Go fuck yourselves FSG

[TheHowieLama]

14 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

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. 

I imagine you would find John Henry to be competitive in the flesh mate. He didn't get where he is by losing a whole lot.

Having lived in the Bay Area during the 70's I can tell you the A's are hardly some sleeping giant made good by innovation. They were the best team in the game. By far. With one of the most entertaining owners in sports history and some of the greatest players ever.

 

Agree he - Beane - (read: the fund that he is fronting) would be a very good candidate as a minority investor.

[3 Stacks]

18 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I imagine you would find John Henry to be competitive in the flesh mate. He didn't get where he is by losing a whole lot.

Having lived in the Bay Area during the 70's I can tell you the A's are hardly some sleeping giant made good by innovation. They were the best team in the game. By far. With one of the most entertaining owners in sports history and some of the greatest players ever.

 

Agree he - Beane - (read: the fund that he is fronting) would be a very good candidate as a minority investor.

Yes, when they had loads of money. The A's are a historic franchise that became irrelevant and poor, playing in a dump of a stadium. He has made them at times relevant which is an achievement in itself. 

 

The competitive comment was related to the fact that he is also in the sports world. He's not some rich investor whose sole purpose is to make more money and win to massage his ego. He's someone who has been a pro athlete and who has run a professional sports team from the player personnel side.  

[Trumo]

7 hours 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?

 

I'm not sure that bit is entirely accurate. They signed Kovacic on a loan-to-buy deal just before the transfer ban kicked in. They were still under the ban before it became a permanent deal, which was an amount agreed at the time of the initial loan, as opposed to only what they were allowed to spend. They were allowed to complete the deal because they held his registration at the time of the ban.

[dockers_strike]

39 minutes ago, Trumo said:

 

I'm not sure that bit is entirely accurate. They signed Kovacic on a loan-to-buy deal just before the transfer ban kicked in. They were still under the ban before it became a permanent deal, which was an amount agreed at the time of the initial loan, as opposed to only what they were allowed to spend. They were allowed to complete the deal because they held his registration at the time of the ban.

Yes, swiss rambler says they bought him via a loan to buy deal. Is it really necessary that every i is dotted and t crossed and quote everything verbatum though?

[TheHowieLama]

22 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

 Is it really necessary that every i is dotted and t crossed and quote everything verbatum though?

Yes. It is.

[Barrington Womble]

11 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

I imagine you would find John Henry to be competitive in the flesh mate. He didn't get where he is by losing a whole lot.

Having lived in the Bay Area during the 70's I can tell you the A's are hardly some sleeping giant made good by innovation. They were the best team in the game. By far. With one of the most entertaining owners in sports history and some of the greatest players ever.

 

Agree he - Beane - (read: the fund that he is fronting) would be a very good candidate as a minority investor.

I think the thing to remember is it would seem beane is not the investor. He's just the front and will have his own paymasters. Having said that, I would imagine if fsg were to welcome this outside investment it would because it would effectively be no different and just allows fsg to recover their initial investment and some while maintaining control and running the business in the same way. It might be helpful to have another voice in beane, but I think it would be pretty unlikely to make any material difference to the day to day running of the club.

 

The only potential hope to change anything would be if the investment was to provide some return for fsg, but provide the capital to pay for the remaining debt on the main stand, the road end and the training complex. This would at least then free up money currently servicing this debt to invest on the pitch. I would be shocked if this is the outcome though as JWH is on record himself in the past of saying borrowing to invest is not a bad thing and the cutrent cost of borrowing it would seem to make little sense. 

[No2]

Watched the 30 year wait last night and it struck me John Henry has turned into an old man. When your that old would you prefer to own an asset worth 1.5bn or cash it in for 1bn? Normal folk like me would probably go for the later, billionaires like Henry will go for the former. Wealth, status and power are what its about for these guys, the need for cash in the bank disappeared years ago.

 

Slightly off topic but it also occurred to me Linda will leave him shortly, the last will have needs.

[dockers_strike]

25 minutes ago, No2 said:

Watched the 30 year wait last night and it struck me John Henry has turned into an old man. When your that old would you prefer to own an asset worth 1.5bn or cash it in for 1bn? Normal folk like me would probably go for the later, billionaires like Henry will go for the former. Wealth, status and power are what its about for these guys, the need for cash in the bank disappeared years ago.

