Go fuck yourselves FSG

[Salou]

why do people insist on taking wage lists of players off the internet? like how do they know the intricacies of our players contracts and the bonus structure we have in place? look at the clubs actual accounts - clearly says we spend 315 million on wages, however nowhere does it tell you how it is broken down by players/base/bonuses (and neither should it).

 

the reason we're not spending money is simple and it has been since day one of takeover - we only spend what we make - the accounts show you what we made and what we've spent on it. you can raise the issue that fsg aren't putting in additional capital (which they always said they wouldn't) - chelsea and city don't need to worry about the risk of losing 90 million a year in revenue like we do. this is the model we signed up to and we've done pretty well out of it so far, but it will definitely have its limits. 

[Harry Squatter]

But we dont spend what we earn and even when the club makes more from sponsorship, champions league money, tv money , kit deals and new sponsorship deals it never alters our spending. It's only when a major sale takes place any money gets spent. 

 

The club always puts out propaganda to make out we are skint and normalise the fact that spending any money is something reckless clubs do. 

 

We also get outspent by clubs who dont have the same level of income as us. 

[BeefStroganoff]

16 minutes ago, Salou said:

why do people insist on taking wage lists of players off the internet? like how do they know the intricacies of our players contracts and the bonus structure we have in place? look at the clubs actual accounts - clearly says we spend 315 million on wages, however nowhere does it tell you how it is broken down by players/base/bonuses (and neither should it).

 

the reason we're not spending money is simple and it has been since day one of takeover - we only spend what we make - the accounts show you what we made and what we've spent on it. you can raise the issue that fsg aren't putting in additional capital (which they always said they wouldn't) - chelsea and city don't need to worry about the risk of losing 90 million a year in revenue like we do. this is the model we signed up to and we've done pretty well out of it so far, but it will definitely have its limits. 

So i will ask again.

 

In Kiev we scooped 81 million for reaching the final

 

Last year we made 100 million from winning the Champions League.

We got 150 million for coming second in the PL

 

This season:

175 million for winning the Prem (well known)

71 million for getting to the quarter finals of the CL

https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-much-liverpool-chelsea-man-city-spurs-have-earned-from-the-19-20-cl/

We got about 8m from the WCC and the Super Cup

 

In 3 seasons, with the last 2 with only a transfer spend of 7 million, we have earned £585 million. Ok so lets say theres bonuses handed out, there cannot be any way in which this money is all swallowed up unless our frugal owners have put some of it into the facilities, which is a shit decision seeing as its their asset and it doesn't effect FFP.

 

585 million that would not have been factored in to the budget. And thats without partnership sponsors money, merchandise and a new kit launch.

 

Just does not make sense.

 

[BeefStroganoff]

11 minutes ago, Doctor Troy said:

But we dont spend what we earn and even when the club makes more from sponsorship, champions league money, tv money , kit deals and new sponsorship deals it never alters our spending. It's only when a major sale takes place any money gets spent. 

 

The club always puts out propaganda to make out we are skint and normalise the fact that spending any money is something reckless clubs do. 

 

We also get outspent by clubs who dont have the same level of income as us. 

You've got Aston fucking Villa and Leeds spending and Jurgen with one hand tied behind his back as usual.

 

Its fucking shitcakes mate and makes no sense. People on here are claiming we have a big wages to pay, but theres no way anyone can predict that they will win major prize money, so if we don't win those prizes how else would we pay the wages??

[dockers_strike]

37 minutes ago, Doctor Troy said:

But we dont spend what we earn and even when the club makes more from sponsorship, champions league money, tv money , kit deals and new sponsorship deals it never alters our spending. It's only when a major sale takes place any money gets spent. 

 

The club always puts out propaganda to make out we are skint and normalise the fact that spending any money is something reckless clubs do. 

 

We also get outspent by clubs who dont have the same level of income as us. 

You and others keep saying we dont 'spend what we earn' but that's simplistic and misses the point. Once again, the club made a profit of £42m pre tax the season before last (I said previously it was £42m last season in error).

 

Put simply, that means the club's income was greater than it's expenses by £42m which it then had to pay tax on.

 

Ergo, if the club had an income of, let's say £500m, it has spent just under £458m. On top of that, it has to pay tax on the £42m. Call that £10m to make £468m out of £500m.

 

Leaving the club with, in this example, £32m for contingencies like we have now with no crowds and income severely curtailed since March is hardly bad fiscal policy.

