The Liverpool Thread

[Neil]

Anyone who thinks this is some sort of underdog story seriously needs to have a fucking word. Some incredible revisionism going on throughout the media in relation to Liverpool's title push. Makes it all the more grim.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Anyone who thinks this is some sort of underdog story seriously needs to have a f***ing word.

 

Aye, it's just a change, which despite it being Liverpool is always welcome. I don't want them making a habit of it though.

[TRon]

We know Chelsea and Man City spend alot, but that is 2 clubs out of the other 19 in the league. Liverpool are paying Glen Johnson over 100k a week, never mind the likes of Gerrard and Suarez. Them underachieving in recent years doesn't mean they aren't one of the rich "elite" clubs.

 

I think they were heading for murky waters under Gillett and Hicks but they came out of that intact after the owners got turfed out. To be fair to them though, they've never stopped spending in an effort to stay up there with the elite.

[The College Dropout]

Anyone who thinks this is some sort of underdog story seriously needs to have a f***ing word. Some incredible revisionism going on throughout the media in relation to Liverpool's title push. Makes it all the more grim.

[Flip]

Anyone who thinks this is some sort of underdog story seriously needs to have a f***ing word. Some incredible revisionism going on throughout the media in relation to Liverpool's title push. Makes it all the more grim.

 

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Anyone who thinks this is some sort of underdog story seriously needs to have a fucking word. Some incredible revisionism going on throughout the media in relation to Liverpool's title push. Makes it all the more grim.

 

It's a pretty amazing achievement like.

[leffe186]

Anyone who thinks this is some sort of underdog story seriously needs to have a f***ing word. Some incredible revisionism going on throughout the media in relation to Liverpool's title push. Makes it all the more grim.

 

It's a pretty amazing achievement like.

 

Only five Prem clubs last year had a turnover >200M and wage bill >100M. They were one of those five. Their wage bill was 34M more than the next team - 130.8M against 96.1M - ours wasn't even three-quarters of theirs. They have played a grand total of five games on top of the Premier League this year. We have (for example) played 16. It's a great achievement, but let's not pretend it's amazing. Arsenal, Man U, and, frankly, Spurs have all made a pig's breakfast of this year and they have taken advantage.

[TRon]

Anyone who thinks this is some sort of underdog story seriously needs to have a f***ing word. Some incredible revisionism going on throughout the media in relation to Liverpool's title push. Makes it all the more grim.

 

It's a pretty amazing achievement like.

 

Only five Prem clubs last year had a turnover >200M and wage bill >100M. They were one of those five. Their wage bill was 34M more than the next team - 130.8M against 96.1M - ours wasn't even three-quarters of theirs. They have played a grand total of five games on top of the Premier League this year. We have (for example) played 16. It's a great achievement, but let's not pretend it's amazing. Arsenal, Man U, and, frankly, Spurs have all made a pig's breakfast of this year and they have taken advantage.

 

10 wins on the trot still takes some doing.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Anyone who thinks this is some sort of underdog story seriously needs to have a f***ing word. Some incredible revisionism going on throughout the media in relation to Liverpool's title push. Makes it all the more grim.

 

It's a pretty amazing achievement like.

 

Only five Prem clubs last year had a turnover >200M and wage bill >100M. They were one of those five. Their wage bill was 34M more than the next team - 130.8M against 96.1M - ours wasn't even three-quarters of theirs. They have played a grand total of five games on top of the Premier League this year. We have (for example) played 16. It's a great achievement, but let's not pretend it's amazing. Arsenal, Man U, and, frankly, Spurs have all made a pig's breakfast of this year and they have taken advantage.

 

Well we know that only a few clubs can realistically win the league because of those numbers you've mentioned. But I don't think anyone expected Liverpool to be one of those. I know they've exploited weaknesses in other clubs (particularly Man Utd I guess) but I still think to go from 7th to 1st is pretty amazing, and to play such class football and use young players well while doing it.

[leffe186]

Anyone who thinks this is some sort of underdog story seriously needs to have a f***ing word. Some incredible revisionism going on throughout the media in relation to Liverpool's title push. Makes it all the more grim.

 

It's a pretty amazing achievement like.

 

Only five Prem clubs last year had a turnover >200M and wage bill >100M. They were one of those five. Their wage bill was 34M more than the next team - 130.8M against 96.1M - ours wasn't even three-quarters of theirs. They have played a grand total of five games on top of the Premier League this year. We have (for example) played 16. It's a great achievement, but let's not pretend it's amazing. Arsenal, Man U, and, frankly, Spurs have all made a pig's breakfast of this year and they have taken advantage.

 

Well we know that only a few clubs can realistically win the league because of those numbers you've mentioned. But I don't think anyone expected Liverpool to be one of those. I know they've exploited weaknesses in other clubs (particularly Man Utd I guess) but I still think to go from 7th to 1st is pretty amazing, and to play such class football and use young players well while doing it.

