wacko Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Liverpool fans having a go here totally forgetting about to there last 3 signings . Go to the last page to have a laugh http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=87099.200 We've spent £18m net. What's wrong with that? Chelsea paid for Suarez and Carroll. But you are spending the money regardless on over inflated transfer fees ,Carroll £35 million and Henderson for £20 million and i find it laughable ,every transfer has a element of risk and we have paid well over the odds for years until now but Liverpool fans having a go at Chelski is hypocrytical in my eyes . Definitely over-priced. No argument there. (Apart from Suarez: he looks to be worth it.) My point about Carroll stands, though. £35m is a ridiculous price, but it's not the case that we pissed away the Torres money: we were only interested in replacing him, and when Ashley asked for £35m, we just passed it on to Chelsea. The criticism of Chelsea (and latterly Man City) is not that they spend so much on players (Man Utd regularly splurge silly money, too, but get no stick on RAWK for it, and are generally recognised as the bigger club), but that they're spending some sugar daddy's money that they didn't earn. It's typically dressed up as "bad for football" (which I agree with), or "detrimental to the club" in the sense that if Abramovich or the Sheik bores of pissing away money on footballers, the clubs are fucked (which is also true). But ultimately, I think it's mostly down to the fact that LFC would be ahead of Chelsea and Man City if it weren't for their "artificial" wealth. Personally, I don't like it (for the obvious reason that it makes things harder for us), but frankly, Abramovich and the Sheik can do what they like with their money. And the fact of the matter is, inflated transfer prices are largely due to clubs like Chelsea and Man City that don't have to worry about balancing the books pushing up the prices in order to get their man ahead of more prestigious, but poorer, clubs. What are we supposed to do? Stick with our dodgy squad because prices are too high, and waste another season in the hope that they fall by next summer? Or do we do our best to seize the opportunity of no European distraction to push as hard as we can in the league next season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Would you have spent that money had the new blokes at Liverpool not wiped out your debts? Sure, you had a jammy Champions League win and the odd couple of cups, but you've done nowt for two decades now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 You could argue that this 'fresh' money is only improving other club's when they sell players to Chelsea. Like you've said, you've basically gained two 'free' players from Chelsea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Liverpool fans having a go here totally forgetting about to there last 3 signings . Go to the last page to have a laugh http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=87099.200 We've spent £18m net. What's wrong with that? Chelsea paid for Suarez and Carroll. But you are spending the money regardless on over inflated transfer fees ,Carroll £35 million and Henderson for £20 million and i find it laughable ,every transfer has a element of risk and we have paid well over the odds for years until now but Liverpool fans having a go at Chelski is hypocrytical in my eyes . My point about Carroll stands, though. £35m is a ridiculous price, but it's not the case that we p*ssed away the Torres money: we were only interested in replacing him, and when Ashley asked for £35m, we just passed it on to Chelsea. You still (arguably) didn't get value for money though. Irrespective of where the money came from, you received £50m and spent £35m of it on a striker who, whilst he did have a very good half season, hasn't proven a lot yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Would you have spent that money had the new blokes at Liverpool not wiped out your debts? FFS, the debt wasn't ours, it was the owners'. The club was the asset sold to repay the debt. The club itself was and is profitable: it just didn't generate enough profit to pay off the owners' debts, unlike Man Utd, which continues to have its profits siphoned off in order to pay the debt the owner incurred in purchasing the club. It's really not that hard to understand. Sure, you had a jammy Champions League win and the odd couple of cups, but you've done nowt for two decades now. One way or another, you don't jam your way through 13 games including the Italian champions, the English champions elect and one of the decade's best CL sides. You might like to believe that we jammed it, but you're in denial if you do. We didn't have the best squad, or team, but we had the organisation and the guts to do it. And some luck: nobody wins without some luck. But luck alone does not get you a European Cup. In the last two decades, we have won 1 European Cup, 3 FA Cups, 1 UEFA Cup, 2 UEFA Super Cups and 2 League Cups. Hardly nowt, is it? You could argue that this 'fresh' money is only improving other club's when they sell players to Chelsea. Like you've said, you've basically gained two 'free' players from Chelsea. No question about that: the