5/21/2010 11:05:00 am

EXCLUSIVE: The truth about Xabi Alonso's *alleged* £30m transfer fee...

According to almost every 'official' source under the sun, Liverpool received £30m from Real Madrid for the services of Xabi Alonso. A more than fair fee if you ask me considering Alonso's quality, but is it really true?

That Liverpool received £30m for Alonso is pretty much accepted amongst Liverpool fans. How could it not be, with almost every newspaper/media source quoting the figure at the time of his sale, including The Independent, The Telegraph, The BBC, and the Liverpool Echo.

Even though I believe Alonso is more than worth that amount, I always thought it was (probably) slightly exaggerated. Well, as I will illustrate, Alonso's sale fee was NOT £30m. The latest Liverpool FC club accounts reveal the following:


As you can see, the total fees received by the club for Alonso, Andrea Dossena and Andrei Voronin was £29.7m. Looking at this in the context of the alleged £30m sale fee for Alonso, the figures do not compute. According to the club's official website, Liverpool received a combined total of 6.25m Euros for Dossena and Voronin:




Since this is the official LFC site (owned 100% by LFC), the figures will be accurate. So, let's break it down:

* €6.25m converted into pounds = £5.4m
* £29.7m - £5.4m = £24.3

So, it appears that Alonso's *actual* sale fee was £24.3m, NOT £30m.

These are official, irrefutable figures direct from the club, so they obviously hold more weight than newspaper reports.

As always with stats related articles, the purpose of this article is to provide clarity and accuracy. From this point forward, no one can now accurately state that Liverpool received £30m for Xabi Alonso.

EDIT: A note about further fees payable

I should have included this in the original post (as I knew people would try and make this excuse), but I just want to address the possibility that the fee paid for Alonso is only a 'first installment':

* There is no evidence anywhere that Alonso's fee was an installment plan, and/or contained performance related bonuses.

* Just because other players (like Aquilani) have such a deal, doesn't mean Alonso did.

* Real Madrid are not short of money (!) - given the fact they spent more than £200m in the last summer transfer window - including a reported
£80m on Ronaldo! - why would they need to pay for the comparatively cheap Alonso in installments?! Come on, let's get real for a minute! As I've proved, £24.3m WAS received for Alonso. Certain commentors in extreme denial seem to think think that Madrid were so cash strapped that they paid the £24.3m upfront but asked to pay the other £6m in installments?! My head is exploding at how unrealistic that sounds!

* The note about Alonso's fee was in the 'Post Balance Sheet Events' section, i.e. the sale was concluded after the 31 July deadline. LFC's practice (which is consistent across all account reports for the last 10 years) is to include a note in that section IF there are further fees payable/receivable. Here is an example from the 2008 report and the same of Robbie Keane:



As you can see, it is clearly stated that the:

"The club has sold Steve Finnan and Robbie Keane for total guaranteed fees of
£12.8m. This amount will increase significantly as further conditions are fulfilled".

The Alonso section ALSO states 'total guaranteed fees', yet unlike the Keane section above, it does NOT contain a note about further fees payable.

Such notes need to be included so shareholders/Auditors reading the report have an accurate picture of the club's finances.

AGAIN, THERE IS NO SUCH NOTE IN THE CURRENT REPORT FOR ALONSO'S FEE.


Thus, there are no further payments due to Liverpool for that transfer.

People can stick their heads in the sand and come up with all sorts of excuses, but these are the facts.

Even though the fee was
£24m and not £30m, on a purely monetary basis, it's still a great piece of business by Rafa Benitez! I didn't want Alonso to go but at least we made a huge profit. I didn't post this article to attack Benitez (!), I posted it to clarify the facts, and ensure that accurate information is out there.

Jaimie Kanwar





REMINDER: COMMENT POLICY

This is a site for reasoned, adult discussion. ALL views are welcome, and if someone's football-related opinion doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what constitutes an LFC 'fan', then tough luck. Posts containing personal insults, belittlement, sniping, deliberate antagonism, etc will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. Attack the argument, not the person. Ultimately, it's simple: be as vehement and passionate as you like, but please remain civil at all times.Thank you.

231 Comments :

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 231   Newer›   Newest»
Jaimie Kanwar said...

Comment Policy .fullpost{display:inline;} This site promotes civilised, respectful debate - anyone who cannot argue their points without resorting to sniping/derogatory comments will be <span>banned</span>.

Comments are NEVER deleted just because a commentor disagrees with the views of one of the site's writers. Disagreement is welcome!

