• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Get him to the Greek (Deal Confirmed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Net spend? Look at total turnover and expenses. That gives a better idea of what the club has to work with rather than oh we sold him and bought him. It’s a more complex matter than that.

Just looking at our match day revenue, we could lose out on £85 million if we go a year without crowds. That wipes out any sales profits.
And how much more from increased online subscriptions and pay per view? Which could be even better for sponsors given viewing figures are currently smashing all records (which has to query why Sky are demanding rebates). If the restrictions on crowds continues they'll find other ways to increase revenue. It's not as simple as just deducting MD revenue.

Net Profit (pre-tax) last 3 years:
2016/17 : £39
2017/18 : £125m
2018/19 : £42
 
They've also rebuilt the Main stand, built a new state of the art training complex and will rebuild Annie Road. Some fans are to critical, at least now given the financial climate in the World. If Covid-19 and this pandemic didnt exist, and we still didnt spend any money. Then I'd agree regarding FSG and being tight arses. But as of now, I dont agree that FSG arent doing the business. Being cautious and careful now is the smart thing to do, until we have a better idea of what will happen and what our revenue will be.
 
And how much more from increased online subscriptions and pay per view? Which could be even better for sponsors given viewing figures are currently smashing all records (which has to query why Sky are demanding rebates). If the restrictions on crowds continues they'll find other ways to increase revenue. It's not as simple as just deducting MD revenue.

Net Profit (pre-tax) last 3 years:
2016/17 : £39
2017/18 : £125m
2018/19 : £42
Just regarding sky demanding rebates, I'm pretty sure it's a bit of a scam between the PL & sky/bt, cos I suspect they will put it back to when the new contract is due, then say they'll waive it if they can keep 3pm games going forwards, & the PL can then argue its an easy financial restraint for the government to permanently lift.

I may be cynical, but I'm convinced that's what will happen.
 
They've also rebuilt the Main stand, built a new state of the art training complex and will rebuild Annie Road. Some fans are to critical, at least now given the financial climate in the World. If Covid-19 and this pandemic didnt exist, and we still didnt spend any money. Then I'd agree regarding FSG and being tight arses. But as of now, I dont agree that FSG arent doing the business. Being cautious and careful now is the smart thing to do, until we have a better idea of what will happen and what our revenue will be.
The club are paying for those. It hasn't come from owner investment. FSG see injection of owner investment means there's been a failure of management. The question here is whether such an outlook is realistic, especially in a COVID19 financial climate.
 
And how much more from increased online subscriptions and pay per view? Which could be even better for sponsors given viewing figures are currently smashing all records (which has to query why Sky are demanding rebates). If the restrictions on crowds continues they'll find other ways to increase revenue. It's not as simple as just deducting MD revenue.

Net Profit (pre-tax) last 3 years:
2016/17 : £39
2017/18 : £125m
2018/19 : £42

What pay per view? That will not come to fruition at all. Especially whilst sky and bt have contracts with the league. 15 of the 20 teams in the league won’t go for it as the select few would just wipe the floor with everyone else.

It’s not just match day income we are losing. We won’t have a lucrative preseason tour, miss out on corporate obligations and still have to give broadcasters some shitty rebate.

Combine all that with your profit list and it’s all gone. To add to that IF there isn’t a European competition due to a second wave then we’d be screwed should we just spunk away a fortune right now.
 
What pay per view? That will not come to fruition at all. Especially whilst sky and bt have contracts with the league. 15 of the 20 teams in the league won’t go for it as the select few would just wipe the floor with everyone else.

It’s not just match day income we are losing. We won’t have a lucrative preseason tour, miss out on corporate obligations and still have to give broadcasters some shitty rebate.

Combine all that with your profit list and it’s all gone. To add to that IF there isn’t a European competition due to a second wave then we’d be screwed should we just spunk away a fortune right now.
That's an overly pessimistic outlook. The world will adapt to CV-19 or revert to an 19th Century lifestyle from economic collapse. It will be the former.

IF crowds were to be absent there is absolutely no doubt that alternative sources will be found to fill that financial shortfall. PPV is the obvious one and Sky/BT will put profits above any contract, ditto all clubs if it means increased income. A fair dispersion of the proceeds would be found.

The rebate is less than may have been expected and as FFF said it may indeed just be a means to an end.