 

Rodgers has done a fantastic job, and they've been terrific, but just about everything has slotted into place. They have been underperforming versus their resources for years due to poor management. It just hasn't amazed me, if it has amazed you then fair play.

 

It has some elements of the Villa win in 81. Man City played five cup games in January alone, the same amount Liverpool have all season. Villa only played four in 80-81, and famously only used 14 players all season. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great achievement, but it does go some way to explaining it.

[wacko]

 

It is an achievement for the 5th most financed side to win the league. They could be Manchester United big rather easily.

 

I would never begrudge a self financed side winning the league, that's why I always wanted of the 3, Man Utd, Chelsea and City, Man Utd to win the league because whatever they achieved they did it as a football club and not because of the billions from their owners.

 

Take the Arabs away from City and they would be us at best, the mackems at worst. Take Abramovic away from Chelsea and they would be Spurs at best, us at worst.

 

I detest Liverpool fans and many other things about that club but them winning it would be a good thing for our game I think. Rodgers alone has transformed them which is a huge thumbs up to good old fashioned coaching, player development and a footballing philosophy.

 

They are not "self" financed. They are not ploughing profits back into the club like a Spurs or Arsenal. They have an owner who is willing to invest in the club and team.. get them back into the CL regularly... build a new stadium so they can reach their full potential - then start banking some profit or selling it on for a huge profit. Despite selling some players on for good money, they spent over £53m net in transfers. No other club in the league except Manchester United would do that.

 

What are you getting at? Rodgers has spent £53m. In the same period, Man Utd have spent £113m, Chelsea £120m and Man Citeh £100m (all net).

 

Chelsea are a more successful club than you are giving them credit for. The 5/7 years prior to Abramovic they won a number of trophies and consistently finished in the top 6 with some fantastic players. Zola, Desailly, Hasselbaink etc. They legitimately qualified for the CL the season he bought them.

 

Depends on what you mean by "legitimately". Given the context, I assume you're referring to money. They weren't bankrolled by a billionaire at the time, but they were bankrolled by debts the club couldn't service. They were £80m in the hole when Abramovich stepped in.

liverpool are the only big club outside of Oil Money teams to spend a lot of money on transfers while not making profit.  They made a 50m loss then spent a net of 50m the next summer.

 

Liverpool are successfully doing what Chelsea tried to do in the early 00's. Or what we tried to do after Bobby. With greater intelligence.

 

 

The £50m was mostly a write-off of the defunct stadium plans. The club didn't spend £50m more than it made. There was an operating profit of £15m before write-downs/amortisations.

 

Oh and Wacko based on what you have said is 'legitimate' - would Atletico count?

 

You're the one who mentioned "legitimate", not me. I don't know what's going on at Atletico.

 

No it did. Liverpool made a 50m loss (and a 15m operating profit) then spent £50m net on transfers.

 

"The £50m loss, which follows £41m reported for a ten-month period to 31 May 2011, appears to put Liverpool's total loss very much higher than the €45m (£37m) total permitted by Uefa for this two-year period under its financial fair play rules. The club, which stated that the figures show it is making "good progress" financially, did not comment on whether it is likely to be considered in breach of FFP when Uefa assesses clubs in the next two months. The rules do, however, include exemptions Premier League clubs expect to rely on in order to pass, including expenditure on youth development, stadium and other infrastructure, which Uefa encourages, and an allowance for players' contracts entered into before the rules came into force in 2010.

 

The accounts predate the summer signings, which included Simon Mignolet for £9m from Sunderland and Mamadou Sakho, £18m from Paris Saint-Germain, and the £15m sale of Andy Carroll to West Ham, for whom Liverpool paid £35m in the early months of ownership by the Boston-based Fenway Sports Group. The total net spending on these players to augment Brendan Rodgers's squad was £53m, the accounts state."

 

Nonsense. That £15m operating profit came after spending £36m on transfers. Transfers are rarely paid for in lump sums, and we're no exception. £50m is, obviously, even more, but that doesn't mean we can't afford it.

 

The loss is the write-down of assets, not a case of spending more than we're taking in. Big difference.

 

[The College Dropout]

Much like the 15m op profit is from 12-13, of which you made a total of 50m loss. This is excluding '13 transfers of which you spent 50m net.

[wacko]

You're just saying the same thing again.

 

What matters wrt whether a club is in sustainable financial shape is income vs actual spending, not losses based on amortisation of player contracts and asset write-downs.