[ManéMan]

12 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

You and others keep saying we dont 'spend what we earn' but that's simplistic and misses the point. Once again, the club made a profit of £42m pre tax the season before last (I said previously it was £42m last season in error).

 

Put simply, that means the club's income was greater than it's expenses by £42m which it then had to pay tax on.

 

Ergo, if the club had an income of, let's say £500m, it has spent just under £458m. On top of that, it has to pay tax on the £42m. Call that £10m to make £468m out of £500m.

 

Leaving the club with, in this example, £32m for contingencies like we have now with no crowds and income severely curtailed since March is hardly bad fiscal policy.

Don't think that's quite how it works to be honest

[FrenchEyeGlass]

1 hour ago, dockers_strike said:

You and others keep saying we dont 'spend what we earn' but that's simplistic and misses the point. Once again, the club made a profit of £42m pre tax the season before last (I said previously it was £42m last season in error).

 

Put simply, that means the club's income was greater than it's expenses by £42m which it then had to pay tax on.

 

Ergo, if the club had an income of, let's say £500m, it has spent just under £458m. On top of that, it has to pay tax on the £42m. Call that £10m to make £468m out of £500m.

 

Leaving the club with, in this example, £32m for contingencies like we have now with no crowds and income severely curtailed since March is hardly bad fiscal policy.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creative-accounting.asp

 

You really have to be incredibly naive to believe any company's accounts show you what you want to see. 

 

They show you what they want you to see.

 

People can think thats conspiracy theorist territory but I've built and executed countless valuation models for a living so trust me when I say it's real life. 

[Code]

I know an agent, he gets paid 10% of his players wages as part of his deals. This cut come  from the clubs, not the players.

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

8 hours ago, Salou said:

why do people insist on taking wage lists of players off the internet? like how do they know the intricacies of our players contracts and the bonus structure we have in place? look at the clubs actual accounts - clearly says we spend 315 million on wages, however nowhere does it tell you how it is broken down by players/base/bonuses (and neither should it).

 

the reason we're not spending money is simple and it has been since day one of takeover - we only spend what we make - the accounts show you what we made and what we've spent on it. you can raise the issue that fsg aren't putting in additional capital (which they always said they wouldn't) - chelsea and city don't need to worry about the risk of losing 90 million a year in revenue like we do. this is the model we signed up to and we've done pretty well out of it so far, but it will definitely have its limits. 

Which is why I posted I'd love to know how we calculate the wage bill. Because accounts paint the picture a board wants you to see, they're not some sort of bank statement with itemised transactions. 

 

Regardless of this, let's assume £315m is correct. When we turned over £200m more than that. So what happens with all that money? Surely our costs can't be 200m? When you cut out the "top 6", the rest of the league teams turnover that or less in a season. 

 

As @FrenchEyeGlass posted earlier, if we're genuinely skint, we're doing something badly wrong. 

[dockers_strike]

8 hours ago, ManéMan said:

Don't think that's quite how it works to be honest

What, you dont think profit is the result of total income less total expenditure?

7 hours ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creative-accounting.asp

 

You really have to be incredibly naive to believe any company's accounts show you what you want to see. 

 

They show you what they want you to see.

 

People can think thats conspiracy theorist territory but I've built and executed countless valuation models for a living so trust me when I say it's real life. 

You have to be incredibly naive to believe all these conspiracies. I mean the whole financial world from Liverpool's accountants, Companies House, Swiss Rambler and even the lad who posts on here, Woolston is it, doesnt believe your rubbish never mind uncover any discrepancies in club's accounts?

 

As usual, you come out with hyperbole and conspiracy theories.

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

 

[Harry Squatter]

Due to winning the Premier League by 18 points last season, Liverpool are not willing take any risks in the transfer market, even though teams like Chelsea are spending a lot of money. [Liverpool Echo]

 

 

[Megadrive Man]

18 minutes ago, 1892-LFCWasBorn said:

 

 

Transfer fees aren't normally paid in one big instalment up front so I can't see how its a cash flow issue?

 

If we need to take out a loan for £27 million transfer, that's not a good sign about our finances. 

