Time To Give The Yanks Credit?

[Cardie]

Some people don't seem to realise that securing 5 or 6 of our top players on long term contracts costs an absolute fortune.

 

25 million for Gerrard alone (if he's being paid the reported 125k a week and thats withought signing on fee's and any bonuses).

[t1971]

I see nothing to complain about them at all. Bringing in players before selling others. Big big wage increases for our top players and and also top wages for the players coming in. Providing the money for the new stadium, and not only that, but insisting on a better stadium than originally planned even though they were under no obligation to do so. A huge amount of young players brought in at a cost of of quite a few million including wages. I give them a lot of credit for what they have done so far.

[Dicko]

Cardie these are facts

£21m from CL

£10m from Prem

£25m from player sales

£30m from TV deal

Total=£86m

 

The takeover had nothing to do with that money entering the club that would have been there whether the takeover happened or not. You could argue that Moores and Parry may have done things differently but I don't think they would given the same set of circumstances.

 

I am not arguing against the takeover reread my post i've given enormous credit to G&T Tom especially for his stance on the stadium.

 

To sum up you can give credit to G&T for sorting out the stadium mess and possibly the administrative side of the club, but as far as investment in the team I think the lions share of the credit must go with Rafa and especially Parry for the way he has sorted these transfers out this summer.

[Rashid]

Brought in 86 million from what?

 

Since the mid 90's, seeing as people feel outraged and cheated at the net spend, we've averaged a net spend of between 10 and 11 million.

 

Only twice in that period has our net spend broken the 20 million barrier and on both occasions it was a mangers first season (Houllier and Benitez) outside of those two seasons the highest net spend has been 13 million.

 

We've spent more this summer than any other summer in that period with more to come (excluding the 15-20 young players we've signed) double our average outgoings since mid 90's and only the third year we've broken the 30 million mark.

 

All without taking into account the massive costs of the stadium and the timing of signings that weren't dependant on players being sold first.

 

But yeah, this takeover has been terrible and we've got nothing out of it, Moores should have stayed in we'd be no worse off.

 

Strange world when the biggest complaint people have is that a football club hasn't got themselves heavily in debt.

 

What the Yanks have done that Moores and Parry couldn't is set us up for a top stadium. They have also realised we need a commercial director to oversee things. That's two very important measures with regard to how we move forward and for that alone Moores had to go.

 

With regard to transfer fees spent, we needed about £50M net spent this year to "catch up" with Chelsea and Manchester United and every including the owners have been saying as much for the best part of the last 6 months. We haven't done that at all, what we have done is bought in money and spent big money on a decent net spend. An amount every top club spends each year anyway and the amount I expect us to spend each year to keep momemtum.

 

So yes the Yanks have done great, and have moved the club forward and broken our transfer record, what they haven't done is spend the amount required that would have made us challenge for the title right away. The transfer season is not over yet though.

[Cardie]

I see nothing to complain about them at all. Bringing in players before selling others. Big big wage increases for our top players and and also top wages for the players coming in. Providing the money for the new stadium, and not only that, but insisting on a better stadium than originally planned even though they were under no obligation to do so. I give them a lot of credit for what they have done so far.

 

I was one of their biggest critics when the takeover first went through but so far they've fulfilled every promise that they've made.

 

 

With regard to transfer fees spent, we needed about £50M net spent this year to "catch up" with Chelsea and Manchester United

 

Big steaming pile of bollocks.

 

Football isn't measured in Pounds and Euro's and you don't catch up with a team by spending a set amount of money otherwise it'd be a piss easy sport to predict and control as long as you had the cash.

 

It's also blown out of the water by Utd winning it last year when by your reckoning Chelsea should be well ahead.

[Rashid]

25 million for Gerrard alone (if he's being paid the reported 125k a week and thats withought signing on fee's and any bonuses).

 

And we are the only club to spend top money on their top players? Gerrard came free, to buy him would have cost £40M plus £25M in wages!!

 

You can't be quoting wages over a 5 year period in your transfer figures. 2 years ago even Moores game him a £20M contract.

[rebel23]

no such thing as a free lunch Rashid, we've spent heavily on youth development over the last 10 years, Gerrard is a by product of that

[Cardie]

You can't be quoting wages over a 5 year period in your transfer figures.

