Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Go fuck yourselves FSG


Neil G
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

Most importantly I would like to understand for a company that turns over around 500m, with a wage bill a little over 320m, credit terms used for the large capital investments, where does the money go? What are we spending it on?

How much is depreciation and amortisation?
 

Wages outgoings should really be pretty straightforward. A first year auditor should be able to follow it from GL postings through to cash coming out of the bank account via statements. What do you think they might have done to inflate the salary costs Barry if I may ask?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

They actually identified Jurgen Klopp as the man they wanted to manage the club after the King. What were they to do when Jurgen said 'No thanks, not yet.'?

 

I know you're not anti FSG but come on, who were they supposed to appoint? Despite what loads think about Rodgers, but for Hendo's red card (sure, it's hard to pin the blame on him, it was just the ill fortune to happen at a very critical  stage of the race), he'd have been the first Liverpool manager to hoist the PL trophy.

 

The owners have made some poor decisions over the years. Some hold that against them and see it as an indicator for a change in ownership despite the elephant in the room: who is better?

Sacking Kenny after our first trophy in about 7 years and replacing him with a rookie with a higher opinion of himself than Dejan Lovren was a bad move for me. As for 'identifying Klopp' I identified him before FSG took over and he was still at Dortmund. He was an absolute perfect fit and you didnt have to be a genius to spot that. I am not anti FSG,I just hate that our football club is run by a group of US hedge funders and that the fact they are one of the better set of owners out there just pisses me off that football is being run by these types of people,and much worse nowadays.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Sacking Kenny after our first trophy in about 7 years and replacing him with a rookie with a higher opinion of himself than Dejan Lovren was a bad move for me. As for 'identifying Klopp' I identified him before FSG took over and he was still at Dortmund. He was an absolute perfect fit and you didnt have to be a genius to spot that. I am not anti FSG,I just hate that our football club is run by a group of US hedge funders and that the fact they are one of the better set of owners out there just pisses me off that football is being run by these types of people,and much worse nowadays.


Almost every top club would have been thinking Klopp was the perfect fit for themselves.

 

FSG deserve all the credit for not sacking Rodgers when they, erm, should have sacked him. They allowed us to regress just the right amount. Cracking bit of business. Hopefully they don’t pull the trigger on Klopp until Stevie has had his couple of months holiday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

So in three weeks time the stadium is a "fail."?

 

It's a fail because it should be done already. They arrived at the club with a promise to immediately resolve the stadium issue. At that time the planning laws were just changing iirc and they sat tight to see what that would mean, which I don't think was either unreasonable or wrong and gave the low cost option to stay. However they bought the club with a realistic view that they were supposed to build a new ground. That was the promise walking through the door. I seem to remember the H&G vision was around 400-500m. Obviously you'd want to look at that, but there must have been expectation the stadium project would be as expensive as buying the club or more. 

 

Then what we saw was just cherry picking. They saw the quickest return doing the main stand and while they looked at the road end, just stuck it in the bin, with a view they weren't interested in building anything that would take 17 years to repay. It's a fail, because in 2010 when they bought the club, they commited to building a fucking stadium, then they couldn't be arsed sticking 7000 seats in the road end? And what changed their mind? The model spurs have used with the bars etc to enhance revenue to make the thing more profitable. They didn't bring any vision of their own, they just said no until the spreadsheet said yes, like they do with every decision they make. Well until the fans bully them out of it. 

 

And it's not like they're doing us any favours here, this is all done on borrowed money, the club is building it itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, aRdja said:

How much is depreciation and amortisation?
 

Wages outgoings should really be pretty straightforward. A first year auditor should be able to follow it from GL postings through to cash coming out of the bank account via statements. What do you think they might have done to inflate the salary costs Barry if I may ask?

 

 

Amortisation is in the accounts. I haven't studied it, but iirc the Swiss ramble broke that down to it's been decreasing over recent years (marginally iirc). But then that would be expected as we (as do all clubs) amortise new signings over the period of their 1st contract, and then if they sign a 2nd, the remaining is spread over the period of the new contract - and we've not been singing many new players (just minamino and a free Adrian in the last accounts).

 

But honestly, amortisation is an accounting distraction too. Just think of the cashflow. We bring in 500m in a pandemic year. We pay 326m on wages. So let's stop there a second for some context. So once our wages are paid, we then have a figure left that would run probably the bottom 10-12 clubs in the premier League. 

