Summer 2021 transfer thread.

[dockers_strike]

Bit disappointed we couldnt shift a few of the surplus squad members. arsenal may have spent £142m but there isnt a single player they bought Id have in our squad. Saul, Rondon, Edouard, Ronaldo, Lookman? Nah, none of them strengthen our team. Dont know enough about Kral and Royal but I cant see either of them making our squad.

 

[dockers_strike]

3 hours ago, johnsusername said:

I think Origi is a talented lad and has proved that several times. He just needs to be played regularly up top through the middle. Is there room in the team for him to do that though? I would normally have said no, but the way Mane is playing and with Firmino being out injured...

Have to agree. Despite what some say, Origi was a go to squad player who got goals. I dont know what's gone on with the lad whether he's just lost hope, his mojo or something else.

[El Rojo]

Gray, Townsend and Rondon were shrewd budget signings by Rafa. 

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

2 hours ago, RoyHodgeGone said:

Surely there will be the possibility of a lot of players out of contract in the next year or two as the covid debts start to bite?

 

Our owners won't borrow money the way others have. Generally speaking that's a principle I agree with and we are getting the new stand at the Anfield Road. I get the frustration with United signing Varane, Sancho and Ronaldo but they'll have to deal with those debts in due course.

Wages.

[TheHowieLama]

3 hours ago, Moo said:

They didn't have to borrow money. 

And they didn't have to use money out of their own pockets as such as they've reportedly received £500m recently from Red Bird for 11%, so even if they didn't want to "give" us any of that they could have loaned some to us for new player(s).  It appears they chose not to do that.

How do you think the Red Sox would feel about "loaning" some of their money? Would the NASCAR team have signed off on that you think?

[Moo]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

How do you think the Red Sox would feel about "loaning" some of their money? Would the NASCAR team have signed off on that you think?

Why would it have to be some of their money? 

I didn't suggest it all goes to us.  If both those team needed investment too then I'd have no objection to them asking for an appropriate percentage based on the relative value of each "club".

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

5 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

How do you think the Red Sox would feel about "loaning" some of their money? Would the NASCAR team have signed off on that you think?

Ask Bull Durham and Ricky Bobby

[TD_LFC]

Not that easy, if it was a case of the parent company just giving money to a club Man City wouldn't be in the situation they've been in now where they have an ongoing court case and got off another court case on a technicality.

 

(And if you listen to Everton fans Moshiri would have given them a billion pounds to spend on players)

[TheHowieLama]

2 minutes ago, Moo said:

Why would it have to be some of their money? 

 

Well - it is all FSG's money. So you are saying they shouldn't dip into their own pockets but that they should loan themselves their money?

[Arnaud]

17 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Mbappe is very very good. 

He is very good I agree, only future will tell how good he is. I thought he did not improve much between 2018 and 2020. But last season he was better than before. Let’s see if he remains a French Michael Owen or he could be as good as a Ronaldo ….

[Moo]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

Well - it is all FSG's money. So you are saying they shouldn't dip into their own pockets but that they should loan themselves their money?

I'd love FSG to "give" some of that money to LFC without having to pay it back but I know that would not happen so I suggested a loan to LFC.

And I guess you're saying the money they got for a percentage of LFC (and other teams) off Red Bird goes straight into their pockets and not invested back into the teams?  If that's the case then I think that kind of demonstrates the whole issue with them frankly.

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Moo said:

I'd love FSG to "give" some of that money to LFC without having to pay it back but I know that would not happen so I suggested a loan to LFC.

And I guess you're saying the money they got for a percentage of LFC (and other teams) off Red Bird goes straight into their pockets and not invested back into the teams?  If that's the case then I think that kind of demonstrates the whole issue with them frankly.

I am not suggesting anything - you are.

How does any loan get paid back? Who pays it back?

[Chris]

3 hours ago, Mil-ing Around said:

Aside from saving a few quid I do wonder about FSG's thinking behind the lack of investment these last couple of seasons. Obviously I understand the financial hit from Covid was hard on them last year but fans are back now, revenue is up, and all the signs point to no more lockdowns in the UK.