 

Good job I didn't then isn't it.

[Rashid]

Brought in 86 million from what?

 

Since the mid 90's, seeing as people feel outraged and cheated at the net spend, we've averaged a net spend of between 10 and 11 million.

 

Only twice in that period has our net spend broken the 20 million barrier and on both occasions it was a mangers first season (Houllier and Benitez) outside of those two seasons the highest net spend has been 13 million.

 

We've spent more this summer than any other summer in that period with more to come (excluding the 15-20 young players we've signed) double our average outgoings since mid 90's and only the third year we've broken the 30 million mark.

 

All without taking into account the massive costs of the stadium and the timing of signings that weren't dependant on players being sold first.

 

But yeah, this takeover has been terrible and we've got nothing out of it, Moores should have stayed in we'd be no worse off.

 

Strange world when the biggest complaint people have is that a football club hasn't got themselves heavily in debt.

 

But since the mid 90's we have hardly been in the CL let alone got to 2 finals of the most prestigious and lucrative tournament in the world. Also this year the TV money is massive, absolutely huge - so when comparing with the mid 90's please compare our situation, revenue and prestigue. That money would have been there with or without G+H.

[zico]

The money from the new television deal will pay for the wage increases given( and more )...

[Cardie]

Cardie these are facts

£21m from CL

£10m from Prem

£25m from player sales

£30m from TV deal

Total=£86m

 

 

Surely the facts would also include trivial little things such as wages (as mentioned in another post Gerrard alone is on 6 million a year and we have over 50 players in the first team/reserves) and other costs to be taken out of any money we receive.

 

You're acting like that is free money that has no use (at least I assume you are given your comment about only spending half of that so far).

[Rashid]

I was one of their biggest critics when the takeover first went through but so far they've fulfilled every promise that they've made.

 

 

 

 

Big steaming pile of bollocks.

 

Football isn't measured in Pounds and Euro's and you don't catch up with a team by spending a set amount of money otherwise it'd be a piss easy sport to predict and control as long as you had the cash.

 

It's also blown out of the water by Utd winning it last year when by your reckoning Chelsea should be well ahead.

 

The difference in quality between us and United was big last year, Chelsea mossed out due to a horrendous injury list. To get us on a level playing field we need to spend big to bridge that quality gap. That's obvious.

 

Noone's talking drunken sailors here.

[Rashid]

Surely the facts would also include trivial little things such as wages (as mentioned in another post Gerrard alone is on 6 million a year and we have over 50 players in the first team/reserves) and other costs to be taken out of any money we receive.

 

You're acting like that is free money that has no use (at least I assume you are given your comment about only spending half of that so far).

 

And you're acting like it's only G+H that pay players wages! FFS Moores was paying Gerrard £5 a year only a few months ago!

[Cardie]

The difference in quality between us and United was big last year, Chelsea mossed out due to a horrendous injury list. To get us on a level playing field we need to spend big to bridge that quality gap. That's obvious.

 

Noone's talking drunken sailors here.

 

Chelsea have outspent Utd since Abramovich took charge by about 200 million. By your reckoning Utd needed to spend 200 million last summer to catch up with Chelsea yet they spent a fraction of that (and also had a horrendous injury list, especially in defence) and still managed to win the league.

 

It's not about how much you spend it's about the players you buy.

 

Why do I get the feeling that if you had two players identical in ability with the only difference being one was available on a bosman the other for 20 million you'd go for the 20 million player just because it sounded better.

[Cardie]

And you're acting like it's only G+H that pay players wages! FFS Moores was paying Gerrard £5 a year only a few months ago!

 

Read the fucking posts Rash, We're talking about a figure of 86 million pound and how it's not just free money.

 

Yes we get you have an exact figure that you think we should spend and without spending to the penny our hopes are dashed but that doesn't mean every fucking conversation boils down to the same point.

[Dicko]

Surely the facts would also include trivial little things such as wages (as mentioned in another post Gerrard alone is on 6 million a year and we have over 50 players in the first team/reserves) and other costs to be taken out of any money we receive.

 

You're acting like that is free money that has no use (at least I assume you are given your comment about only spending half of that so far).