 

Slightly off topic but it also occurred to me Linda will leave him shortly, the last will have needs.

Ive got a couple of grand in the pre bonds but havent the desire or need to cash them it just yet.

 

[Barrington Womble]

32 minutes ago, No2 said:

Watched the 30 year wait last night and it struck me John Henry has turned into an old man. When your that old would you prefer to own an asset worth 1.5bn or cash it in for 1bn? Normal folk like me would probably go for the later, billionaires like Henry will go for the former. Wealth, status and power are what its about for these guys, the need for cash in the bank disappeared years ago.

 

Slightly off topic but it also occurred to me Linda will leave him shortly, the last will have needs.

i was thinking he looked old too. 

 

as for cashing in, i guess it depends on if that will change your lifestyle, i am guessing not as he's pretty fucking sorted anyway. and i think lots of people become lost once they've no work to do. and while i haven't done it, i am guessing running a sports business is more fun than what most of us have to do to earn a coin and it must make it all easier if you don't have to do it. 

[Harry Squatter]

I bet Tom Hicks looks older than Yoda these days.

[Barrington Womble]

48 minutes ago, Doctor Troy said:

I bet Tom Hicks looks older than Yoda these days.

 

[Leyton388]

The epic swindle interview is one of the greatest moments in our history.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Just now, Leyton388 said:

The epic swindle interview is one of the greatest moments in our history.

Does any club have drama like ours, onfield off field, good and bad, highest highs and lowest lows.

[Harry Squatter]

24 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Does any club have drama like ours, onfield off field, good and bad, highest highs and lowest lows.

This why no one could be arsed making a documentary about Man City winning the league after 44 years.

[No2]

@Barrington Womble didn't want to take the blueshite off topic.

 

https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/football-leaks-juergen-klopp-und-die-geschaefte-des-fc-liverpool-a-1207345.html

 

That article is from 2018 from footyleaks. Van Dijk is on a 6m a year but after appearance bonuses and loyalty bonuses it works out much closer to 10m per year. That doesn't appear to include bonuses for actually winning stuff.  Since then he has signed an improved contract, let's be conservative and say it's an addition 2m per year, that works out 230k per week before we win anything. It's not hard to imagine he earned close to 300k per week last year.

 

I'd say most of the regulars are earning twice their headline wage for the last 2 years.

 

[lifetime fan]

6 minutes ago, No2 said:

@Barrington Womble didn't want to take the blueshite off topic.

 

https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/football-leaks-juergen-klopp-und-die-geschaefte-des-fc-liverpool-a-1207345.html

 

That article is from 2018 from footyleaks. Van Dijk is on a 6m a year but after appearance bonuses and loyalty bonuses it works out much closer to 10m per year. That doesn't appear to include bonuses for actually winning stuff.  Since then he has signed an improved contract, let's be conservative and say it's an addition 2m per year, that works out 230k per week before we win anything. It's not hard to imagine he earned close to 300k per week last year.

 

I'd say most of the regulars are earning twice their headline wage for the last 2 years.

 

VVD hasn’t signed a new contract. 

[No2]

5 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

VVD hasn’t signed a new contract. 

That's a bit shit.

[Daisy]

Total Wage bill is 276m

 

Player wage bill is 110m 

 

Let's say the other 830 employees earn 100k a year each (they obviously don't) that is 83 million. 

 

And let's say the first team players all earnt a million each in bonuses so thats another 20 million. 

 

Klopp and his team are 15 mill. 

 

There is at least 50 million unaccounted for. 

[Barrington Womble]

9 hours ago, No2 said:

@Barrington Womble didn't want to take the blueshite off topic.

 

https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/football-leaks-juergen-klopp-und-die-geschaefte-des-fc-liverpool-a-1207345.html

 

That article is from 2018 from footyleaks. Van Dijk is on a 6m a year but after appearance bonuses and loyalty bonuses it works out much closer to 10m per year. That doesn't appear to include bonuses for actually winning stuff.  Since then he has signed an improved contract, let's be conservative and say it's an addition 2m per year, that works out 230k per week before we win anything. It's not hard to imagine he earned close to 300k per week last year.

 

I'd say most of the regulars are earning twice their headline wage for the last 2 years.

