Go fuck yourselves FSG

[Jose Jones]

Just now, Barrington Womble said:

My understanding was there was a release clause that had to be activated in July and if it wasn't he had to wait until next year. They had cash flow issues because of covid and asked him to accept the move and that is the reason he didn't join us. We asked him to wait a year, he spoke to RBL about it and they wanted him to go this year. That was my understanding to begin with, but there was a Twitter posted on this site today about it. 

Why would he have had to wait until next year if the clause wasn't activated in July?  If Red Bull wanted to sell and he wanted to leave they can accept the bid at any time right?

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

5 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Why would he have had to wait until next year if the clause wasn't activated in July?  If Red Bull wanted to sell and he wanted to leave they can accept the bid at any time right?

 

 

Dunno. It's the way his clause was written. Perhaps they didn't want to create a precedent of ignoring deadline dates on contract clauses. A little like when apparently Can would sign a new deal at LFC if he could have a release clause but we didn't want the precedent of players having release clauses any more after Suarez. So instead we lost a player on a bosman. It's been reported widely that RBL wanted the deal done. 

[Salou]

This is really good on Chelsea by SwissRamble

 

it shows the difference in ownership models of Chelsea/PSG/City vs Others - from an accounting perspective we absolutely could make new signings and stay within FFP, FFP is not the problem, its cashflow - because we don't have owners that will put their own cash in we can't. If we are forecasting to lose close to a 80 million in income over next year then from a cashflow perspective makes sense that they would keep whatever income they have on existing costs. We spend pretty much every bit of cash that we make on costs without the owners putting in any themselves - take a look at Evertons accounts, Moshiri continues to pump in his own cash to keep the lights running and spend then use the accounting trickery below to make it not seem as bad.

 

 

 

 

[BeefStroganoff]

5 minutes ago, Salou said:

This is really good on Chelsea by SwissRamble

 

it shows the difference in ownership models of Chelsea/PSG/City vs Others - from an accounting perspective we absolutely could make new signings and stay within FFP, FFP is not the problem, its cashflow - because we don't have owners that will put their own cash in we can't. If we are forecasting to lose close to a 80 million in income over next year then from a cashflow perspective makes sense that they would keep whatever income they have on existing costs. We spend pretty much every bit of cash that we make on costs without the owners putting in any themselves - take a look at Evertons accounts, Moshiri continues to pump in his own cash to keep the lights running and spend then use the accounting trickery below to make it not seem as bad.

 

 

 

 

Thats fine, except as someone else said a few posts back, when its acceptable for them to leave with a massive profit when they sell up. So yeah they are tight bastards in that respect. Protecting their profit 1st, Club/Team second.

[dockers_strike]

32 minutes ago, Salou said:

This is really good on Chelsea by SwissRamble

 

it shows the difference in ownership models of Chelsea/PSG/City vs Others - from an accounting perspective we absolutely could make new signings and stay within FFP, FFP is not the problem, its cashflow - because we don't have owners that will put their own cash in we can't. If we are forecasting to lose close to a 80 million in income over next year then from a cashflow perspective makes sense that they would keep whatever income they have on existing costs. We spend pretty much every bit of cash that we make on costs without the owners putting in any themselves - take a look at Evertons accounts, Moshiri continues to pump in his own cash to keep the lights running and spend then use the accounting trickery below to make it not seem as bad.

 

 

 

 

Yes. And interesting Swiss Rambler says chelsea 'only bought' Kovacic for 40m last season. He says chelsea are effectively playing catch up after last season's FIFA transfer ban meaning they were only allowed the 40m spend on loanee Kovacic. Well what do you know?

 

It's mind blowing they got 100m for hazard and 50m for morata. Morata effectively flopped although as Im no chelsea afficianado, this is just my impression. Ive seen figures of 89m plus add ons for hazard upto almost as much as we got for Countinho so maybe that's why he's used 100m plus add ons?

 

Also interesting to note they got nearly 200m through player sales in the last 2 years with a profit of 173m!

 

Strikingly, chelsea's model is far more reliant on player sales than any other major English club!

[Salou]

39 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

Thats fine, except as someone else said a few posts back, when its acceptable for them to leave with a massive profit when they sell up. So yeah they are tight bastards in that respect. Protecting their profit 1st, Club/Team second.

they don't want to put their own money in after the purchase price, they never have and they never will and they will leave with a most likely a billion + profit. they are hedge fund investors, don't expect anything less/more from them.

[Salou]

20 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Yes. And interesting Swiss Rambler says chelsea 'only bought' Kovacic for 40m last season. He says chelsea are effectively playing catch up after last season's FIFA transfer ban meaning they were only allowed the 40m spend on loanee Kovacic. Well what do you know?

  

It's mind blowing they got 100m for hazard and 50m for morata. Morata effectively flopped although as Im no chelsea afficianado, this is just my impression. Ive seen figures of 89m plus add ons for hazard upto almost as much as we got for Countinho so maybe that's why he's used 100m plus add ons?

 

Also interesting to note they got nearly 200m through player sales in the last 2 years with a profit of 173m!

 

Strikingly, chelsea's model is far more reliant on player sales than any other major English club!

reliant on player sales from an accounting perspective yes, but even more reliant on Roman continuing to use his own cash

[Horus]

Tom Werner in 2019: 

 

“If they recommend someone then we will support that recommendation. Our role at FSG is to support the manager and the people around him in the best way that we possibly can.”