No way in hell UEFA will give up on their money-spinning centerpieces. A way will be found regardless of CV-19 impositions (and it's highly highly unlikely we will see a return to the virus personal movement restrictions of the Spring).

I'm not sure anyone has said anything about spunking away a fortune? Just reasonable investment when our stock is at an all-time high to keep us there.
 
Subtract what they paid for us from what we're worth now.

The rest of your post is just a succession of straw men.

There's no reason at all FSG shouldn't be expected to invest funds on the odd occasion investment is needed.

That wouldn't make them sugar daddies. Not doing so wouldn't make them blood suckers.

It would just be par for the course for responsible and interested owners.

Ok.

We’re currently champions of England, Europe and the World and we’re in a Pandemic that’s pushing most of the world into a recession.

Let’s hear your compelling arguments for why FSG should pump their own cash into LFC immediately as opposed to not doing so.
 
Ok.

We’re currently champions of England, Europe and the World and we’re in a Pandemic that’s pushing most of the world into a recession.

Let’s hear your compelling arguments for why FSG should pump their own cash into LFC immediately as opposed to not doing so.
To give Klopp and Edwards more margin for error in the market?

To actually sign our top target in Werner than let him sign for our rivals?

I really don't know why any fan wouldn't want Klopp to be backed to the best of our ability.
 
Ok.

We’re currently champions of England, Europe and the World and we’re in a Pandemic that’s pushing most of the world into a recession.

Let’s hear your compelling arguments for why FSG should pump their own cash into LFC immediately as opposed to not doing so.

The club's revenues have taken a significant but temporary (hopefully) hit, and the team is ageing and could do with money spending on it.

FSG have made huge capital gains on their investment and asking them to put in a fraction of that to help Klopp keep us at the top is well within their means, and, imo, actually a wise investment in and of itself.

Is there not just a small part of you that looks at our position at the bottom of the net spend table these last few years, and thinks, 'hang on a minute...'?
 
They've only loaned the money for those haven't they? I thought the club were paying them back zero interest loans.

I think that's Peters point. When the value of your product swells from £350m to a now reported £2B you surely can be expected to actually inject some money into the club once in a while?

Isn’t that a “paper” increase - wouldn’t they actually have to sell us to “bank” that increase.

I mean - I guess they could mortgage or use the increase as collateral to secure some new loans and saddle us with the debt?
 
Isn’t that a “paper” increase - wouldn’t they actually have to sell us to “bank” that increase.

I mean - I guess they could mortgage or use the increase as collateral to secure some new loans and saddle us with the debt?
Exactly this. Exactly. It is profit on paper, it doesn’t mean cash available.
 
Fundamentally, this whole debate turns on whether you think owners have an obligation, moral or otherwise, to put their own money into the club, and let's face it, that money will ultimately be spent on players. Most of the owners doing that have either a genuine love for their club or are trying to get some positive PR to hide behind. If you're not trying to buy anything out of that kind of spending, then you would be better off giving your money to charity.
I personally don't believe there is any such obligation, and I wouldn't want us to be owned by the kind of spivs that would be splashing the cash to try to cover up whatever shit they get up to when no-one is looking.
 
Isn’t that a “paper” increase - wouldn’t they actually have to sell us to “bank” that increase.

I mean - I guess they could mortgage or use the increase as collateral to secure some new loans and saddle us with the debt?

Yeah cos I'm sure FSG have zero cash or the ability to borrow on the back of their success.
 
The club's revenues have taken a significant but temporary (hopefully) hit, and the team is ageing and could do with money spending on it.

FSG have made huge capital gains on their investment and asking them to put in a fraction of that to help Klopp keep us at the top is well within their means, and, imo, actually a wise investment in and of itself.

Is there not just a small part of you that looks at our position at the bottom of the net spend table these last few years, and thinks, 'hang on a minute...'?

No Peter - I’d love us to be spending loads of money on new players - but the key is in your first sentence - no-one has any idea how long this “temporary” hit is going to last.

I think Werner gets signed if COVID doesn’t happen. We’ve got money for transfers, probably - unless maybe the Lovren sale is funding the new LB - maybe it’s not. Maybe we’ll hold off hitting the transfer market until we have more of an idea what’s going on.

Abromovich isn’t funding Chelsea’s splurge - they’re doing what we did with the Coutinho money and them not being able to spend for a few windows.

