January 2023 Transfer Thread

[an tha]

This may help with the homegrown/squad numbers argument...

 

https://www.thisisanfield.com/2023/01/liverpools-new-homegrown-squad-issue-and-the-players-who-can-solve-it/

[Mil-ing Around]

1 hour ago, Dave D said:

My word this is tedious.

 

How on earth have we found ourselves in this mess   

 

Email, created an account and then use our phones to come on here everyday

[an tha]

How do clubs with much smaller revenues than us keep finding money to spend and in a few cases spend more than us.

 

This is not a snide question or a veiled pop at FSG - I genuinely don't understand how it happens if we, as it seems we don't, have money, how do they?

 

Our wages to turnover ratio looks ok so we aren't doing all our money on wages - from what i can tell we are not running up debts or paying huge sums to debt....So it does beg the question what are we doing or not doing differently?

[Daisy]

Cunts

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, an tha said:

How do clubs with much smaller revenues than us keep finding money to spend and in a few cases spend more than us.

 

This is not a snide question or a veiled pop at FSG - I genuinely don't understand how it happens if we, as it seems we don't, have money, how do they?

 

Our wages to turnover ratio looks ok so we aren't doing all our money on wages - from what i can tell we are not running up debts or paying huge sums to debt....So it does beg the question what are we doing or not doing differently?

We deffo have way higher wages than them, and I guess we're somehow paying for building the two stands and the new training ground too? I haven't looked at the accounts in a long time. I just stopped being that interested in it all. I'd sooner we win though. That'd be nice. 

[3 Stacks]

Just now, an tha said:

How do clubs with much smaller revenues than us keep finding money to spend and in a few cases spend more than us.

 

This is not a snide question or a veiled pop at FSG - I genuinely don't understand how it happens if we as it seems we don't have money how do they?

 

Our wages to turnover ratio looks ok so we aren't doing all our money on wages - from what i can tell we are not running up debts or paying huge sums to debt....So it does beg the question what are we doing or not doing differently?

It's not always about not having money. We thought we were fine in midfield until a week before the window ended last summer and we currently have 9. We haven't gotten rid of a midfielder in a while. If I was running the club, I wouldn't be enthused about buying the club a 10th midfielder either. 

 

Besides that, we have 5 CB's, the full back posts are doubled and there are 4 players who can play right back. We've spent most of our money on forwards. 

 

Most of the time, it's probably about squad numbers and the fact we just don't let players leave for cheap, so can't make space in the squad. 

[an tha]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

We deffo have way higher wages than them, and I guess we're somehow paying for building the two stands and the new training ground too? I haven't looked at the accounts in a long time. I just stopped being that interested in it all. I'd sooner we win though. That'd be nice. 

I think i read our wages to turnover % was 57% or something like that recently - meaning it was pretty average - so not a problem.

 

If you turnover 700m and pay 57% of it in wages or turnover 350m and pay 57% of it wages it is same effect.

[Barrington Womble]

14 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

Yes, fair comment. They could and should be spending more but that would require their own money. My point isn't that it's constraining us, it's that it isn't constraining others; it's that FFP is a farce because City have found a way around it. Need a player but don't want to breach FFP? No problem, unveil a new £100m neck tie sponsor (which is no way just a PO Box linked back to Abu Dhabi headquarters at skull mountain). 

I completely agree city are faking it. But I don't see why we should think we can't afford it without fsg's money. If Deloitte are correct and we turned over 600m and wages were 365m, then there's a gap in between that suggests we should have a few bob somewhere. And it's not like if you buy a player for 40m today, you pay 40m today. And we haven't been going wild in other seasons that we should be owing a crazy amount by the time we consider profits from selling players. 

 

But I have been told by someone who's been fed directly from FSG (about 2 months ago), that our aim is not ffp, but we're transitioning to operate in the ESL framework of 70% of turnover accounting for wages and amortisation (which we are incidentally pushing uefa to implement as the new ffp). Deloitte I think claimed we have about £100m amortisation costs this year, which would be £460m - so they're above their 70% target which would be about £420m. That's why we're being tight as fuck. It's not about money, but setting our own arbitrary financial boundaries. It's even worse than ffp right now and why everyone is running past us. And perhaps why klopp appears to be getting frustrated as city play to their own set of rules one way and we play to our own the other. 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Barrington Womble said:

I completely agree city are faking it. And I don't see why we should think we can't afford it without fsg's money. If Deloitte are correct and we turned over 600m and wages were 365m, then there's a gap in between that suggests we should have a few bob somewhere. And it's not like if you buy a player for 40m today, you pay 40m today. And we haven't been going wild in other seasons that we should be owing a crazy amount by the time we consider profits from selling players. 

