Quantcast
*Shakes head* Everton again. - Page 1992 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Fugitive

*Shakes head* Everton again.

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Gav said:

I'm really struggling to understand how a club with 80% + of (a really low) turnover going straight to wages , £550Mill in debt and building a stadium with shag all money is able to shell out £90 mill on 3 signings, all of whom will be on significant wages ...where in the name of Fowler are they getting the money ? Are they just taking out more loans ?

Well, they still have 20% or less turnover to gamble with. However, if their turnover goes up by finishing higher up the league, win a cup or qualify for Europe next season, it is a gamble that's paid off.

 

They wont be subject to UEFA's FFP for 3 years if the do manage to qualify. The PL has less stringent financial fair play rules and as we know, football authorities are easing these due to the current situation.

 

If the gamble doesnt pay off, they have richarlison as the headline transfer out and the stadium will be publically canned.

 

Usmanov or anyone else could buy into the club but equally they'd end up with usmanov or a.n.other taking up some inflated 'sponsorship' deal. After all, city have got away with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Well, they still have 20% or less turnover to gamble with. However, if their turnover goes up by finishing higher up the league, win a cup or qualify for Europe next season, it is a gamble that's paid off.

 

They wont be subject to UEFA's FFP for 3 years if the do manage to qualify. The PL has less stringent financial fair play rules and as we know, football authorities are easing these due to the current situation.

 

If the gamble doesnt pay off, they have richarlison as the headline transfer out and the stadium will be publically canned.

 

Usmanov or anyone else could buy into the club but equally they'd end up with usmanov or a.n.other taking up some inflated 'sponsorship' deal. After all, city have got away with that.

 

Let's at least try keep things within the bounds of believability and credibility.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Well, they still have 20% or less turnover to gamble with. However, if their turnover goes up by finishing higher up the league, win a cup or qualify for Europe next season, it is a gamble that's paid off.

 

They wont be subject to UEFA's FFP for 3 years if the do manage to qualify. The PL has less stringent financial fair play rules and as we know, football authorities are easing these due to the current situation.

 

If the gamble doesnt pay off, they have richarlison as the headline transfer out and the stadium will be publically canned.

 

Usmanov or anyone else could buy into the club but equally they'd end up with usmanov or a.n.other taking up some inflated 'sponsorship' deal. After all, city have got away with that.

 

Their turnover last season was £188m with 85% of that going on wages £160m

 

Leaves next to fuck all.

 

Ours was £533m with £310m (58%) going on wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, an tha said:

Their turnover last season was £188m with 85% of that going on wages £160m

 

Leaves next to fuck all.

 

Ours was £533m with £310m (58%) going on wages.

And wages aren't the only cost...they've made losses consistently if you take into conisderation all costs. they will make another huge loss - they can do this because 1. they don't care about FFP for another 3 years atleast and 2. moshiri is willing to spend his own cash to make up the difference in cashflow.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chocoholic said:

Let's at least try keep things within the bounds of believability and credibility.

Haha. Yes but I was merely postulating in response to someone's question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Salou said:

And wages aren't the only cost...they've made losses consistently if you take into conisderation all costs. they will make another huge loss - they can do this because 1. they don't care about FFP for another 3 years atleast and 2. moshiri is willing to spend his own cash to make up the difference in cashflow.  

They are heavily reliant on the TV money from league as well....it makes up 71% of what they do. 133m/188m

 

A drop in that is bad news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, an tha said:

Their turnover last season was £188m with 85% of that going on wages £160m

 

Leaves next to fuck all.

 

Ours was £533m with £310m (58%) going on wages.

Keep seeing this figure of £310m  on our wages but that's got to be wrong. Most of the 1st team are probably on less than £80k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ManéMan said:

Keep seeing this figure of £310m  on our wages but that's got to be wrong. Most of the 1st team are probably on less than £80k

Sounds about right to me and as a % of what we bring in is broadly in line with our rivals/is actually one of the lower %'s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James is a good move for them. He'll single handedly raise the club's profile, will score a few 40 yard blooters throughout the season and sell lots of shirts. 

 

25m and 150k wages is a lot, for them, but they've identified they have no midfield and look to be moving on it. 

 

Too 7 finish IMO 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

James is a good move for them. He'll single handedly raise the club's profile, will score a few 40 yard blooters throughout the season and sell lots of shirts. 

 

25m and 150k wages is a lot, for them, but they've identified they have no midfield and look to be moving on it. 

 

Too 7 finish IMO 

How's that for an early call? Wolves must be shitting themselves 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

Usmanov or anyone else could buy into the club but equally they'd end up with usmanov or a.n.other taking up some inflated 'sponsorship' deal. After all, city have got away with that.

