Summer 2020 Transfer Thread

[FrenchEyeGlass]

9 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..

 

Bingo. 

 

If we are soooooooo broke after getting to a CL final, winning a CL, coming 2nd and then winning the PL, record partnership deals and a new kit sponsor, then somebody's fucking up somewhere aren't they?

 

Are we rich or are we broke? Because there are people on here who want us to believe both.

[Horus]

3 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

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. 

C'mon dude, you know that's a lie about the werner bit. I said I might be wrong, but you know as well as I that these contracts are generally the first things agreed before contact with the club is made. Bit shitty there, my guy. 

[Barrington Womble]

4 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

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. 

You are being a bit of a fucking gobshite. There is not one point I have suggested they've funnelled any money, in fact on the other page about this I've absolutely said they've not and to my knowledge take no dividend or exorbitant expenses. Either engage in discussion properly or shut the fuck up. 

[aws]

18 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.

I'm sure Jurgen will be allowed to reshuffle his cards and strengthen the squad with money from sales and wages freed up and if he isn't then the end of the window is the right time to have this debate. Covid looks like it might hit the club by £100m -£200m over this and next season so I can't see any new investment going in. 

[FrenchEyeGlass]

5 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

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

 

Let's not play silly buggers. We had been speaking to him for over a year and he had obviously been tapped up. He would have come to us on very modest wages all things considered.

 

We pulled out because we thought we were smart and could string RBL along until they gave him to us for a cut price (and his release clause became inactive). Same thing we are doing now with Thiago.

[Barrington Womble]

2 minutes ago, aws said:

I'm sure Jurgen will be allowed to reshuffle his cards and strengthen the squad with money from sales and wages freed up and if he isn't then the end of the window is the right time to have this debate. Covid looks like it might hit the club by £100m -£200m over this and next season so I can't see any new investment going in. 

Why do you think covid will cost us that much? And why do you think other clubs seem to be able to ride this out and not us? 

[BeefStroganoff]

5 minutes ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

 

Let's not play silly buggers. We had been speaking to him for over a year and he had obviously been tapped up. He would have come to us on very modest wages all things considered.

 

We pulled out because we thought we were smart and could string RBL along until they gave him to us for a cut price (and his release clause became inactive). Same thing we are doing now with Thiago.

This is it and par for the fucking course with FSG. They've done it numerous times, sometimes successfully and other times being told to fuck off. 

 

These are some of the players I remember us low balling over:

 

Lallana

Suarez

Henderson

Salah (twice)

Teixera

Werner

Lemar

Keita

 

[Colonel Bumcunt]

Perhaps there's a timing question here in relation to the start of the season, and seeing how September develops in terms of covid. 

 

You could well buy a player and lose a year of him if there's a bad winter.  There won't be an impetus to finish a season that never really got started.

 

Fundamentally we're in a strong position for the season as it stands.  We're ready to go, players will be rested by Sep.  There may be no CL this winter. 

 

It's all a gamble, and if Klopp felt differently to FSG then we'd have grounds to moan, but I don't get the impression Klopp is desperate for signings, I think he's pragmatic and will watch how the next 6 weeks develops.  

[3 Stacks]

16 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

You are being a bit of a fucking gobshite. There is not one point I have suggested they've funnelled any money, in fact on the other page about this I've absolutely said they've not and to my knowledge take no dividend or exorbitant expenses. Either engage in discussion properly or shut the fuck up. 

I didn't say you said that. I said, in summary of the last few pages, this is what has been said. I shouldn't have quoted you, it was a general post and I apologize. There, you can relax now.

[aws]

5 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

Why do you think covid will cost us that much? And why do you think other clubs seem to be able to ride this out and not us? 

I don't  think we'll see more than 20,000 in Anfield before the season after next unless there's a vaccine. I reckon the TV money will be at risk as the product is stale without crowds and the govt. will be asking for a lot more free-to-air games as the price for letting in some fans. 

 

I expect most clubs will have their financial hands tied unless they've got sugar daddy owners,. The Mancs have to spend big because they're miles behind. 

[BeefStroganoff]

Just now, 3 Stacks said:

I didn't say you said that. I said, in summary of the last few pages, this is what has been said. I shouldn't have quoted you, it was a general post. There, you can relax now. 

I made the assumption that FSG could be leveraging LFC money to help Red Sox during Covid as the States has been particularly badly hit. I work for a billion dollar american company and us european folk have had to take a hint with our wages to support our states colleagues. Its not out of the realms of possibility.

[3 Stacks]

2 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

I made the assumption that FSG could be leveraging LFC money to help Red Sox during Covid as the States has been particularly badly hit. I work for a billion dollar american company and us european folk have had to take a hint with our wages to support our states colleagues. Its not out of the realms of possibility.

That's great, I don't really care. I didn't ask for your life story and it's very likely not relevant in this case.

[TheHowieLama]

Take a hint

[BeefStroganoff]

Just now, 3 Stacks said:

That's great, I don't really care. I didn't ask for your life story and it's very likely not relevant in this case.

What a prick.

[TheHowieLama]

19 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

how can they afford to buy and we can't? 

 

Who have they bought this window?

