Jump to content
Neil G

Go fuck yourselves FSG

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dockers_strike said:

Some people seem to misunderstand the difference between what the club is 'worth,' what turnover is and what profit is.

 

I'll keep saying it, people need to produce evidence of financial misappropriation within the club by the owners because just saying repeatedly they think something's 'wrong' just makes them sound like a flat earther saying the world's flat, not a globe (or oblate spheroid for the pedants).

 

Facts, evidence and not rumour or gut feeling.

 

 

I don't think FSG are cooking the books at all, if they wanted to take money out of the club they could do so much more easily (and legally!) than by defrauding their own business.

 

I would like to see a more detailed breakdown of our wage bill though. It's astonishingly high. Are we paying Salah like £400k a week or something? The last Swiss Ramble thread on us had our total wage bill at £326m per season, second only to City. Where's all that going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, joe_fishfish said:

I don't think FSG are cooking the books at all, if they wanted to take money out of the club they could do so much more easily (and legally!) than by defrauding their own business.

 

I would like to see a more detailed breakdown of our wage bill though. It's astonishingly high. Are we paying Salah like £400k a week or something? The last Swiss Ramble thread on us had our total wage bill at £326m per season, second only to City. Where's all that going?

I agree with your first bit. It's their company. They could take as much money out of it as they wanted, legally and just like the Glazers.

 

I personally think the breakdown of wages is a pipedream though. Why should the players or any individual have the amount they earn splattered all over the shop just to placate the people who claim our wage bill is inflated, ergo the players arent on big wedges?

 

Arent they allowed to have this stuff private (that's not a question directed at you)?

 

Many companies consider discussing how much you earn with colleagues to be a breach of confidential info. Yeah, in the case of mundane jobs we have or have had, it's a method for controlling wage inflation.

 

But, at the risk of repeating myself, I want to see hard evidence of financial misconduct within the club else I dont take on board what others say about an 'over inflated wage bill.'

 

Swiss Rambler does excellent analysise of club accounts but even he doesnt know how the club's performance related bonuses to the players is structured.

 

Some people still believed Wijnaldum was on the same 75 grand a week 5 years after he signed for us and despite being integral to the team that got to play in a Europa League Final, 2 Champions League Finals, winning one, finishing 2nd in the PL with a then club record points total, winning the PL the season after plus also winning the FIFA World Club Championship and UEFA Super Cup, the latter two likely having a far smaller bonus payment that the major achievements.

Share this post


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

I'll keep saying it, people need to produce evidence of financial misappropriation within the club by the owners because just saying repeatedly they think something's 'wrong' just makes them sound like a flat earther saying the world's flat, not a globe (or oblate spheroid for the pedants).

 

Facts, evidence and not rumour or gut feeling.

 

 


From CCTV footage of Linda Henry in the match day takings office. 
 

200w.gif?cid=82a1493buub6tdrd82m2dzy05yr

Share this post


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

I agree with your first bit. It's their company. They could take as much money out of it as they wanted, legally and just like the Glazers.

 

I personally think the breakdown of wages is a pipedream though. Why should the players or any individual have the amount they earn splattered all over the shop just to placate the people who claim our wage bill is inflated, ergo the players arent on big wedges?

 

Arent they allowed to have this stuff private (that's not a question directed at you)?

 

Many companies consider discussing how much you earn with colleagues to be a breach of confidential info. Yeah, in the case of mundane jobs we have or have had, it's a method for controlling wage inflation.

 

But, at the risk of repeating myself, I want to see hard evidence of financial misconduct within the club else I dont take on board what others say about an 'over inflated wage bill.'

 

Swiss Rambler does excellent analysise of club accounts but even he doesnt know how the club's performance related bonuses to the players is structured.

 

Some people still believed Wijnaldum was on the same 75 grand a week 5 years after he signed for us and despite being integral to the team that got to play in a Europa League Final, 2 Champions League Finals, winning one, finishing 2nd in the PL with a then club record points total, winning the PL the season after plus also winning the FIFA World Club Championship and UEFA Super Cup, the latter two likely having a far smaller bonus payment that the major achievements.

Wijnaldum was on the same basic wage dumbarse 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

I think we very obviously pay top wages, the last player we lost because they wanted more money was Sterling.


We have absolute top players, and the only time they think of leaving is like Gini at the end of his contact when we let them go.


FSG should have paid for the stadium development out of their own cash though, rather than the club funding it, but they don’t.

 

It’s an interesting argument I reckon, whether they should go all in now while we’ve got Klopp, or save up the cash for when we have the next, presumably less good, manager?
Make hay while the sun shines and then go through a lull, or try to keep things even?

 

We have arguably not been as attractive a proposition on paper for players as we are now for decades.....we should in my book be trying to make as much hay as Klopp feels we need to, not as much as he'll 'accept' or as much as he is 'allowed' but as much as he sees is fit, and not a penny less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joe_fishfish said:

I don't think FSG are cooking the books at all, if they wanted to take money out of the club they could do so much more easily (and legally!) than by defrauding their own business.

 

I would like to see a more detailed breakdown of our wage bill though. It's astonishingly high. Are we paying Salah like £400k a week or something? The last Swiss Ramble thread on us had our total wage bill at £326m per season, second only to City. Where's all that going?