[dockers_strike]

2 minutes ago, Doctor Troy said:

Due to winning the Premier League by 18 points last season, Liverpool are not willing take any risks in the transfer market, even though teams like Chelsea are spending a lot of money. [Liverpool Echo]

 

 

Yes, and we all know chelsea are one of two clubs in the PL where the owners throw endless amounts of money at them. chelsea had a transfer ban last season so had that money ready to go when the ban ended plus whatever the owner was going to thrown at his new manager during this window.

 

Cause and effect.

[BeefStroganoff]

21 minutes ago, 1892-LFCWasBorn said:

 

The comments on that thread are interesting. Not the usual FSGOUT brigade but fans talking sense. Is the tide turning? Lets hope so.

[BeefStroganoff]

1 minute ago, dockers_strike said:

Yes, and we all know chelsea are one of two clubs in the PL where the owners throw endless amounts of money at them. chelsea had a transfer ban last season so had that money ready to go when the ban ended plus whatever the owner was going to thrown at his new manager during this window.

 

Cause and effect.

So explain Leeds and Everton spending 30m and 25m respectively? Again, I don't see people clambering for mega expensive signings, in fact all the players we are linked with are quite reasonable for a Club of our size.

[Megadrive Man]

Even Spurs are spending despite losing a shit load of money from their new stadium and not having Champions League football!

[Bobby Hundreds]

Chelsea transfer ban. How many Windows under FSG have we done no business or very little, the funds saved never seem to accumulate. We sell to buy. Selling big allowed us to buy big, if we get it wrong a few times we'd have no assets to sell for good money the recruitment needs to be near perfect.

[Scooby Dudek]

The famous Chelsea transfer ban where they still managed to spend more money than us in. That transfer ban 

[dockers_strike]

How many players did chelsea buy during the period of the transfer ban? Answer none, zip, nada, not one. They had bought that Ziyech before the ban came into effect. But dont let facts get in the way of revisionism.

[aws]

The budget will assume top four and probably quarter finals of CL as a minimum. You don't actually get much extra for winning the League and I expect most of the extra goes in bonuses. Getting past the CL quarters brings in quite a bit but actually winning it will trigger bonuses. Winning anything also ends up with renegotiated higher wages as we try to hang on to players who are now on the world stage and could probably double their money if they left us for City, Real, Barca etc. 

So the answer is that most of the prize/success/TV money ends up in players' pockets. The real prize for the club is increasing sponsorship and that's going to be difficult in a worldwide depression caused by a pandemic which may be someway off running its course and second lockdowns still a possibility. The budgeted crowd money has also  been completely shattered for last and this season, maybe even for next season. 

FSG are investors not venture capitalists prepared to gamble for a big win or oil states or oligarchs seeking to launder their image. Like it or not, they're going to play this cautiously. Just because they've done fantastically with their investment to date doesn't mean they think they "owe" us anything or that they feel the urge to risk new money in an uncertain business environment.

Additionally, their success to date is still " locked in" to the club in the form of an increased capital value which they haven't actually cashed in yet. Neither have they taken any money out of the club. This may well be the reason behind the talks with this Beane investor - selling him a slice means they can get their original investment back and stil keep ownership of most of the club. Very nice for them and if it happens they might be prepared to inject more capital into the club but I doubt it. 

Having said all that, I still reckon Jurgen will be given scope to strengthen the squad with a mixture of sales and purchases and there's a long time till the window closes. 

 

[Anubis]

I don’t see Jurgen returning to us after his sabbatical. He may have accepted working under these conditions for the length of his contract, but there is only so much blood you can get out of a stone and he’s already done that. By the time he leaves we’ll be in serious need of a rebuild and even he can’t feed 5000 with five loaves and two fishes.

[Jairzinho]

12 hours ago, Salou said:

we've done pretty well out of it so far, but it will definitely have its limits. 

Yes, because we have the best manager in the world. It isn't some genius system, we just have the best manager in the world far, far exceeding expectations.

[Scooby Dudek]

Chelsea have signed Croatia midfielder Mateo Kovacic from Real Madrid for £40m, despite being under a two-window transfer ban.

 

 

That non signing during a transfer ban. 

 

 

[Bruce Spanner]

21 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

How many players did chelsea buy during the period of the transfer ban? Answer none, zip, nada, not one. They had bought that Ziyech before the ban came into effect. But dont let facts get in the way of revisionism.

They bought Pulisic when they knew it was coming and loaned him back so they had him in during the ban, they also completed the signing of Kovacic, combined about 90m.

 

Nowt much really.