silly money they've paid for players from the Prem has helped other clubs. But most of the money wasn't spent on Prem players, and how that has affected you is largely a matter of where you stand in the Prem. When Abramovich bought Chelsea, they'd just edged us out of the final CL spot, and serial mismanager Ken Bates had taken them to the very brink of bankruptcy to do it. And then Abramovich wrote off their debts and pumped hundreds of millions into the side. Certainly, we've benefited from the Torres deal, but overall the effect of Abramovich's coin on us has been a negative one, with a club that was typically behind us in the league overtaking us, and all propped up by massive injections of funds by their owner to cover the losses. Obviously, the opposite is true for West Ham, Blackburn and the then Man City, who pocketed a good wedge of Abramovich's money for Joe Cole, Damien Duff and Shaun Wright-Phillips while not being leapfrogged by Chelsea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Liverpool fans having a go here totally forgetting about to there last 3 signings . Go to the last page to have a laugh http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=87099.200 We've spent £18m net. What's wrong with that? Chelsea paid for Suarez and Carroll. But you are spending the money regardless on over inflated transfer fees ,Carroll £35 million and Henderson for £20 million and i find it laughable ,every transfer has a element of risk and we have paid well over the odds for years until now but Liverpool fans having a go at Chelski is hypocrytical in my eyes . My point about Carroll stands, though. £35m is a ridiculous price, but it's not the case that we p*ssed away the Torres money: we were only interested in replacing him, and when Ashley asked for £35m, we just passed it on to Chelsea. You still (arguably) didn't get value for money though. Irrespective of where the money came from, you received £50m and spent £35m of it on a striker who, whilst he did have a very good half season, hasn't proven a lot yet. True enough. But Hodgson left us in very dire straits, and the only concern was replacing Torres there and then. If paying maybe three times what Carroll was worth to do it--and if Chelsea were willing to foot the bill--then so be it. The price was ridiculous, and personally I'd much rather we'd held onto the money till summer, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, and nobody knew that Suarez--the foreign player--would come good instantly. It made sense to bring in someone with PL experience, given the circumstances, and Chelsea were willing to pay Ashley's price. From what our owners have said, that's exactly how it went down. Torres wanted to go to Chelsea, we had our targets, and if they were willing to pay what was necessary, they could have Torres in January. If not, then they'd have to wait till summer. They went for it. In short, it was never about the money: it was about making sure we had a viable side for the second half of the season after Hodgson royally fucked up the first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 FFS, the debt wasn't ours, it was the owners'. The club was the asset sold to repay the debt. The club itself was and is profitable: it just didn't generate enough profit to pay off the owners' debts, unlike Man Utd, which continues to have its profits siphoned off in order to pay the debt the owner incurred in purchasing the club. It's really not that hard to understand. What sort of profit have Liverpool been making over recent years? Didn't you have debts before Hicks and Gillett took over too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Liverpool were making £25m a year which went to service debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Liverpool were making £25m a year which went to service debt. The rising wage costs contributed to the club (on football operations) making an operating loss of £16.1m in the year to 31 July 2009. The club made a £10.2m profit the year before. The parent company lost £54.9m before tax, a club record, largely due to spending £40m in interest alone to service debts. http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/07/liverpool-accounts-wages-soar-past-100m-losses-55m-debt-up-to-378m-and-the-bank-needed-paying-in-march-070501/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest north shields lad Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 wacko, did you watch the under 17s tonite against rawanda? I watched it online so not great quality. There was a left midfielder playing who they said is on liverpools books. Can not remember his name he is a small back lad, and was about 200 times better than anyone else on the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 wacko, did you watch the under 17s tonite against rawanda? I watched it online so not great quality. There was a left midfielder playing who they said is on liverpools books. Can not remember his name he is a small back lad, and was about 200 times better than anyone else on the pitch. Sterling? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Liverpool were making £25m a year which went to service debt. The rising wage costs contributed to the club (on football operations) making an operating loss of £16.1m in the year to 31 July 2009. The club made a £10.2m profit the year before. The parent company lost £54.9m before tax, a club record, largely due to spending £40m in interest alone to service debts. http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/07/liverpool-accounts-wages-soar-past-100m-losses-55m-debt-up-to-378m-and-the-bank-needed-paying-in-march-070501/ So you knew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest north shields lad Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 wacko, did you watch the under 17s tonite against rawanda? I watched it online so not great quality. There was a left midfielder playing who they said is on liverpools books. Can not remember his name he is a small back lad, and was about 200 times better than anyone else on the pitch. Sterling? Yes i have just read the under 21 thread and that is him, looks like a player Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I'd put money on Sterling becoming a top player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Liverpool were making £25m a year which went to service debt. The rising wage costs contributed to the club (on football operations) making an operating loss of £16.1m in the year to 31 July 2009. The club made a £10.2m profit the year before. The parent company lost £54.9m before tax, a club record, largely due to spending £40m in interest alone to service debts. http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/07/liverpool-accounts-wages-soar-past-100m-losses-55m-debt-up-to-378m-and-the-bank-needed-paying-in-march-070501/ So you knew I was looking on google after I asked the question, didn't do it to catch you out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Aye aye chicken pie Anyway that was the figure I remember from sky when Liverpool were in the courts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 wacko, did you watch the under 17s tonite against rawanda? I watched it online so not great quality. There was a left midfielder playing who they said is on liverpools books. Can not remember his name he is a small back lad, and was about 200 times better than anyone else on the pitch. Sterling? That's the fella. Looks like a great prospect, and he'll have much better chances under Kenny than he would have under Rafa: http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/team/first-team/player/raheem-sterling Liverpool were making £25m a year which went to service debt. The rising wage costs contributed to the club (on football operations) making an operating loss of £16.1m in the year to 31 July 2009. The club made a £10.2m profit the year before. The parent company lost £54.9m before tax, a club record, largely due to spending £40m in interest alone to service debts. http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/07/liverpool-accounts-wages-soar-past-100m-losses-55m-debt-up-to-378m-and-the-bank-needed-paying-in-march-070501/ So you knew I was looking on google after I asked the question, didn't do it to catch you out. Thought you were trying to catch me out That's about the size of it. The club goes between making a small profit to making a small loss depending largely on transfer activity. The enormous debts were never really the club's (unlike, say, Real's or Barca's massive debts), but the owners' (pretty much like Man Utd). Like with us, if Man Utd can't service the debts incurred in purchasing the club, the club will have to be sold to clear those debts. LFC was never in danger of going bankrupt like Leeds, Portsmouth etc. because the club itself is financially a perfectly viable going concern. Debts before the takeover were usually around £15m-20m; a perfectly manageable level. The club itself has never spent beyond its means, like Bates did at Chelsea or Fat Freddy at NUFC. LFC was run very conservatively and sensibly by Moores and Parry before the sale. Of course, that was the past, and it's no indication of how the new owners will run the club, but they run their other sports clubs/franchises well enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Sammy Lee gone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 West Ham with Big Sam? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chubby Jason Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Pretty surprising. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 West Ham with Big Sam? Sammy Lee: "I am extremely excited by this opportunity to join The FA full-time and work with the best players in the country at various levels. I have had the privilege of working with Sven and the senior team over the past couple of years, as well as the Under-21s before that, and I look forward to building upon these experiences. "While it was of course a wrench to leave Liverpool, where I enjoyed so many wonderful years as a player and coach, the chance to take up this new challenge was impossible to resist." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Much more stability in a position like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5978/liverpooltc.png Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 haha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20051027000422/uncyclopedia/images/8/85/Scouser.jpg not funny Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now