 

Cardie so you admit that we've brought in £86m because before you asked "£86m from what". If your going to use wages as well then fine lets also include commercial revenue and sponsorship as well lets add their total to the £86m given the fact that Foster Gillett won't have any kind of serious input until August it's been up to Parry to sort this end of things out at least until he arrives.

 

The point is Cardie as far as team affairs and the club in general is concerned they have invested very little with the vast majority if not all the money invested in the team coming from the clubs own resources.

 

As i've said you can give them enormous credit for sorting out the stadium debacle and the general administrative side but you can't say they've invested anything of significance into the team even taking wages into account, the figures just don't back that up.

[mattyq]

I'm happy with them so far. We're a work in progress and the progress has been very good, especially on the stadium front.

I'm very glad wehaven't done a Chelsea and splurged big time. I'd rather we won the Premiership next season but with a solid base than won it this season with a bunch of horrible chav mercenaries

[zico]

Footballers are all mercenaries, with the exception of an odd few....

[Cardie]

Cardie so you admit that we've brought in £86m because before you asked "£86m from what". If your going to use wages as well then fine lets also include commercial revenue and sponsorship as well lets add their total to the £86m given the fact that Foster Gillett won't have any kind of serious input until August it's been up to Parry to sort this end of things out at least until he arrives.

 

I asked 86 million for what because the way you described it we'd brought in 86 million of free money that had no destination or use when that's obviously not the case.

 

The only reason I mentioned Wages (listen carefully rash) is because that is our biggest outgoing as a club (60 million last year?) and will be what a big chunk of things like TV rights will be allocated to.

 

So we haven't spent just half of the 86million we've probably spent, or at the very least budgeted, far far more than that for the year since if you were only going to use that 86 million on transfer and wages we'd be 20 odd million down already.

[Dicko]

I'm happy with them so far. We're a work in progress and the progress has been very good, especially on the stadium front.

I'm very glad wehaven't done a Chelsea and splurged big time. I'd rather we won the Premiership next season but with a solid base than won it this season with a bunch of horrible chav mercenaries

 

Matty I'm happy with them as well but I believe that more credit should be given to Rafa and especially Parry than to G&T.

I've disliked Parry from the start and didn't think he was fit to lace Peter Robinson's shoes. But he really has done an excellent job this summer and I think it's only fair that he should be given the lions share of the credit.

[Dicko]

Cardie I think we'll have to agree to disagree here the wages are ringfenced anyway so they are paid regardless of what comes in. Any increase in wages for a new contract then yes I'll concede that will come out of inbound revenue, but and bear in mind we're only talking about a 12 month period I can't reconcile the money that we bring in as a club over a 12 month period plus the £86m, with G&T putting any significant amount in, I'm sorry I just can't see it.

 

Ask yourself this last year we spent £23.5M on players do you really think with such an influx of money that we wouldn't see a significant increase in expenditure on players this season regardless of who was in charge?

 

Look at the money Tottenham West Ham and Porsmouth are spending with far less commercial clout and annual revenue than ourselves.

[Cardie]

That's the point, it's not plus 86 million. You're still making out that it's money with no destination when TV money is budgeted in every year.

 

Our turnover last year was around 110-120 million that included 26 million brought in from match days, plus TV revenue, competition money and a few others.

 

the 86 million isn't on top of our turnover it's part of it.

[Mr.SB]

I think spending on players is a pretty near-sighted yardstick especially since the transfer season is not over.

 

I'm very much happier with the long term plans i.e. commercial director, stadium plans etc. These improvements (if they do work out) are more sustainable and important in the long run. They obviously have a plan in place and the plan seems to be running well. We should give them credit for their far-sighted changes. This talk about not spending enough this season is an inconclusive and unsubstantiated argument and very myopic.

[Dicko]

That's the point, it's not plus 86 million. You're still making out that it's money with no destination when TV money is budgeted in every year.

 

Our turnover last year was around 110-120 million that included 26 million brought in from match days, plus TV revenue, competition money and a few others.

 

the 86 million isn't on top of our turnover it's part of it.

 

Then what have G&T invested?

[Red Nick]

Its not there fault that Rafa preferred to spend his money on Benayoun & Babel instead of Mancini or Quaresma