 

So let's continue.  Iirc, about 9 or 10m on main stand repayments and I don't recall the training ground debt costs, but let's say maybe 5m as it's half the price of the main stand and we repay over a similar period. So 340m. We probably spend a few million on running offices and replacing and maintaining pitches at the academy, training ground and stadium. IT costs should be next to fuck all. Let's roll all that up into 10m. So there's 350m. Every penny of staff costs is built into that 326m - so not just players, stewards, ticket office, IT, press, marketing, directors. So where does the rest of the money go? We pretty much sell to buy players - over klopps time I think we average net spend of around 20m per year. That's what I'd like to understand. I know why Barcelona are skint for example, they pay 3 or 4 players around the cost of our entire wage bill ffs. I know why Man United should be skint. They spend on fees and wages, plus pay dividends and acquisitional loan repayments. I know why spurs are skint, because they're not as big as us and they've built a 1bn stadium. There's just no logical explanation as to why we're skint - and the pandemic is no excuse as we're always skint. We're either not and we're just tight, we're maybe running the club badly and haemorrhaging money or something more worrying is happening. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Amortisation is in the accounts. I haven't studied it, but iirc the Swiss ramble broke that down to it's been decreasing over recent years (marginally iirc). But then that would be expected as we (as do all clubs) amortise new signings over the period of their 1st contract, and then if they sign a 2nd, the remaining is spread over the period of the new contract - and we've not been singing many new players (just minamino and a free Adrian in the last accounts).

 

But honestly, amortisation is an accounting distraction too. Just think of the cashflow. We bring in 500m in a pandemic year. We pay 326m on wages. So let's stop there a second for some context. So once our wages are paid, we then have a figure left that would run probably the bottom 10-12 clubs in the premier League. 

 

So let's continue.  Iirc, about 9 or 10m on main stand repayments and I don't recall the training ground debt costs, but let's say maybe 5m as it's half the price of the main stand and we repay over a similar period. So 340m. We probably spend a few million on running offices and replacing and maintaining pitches at the academy, training ground and stadium. IT costs should be next to fuck all. Let's roll all that up into 10m. So there's 350m. Every penny of staff costs is built into that 326m - so not just players, stewards, ticket office, IT, press, marketing, directors. So where does the rest of the money go? We pretty much sell to buy players - over klopps time I think we average net spend of around 20m per year. That's what I'd like to understand. I know why Barcelona are skint for example, they pay 3 or 4 players around the cost of our entire wage bill ffs. I know why Man United should be skint. They spend on fees and wages, plus pay dividends and acquisitional loan repayments. I know why spurs are skint, because they're not as big as us and they've built a 1bn stadium. There's just no logical explanation as to why we're skint - and the pandemic is no excuse as we're always skint. We're either not and we're just tight, we're maybe running the club badly and haemorrhaging money or something more worrying is happening. 

 

It’s pretty simple Baz.

We’re saving up for M’Bappe.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/07/2021 at 09:29, aRdja said:

I see, so you think the numbers are right, but you don’t believe the stories posted by LFC journalists around that. I have no issues with that. It’s the suggestion that they’re fiddling with the numbers, inflating salary costs, hand-in-hand with the auditors, only so that internet fans don’t get angry when we don’t buy the players they want is what I find laughable and QAnon-esque.
 

Like you Barry, if it was up to me I’d rather if the club was a multibillionaire’s vanity project, not unlike City, who could just keep buying expensive flops until they find the right player. However I’m in my 30s and without a doubt, the best time I’ve had as a Liverpool supporter has been under their ownership. I don’t recall another Liverpool team having at least seven of the absolute very best players in for world in the squad (Salah, Mane, Alisson, Virgil, Trent, Robbo, and Thiago) so no, I don’t hate FSG as much as you do. If they can keep it up, I’m happy for them to stay.

I think you meant  to say the best time supporting Liverpool in your life has been under Klopps management. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

Amortisation is in the accounts. I haven't studied it, but iirc the Swiss ramble broke that down to it's been decreasing over recent years (marginally iirc). But then that would be expected as we (as do all clubs) amortise new signings over the period of their 1st contract, and then if they sign a 2nd, the remaining is spread over the period of the new contract - and we've not been singing many new players (just minamino and a free Adrian in the last accounts).

 

But honestly, amortisation is an accounting distraction too. Just think of the cashflow. We bring in 500m in a pandemic year. We pay 326m on wages. So let's stop there a second for some context. So once our wages are paid, we then have a figure left that would run probably the bottom 10-12 clubs in the premier League. 

 

So let's continue.  Iirc, about 9 or 10m on main stand repayments and I don't recall the training ground debt costs, but let's say maybe 5m as it's half the price of the main stand and we repay over a similar period. So 340m. We probably spend a few million on running offices and replacing and maintaining pitches at the academy, training ground and stadium. IT costs should be next to fuck all. Let's roll all that up into 10m. So there's 350m. Every penny of staff costs is built into that 326m - so not just players, stewards, ticket office, IT, press, marketing, directors. So where does the rest of the money go? We pretty much sell to buy players - over klopps time I think we average net spend of around 20m per year. That's what I'd like to understand. I know why Barcelona are skint for example, they pay 3 or 4 players around the cost of our entire wage bill ffs. I know why Man United should be skint. They spend on fees and wages, plus pay dividends and acquisitional loan repayments. I know why spurs are skint, because they're not as big as us and they've built a 1bn stadium. There's just no logical explanation as to why we're skint - and the pandemic is no excuse as we're always skint. We're either not and we're just tight, we're maybe running the club badly and haemorrhaging money or something more worrying is happening. 