 

The club has never been more commercially valuable. Why not build on that value. It's almost always been true that to make money you have to spend money. They have one of the best managers in the world but he might leave in 2.5 years and leave behind a hugely aging squad (we already are tbh)

 

Dipping into their own pockets for £100 odd million this summer would not have killed them (the FFP laws have been relaxed this year due to the pandemic from what I understand). Buying one or two players for that amount and giving them 3 years to work with Klopp would have only benefited us in the long term. This in turn sets up the next manager, keeps Liverpool at the top end of the league and CL and would only raise the value of club (if they want to sell)

 

I'm all for rewarding the current players with longer term contracts and we have a squad full of leaders and men but one more big player this summer gives everyone a lift in that dressing room and in the stands. Another attacker would have pushed the current strikers to perform and improve (Or regain form)

 

It's almost like they are waiting for the Klopp era to end and start again from scratch. Which from a footballing and business decision is pretty bizarre.

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's the baseball in them. Success comes in cycles and isn't sustained. It's part of the model to go through periods of transition and rebuilding. Don't ask me why, it just is. You shift your big contracts and rebuild through trades and youth. Just happened with the Chicago Cubs, happened with the Phillies (my team) after they had a golden era and happens with their own Red Sox from time to time. 

 

Trouble is, getting back up there after you rebuild isn't a given (Phils haven't made the playoffs in about 10 years), and that's in a much more equitable system where oil teams can't just spend what they want, blow everyone out of the water and massacre the market for everyone else in the process. 

 

 

 

 

[Moo]

7 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I am not suggesting anything - you are.

How does any loan get paid back? Who pays it back?

I don't know, that would be between FSG the "group" and LFC.  But I don't see why you're questioning the possibility when they've already arranged an inter-company loan for rebuilding the Main Stand which LFC are paying back in installments.

 

Of course if it's not possibly feel free to enlighten me.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, Moo said:

I don't know, that would be between FSG the "group" and LFC.  But I don't see why you're questioning the possibility when they've already arranged an inter-company loan for rebuilding the Main Stand which LFC are paying back in installments.

 

Of course if it's not possibly feel free to enlighten me.

I do not believe stadium costs count.

[3 Stacks]

5 minutes ago, Chris said:

 

I think it's the baseball in them. Success comes in cycles and isn't sustained. It's part of the model to go through periods of transition and rebuilding. Don't ask me why, it just is. You shift your big contracts and rebuild through trades and youth. Just happened with the Chicago Cubs, happened with the Phillies (my team) after they had a golden era and happens with their own Red Sox from time to time. 

 

Trouble is, getting back up there after you rebuild isn't a given, and that's in a much more equitable system where oil teams can't just spend what they want, blow everyone out of the water and massacre the market for everyone else in the process. 

 

 

 

 

That's not logical. If they were rebuilding or planning to go in a transition period, they would have wanted to sell a couple of our top players and changed the squad, not look to extend them where some of them will be highly paid into their 30's. We're doing the opposite of a rebuild. 

[Moo]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I do not believe stadium costs count.

Count as what?

[Chris]

1 minute ago, 3 Stacks said:

That's not logical. If they were rebuilding or planning to go in a transition period, they would have wanted to sell a couple of our top players and changed the squad, not look to extend them where some of them will be highly paid into their 30's. 

 

It is logical when you use the baseball analogy. And, obviously, they're not transitioning now. They're looking to eek as much out of this squad and manager as they can in the next 3 years. They've calculated that's the most economically prudent way to go about it rather than dipping into the market. The rebuild will happen when Klopp leaves. Until then we won't be seeing shit in the way of big acquisitions. 

[TheHowieLama]

10 minutes ago, Chris said:

 

Trouble is, getting back up there after you rebuild isn't a given (Phils haven't made the playoffs in about 10 years),

 

 

 

You had an incredible run of top young players coming through.

 

Never recovered after Pat Gillick left and then Halladay retired. Did beat us for the World Series, still rankles.

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Moo said:

Count as what?

In any version of FFP.

[TD_LFC]

8 minutes ago, Moo said:

 

Of course if it's not possibly feel free to enlighten me.

Here's something I put on another thread about the same issue last week. IT's obviously more complex than the below and the below isn't comprehensive but as a very rough outline of some of the issues.