 

But I have been told by someone who's been fed directly from FSG (about 2 months ago), that our aim is not ffp, but we're transitioning to operate in the ESL framework of 70% of turnover accounting for wages and amortisation (which we are incidentally pushing uefa to implement as the new ffp). Deloitte I think claimed we have about £100m amortisation costs this year, which would be £460m - so they're above their 70% target which would be about £420m. That's why we're being tight as fuck. It's not about money, but setting our own arbitrary financial boundaries. It's even worse than ffp right now and why everyone is running past us. And perhaps why klopp appears to be getting frustrated as city play to their own set of rules one way and we play to our own the other. 

 

 

 

It's really, really frsutrating to watch these last few windows. I mean, I have my issues with looking at wages and then thinking we've got the rest to spend, but you're right in saying there should be some money. We have spent 'some' money, but it's not enough to compete. We need rich owners, I can't see things really changing otherwise. 

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

9 minutes ago, an tha said:

How do clubs with much smaller revenues than us keep finding money to spend and in a few cases spend more than us.

 

This is not a snide question or a veiled pop at FSG - I genuinely don't understand how it happens if we, as it seems we don't, have money, how do they?

 

Our wages to turnover ratio looks ok so we aren't doing all our money on wages - from what i can tell we are not running up debts or paying huge sums to debt....So it does beg the question what are we doing or not doing differently?

Lower running costs…..debt?

[an tha]

Just now, 3 Stacks said:

It's not always about not having money. We thought we were fine in midfield until a week before the window ended last summer and we currently have 9. We haven't gotten rid of a midfielder in a while. If I was running the club, I wouldn't be enthused about buying the club a 10th midfielder either. 

 

Besides that, we have 5 CB's, the full back posts are doubled and there are 4 players who can play right back. We've spent most of our money on forwards. 

 

Most of the time, it's probably about squad numbers and the fact we just don't let players leave for cheap, so can't make space in the squad. 

That isn't the messaging that seems to come from club and media though is it.

 

Even Klopp has all but said 'no money' in recent times.

 

Our squad building does appear convoluted i agree - the spending on forwards versus midfield is a bit strange without knowing plan - i assume there is one and it will come into view soon.

[3 Stacks]

4 minutes ago, an tha said:

That isn't the messaging that seems to come from club and media though is it.

 

Even Klopp has all but said 'no money' in recent times.

 

Our squad building does appear convoluted i agree - the spending on forwards versus midfield is a bit strange without knowing plan - i assume there is one and it will come into view soon.

It's related. He's said plenty of times people have to go or money has to come in before we spend. That can mean space for wages, space in the squad at certain positions. It could also mean transfer funds, but it's not like we operate on a profit in the transfer market. 

 

The squad is undoubtedly bloated in certain areas.  

[Barrington Womble]

9 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

It's really, really frsutrating to watch these last few windows. I mean, I have my issues with looking at wages and then thinking we've got the rest to spend, but you're right in saying there should be some money. We have spent 'some' money, but it's not enough to compete. We need rich owners, I can't see things really changing otherwise. 

Arsenal for example have decided to use debt to help them turn their team around and that is without CL football. People are petrified of debt, but in the world of club valuations being what they are and the relatively short ownership spans compared to historical changes, then really that debt just comes off the end of the owners when the sell. If the glazers value their club at 6bn and the club carries 1bn of debt, well the new owners will either clear the debt and the glazers walk away with 5bn or keep the debt and just pay 5bn. 1bn of debt didn't hamper the sale of Chelsea at all, they just got their slate wiped clean. But FSG won't do that because they don't want to diminish their end when they sell, with club debt compromising it and they think the magic of klopp will just keep bailing them out and making them billions. 