 

 

Accounts show

£63 million cost of sales

£496 million administrative expensives

 

Take the cost of sales as anything to do with match day costs and distribution costs for kits and merchandise and sponsorship/marketing deals. 

 

The wage total of £325 million is in the admin costs. 

 

So there's an additional £171 million in admin expenses where the public accounts show no detail on where its going. 

 

The auditors just have to agree the figure, the club could be using it for anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha ha this thread, honestly. You go from talking about accounts and lack of spend to the threat of folding simply because we want to see a few new overdue faces come in.

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

I mean ffs its not difficult to see why we don't spend, FSG protect their profit margin at all costs. Thats why the stadium is using Club cash, thats why we sell to buy. Its all about that bottom line for when they decide to cash in their chips.


Every decision they have ever made has FSG at the heart of it first and foremost. Super League, Tickets, Squad building, naming rights and on and on.

 

I mean for goodness sake has every one forgotten what they did to Jurgen last season? Utter disgrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

Super League? Eve of the Leeds match? Bus? Thrown? Under? Centre backs? Please help? Desperate?


Yes you are. 

The anger around the Super League is the biggest red herring off all time. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for complaining about the pace the ground as been upgraded, Jesus.
 

I know as football supporters we naturally want things done yesterday, but they’ve taken their time as done it right. 
 

Complaining about this is literally clutching at straws. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

As for complaining about the pace the ground as been upgraded, Jesus.
 

I know as football supporters we naturally want things done yesterday, but they’ve taken their time as done it right. 
 

Complaining about this is literally clutching at straws. 

They haven't done it right

 

Doing it right would be building it last year when there were no fans in the ground 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

As for complaining about the pace the ground as been upgraded, Jesus.
 

I know as football supporters we naturally want things done yesterday, but they’ve taken their time as done it right. 
 

Complaining about this is literally clutching at straws. 

I’d have never have guessed it was you behind the dockers & the spin off multi accounts Scott. Excellent grifting. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Daisy said:

They haven't done it right

 

Doing it right would be building it last year when there were no fans in the ground 


Possibly the dumbest suggestion you’ve ever made. 
 

When the country was on lockdown, who would build it?

 

Why spend £60m on increased seating when nobody knew when crowds would be back?

 

Why spend £60m when it wasn’t known if we’d ever get a full house again? 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Red74 said:

I’d have never have guessed it was you behind the dockers & the spin off multi accounts Scott. Excellent grifting. 

 

DD211F40-6942-43FB-9F08-A7F491D8C91F.gif
 

You planning many aways this season? Don’t think I saw you on Mark’s TSOP spreadsheet. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daisy said:

 

Accounts show

£63 million cost of sales

£496 million administrative expensives

 

Take the cost of sales as anything to do with match day costs and distribution costs for kits and merchandise and sponsorship/marketing deals. 

 

The wage total of £325 million is in the admin costs. 

 

So there's an additional £171 million in admin expenses where the public accounts show no detail on where its going. 

 

The auditors just have to agree the figure, the club could be using it for anything. 

And do you know how those costs compare to other clubs. £63m costs of sales? Fucking mental. Is that cost of sales as in seats for the match, players or selling sponsorships? So we might be paying external companies each time we get a new water sponsor? 

 

And is that a typo, 496m administrative? That's a year's turnover. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeefStroganoff said:

Super League? Eve of the Leeds match? Bus? Thrown? Under? Centre backs? Please help? Desperate?

Wait... Liverpool were one of 12 clubs planning to form the ESL and that's somehow FSG doing something terrible to Klopp?

 

We should have brought in Centre Backs a few weeks earlier than we did (ie the start of January, not the end) but - again - how is that FSG doing something terrible to Klopp?  Are you sure that he was banging on their door for new signings and they were saying "No, you cunt, you have to wait 4 weeks"?

 

You're wibbling now, you silly person. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Scott_M said:


Possibly the dumbest suggestion you’ve ever made. 
 

When the country was on lockdown, who would build it?

 

Why spend £60m on increased seating when nobody knew when crowds would be back?

 

Why spend £60m when it wasn’t known if we’d ever get a full house again? 

The country was only on full lockdown for 4 weeks. Building/Construction didn't stop happening, it went mental after that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...