 

This is a more realistic picture of who's spending money they don't have:

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lHmeou932qE/UX4WFYIG91I/AAAAAAAAGno/8bJ8aUOZ3cI/s640/12+Cash+Flow+before+Financing+by+Club.jpg

 

And this is after the owners have chipped in (ours gave us £24m):

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zFyccuTmPrw/UX4WiEDOhcI/AAAAAAAAGoA/PzBqteLG3JM/s640/15+Cash+Flow+after+Financing+by+Club.jpg

 

So, yeah, we spent £24m more than we earned, which the owners gave us. The bottom line is -£1m.

 

Note: The Man Utd figures are ridiculously skewed on account of the Glazers' dumping their debts on the club. They have a stupidly higher cash flow than every other club.

 

Source.

 

 

[leffe186]

I'm coming in halfway here, but the point is still that your cashflow was minus 21M, due to maintaining a huge wage bill and spending a lot on transfers (although you recouped a lot that year). You were bailed out by your owners giving you a wodge of cash. When fans talk about clubs spending more than they're taking in, they usually (effectively) mean cash flow before financing. If they talk about financial doping, they usually mean exactly what Liverpool did - owners giving the club a wodge of cash to keep them in the black.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that it's not sustainable in the long run. I mean, Man City could sustain a wage bill of 500M in the long run because their owners have a stratospheric amount of cash available. It just gets a bit annoying .

[The College Dropout]

I'm coming in halfway here, but the point is still that your cashflow was minus 21M, due to maintaining a huge wage bill and spending a lot on transfers (although you recouped a lot that year). You were bailed out by your owners giving you a wodge of cash. When fans talk about clubs spending more than they're taking in, they usually (effectively) mean cash flow before financing. If they talk about financial doping, they usually mean exactly what Liverpool did - owners giving the club a wodge of cash to keep them in the black.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that it's not sustainable in the long run. I mean, Man City could sustain a wage bill of 500M in the long run because their owners have a stratospheric amount of cash available. It just gets a bit annoying .

 

This is my point.

[Flip]

Good post leffe

[Doug]

They have enthusiastic owners who invest their assets onto the pitch, we have a disinterested owner who invests his assets into his 'arse pocket'. That's why they are top and we are nowhere.

No need for graphs really.

[Guest Dom77]

I'm coming in halfway here, but the point is still that your cashflow was minus 21M, due to maintaining a huge wage bill and spending a lot on transfers (although you recouped a lot that year). You were bailed out by your owners giving you a wodge of cash. When fans talk about clubs spending more than they're taking in, they usually (effectively) mean cash flow before financing. If they talk about financial doping, they usually mean exactly what Liverpool did - owners giving the club a wodge of cash to keep them in the black.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that it's not sustainable in the long run. I mean, Man City could sustain a wage bill of 500M in the long run because their owners have a stratospheric amount of cash available. It just gets a bit annoying .

 

 

According to Swiss Ramble our wage to turnover is 63%, Spurs 65%. 

 

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/media

 

There are other tables on there which you might be interested in.

 

 

According to Transfer League Liverpool have spent 17 million net  per season over the last 5 years or 309m gross.  Spurs gross is 310m but their sales bring that down to  a very low net spend per season.

 

Regards the accounts.

 

"Meantime club bank debts decreased by 29 per cent – due in the main to a £46.8m interest free, inter company loan to the Reds via owners Fenway Sports Group. That was used to pay off debts relating to previous failed stadium projects under the ousted Hicks and Gillett regime."

 

 

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The media love in with Liverpool this week is definitely cementing my view that either City or Chelsea would be preferable winners

[AlanSkÃrare]

Ignoring the endless wankfest that will unfortunately occur the moment they win it, it's a win for football. Same goes for Everton if they finish fourth.

 

Tactical innovation and technical players given freedom. No galactico's, no manager's being brought in for ridiculous money. Just as Dortmund and Atletico Madrid have proved in the past two years, it shows plenty of other clubs and fans around Europe that the monopoly can be broken and that football still isn't only decided by those in possession of most money. Not yet.

[TRon]

The media love in with Liverpool this week is definitely cementing my view that either City or Chelsea would be preferable winners

 

Always been of that opinion. I admire their football this season but there always feels like they think their club and it's fans are some sort of special breed apart from all the rest of us.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Scousers are a special breed - just not in the way that they think they are!

[leffe186]

I'm coming in halfway here, but the point is still that your cashflow was minus 21M, due to maintaining a huge wage bill and spending a lot on transfers (although you recouped a lot that year). You were bailed out by your owners giving you a wodge of cash. When fans talk about clubs spending more than they're taking in, they usually (effectively) mean cash flow before financing. If they talk about financial doping, they usually mean exactly what Liverpool did - owners giving the club a wodge of cash to keep them in the black.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that it's not sustainable in the long run. I mean, Man City could sustain a wage bill of 500M in the long run because their owners have a stratospheric amount of cash available. It just gets a bit annoying .

 

 

According to Swiss Ramble our wage to turnover is 63%, Spurs 65%. 

 

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/media

 

There are other tables on there which you might be interested in.

 

 

According to Transfer League Liverpool have spent 17 million net  per season over the last 5 years or 309m gross.  Spurs gross is 310m but their sales bring that down to  a very low net spend per season.

 

Regards the accounts.

 

"Meantime club bank debts decreased by 29 per cent – due in the main to a £46.8m interest free, inter company loan to the Reds via owners Fenway Sports Group. That was used to pay off debts relating to previous failed stadium projects under the ousted Hicks and Gillett regime."

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what conversation you're having here. I was just making the point that Liverpool's owners were writing cheques to keep paying a wage bill that would have been putting them miles into the red otherwise. That's all.

 

There's another conversation to be had about the spectacular commercial deals that Fenway have brought in. All fair and above board (none of the ludicrous deals that Man City have used to circumvent FFP), but completely disproportionate compared to what's been happening on the pitch. They've just successfully maintained and exploited a brand image, notably in the US. In the 2012/13 figures they got nearly 20M more than Chelsea (who have finished above Liverpool in 10 of the last 11 years), 50% more than Arsenal (above Liverpool in 9 of 11), more than twice that of Spurs and more than five times that of Newcastle. That's impressive, but leaves me feeling empty inside, and just adds to my disillusion with the game.

 

As a Spurs fan, I know more than most the importance of keeping the bullshit going through the fallow years after being one of the top clubs. Despite being shit for years, we tried to keep the perception in some parts of the media and fandom that we were a snoozing giant. With the capable assistance of the media and Fenway, you've managed the same (despite not falling quite as low), and are now reaping the rewards.

[Guest Walter]

The media love in with Liverpool this week is definitely cementing my view that either City or Chelsea would be preferable winners

 

I really hope Chelsea or Man City win the league. Couldn't stand it if Liverpool do.

[The College Dropout]

I'm coming in halfway here, but the point is still that your cashflow was minus 21M, due to maintaining a huge wage bill and spending a lot on transfers (although you recouped a lot that year). You were bailed out by your owners giving you a wodge of cash. When fans talk about clubs spending more than they're taking in, they usually (effectively) mean cash flow before financing. If they talk about financial doping, they usually mean exactly what Liverpool did - owners giving the club a wodge of cash to keep them in the black.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that it's not sustainable in the long run. I mean, Man City could sustain a wage bill of 500M in the long run because their owners have a stratospheric amount of cash available. It just gets a bit annoying .

 

 

According to Swiss Ramble our wage to turnover is 63%, Spurs 65%. 

 

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/media

 

There are other tables on there which you might be interested in.

 

 

According to Transfer League Liverpool have spent 17 million net  per season over the last 5 years or 309m gross.  Spurs gross is 310m but their sales bring that down to  a very low net spend per season.

 

Regards the accounts.

 

"Meantime club bank debts decreased by 29 per cent – due in the main to a £46.8m interest free, inter company loan to the Reds via owners Fenway Sports Group. That was used to pay off debts relating to previous failed stadium projects under the ousted Hicks and Gillett regime."

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what conversation you're having here. I was just making the point that Liverpool's owners were writing cheques to keep paying a wage bill that would have been putting them miles into the red otherwise. That's all.

 

There's another conversation to be had about the spectacular commercial deals that Fenway have brought in. All fair and above board (none of the ludicrous deals that Man City have used to circumvent FFP), but completely disproportionate compared to what's been happening on the pitch. They've just successfully maintained and exploited a brand image, notably in the US. In the 2012/13 figures they got nearly 20M more than Chelsea (who have finished above Liverpool in 10 of the last 11 years), 50% more than Arsenal (above Liverpool in 9 of 11), more than twice that of Spurs and more than five times that of Newcastle. That's impressive, but leaves me feeling empty inside, and just adds to my disillusion with the game.

As a Spurs fan, I know more than most the importance of keeping the bullshit going through the fallow years after being one of the top clubs. Despite being s*** for years, we tried to keep the perception in some parts of the media and fandom that we were a snoozing giant. With the capable assistance of the media and Fenway, you've managed the same (despite not falling quite as low), and are now reaping the rewards.

 

THIS THIS THIS.

 

The L'pool owners have dug into their pockets because they know they can turn L'pool into Manchester United. The brand is one of maybe 8, in worldwide football with that type of appeal. None of the others could have been bought. They wouldn't have tried it with any other club. This is not some type of victory for football. A 100% self sufficient club like Spurs or Arsenal winning the league would be a victory for football.

 

Atletico Madrid haven't spent any net transfer money in 3 years.. them winning either (or both) La Liga/CL would be a legitimate win for football. And even then they had overspent in the preceding 5 years.