A letter from America...Henry.

[Guest ShoePiss]

If you use lfchistory.net's transfer info FSG have averaged a little over £11m per transfer window since they came in.

[FanchesterCity]

FFP is an enormous confidence trick.

 

It is being presented as an exercise in fair play- in practise it is the reverse. It’s intention is to ensure that none of the smaller clubs can ever challenge the Euro Elite again. Whether we are in that elite is highly debateable.

 

I smiled when I saw JW warming to Platini’s words. He couldn’t even sort out an FA tribunal defence- against UEFA, it’s a no-contest. He doesn’t understand, nor does he have people around him who understand.

 

If he was prepared to pay for Jorge Valdano as CEO he would be in for a rude awakening.

 

I could not agree more.

CL always was for the elite, and nobody else. The handful of 'newcomers' each year is a smokescreen to make it look competitive, but the seedings go a long way to making sure 'newcomers' are transitory.

 

Laughably the 'elite' are also in a bit of a financial mess, despite creaming off all the money.

 

Liverpool are no longer in that elite, City never have been.

[Ranxerox]

I smiled when I saw JW warming to Platini’s words. He couldn’t even sort out an FA tribunal defence- against UEFA, it’s a no-contest. He doesn’t understand, nor does he have people around him who understand.

 

 

 

Henry doesen't believe in FFP anymore than the rest of us, it is however a convenient smokescreen to be used whenever the question of spending comes up.

[WaltonRed]

Liverpool are in the elite dont be fooled

 

you shower never will be, whatever you win in the next decade

[clangers]

They should put their own money in because their business can't close the gap on its competitors by spending just the money it generates itself.

 

Yep that's my view as well, they bought a business in distress as an investment and the business needs to be developed. Sure, go ahead and rationalise the wage structure if it makes us leaner, more efficient ultimately freeing up more funds for investment in playing staff over the longer term. There is however a fine line between implementing this rationalisation and disrupting the operational capacity of the business, in this case they've reduced our ability as a business to perform by offloading too many staff without replacement.

 

The model that they are following seems to have more in common with a business in serious financial difficulty with a rapid layoff of staff and reduced capacity offset by lower costs to allow the business to survive.

 

The reality is that even if Rodgers turns out to be something akin to a modern day Shankly he won't be able to do this without substantial investment. The nature of football and the dominance of finance means that financial investment in the short to medium term is essential to allow our manager to compete. I'm not suggesting City or Chelsea levels of investment but I would have hoped that FSG had the understanding to know when to invest and that inevitably is during the early phases of any new management regime.

 

If we end up finishing in the lower half of the table this season and turnover drops accordingly then next year the club will be required to implement another round of spending reductions to keep us within budget. A managed decline in effect as each season passes our manager will be left with less and less.

 

I doubt FSG have ever had any intention to make a substantial financial investment, they've been hoping for year on year windfall growth protected by a fully implemented FFP allowing them to compete with wealthier competition.

 

My biggest concern is that despite John Henry's open letter, attempting to give a gloss of competence following a defined plan they are actually clueless swinging from one position to another without any real foresight or planning. Last season it was allowing our management team to spend everything including anything nailed down, this year austerity. For all the controlled PR with Henry's latest statement I'd suggest you consider the latest statement set against our chairman Tom Werner's statements over the last few months....

 

“I would say we certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football.”

 

“The owners are always willing to provide funds where necessary to strengthen the squad.

 

“There will be no requirement to sell players this summer in order to fund new purchases.”

 

The last statement seems to fly directly against what we have witnessed over the summer, our own managers statement relating to needing to sell to buy and indeed today's letter.

Edited September 3, 2012 by clangers

[xerxes]

Laughably the 'elite' are also in a bit of a financial mess, despite creaming off all the money.

 

Liverpool are no longer in that elite, City never have been.

 

The Euro Elite in the FFP era will be those consistently playing in the CL, and making the knock-out stages. History counts for little and teenagers in Malaysia do not buy shirts to celebrate league title wins in 1988.

 

City can be part of that elite. FSG will have to change and learn fast, Rodgers will need to get lucky for us to.