[dockers_strike]

6 minutes ago, Salou said:

reliant on player sales from an accounting perspective yes, but even more reliant on Roman continuing to use his own cash

Yes, agreed. As Swiss Rambler states, UEFA have as a consequence, greenlighted mega rich owners spending heavily in a buyers market. Ergo, Roman splashing the cash.

[General Dryness]

8 minutes ago, Horus said:

Tom Werner in 2019: 

 

“If they recommend someone then we will support that recommendation. Our role at FSG is to support the manager and the people around him in the best way that we possibly can.”

Its fucking disgraceful that, even after everything Klopp has delivered, these cunts still had the nerve to refuse him the funds to get Timo Werner.

[Barrington Womble]

3 hours ago, Salou said:

they don't want to put their own money in after the purchase price, they never have and they never will and they will leave with a most likely a billion + profit. they are hedge fund investors, don't expect anything less/more from them.

if cashflow is the issue and it is not a P&L issue or ffp issue, i don't see why we don't increase our revolving credit facility to see us through. businesses all over the world will be increasing their credit to get through covid, i don't see why that would be an issue for fsg. 

[Horus]

19 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

if cashflow is the issue and it is not a P&L issue or ffp issue, i don't see why we don't increase our revolving credit facility to see us through. businesses all over the world will be increasing their credit to get through covid, i don't see why that would be an issue for fsg. 

I genuinely think they're in the process of preparing to sell. Nothing left for them to achieve, we're at max value this instance, city screwing FFP, and the more money they can pay off our loan debt - which is owed to them, the more profit they will clear when they're ready. Only way their approach really makes sense.

[Daisy]

We only have four years left of Klopp. It is an absolute fucking disgrace that the owners are not capitalising on every last minute that he has left remaining 

[Barrington Womble]

3 minutes ago, Horus said:

I genuinely think they're in the process of preparing to sell. Nothing left for them to achieve, we're at max value this instance, city screwing FFP, and the more money they can pay off our loan debt - which is owed to them, the more profit they will clear when they're ready. Only way their approach really makes sense.

you might be right - even if that billy beane report of last week was correct, the same would apply. and it could be why klopp is talking about "things might change"

[Horus]

13 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

you might be right - even if that billy beane report of last week was correct, the same would apply. and it could be why klopp is talking about "things might change"

The Billy Beane noise worries me. He's been scrambling around fund raising, so the minute a purchase would be complete, he doesn't have that money, so whichever club he ends up with are going to be H&G'd. 

 

That said, preparing to sell, and selling are 2 different things in this financial climate, so I don't think Klopp was referencing a potential sale. More likely he was on about us selling a load of players. 

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Horus said:

The Billy Beane noise worries me. He's been scrambling around fund raising, so the minute a purchase would be complete, he doesn't have that money, so whichever club he ends up with are going to be H&G'd. 

 

That said, preparing to sell, and selling are 2 different things in this financial climate, so I don't think Klopp was referencing a potential sale. More likely he was on about us selling a load of players. 

The report last week said he'd raised around 1bn USD. I'd have expected him to try and get a stake in LFC for that, they've turned down more already haven't they? And if they only got a minority share they won't be able to leverage us. 

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

And if they only got a minority share they won't be able to leverage us. 

Who? FSG?

 

I don't think there is a scenario where Billy Beane comes in and is at odds with FSG as to how to run the club.

[Barrington Womble]

16 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Who? FSG?

 

I don't think there is a scenario where Billy Beane comes in and is at odds with FSG as to how to run the club.

No billy beanes lot. Horus was saying he was worried because beane is scrambling for pennies if he gets enough to take over we're back to where we were under H&G. 

[Moo]

Just what we friggin need, another (Billy) Beancounter.

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, Barrington Womble said:

No billy beanes lot. Horus was saying he was worried because beane is scrambling for pennies if he gets enough to take over we're back to where we were under H&G. 

Got it -- assuming they tried to buy the whole club.

 

No chance. He doesn't have the dosh and FSG would be nuts to sell it all, unless it was for silly money.

 

They could triple their investment and still keep control.

[3 Stacks]

Beane would be ideal as an additional investor. Someone who has innovated in the sports world and who would genuinely really care about success on the pitch. 

[TheHowieLama]

5 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Beane would be ideal as an additional investor. Someone who has innovated in the sports world and who would genuinely really care about success on the pitch. 

Why would you make this assumption?

 

FSG have won far more than Beane ever has -- the A's were dead last more often than not when he was an exec.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

6 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Beane would be ideal as an additional investor. Someone who has innovated in the sports world and who would genuinely really care about success on the pitch. 

 

Like our current lot? Wish these lot would care enough to invest some of their own dough.

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, FrenchEyeGlass said:

 

Like our current lot? Wish these lot would care enough to invest some of their own dough.

The one thing Beane has very little of.

[3 Stacks]

6 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Why would you make this assumption?

 

FSG have won far more than Beane ever has -- the A's were dead last more often than not when he was an exec.

Everything I have read about him indicates he's a maniacally competitive guy. And it's not about winning. You know baseball is fickle. You can be first in the division one year and last the next. He has managed to make the A's competitive on numerous occasions throughout his tenure when the reality is they should never be anywhere near because of their payroll. And that's because he's an innovator.