 


Having already done that with the training ground I’m not sure there’s much room for a small provincial club to go further....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my bloo mates has just compared Rodriguez to City signing Robinho. Putting down a marker and putting Everton on the map

 

I almost had a coronary trying not to laugh in his face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ManéMan said:

Keep seeing this figure of £310m  on our wages but that's got to be wrong. Most of the 1st team are probably on less than £80k

Seen an fsg out argument on twitter the other day about our wages. Apparently the first team staff and players wage bill comes in at £170m. We can’t be employing that many people to make up an extra £140m. Where’s it going? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Red74 said:

Seen an fsg out argument on twitter the other day about our wages. Apparently the first team staff and players wage bill comes in at £170m. We can’t be employing that many people to make up an extra £140m. Where’s it going? 

First 7 words is all it took.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Red74 said:

Seen an fsg out argument on twitter the other day about our wages. Apparently the first team staff and players wage bill comes in at £170m. We can’t be employing that many people to make up an extra £140m. Where’s it going? 

I suspect we throw in agent fees, plus salaries of all none playing staff - including ticket office, club shop etc. But if we think the players are on the following types of wages, a bit rough and ready I know

 

3 players on ~200k = 30m

3 players on ~175k = 26m

5 players on ~150k = 37.5m

10 players on ~125k = 62.5m

5 players on ~100k = 25m

 

So that would be a 26 man squad with everyone on at least 100k each and it is pretty widely reported Salah is our top earner on 200k and it was leaked recently origi even on his new contract earns 45k, so I think those above figures are more than fair, in fact I've likely grossly over estimated. So that wage bill would make £181m - and do we really pay 26 players over 100k per week? 

 

It seems a pretty big stretch that the rest of our wage bill is still over another 100m considering I think we have around 400 employees. 

 

This is the thing about accounts, they show you what they want you to see. It's whatever we choose to class as wages - could it even include player amortisation? Looking at those numbers I suspect it could, although it would seem a stretch they could claim that. The site below says our last accounts show player amortisation at £111m - which makes quite a convenient fit to my numbers perhaps too convenient. 

 

https://financialfootballnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/financialfootballnews.com/liverpool-fcs-2019-finances-six-times/amp/?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15990353457517&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Ffinancialfootballnews.com%2Fliverpool-fcs-2019-finances-six-times%2F

 

All in all though, it would seem incredible we've a wage bill of £310m - if we are paying that, it would feel to me we must have a number of players earning 300k per week plus. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

I suspect we throw in agent fees, plus salaries of all none playing staff - including ticket office, club shop etc. But if we think the players are on the following types of wages, a bit rough and ready I know

 

3 players on ~200k = 30m

3 players on ~175k = 26m

5 players on ~150k = 37.5m

10 players on ~125k = 62.5m

5 players on ~100k = 25m

 

So that would be a 26 man squad with everyone on at least 100k each and it is pretty widely reported Salah is our top earner on 200k and it was leaked recently origi even on his new contract earns 45k, so I think those above figures are more than fair, in fact I've likely grossly over estimated. So that wage bill would make £181m - and do we really pay 26 players over 100k per week? 

 

It seems a pretty big stretch that the rest of our wage bill is still over another 100m considering I think we have around 400 employees. 

 

This is the thing about accounts, they show you what they want you to see. It's whatever we choose to class as wages - could it even include player amortisation? Looking at those numbers I suspect it could, although it would seem a stretch they could claim that. The site below says our last accounts show player amortisation at £111m - which makes quite a convenient fit to my numbers perhaps too convenient. 

 

https://financialfootballnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/financialfootballnews.com/liverpool-fcs-2019-finances-six-times/amp/?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15990353457517&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Ffinancialfootballnews.com%2Fliverpool-fcs-2019-finances-six-times%2F

 

All in all though, it would seem incredible we've a wage bill of £310m - if we are paying that, it would feel to me we must have a number of players earning 300k per week plus. 

Do they include bonuses? Goals, assists, clean sheets, appearance fees, competition win bonus etc I reckon that’s how we stay competitive on salary by offering large amounts there. Considering what we have won and the number of games we have played that would quickly pad out the base salaries it’s prob still enough for 300m though. How much are we paying our directors etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anubis said:


Having already done that with the training ground I’m not sure there’s much room for a small provincial club to go further....

Well he's already slapped down £30m just to be first in the queue when it comes to naming rights for this unicorn stadium.

 

Whichever way you cut it, it is creative accounting at the very least. And if the PL allow it, gives even more leeway. Not sure if the PL \ FA have made a decision on it or are still 'investigating.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have this strange idea that buying players who aren't cutting it at a big club will make them a big club. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, aws said:

They have this strange idea that buying players who aren't cutting it at a big club will make them a big club. 

Yeah, James is still a talented player, but do they not understand that the fact he's going to them means his career has really hit a low point? It's a bad reflection on him that he's going there, it's not a good reflection on them that they're signing him. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wishing him the same success as the last world class Colombian that came to the Premier League.

 

It'll be interesting to know the length of these deals as I assume there's going to be a fair risk attached to each of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aws said:

They have this strange idea that buying players who aren't cutting it at a big club will make them a big club. 

and they also think every single time that it will improve them, despite history telling us it doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×