 

 

I've mentioned before that Werner's view on how salaries should be is a player on the 1st contract is heavily incentivised. The 2nd one might not have a bigger top end, but once a player is shown to be a success at the club, we will make the basic bigger and bonus much smaller. I'd be amazed if one player at the club has broken 300k.  

[Barrington Womble]

9 hours ago, lifetime fan said:

VVD hasn’t signed a new contract. 

You know what, I thought that and googled it, saw a news story from the official site saying he had. I didn't even follow the link till I read your post and it was the official site bullshitting via a news story from the mirror! 

 

My understanding was it was a story we put out last summer after buying nobody in the transfer window. Then it emerged there hadn't even been talks and he still has 3 years left now. 

[M_B]

2 hours ago, Daisy said:

Total Wage bill is 276m

 

Player wage bill is 110m 

 

Let's say the other 830 employees earn 100k a year each (they obviously don't) that is 83 million. 

 

And let's say the first team players all earnt a million each in bonuses so thats another 20 million. 

 

Klopp and his team are 15 mill. 

 

There is at least 50 million unaccounted for. 

The trouble with fag packet calculations is that they are invariably wrong. Your wage bill is based on The Mirror as a source of info and you have no idea what bonuses are paid out during a season when LFC became champions of the world.

 

Which is more likely - your rough calculations are out or our accountants are committing fraud?

[Barrington Womble]

31 minutes ago, M_B said:

The trouble with fag packet calculations is that they are invariably wrong. Your wage bill is based on The Mirror as a source of info and you have no idea what bonuses are paid out during a season when LFC became champions of the world.

 

Which is more likely - your rough calculations are out or our accountants are committing fraud?

It has zero to do with being champions of the world.The latest accounts published are up to and including 31st May 2019. At that point in time the last time we'd have paid a bonus for winning a cup was in the accounts covering Feb 2012, so if the latest accounts include trophy winning bonuses, they will likely be fraudulent. 

 

Also, the definition of wages is not declared in our accounts (or not that I recall when I read them). So if they were to include agent fees, legal fees, this could be possible, unless they've explicitly been declared elsewhere. It might even be possible to include player amortisation, although I'm not certain on the legality of that. What is clear though accounts absolutely do not have to be fraudulent to stretch the truth. It's why they're accounts and not bank statements.  There are lots and lots of grey areas. I think it's a pretty reasonable question to ask how we're paying quite that much at a time we'd not won a trophy in 7 years and were widely seen in the game as paying on the low side of market rate in player remuneration . 

[Horus]

Think of all the success we've had since we bought Mane and Salah, then realise that we wouldn't even be bidding for them today if they came on the market at their prices that we bought them for. 

[M_B]

20 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

It has zero to do with being champions of the world.The latest accounts published are up to and including 31st May 2019. At that point in time the last time we'd have paid a bonus for winning a cup was in the accounts covering Feb 2012, so if the latest accounts include trophy winning bonuses, they will likely be fraudulent. 

 

Also, the definition of wages is not declared in our accounts (or not that I recall when I read them). So if they were to include agent fees, legal fees, this could be possible, unless they've explicitly been declared elsewhere. It might even be possible to include player amortisation, although I'm not certain on the legality of that. What is clear though accounts absolutely do not have to be fraudulent to stretch the truth. It's why they're accounts and not bank statements.  There are lots and lots of grey areas. I think it's a pretty reasonable question to ask how we're paying quite that much at a time we'd not won a trophy in 7 years and were widely seen in the game as paying on the low side of market rate in player remuneration . 

Plenty of other bonuses - goals, appearances, league position, clean sheets. You get a bonus for being on the bench but not used these days. Lots of clubs use a plethora of bonus clauses, which is why you always hear people wondering how the likes of Spurs pay such low wages.

 

Its reasonable to ask questions about how wages are calculated for sure, although there wont be any answers. Its not reasonable for amateur armchair accountants to accuse the club of illegal activity by leaping to the conclusion that funds are being siphoned off for other purposes.

[General Dryness]

4 minutes ago, Horus said:

Think of all the success we've had since we bought Mane and Salah, then realise that we wouldn't even be bidding for them today if they came on the market at their prices that we bought them for. 

We would be if we'd made enough on player sales to cover it.