 

It has and will always be about the capital value of the club. That is our driving mission. Everything else is incidental. 

[Barrington Womble]

14 minutes ago, an tha said:

That isn't the messaging that seems to come from club and media though is it.

 

Even Klopp has all but said 'no money' in recent times.

 

Our squad building does appear convoluted i agree - the spending on forwards versus midfield is a bit strange without knowing plan - i assume there is one and it will come into view soon.

Do you not think though the forwards v the midfielders is pretty straight forward? Divock, minamino and mane have left, to be replaced by Diaz, Nunez and gakpo? We just haven't shifted any midfielders and we seem unwilling to compromise on value, hence why keita and Chamberlain are still here. 

[an tha]

16 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

It's related. He's said plenty of times people have to go or money has to come in before we spend. That can mean space for wages, space in the squad at certain positions. It could also mean transfer funds, but it's not like we operate on a profit in the transfer market. 

 

The squad is undoubtedly bloated in certain areas.  

Unbalanced for sure.

[an tha]

5 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Do you not think though the forwards v the midfielders is pretty straight forward? Divock, minamino and mane have left, to be replaced by Diaz, Nunez and gakpo? We just haven't shifted any midfielders and we seem unwilling to compromise on value, hence why keita and Chamberlain are still here. 

I feel there is a bit more to it than just numbers in v numbers out - i feel these forwards are being pieced together to play a different way and we won't see that plan properly until the midfield is sorted and in my honest opinion (as controversial or unpopular as it may appear) until Salah leaves - which i believe will be this summer.

 

The types of forwards we have built up now do not lend themselves to how we have been playing/setting up.

[Barrington Womble]

2 minutes ago, an tha said:

I feel there is a bit more to it than just numbers in v numbers out - i feel these forwards are being pieced together to play a different way and we won't see that plan properly until the midfield is sorted and in my honest opinion (as controversial or unpopular as it may appear) until Salah leaves - which i believe will be this summer.

 

The types of forwards we have built up now do not lend themselves to how we have been playing/setting up.

possibly. but i would be surprised if salah left and even more surprised if it was anything more than 1 in 1 out, which is pretty much how we have run the club for best part of a decade.

[Torvald Utne]

1 hour ago, TD_LFC said:

 

Penalty for not having the required quota, similar to the Champions League.

 

You'd effectively be taking two players out for the sake of one if you have to drop a non-homegrown as well as dropping Ox.

 

Might not be an issue, might have miscounted the registered squad list, we might have another player who qualifies for the A list we can bring in to replace him.

 

 

There's no such penalty.  You can have zero home grown players in your squad if you like, you'd just only be able to name a 17 man squad.

[Dave D]

1 hour ago, Mil-ing Around said:

 

Email, created an account and then use our phones to come on here everyday

Very droll.

 

 

[Preston Red]

This new lad we've signed is shite.

[an tha]

Thought they might have saved the extension news for 'deadline day'

 

Maybe we will be acting after all....(any sort of reasoning we might being applied here but hey)

[Scott_M]

Who is this Ben Jacobs character? Never heard of him before this window.

 

Not saying he’s wrong or anything, I quite believe the below, I just don’t know  where he’s climbed up from…

 

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

Who is this Ben Jacobs character? Never heard of him before this window.

 

Not saying he’s wrong or anything, I quite believe the below, I just don’t know  where he’s climbed up from…

 

 

 

He had to get back up after being knocked down a few years back by some politician.

 

Worked for the Boston Globe.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

2 hours ago, Scott_M said:

Who is this Ben Jacobs character? Never heard of him before this window.

 

Not saying he’s wrong or anything, I quite believe the below, I just don’t know  where he’s climbed up from…

 

 If it’s true, I think I kind of agree with it. Caicedo has looked good. But, not for a long enough period to justify the price tag. It could be a bit or an expensive gamble. 

[Horus]

Best thing about FSG is that they exist - Christian fucking Purslow.

 

Good to see the tide finally turning against them, but the state of the team was obviously incoming years ago, whilst too many people wanted to pretend we would never ever make another transfer mistake in our lives. Loved the painfully low net spend and making jokey songs about it, whilst serious competitors were busy gearing up.