 

Your shrewd assessment of the financial soundness of some of the elite is well made. However,anyone who thinks that they, or UEFA, are keen to see the demise of Man U,Chelsea, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Milan etc to give the likes of Brondby, Sunderland, Rosenberg, Antwerp, Basle a chance will be disappointed

[FanchesterCity]

Liverpool are in the elite dont be fooled

 

you shower never will be, whatever you win in the next decade

 

Please - be sensible!

 

History, fan base, success - you've got it all... so have Ajax. They are no longer in that elite either.

 

I'm under NO illusion that we've never been anywhere near it. But you're deluded if you believe you're still in that little circle. Folks can't take away the greatness of Liverpool's history, but it's not a cloak in invincibility that keeps you in the elite either.

[zigackly]

We have a lot bigger buffer against slipping out of it than the likes of Ajax because of our global reach. Eventually we won't be in it, if we keep on like this, but we're not out yet.

[King Emlyn]

Liverpool are in the elite dont be fooled

 

you shower never will be, whatever you win in the next decade

 

We're not, not one top player would want to come here, not one, so how could we possibly be in the elite?

[TheHowieLama]

But you know that the way the CL pool money is weighted even success in the tournament is not enough to get clubs like Brondby, or Apoel last year their "fair" share. Utd made more money crashing out than every other team in the field bar 5. They made twice as much as any other team in their group, including those that advanced.

 

As to posts like Neils and clangers - how much do you think the CL is worth and how much do you think it would cost to get there. The idea that it would be a one time reasonable injection of cash is laughable. The notion that it would then be able to be self sustaining, much less be able to pay that sum back is incredibly naive.

[FanchesterCity]

We have a lot bigger buffer against slipping out of it than the likes of Ajax because of our global reach. Eventually we won't be in it, if we keep on like this, but we're not out yet.

 

I'll give you that. As fanbases and reach go... all that is 'in place' already. Always has been. Can't argue with that.

[WaltonRed]

historically we're in the elite, end of story

 

its a closed shop of about ten clubs from round europe, city and chelsea will never be in it

 

granted were fucking crap at the mo but we still stand for something

 

besides, go and post on your own forums, you're never off here

[clangers]

FFP is an enormous confidence trick.

 

It is being presented as an exercise in fair play- in practise it is the reverse. It’s intention is to ensure that none of the smaller clubs can ever challenge the Euro Elite again. Whether we are in that elite is highly debateable.

 

I smiled when I saw JW warming to Platini’s words. He couldn’t even sort out an FA tribunal defence- against UEFA, it’s a no-contest. He doesn’t understand, nor does he have people around him who understand.

 

If he was prepared to pay for Jorge Valdano as CEO he would be in for a rude awakening.

 

Agree completely, FFP exists purely to protect the interests of the established elite clubs. Clubs who have already financially doped the markets for their own considerable advantage are now threatened by newcomers challenging their position.

 

If financial doping is unfair forcing clubs without benefactors to spend beyond their means then I'd agree with this. However if we're concerned about certain clubs having such a significant financial advantage allowing them to distort the sporting integrity of a competition then we have to consider all forms of financial doping. Allowing an already established elite club to continue to distort the market simply because of their on-field success, global fan base or geographical location is deeply flawed.

 

If we were serious about a fair playing field we'd simply introduce a transfer budget cap for every club. A clubs turnover, rich owner, recent successes or size of support should have no bearing on their ability to influence the market.

[MLB]

Football is fucked, let's be honest.

[FanchesterCity]

But you know that the way the CL pool money is weighted even success in the tournament is not enough to get clubs like Brondby, or Apoel last year their "fair" share. Utd made more money crashing out than every other team in the field bar 5. They made twice as much as any other team in their group, including those that advanced.

 

As to posts like Neils and clangers - how much do you think the CL is worth and how much do you think it would cost to get there. The idea that it would be a one time reasonable injection of cash is laughable. The notion that it would then be able to be self sustaining, much less be able to pay that sum back is incredibly naive.

