptable for us to allow them to use our match day revenues etc on stadium investment they all but promised when they fucking took us over. What is the point of having a fucking owner if they won't invest a dime of their own money into the asset they own? 

 

People on here seem to have taken 'Starting a business 101' and seem to think companies only grow by spending what they earn. It's not fucking 1965, the very crux of successful business in today's age is 'speculate to accumulate'. 

[Barrington Womble]

10 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

We have the second highest wage bill in the league, don't we? Don't think anyone's underpaid. 

I don't know how reliable this site is. The figures look reasonable.

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/

 

It has city and United as the top two, with us slightly ahead of Chelsea (but effectively tied). So it would raise a question if we're only narrowly behind Manchester United in terms of income, behind them on wages, they have debts to service for the glazier loans, how can they afford to buy and we can't? 

 

[Barrington Womble]

6 minutes ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

It depends how accurate this is: https://www.spotrac.com/epl/liverpool-f.c/payroll/

 

If it is, Salah on 200K is nowhere near what he could get elsewhere. Most others on 180 or less. Mane on 100k? 

 

Maybe that is wrong though...not sure if anybody else has a better source?

Beat me to it.