With a wage bill of 326m and a turnover at 500m, it's pretty hard to understand how we're skint. The stadium extension costs about £10m a year iirc. What are the rest of the running costs from there? Maintain the stadium, run a training ground (I am not sure if that's been done on credit or not but it would seem surprising if it wasn't), run an office in town, run one in London - anything else? It's a pretty simple business model. We're doing something wrong somewhere. 

Share this post


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

With a wage bill of 326m and a turnover at 500m, it's pretty hard to understand how we're skint. The stadium extension costs about £10m a year iirc. What are the rest of the running costs from there? Maintain the stadium, run a training ground (I am not sure if that's been done on credit or not but it would seem surprising if it wasn't), run an office in town, run one in London - anything else? It's a pretty simple business model. We're doing something wrong somewhere. 

 

The accounts are available online. Download them, have a good look, and then tell us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Trumo said:

 

The accounts are available online. Download them, have a good look, and then tell us.

Accounts aren't worth shit. They tell you the picture that the business wants telling. It's not like they're a bank statement showing ins and outs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, No2 said:

 That is at the bare minimum, Konate’s will be here whatever his success or lack of it, the recoveries of Gomez and Virgil are unknowns, Jota and Jones will have their best years ahead of them

Not if they go in on a one-on-one with that tiny-armed shithouse Pickford.

Share this post


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

Accounts aren't worth shit. They tell you the picture that the business wants telling. It's not like they're a bank statement showing ins and outs. 

 

So unless you see what you want to see, it all means shit. Got it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

So unless you see what you want to see, it all means shit. Got it.

Accounts will tell you exactly what the people who wrote them want them to say. They will say nothing else. Which is why when people buy companies they just make do with company accounts. Because everybody does the same. This is not an FSG thing or a football/sport thing. This is literally how every single company in the world works. Accounts aren't worth shit. 

Share this post


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

Accounts will tell you exactly what the people who wrote them want them to say. They will say nothing else. Which is why when people buy companies they just make do with company accounts. Because everybody does the same. This is not an FSG thing or a football/sport thing. This is literally how every single company in the world works. Accounts aren't worth shit. 

Audited accounts are worth shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rotpeter said:

Audited accounts are worth shit.

They're not though. It's not about if people are lying. It's about how they want their accounts to look. If that was the case, when you buy a company, why would you go through books and accounts? Because audited accounts aren't worth shit because auditors are afraid to question their clients. Amazing stuff is overlooked all the time. 

 

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/14/accountancy-watchdog-attacks-poor-work-from-biggest-firms?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16271598004507&amp_ct=1627159897449&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbusiness%2F2020%2Fjul%2F14%2Faccountancy-watchdog-attacks-poor-work-from-biggest-firms

 

 

Share this post


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

They're not though. It's not about if people are lying. It's about how they want their accounts to look. If that was the case, when you buy a company, why would you go through books and accounts? Because audited accounts aren't worth shit because auditors are afraid to question their clients. Amazing stuff is overlooked all the time. 

 

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/14/accountancy-watchdog-attacks-poor-work-from-biggest-firms?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16271598004507&amp_ct=1627159897449&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbusiness%2F2020%2Fjul%2F14%2Faccountancy-watchdog-attacks-poor-work-from-biggest-firms

 

 

The audit doesn't just look at the summary reports though.  They trace transactions from source to finish across sub-ledgers, bank accounts and companies.  You're right in as much as its not perfect and you can guide the accounts to paint a picture (recognizing revenue early vs late and that kind of thing) but the audits I've been involved with (USA) would catch departures from GAAP and all the kinds of stuff talked about on here.  Especially since Sarbannes-Oxley.

Share this post


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

The audit doesn't just look at the summary reports though.  They trace transactions from source to finish across sub-ledgers, bank accounts and companies.  You're right in as much as its not perfect and you can guide the accounts to paint a picture (recognizing revenue early vs late and that kind of thing) but the audits I've been involved with (USA) would catch departures from GAAP and all the kinds of stuff talked about on here.  Especially since Sarbannes-Oxley.

I think the problem with audits are that they are only a fraction of the work, so if PWC, KPMG etc are auditing these big companies and also doing consulting and project work for the same client as well its going to be a big call for them to qualify an audit or say something bad. And has history has shown, they wont.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I think the problem with audits are that they are only a fraction of the work, so if PWC, KPMG etc are auditing these big companies and also doing consulting and project work for the same client as well its going to be a big call for them to qualify an audit or say something bad. And has history has shown, they wont.

That’s not allowed anymore though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

They're not though. It's not about if people are lying. It's about how they want their accounts to look. If that was the case, when you buy a company, why would you go through books and accounts? Because audited accounts aren't worth shit because auditors are afraid to question their clients. Amazing stuff is overlooked all the time. 

 

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/14/accountancy-watchdog-attacks-poor-work-from-biggest-firms?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16271598004507&amp_ct=1627159897449&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbusiness%2F2020%2Fjul%2F14%2Faccountancy-watchdog-attacks-poor-work-from-biggest-firms

 

 

The club’s auditors (EY) passed with first class honours there, no?

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

×