 

I think just making CL brings you 15m+, getting out of the group stages is about 20+ million, then up to about 45m for winning it... BUT, that's purely from CL revenue alone... all the 'extras' that go unseen contribute on top of that... increased exposure, ability to get better sponsorship deals, attract better players etc etc.

 

It's such a bloody stitch up it's untrue. 'Seeding' to make sure the best don't knock each other out! The way the revenue is split etc.

 

It costs a fortune to just get into it, and another fortune to stay in it. Once you're in for 3-4 years, you can settle down a bit (but not too much). If United drop out of CL for any length of time, they are in deep shit!

 

In fact, that's part of the problem... once you're in, you daren't drop out for long.

[clangers]

But you know that the way the CL pool money is weighted even success in the tournament is not enough to get clubs like Brondby, or Apoel last year their "fair" share. Utd made more money crashing out than every other team in the field bar 5. They made twice as much as any other team in their group, including those that advanced.

 

As to posts like Neils and clangers - how much do you think the CL is worth and how much do you think it would cost to get there. The idea that it would be a one time reasonable injection of cash is laughable. The notion that it would then be able to be self sustaining, much less be able to pay that sum back is incredibly naive.

 

I'm not arguing for a one off injection, that's every bit as flawed as complete austerity. I'm suggesting a sustained moderate level of investment to allow us to compete in the short to medium term. It's what I would have expected from sensible owners, there are periods during the lifecycle of any business where capital investment to improve the performance of the business is required.

 

In practical terms, consider the last transfer window. Would an extra £10-£15 million allowing our newly installed manager to have an effective established striker really have crippled the club or FSG? If Dempsey doesn't fit the model then another younger striker should have been targeted and purchased.

A short-term sensible investment would have been entirely appropriate.

 

We're having the same argument with our beloved coalition government at the moment, anyone think a policy of austerity is working?

 

We're crippling our manager from the outset with our new found austerity.

 

Again I'm simply expecting Tom Werner to be good to his word. This is exactly what he has stated over the past few months.

[zigackly]

I think just making CL brings you 15m+, getting out of the group stages is about 20+ million, then up to about 45m for winning it... BUT, that's purely from CL revenue alone... all the 'extras' that go unseen contribute on top of that... increased exposure, ability to get better sponsorship deals, attract better players etc etc.

 

It's such a bloody stitch up it's untrue. 'Seeding' to make sure the best don't knock each other out! The way the revenue is split etc.

 

It costs a fortune to just get into it, and another fortune to stay in it. Once you're in for 3-4 years, you can settle down a bit (but not too much). If United drop out of CL for any length of time, they are in deep shit!

 

In fact, that's part of the problem... once you're in, you daren't drop out for long.

 

It's a financial crack pipe.

[FanchesterCity]

Agree completely, FFP exists purely to protect the interests of the established elite clubs. Clubs who have already financially doped the markets for their own considerable advantage are now threatened by newcomers challenging their position.

 

If financial doping is unfair forcing clubs without benefactors to spend beyond their means then I'd agree with this. However if we're concerned about certain clubs having such a significant financial advantage allowing them to distort the sporting integrity of a competition then we have to consider all forms of financial doping. Allowing an already established elite club to continue to distort the market simply because of their on-field success, global fan base or geographical location is deeply flawed.

 

If we were serious about a fair playing field we'd simply introduce a transfer budget cap for every club. A clubs turnover, rich owner, recent successes or size of support should have no bearing on their ability to influence the market.

 

*applauds*

 

And THAT will never happen, because we'd actually be competing with Swindon and Rochdale on a much more level playing field... making us all hypocrites really. We don't want to be bullied by super rich clubs, but it's ok for us to bully the rest!

[TheHowieLama]

I think just making CL brings you 15m+, getting out of the group stages is about 20+ million, then up to about 45m for winning it... BUT, that's purely from CL revenue alone... all the 'extras' that go unseen contribute on top of that... increased exposure, ability to get better sponsorship deals, attract better players etc etc.

 

It's such a bloody stitch up it's untrue. 'Seeding' to make sure the best don't knock each other out! The way the revenue is split etc.

 

It costs a fortune to just get into it, and another fortune to stay in it. Once you're in for 3-4 years, you can settle down a bit (but not too much). If United drop out of CL for any length of time, they are in deep shit!

 

In fact, that's part of the problem... once you're in, you daren't drop out for long.

 

Not quite - getting in gets you like 4 mil plus another couple for each match - less than half the teams in it made more than 20 mil.

 

Bayern is a historic world power - they made 5 mil more than Utd by getting to the final.

[King Emlyn]

historically we're in the elite, end of story

 

its a closed shop of about ten clubs from round europe, city and chelsea will never be in it

 

granted were fucking crap at the mo but we still stand for something

 

besides, go and post on your own forums, you're never off here

 

Zing....Was, used to be, once upon a time; we haven't won our domestic title for close to a quarter of a century. We are NOT an elite club.

[FanchesterCity]

I'm not arguing for a one off injection, that's every bit as flawed as complete austerity. I'm suggesting a sustained moderate level of investment to allow us to compete in the short to medium term. It's what I would have expected from sensible owners, there are periods during the lifecycle of any business where capital investment to improve the performance of the business is required.

 

In practical terms, consider the last transfer window. Would an extra £10-£15 million allowing our newly installed manager to have an effective established striker really have crippled the club or FSG? If Dempsey doesn't fit the model then another younger striker should have been targeted and purchased.

A short-term sensible investment would have been entirely appropriate.

 

We're having the same argument with our beloved coalition government at the moment, anyone think a policy of austerity is working?

 

We're crippling our manager from the outset with our new found austerity.

 

Again I'm simply expecting Tom Werner to be good to his word. This is exactly what he has stated over the past few months.

 

I'm just estimating now... but considering what you've typed there... I reckon just to progress 'moderately' (couple of places per year) would cost about 35million+ every year on players, and 20million a year might keep you 'steady'. Spending less than that is probably running a risk of slipping backwards unless you have a particularly talented manager (and if you have a particularly crap one, you'll need to spend a fair bit more!).

[TheHowieLama]

I'm not arguing for a one off injection, that's every bit as flawed as complete austerity. I'm suggesting a sustained moderate level of investment to allow us to compete in the short to medium term. It's what I would have expected from sensible owners, there are periods during the lifecycle of any business where capital investment to improve the performance of the business is required.

 

In practical terms, consider the last transfer window. Would an extra £10-£15 million allowing our newly installed manager to have an effective established striker really have crippled the club or FSG? If Dempsey doesn't fit the model then another younger striker should have been targeted and purchased.

A short-term sensible investment would have been entirely appropriate.

 

We're having the same argument with our beloved coalition government at the moment, anyone think a policy of austerity is working?

 

We're crippling our manager from the outset with our new found austerity.

 

Again I'm simply expecting Tom Werner to be good to his word. This is exactly what he has stated over the past few months.

 

Given the fact that you have made some cogent points along the way you probably understand a drip bag of 10-15 mil extra a year is not going to reap any real benefit. If it does not get you into the CL it is wasted.

[King Emlyn]

Football is fucked, let's be honest.

It's only fucked because we're shite, if we were any good there would be no complaints, I know it, you know it, we all know it.

[TheHitman]

[TIMES - Who has the final say in Liverpool transfers?] - Tony Barrett....

 

John W. Henry, Liverpool’s principal owner, has attempted to quell anger over the club’s transfer strategy caused by the failure to sign Clint Dempsey by writing an open letter to the fans.

In the letter, which was published on the official Liverpool website yesterday, Henry expressed disappointment that Brendan Rodgers was not able to strengthen his attacking options on transfer deadline day, but insisted that he was not interested in “expensive, short-term fixes”.

The American businessman also detailed the need for Liverpool to recover from the damage done by “previous regimes” and emphasised that the transfer policy that is now in place is designed to provide value for money and to reduce the risk of damage being done to the club’s financial wellbeing.

But there were a number of issues surrounding the decision to allow Andy Carroll to join West Ham United on loan until the end of the season and subsequent failure to recruit Dempsey that Henry failed to address.

Here, The Times examines what the calamitous end to the transfer window tells us about the state of Liverpool and relationships within the club.

 

Why was Fenway Sports Group (FSG) not prepared to back the judgment of Rodgers on Dempsey?

 

In one sense, it was. Despite informing Rodgers that Dempsey, 29, was not a suitable target because of his age, it still sanctioned a swap deal that would have resulted in Jordan Henderson joining Fulham in exchange. The problem occurred when Henderson refused the move and the lengths to which FSG would back its manager’s judgment was then put to the test.

In Henry’s opinion, at a cost of about £6 million, Dempsey would have represented the kind of “expensive, short-term fix” that he no longer wants Liverpool to pursue. He did approve an offer of up to £4 million, but it was one that Fulham, who had been so angered by Liverpool’s public interest in the forward that they reported them to the FA for an alleged illegal approach, were never going to accept.

The proposed move was doomed to fail simply because the Liverpool owner did not agree with Rodgers’s valuation of a player that he had identified as a key target.

 

Who has the final say on transfers at Liverpool?

 

When Rodgers took the Liverpool manager’s job on the condition that he would not be subordinate to a director of football, it seemed that he had won a significant power battle that would give him the final say on transfers.

Appearances, though, can be deceptive and Liverpool have instead implemented a collegiate director of football model that spreads responsibility through a group of player recruitment specialists and football analysts who work with the manager in identifying targets. David Fallows and Barry Hunter, two senior scouts, have been recruited from Manchester City, although both are on gardening leave, while Michael Edwards, the club’s head of analytics, is becoming an increasingly influential figure at Anfield. The concept is that decisions over players will be made by the group as a whole, rather than by any individual, but the in-built checks and balances can slow transfers down, as was the case with the pursuit of Joe Allen, which was held up by an internal dispute over whether the midfielder was worth the £15 million valuation that Swansea City had placed upon him.

 

Is Ian Ayre’s position as managing director now under threat?

 

As the senior official handed the responsibility for negotiating the proposed transfer of Dempsey, it has been widely assumed that Ayre would carry the can for the collapse of the deal. The reality, though, was that the Liverpool-born executive had been handed an impossible task because he did not have the resources necessary to coax Fulham into doing business. All he could do was make an offer that was in keeping with the restrictions that were imposed on by him by his employers and then concede defeat when the bid was turned down.

Suggestions that Rodgers was furious with Ayre as a result are wide of the mark. The pair have a strong working relationship that has not been damaged by the Dempsey shambles. There are no indications that FSG is ready to axe the 49-year-old.

 

Where does this leave Rodgers’s relationship with FSG?

 

Strained, but not beyond repair. Rodgers feels that his judgment on Dempsey should have been backed and he is particularly disappointed that he has been left so short of attacking options. For its part, FSG is dissatisfied at what it feels was an attempt by the manager to force it into signing a player whom it had insisted did not fit in with transfer strategy. Henry’s letter was an attempt to put the situation behind them and move on.

[FanchesterCity]

Not quite - getting in gets you like 4 mil plus another couple for each match - less than half the teams in it made more than 20 mil.

 

Bayern is a historic world power - they made 5 mil more than Utd by getting to the final.

 

Something I found from 2008:

 

----

UEFA awards £2.68 million to each team that qualifies for the UEFA Champions League, plus £2.15 million for participating in the Group stage. A Group stage win was worth over £530,000 per game, or £268,000 for a draw, meaning a side qualifying for the knockout phase will have secured on average £8.4 million in UEFA prize money alone.

 

UEFA will make additional payments to Group stage teams dependent on the commercial success of the tournament, which the MasterCard report suggests could amount to approximately £8.4 million per club.

----

 

I expect the figures have increased, but not by that much... so looks like your figures are more accurate than mine.

 

Obviously the 'big boys' will add to this with there super duper merchandise and corporate activities... and suspect the gate receipts are 'every man for himself'.

I definitely recall reading CL success for Chelsea was worth about 45 million (to them).