How many actual transfers have been confirmed for any team in England?
 
Fundamentally, this whole debate turns on whether you think owners have an obligation, moral or otherwise, to put their own money into the club, and let's face it, that money will ultimately be spent on players. Most of the owners doing that have either a genuine love for their club or are trying to get some positive PR to hide behind. If you're not trying to buy anything out of that kind of spending, then you would be better off giving your money to charity.
I personally don't believe there is any such obligation, and I wouldn't want us to be owned by the kind of spivs that would be splashing the cash to try to cover up whatever shit they get up to when no-one is looking.
True. And to be fair FSG have said over and over again that their teams must live within their means and be self reliant rather than relying on investment. It’s difficult to understand what people are perplexed about
 
Ok.

We’re currently champions of England, Europe and the World and we’re in a Pandemic that’s pushing most of the world into a recession.

Let’s hear your compelling arguments for why FSG should pump their own cash into LFC immediately as opposed to not doing so.
Club valuation? Look how much we are now valued at. If we drop away and permit the likes of United and even Chelsea to surpass us what will our value be then? If FSG plan to sell at some time that valuation pisses all over some relatively minor investment.

EDIT. OK I'm late to the table and you've covered this. However I still imagine this is important to FSG whether a sale is imminent or not.
 
Club valuation? Look how much we are now valued at. If we drop away and permit the likes of United and even Chelsea to surpass us what will our value be then? If FSG plan to sell at some time that valuation pisses all over some relatively minor investment.
This isn’t a bad argument - invest to stay on top and protect the increase in value you’ve created. The counter would be CL holders, Premiership winners and world champs. Why do i need to go and secure significant funding through loans to build on that, especially when the whole game and it’s revenues are in turmoil right now?
 
No Peter - I’d love us to be spending loads of money on new players - but the key is in your first sentence - no-one has any idea how long this “temporary” hit is going to last.

I think Werner gets signed if COVID doesn’t happen. We’ve got money for transfers, probably - unless maybe the Lovren sale is funding the new LB - maybe it’s not. Maybe we’ll hold off hitting the transfer market until we have more of an idea what’s going on.

Abromovich isn’t funding Chelsea’s splurge - they’re doing what we did with the Coutinho money and them not being able to spend for a few windows.

How many actual transfers have been confirmed for any team in England?

How long the impact from COVID lasts doesn't really change the equation. If it's longer than expected it just means the need for investment becomes even more acute.

Ultimately, unless clubs are able to renegotiate players' contracts, the burden is going to fall on the owners. It can't really fall anywhere else.
 
This isn’t a bad argument - invest to stay on top and protect the increase in value you’ve created. The counter would be CL holders, Premiership winners and world champs. Why do i need to go and secure significant funding through loans to build on that, especially when the whole game and it’s revenues are in turmoil right now?
I would suggest that it will cost FSG a lot more (either in investment to regain the high ground or in a highly diminished club valuation) if we allow this team to stagnate, lose our position at the top (those titles expire after one year) and slip back to being a Top 4 contender rather than leading the pack.

We are not looking at massive investment but a net £50m (which should have included Werner) is far from unreasonable, with I would suggest another £50m being offset by sales. Maybe we will end up doing exactly that (just a bit frustrating to lose out on Werner). Just shooting the breeze.
 
A question for the believers , if he's as good as you think he is how does only have 3 international caps for a country ranked outside the top 50 in the world ?

Presumably there's some great Greek left back we're all unaware of ?
 
True. And to be fair FSG have said over and over again that their teams must live within their means and be self reliant rather than relying on investment. It’s difficult to understand what people are perplexed about

Who's perplexed?

Are Newcastle fans in the wrong for wanting Mike Ashley out just because he's made it abundantly clear how the club will be run?

You can't expect to avoid any criticism for a particular approach by openly stating it.
 
True. And to be fair FSG have said over and over again that their teams must live within their means and be self reliant rather than relying on investment. It’s difficult to understand what people are perplexed about

I don’t get it either - they’ve been pretty clear on their strategy - they bought us, haven’t loaded any debt on the club, any loans have been zero interest and they want the club to be self sustainable and successful.

I like Transfer speculation as much as the next guy... but I don’t get the angst about not getting someone to sit on the bench.
 