 

=================================================

Increasing revenue and reducing costs are the best ways of achieving it but it's not a sexy discussion to have because nobody is really interested in the business side of football despite it being so crucial to a clubs ability to succeed.

 

FFP and Profit and Sustainability haven't gone away (yet) even during Covid, they still exist with slightly different parameters (mainly averaging losses over the 19/20 - 20/21 seasons instead of taking each year in it's own right) so clubs still have to comply at a domestic and European level (be it legally or illegally).

 

Some clubs, like Chelsea, can gut there youth systems and sell a big player to Madrid to get around that, others can artificially inflate the the amounts they receive through sponsorships and have open investigations still pending, some take out massive panic loans to try and get back to the big table.

 

What most aren't doing is having transfers funded directly out of owners pockets and that's because there are mechanisms in place to prevent the kind of direct investment, that isn't spent on infrastructure and a clubs sustainability, that saw dodgy owners coming in promising the world and bailing leaving clubs in massive transfer/wage based debt (see Portsmouth).

 

Now there are legal ways around that, a club can apply for a voluntary agreement that gives an allowance for a club to make additional losses, over and above the threshold, provided there's is an commitment to cover those losses and the criteria for applying is met.

 

To meet those criteria a club must fulfil the break even requirements in the monitoring period that precedes the request or been subject to a significant change in ownership or control within the 12 months preceding the application.

 

Providing those conditions have been met clubs must "submit an irrevocable commitment(s) by an equity participant(s) and/or related party(ies) to make contribution for an amount at least equal to the aggregate future break-even deficits for all the reporting periods covered by the voluntary agreement. The irrevocable commitment must be evidenced by way of a legally binding agreement between the licensee and the equity participant and/or related party" AC Milan applied for a VA and were refused due to debts running into the hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

COVID has undoubtedly had an effect, and given we used our big ticket sale a few years earlier we didn't have that luxury to do it again during COVID, the Red Bird investment could never be used to fund transfers as it was never a direct investment in LFC and the Nike deal only increases our revenue it doesn't solve all the issues, the club are still expected to lose a massive amount of money in the next published accounts.

 

[3 Stacks]

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

 

It is logical when you use the baseball analogy. And, obviously, they're not transitioning now. They're looking to eek as much out of this squad and manager as they can in the next 3 years. They've calculated that's the most economically prudent way to go about it rather than dipping into the market. The rebuild will happen when Klopp leaves. Until then we won't be seeing shit in the way of big acquisitions. 

Right, but we're definitely not rebuilding right now which is what you'd said. Thiago was not a rebuilding move. Extending Henderson is not a rebuilding move. Reportedly wanting to extend all of Salah, Mane and Firmino is very much not a rebuilding move. You're confusing timelines. Eeeking out as much of the current squad by extending contracts is the opposite of rebuilding. The rebuild will come after as you said here. 

[Moo]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

In any version of FFP.

FFP has been relaxed for the 2020 and 2021 financial years under emergency measures to allow owners to put money in to cover Covid related losses (which is apparently what's hamstrung us).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/18/uefa-agree-to-suspend-financial-fair-play-rules-due-to-pandemic

[Chris]

9 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

You had an incredible run of top young players coming through.

 

Never recovered after Pat Gillick left and then Halladay retired. Did beat us for the World Series, still rankles.

 

Everyone just got old together. Rollins, Howard (he just got fat and lazy off that ridiculous contract he signed), Utley, Victorino (fucking loved the Flyin' Hawaiian), Palanco, Halladay, Oswalt. Jayson Werth skipped town. Some went on to have a good couple of years elsewhere. This is how I see, say, 2023/2024 Liverpool being.

 

Then anyone young and still of value, like Cole Hamels, got traded, as they went in on the never ending rebuild. Now I couldn't name the line-up for jack, apart from Harper. 

 

[Chris]

4 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Right, but we're definitely not rebuilding right now which is what you'd said. Thiago was not a rebuilding move. Extending Henderson is not a rebuilding move. Reportedly wanting to extend all of Salah, Mane and Firmino is very much not a rebuilding move. You're confusing timelines. Eeeking out as much of the current squad by extending contracts is the opposite of rebuilding. The rebuild will come after as you said here. 

 

Absolutely did not say we were rebuilding right now.