[Barrington Womble]

7 minutes ago, aws said:

I don't  think we'll see more than 20,000 in Anfield before the season after next unless there's a vaccine. I reckon the TV money will be at risk as the product is stale without crowds and the govt. will be asking for a lot more free-to-air games as the price for letting in some fans. 

 

I expect most clubs will have their financial hands tied unless they've got sugar daddy owners,. The Mancs have to spend big because they're miles behind. 

So I think it's really debatable that the TV companies can get their money back and I think the TV companies are just using it as an excuse to try and get favours (more games for uk, no idea about abroad, maybe more staggered?). I read something (about 3 weeks ago) that the TV companies have acknowledged they can't contractually get more because of the empty stadia. And their point of contention now is the games not being scheduled as they should be. I think they'll give them some extra matches and it will be resolved. Also, in terms of sky they want the club's to have the money, if the club's are skint and can't invest it undermines their whole "best league in the world " shite. So it's overseas TV only the challenge will be with imo - although that's clearly still significant money. 

 

As for the grounds, I'm not so sure. But I think last year we were high 80s in match day revenues. So even if we.pkayed a whole year (and remember we'd already been knocked out of the CL), that'd only be at most 90m, probably much less. Up to now it's been 4 games and they're talking about the charity shield being the dummy run game for some fans back, so I think at most we'll play just 2 more games in an empty ground. I would also like to think they could pretty much run the lounges at full capacity as that would be no different to the pub, although obviously they mightn't all be allowed outside - so even if there were 50% in the ground, they should be able to ensure revenues stay about 50%. 

 

I reckon the hit will end up being about 50m. 

 

 

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

10 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Who have they bought this window?

It's not just this window is it? They buy in just about all the windows. And clearly they will buy in this window because they're not faking being poor. 

[TheHowieLama]

8 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

They buy in just about all the windows.

 

So have we mate -- this team was put together in the last few years.

[Barrington Womble]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

 

So have we mate -- this team was put together in the last few years.

We haven't really though have we? We bought nothing last year (ok 7m for minamino in the winter, but raised that with any number of sales) and the season before klopp has said we spent because we sold coutinho and those deals couldn't have happened without that sale. The last time I reckon we just went out and spent was Salah. 

 

As I said before, the club can't have it both ways, spending half the season saying "I'm considerably richer than you" till the transfer season comes around and then go "big issue". 

[TheHowieLama]

9 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

"I'm considerably richer than you" 

I don't remember the club saying that.

[3 Stacks]

6 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I don't remember the club saying that.

It's confusing the club being in good financial health with it meaning there should be a massive transfer budget.

[cloggypop]

56 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

I made the assumption that FSG could be leveraging LFC money to help Red Sox during Covid as the States has been particularly badly hit. I work for a billion dollar american company and us european folk have had to take a hint with our wages to support our states colleagues. Its not out of the realms of possibility.

Er, shouldn't your billionaire owners be taking the hit? 

[Anubis]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

I don't remember the club saying that.

I believe it was Werner who said we could compete with anyone, wasn’t it.

[Anubis]

2 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

That's great, I don't really care. I didn't ask for your life story and it's very likely not relevant in this case.

You’ve come across as a bit of a prick there, Stacksy.

[Horus]

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-ready-play-waiting-game-18668067

 

Jurgen Klopp has hinted that any business Liverpool conduct in the transfer market is likely to be done later on in the restructured window.

The summer window officially opened on Monday and will run through until October 5, giving clubs a 10-week period to adjust their squads with the new Premier League campaign due to start on September 12.

However, it is widely expected that top-flight clubs will be cutting their cloth accordingly due to the economic downturn experienced by the coronavirus and the subsequent suspension of Premier League football.

The Reds steered clear of entering the market for long-time target Timo Werner after a three-month period between March and June left them counting the cost of outgoings with no money coming in from TV broadcasts and gate receipts.

Instead, Werner moved to Chelsea as they triggered the buyout clause for the RB Leipzig striker back in June to end repeated links to Anfield.

 

Liverpool were privately mindful how a £50million move for the Germany international would look just weeks on from CEO Peter Moore's public reversal of a controversial decision to furlough some of their lowest-paid members of staff.

 

Klopp has always insisted the Reds would be looking at a quiet summer window and stated that the club would only look to move into the market once they had assurances over the health of their long-term finances.

Incomings from the traditional revenue streams at Anfield were virtually nil between March and June and the Reds are continuing to see a shortfall of around £3m per home while having one of the biggest wage bills in the sport at £310m.

Klopp has said he and his recruitment team won't be rushing head first in the window as he looks to fine-tune a squad that won Liverpool's first league title in 30 years by 18 points this term.

"Look, the perfect scenario for a football manager is that you have 40 players available," Klopp said.

"And they are all happy with the situation they are in and then you just pick 20 and say that they don’t need to show up for three weeks and then you pick the other 20.

"But it doesn’t work like that. The world is not like this. I did not want to be part of a squad like this to be honest. It will be tricky and we have to deal with the circumstances.

"The situation, as we have said several times, it is really difficult to judge the future. That is always what we have to do. We have to judge the future. Usually we know about the financial funds that we have as much as you can know.