How long the impact from COVID lasts doesn't really change the equation. If it's longer than expected it just means the need for investment becomes even more acute.

Ultimately, unless clubs are able to renegotiate players' contracts, the burden is going to fall on the owners. It can't really fall anywhere else.

If the burden falls on owners - what happens first - sell off clubs assets to balance booms or dip into your own money?

The need for investment might be to maintain current costs - those fat new long term costs tract we’ve signed our best players up on.

If every club is suffering - which club owners are going to bankroll better offers for the players than we are currently giving them?

FSG are employing a low risk strategy - low return too - maybe they trust the infrastructure they helped built can generate results without having to invest heavily - maybe that’s why they invested in it.
 
Michael Edwards 'met his match' in former Liverpool man unwilling to budge on transfer demand
Norwich City left-back Jamal Lewis was subject of a bid from Liverpool but the Reds seem to have needed to look elsewhere

Michael Edwards is said to have found his equal in Canaries sporting director Stuart Webber after Liverpool were unable to land a bargain deal for Norwich City defender Jamal Lewis this summer.
A bid of £10 million was submitted for Lewis’ services last week, with that offer immediately rejected. The feeling at Norwich was that the valuation placed on Lewis by Liverpool was nowhere near a figure they would accept, with Webber wanting to open talks at double that amount.

Stuart Hodge, who is a journalist covering Norwich City, told the Blood Red podcast: "To talk about Jamal Lewis as a £10 million player is fantasy land even allowing for fluctuations due to the pandemic.

"He has that high ceiling in terms of development but he already has that defensive solidity to his game.

"Jamal is not an Andy Robertson-type full-back. He can do the same running but he is about as accomplished defensively at this moment, if not a little bit more so.

"It’s clear that the story emerged from the Liverpool end and not the Norwich end as a means of trying to drive the asking price for Jamal down, hence the derisory opening offer."


In effect, Liverpool stuck to their guns and Norwich did too, with the two sporting directors unprepared to budge. Liverpool always maintained that they had other options - and it appears that was correct.
Norwich rejected the offer for Lewis almost out of hand, and value him at the same amount as Max Aarons, their right-back who has been linked with a £20 million switch to Bayern Munich recently.
Hodge added: "Stuart Webber said on my podcast that Norwich will not be bullied - he made that explicitly clear.

"He said ‘we set our stall out with the James Maddison transfer’. If you noticed, there are a host of add-ons that Norwich are set to benefit from if Leicester qualify for Europe, caps for England, that sort of thing.

"With Maddison, Norwich were, in terms of the club’s financial situation, under pressure to get a deal done. And they weren’t bullied at that point - they got a club-record fee and a record fee for a Championship player.

"What Webber said to me was that is how we are going to operate going forward. They are under no pressure to sell and the player can utilise their agent, but at the end of the day, it was Norwich who gave them an opportunity."

Webber was a part of Liverpool’s staff once upon a time, during Damien Comolli’s time in charge of the club. Webber was responsible for Academy recruitment during his time at Anfield, and was a part of the team who signed Raheem Sterling to the club's ranks.

And Hodge says that the ex-Reds employee firmly believed that Liverpool would pay his asking price this summer for the left-back. It appears that the Reds had other ideas.
Norwich pointed out, according to Hodge, that the market has increased significantly since Robertson moved from Hull City to Anfield, and Lewis is under contact until 2023.

He concluded: "Liverpool [were] trying to play on the narrative that Norwich are a small club, but Webber has made it clear that Norwich will not be bullied or treated differently."

Norwich are under no obligation to sell players this summer and wanted to keep their man, so holding out for the full £20 million was not quite the Canaries failing to call Liverpool's bluff.
 
If the burden falls on owners - what happens first - sell off clubs assets to balance booms or dip into your own money?

The need for investment might be to maintain current costs - those fat new long term costs tract we’ve signed our best players up on.

If every club is suffering - which club owners are going to bankroll better offers for the players than we are currently giving them?

FSG are employing a low risk strategy - low return too - maybe they trust the infrastructure they helped built can generate results without having to invest heavily - maybe that’s why they invested in it.

It might be true that paying the wages is the more urgent need, but it's not like renewing the playing squad is some discretionary expenditure either.

At some point the club is going to have to buy new players or face disaster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom