The Liverpool Thread

[Guest Dom77]

leffe186

 

 

Liverpool were ran like a corner shop for years under David Moores and never exploited their world wide popularity.  FFS, the club shop in the centre of Liverpool was closed the day after Istanbul. 

 

Man United were years ahead of us in promoting their club and good luck to them, they had the vision and then the success to match it.  All Fenway did, and the two previous owners to an extent, was to capitalise on a club with a world wide following and a rich football history. LFC have always had a big following in the States, long before Fenway, that was always there. 

 

Liverpool didn't need a Fenway nor the media to promote us, all we ever needed was someone to fund a stadium rebuild, even under David Moores we ticked over quite well financially, and were even then a world wide club.  It took David Moores years to agree to corporate boxes even, for all he was born rich he was always your fella in the pub type of football fan. For him it went against the grain to have corporate anything.

 

Hicks and Gillet nearly finished us with their debt and they took millions out of the club as well. 

 

What do you call fallow?  9 trophies since our last title, not great but Arsenal have only won 1 more.

 

Arsenal have a world wide following but their failure in Europe has always held them back from gaining the popularity of Man United, Liverpool and now Chelsea.  Liverpool have won 5 European Cups, there aren't many clubs in Europe who can claim that, so you'd expect those clubs to be very big world wide.

 

Spurs?  Not sure where you think they should be on a world wide scale.

[Interpolic]

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.

 

 

 

They haven't spent anywhere near as much as Chelsea and Man City though, which is who they'll beat to the League if they manage it.  It's not even close in that respect, they've spent a fair chunk but nowhere near as outrageously as the 2 sides they look like pipping to the title.

[Disco]

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.

 

 

 

The same Atletico Madrid who owe the Spanish government over €100m in unpaid taxes?

[The College Dropout]

'And even then......' Read the whole thing.

 

They've been a broke club as long as Simeone has been there. Which is a magnificent achievement.

[Trumpet]

A bit of a controversial question....

 

Youse lot correctly hammer Pardew and Ashley for their lack of ambition and ready made excuses of (We can't aim big and compete with clubs bigger and richer than us) here, and yet you prefer the rich (Chelsea and City) to prevail again, justifying the notion of, in the end...money and resources prevail... ?

 

Also, I think the media-wankfest is not because it's Liverpool, but because it's something new and hence, a better story to tell and cherish. The most popular title winning teams in eyes of neutral media in recent times were City's 11-12, Chelsea's 04-05, Man Utd's 06-07 (overcoming the notion that Chelsea will dominate for years), their treble winning team, and the one who won first (Bruce with Skrtel-esque goals), Arsenal's 03-04 and 97-98 etc. There is a pattern there.

 

They were either winning after a long long time, or were doing it in amazing fashion, hence the media's backing.

 

If it was Spurs/Southampton/Newcastle who were in Liverpool's position now, I bet it'd be the exact same. Hell, Spurs qualified for the CL once and this "Breath of fresh air", "Best football in the league" and Redknapp love-in was all over the place. It's not about the teams...It's about stories. Everton will rightly get a fuck load of praise if they get 4th and this time make it to CL groups. Because everyone loves those stories and they sell better.

[The College Dropout]

Spurs and Arsenal (the way they have been operating) would be something. L'pool are old  money, using (less) new money.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

The sad thing in all of this is that potentially NUFC has the potential to be as big as any of them. We are a huge club but we have had no real success for years and we are constantly under achieving. KK and SJH and Sir Bobby at one point showcased the true NUFC. A club that could compete and aim for the top prizes. If LFC win it they will show the way that you don't need an Abromovic or rich Arabs to succeed. Mind LFC are and always have been a major global name, where as us and clubs like Spurs lag way behind in that regards and rightly so. Just look at what LFC achieved in the 70s and 80s.

[Incognito]

Spurs and Arsenal (the way they have been operating) would be something. L'pool are old  money, using (less) new money.

 

I well remember saying exactly the same about Manchester United before they won the title in 92......the difference was throughout the late 70's and most of the 80's they'd spent more than anyone else.

[wacko]

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.

 

Oh, I'm not arguing that the owners haven't put any money into the club: that's patently not true.

 

But it's equally untrue that they "bailed us out". You're basically saying that we accidentally/recklessly spent £25m that we didn't have, and they said, "oops! Accidents can happen! This one's on us." That isn't what happened. They said, "here's £25m. Spend it wisely."

 

What I'm saying is that the club is not over-extending itself financially in the way that Leeds did or Chelsea was doing before Abramovich showed up.

 

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.

 

You're making the assumption that the sponsors were investing in the Liverpool of the last few years and not Fenway. Is it not possible that they were, in fact, buying in due to their confidence in Fenway—and their excellent track record—and not throwing money at some grand marque of old?

 

We'll see for sure in a few weeks, but it's certainly looking like Fenway know what they're doing, and our sponsors have done a pretty smart bit of business, wouldn't you say?

 

[Froggy]

A neutral wanting City or Chelsea to win the league over Liverpool baffles me. Just ridiculous.

[The College Dropout]

Nobody has accused Liverpool reckless spending. Although you wouldn't have been able to support a further 4 years without CL football.

 

 

But you've spent more money than the club has generated while taking some big losses. Only L'pool or a club with its potential could get away with that.

[Guest bimpy474]

Deserve to win it, played the best attacking football. Manager of the year.

 

Still cunts and i hope the club burns in the fires of hell. Wankers.

[Guest Walter]

A neutral wanting City or Chelsea to win the league over Liverpool baffles me. Just ridiculous.

 

Why?

[1878]

A bit of a controversial question....

 

Youse lot correctly hammer Pardew and Ashley for their lack of ambition and ready made excuses of (We can't aim big and compete with clubs bigger and richer than us) here, and yet you prefer the rich (Chelsea and City) to prevail again, justifying the notion of, in the end...money and resources prevail... ?

 

Also, I think the media-wankfest is not because it's Liverpool, but because it's something new and hence, a better story to tell and cherish. The most popular title winning teams in eyes of neutral media in recent times were City's 11-12, Chelsea's 04-05, Man Utd's 06-07 (overcoming the notion that Chelsea will dominate for years), their treble winning team, and the one who won first (Bruce with Skrtel-esque goals), Arsenal's 03-04 and 97-98 etc. There is a pattern there.

 

They were either winning after a long long time, or were doing it in amazing fashion, hence the media's backing.

 

If it was Spurs/Southampton/Newcastle who were in Liverpool's position now, I bet it'd be the exact same. Hell, Spurs qualified for the CL once and this "Breath of fresh air", "Best football in the league" and Redknapp love-in was all over the place. It's not about the teams...It's about stories. Everton will rightly get a f*** load of praise if they get 4th and this time make it to CL groups. Because everyone loves those stories and they sell better.

 

On the contrary, Everton are being hammered by every media outlet under the sun for having the temerity to loan some decent players and possibly gatecrash the CL party which is reserved for their select favourites.

 

The more successful our league campaign has become, the more we've been criticised until open season was suddenly declared on the entire loan system by the media and other managers.

 

Nobody cares that Liverpool have a player on loan from a title rival, that Arsenal started a loanee in a vital league game last night, that more than half the league has loan players, that Man Utd won the league with Tevez on loan, that Lukaku performed just as well last season for WBA etc etc but you can't open a paper now without reading about Everton ruining football by unfairly loaning 3 good players.

[Guest]

Aye I'm confused too. Some of the crap in the media at the moment is vomit inducing. It's like they're ramming it down our throats that we should want them to win it. It's at the stage now where I hope it's anyone but them, that Suarez fucks off in the summer and they go back to hovering between 4-7th every year.

[geordie_b]

Got offered £250 for each of my Liverpool away tickets, big money to be made if you can stomach a scouser sitting in your seat (I couldnt)

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I did find it a little odd that at the weekend we had 3 players on loan from Man City and Chelsea playing for the other 2 teams who ended the weekend in the top 4.

 

Loans should be banned for any player over 21 (cut off based purely on the fact that we have an u21 international distinction) imo, I reckon this would actually help reduce the transfer fees of average to decent players overall by sucking the demand out of the market from the team who like to stockpile players.

 

Anyway, hopefully Chelsea manage to park that bus in a way only Mourinho can

 

Oh and hold on to those tickets - you'll get 10 x that should the scousers still be in with a good shout going into the week of the game

[The College Dropout]

I think the loan system is fine. Only issue I have is that they should be able to play against their parent club.

[Interpolic]

[Interpolic]

27 players Chelsea have out on loan, "Nah, it's fine".

[wacko]

Nobody has accused Liverpool reckless spending. Although you wouldn't have been able to support a further 4 years without CL football.

 

 

But you've spent more money than the club has generated while taking some big losses. Only L'pool or a club with its potential could get away with that.

 

Yeah, we have spent more than we generated. The £24m the owners chipped in. That's very small beer compared to the hundreds of millions Chelsea's and Citeh's owners have chipped in.

 

If you want to take the principle-before-all-else route, and declare any club using owner's largesse, regardless of how much or little it may be, as "bad for the game", "impure" (or whatever), that's your prerogative and a reasonable position to take.

 

I just wish you'd stop going on about these "losses", when they're basically just accounting stuff, completely divorced from reality (as if the stadium plans were actually worth tens of millions or Suarez is only worth £14m, and Sturridge < £10m).

 

It's a rare club that doesn't have losses on paper every year (pre-Glazer Man Utd being an obvious exception—they made so much more profit than they ever needed for transfers, the whole Ryan-Giggs-is-worth-literally-zero-on-the-books thing didn't matter to their bottom line).

 

Even Arsenal, often held up as a paragon of a well-run club, is arguably in worse shape that Real Madrid, often vilified for their financial recklessness.

 

[Beren]

This title will be the latest event in a long line of galling events to push me closer to the edge of indifference. Can't stand football atm.

[The College Dropout]

This title will be the latest event in a long line of galling events to push me closer to the edge of indifference. Can't stand football atm.

[The College Dropout]

@Wacko i'm not reading all that shit. Nor am I an accountant - thus I do not care about accounting/law loopholes that I know Madrid and co. exploit

[Interpolic]

It's not even a long post.  So needlessly obnoxious.