Having said that, the following <span>WILL</span> be deleted:

1. Derogatory comments about any of the authors, the site or other users.

2. Sniping comments that have nothing to do with LFC/Football or the issues raised in any given article.

3. Comments that complain about negativity of the articles. If you don't like the critical approach, then there are hundreds of other LFC sites on the net.

<span>IMPORTANT: </span>If you leave a comment that contains a valid argument but ALSO include any of the above three things, your comment will STILL be deleted, irrespective of the validity of your argument.

If you want your comment to stay on the site, it's simple: debate the issue and argue your point in the right way. Banter is fine - sniping is not.


Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2007/10/comment-policy.html#ixzz0oYrotEoC

Anonymous said...

Total guaranteed fees of £29.7m. Alonso's transfer was around £25m with £6m performance-related bonuses. Bonuses will be worth slightly more if the Euro slides further.

Dave said...

With regards to those figures, is it not possible that, as with many transfer these days, that some was paid up front and the rest is to be paid in installments?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Alonso's transfer was around £25m with £6m performance-related bonuses.

With respect, there is absoutely no evidence that Alonso's transfer fee contains performance relate bonuses.  That is media talk.  if you have evidence, pleas post it. if not, then it is just unsupported supposition.

Furthermore, if there were further fees payable, this would be recorded in the report.  A note about contingent liabilities would be made stating that further transfer fees of X would be payable.  There is no such note.

The only thing that can be proved without question is Liverpool received 24.3m for Alonso.

Anonymous said...

No club will pay full amount.. usually installment :)

Guest said...

When can you do a breakdown on Aquilani's fee?

anteater said...

The statement reads 'guaranteed fees' so the club may receive some more money should Real win some competition. Anyway, this put's Rafa's claims for not having any money in some context. You can't spend what you don't earn in the first place.

Guest said...

And why doesn't your "directors report" include Glen Johnson in the acquisitions? Why only Soto and Aquilani?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

That is a generalisation!  No club will pay the full amount?! based on what?  how do you know that?  If you examine the accounts over the years, LFC have paid the full amount many times.  Furthermore, if there were further fees payable, this would be recorded in the report.  A note about contingent liabilities would be made stating that further transfer fees of X would be payable.  There is no such note. 

See the attached image as an example of what I'm talking about:

Runar said...

"..for total quaranteed fees of 29,7".  The key word is quaranteed.  Almost all player sales fees consist of quaranteed fee and addons based on played games etc.  When newspapers talk about fees they usally say something like "Alonso sold to Real Madrid in a deal worth 30 mill".  That includes quaranteed fees and addons. 

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Read the previous comments where I address this point.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Get a grip.  Glen Johnson is included in the actual report - that section is 'Post Balance Shet Events', i.e. sales concluded AFTER the accounts were filed.  And they're not MY reports, I've pasted what is in the club's accounts. 

And for a breakdown of Aquilani's fee:

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/11/alberto-aquilani-truth-about-his.html

Anonymous said...

you should know better than anyone the additional bonus payments - as you have stated in the past.
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/11/alberto-aquilani-truth-about-his.html
The document says guaranteed fees, so that only includes how much the players have been initially sold for (most likely in installments over the coming years) - these numbers will not include additional appearance bonus payments, bonus should the club win anything, qualification into the CL, selling on fee, etc

A1 said...

The Key word is guaranteed. This is a guaranteed minimum amount.  If this was the total amount and there were no other amounts due (i.e. bonuses etc.) then the word 'guaranteed' would simply have been omitted.
I agree with your image, but this would have been taken from actual accounts. The amounts being discussed are taken from a Director's Report POST balance sheet Year End Accounting.  I am sure that the true amounts of the deal will be shown in next year's accounts...

lfcg said...

I spoke to Gerry Armstrong about our current predicament and I was talking about the 20m we spent on Aqualani.  Gerry told me that we have only paid 4m for him thus far.  I don't know how the rest of the cost is split.  That is what I was told.

Anonymous said...

why else use the phrase "quaranteed fees"?
Nearly all contract come with additional stipulations now

Anonymous said...

yeah on their outgoings...not on their income

Guest said...

Well that explains Johnson, but bloody hell, you even have one on Aquilani.

Runar said...

I don't think that you do

Jaimie Kanwar said...

please provide some kind of evidence that Liverpool may receive further bonus payments etc for Alonso.  You seem to be suggesting that this takes place for *every single transfer*.  it doesn't.  In Aquilani's case, the breakdown was published by Roma, which is great.  However, this does not mean Liverpool will receive more money for Alonso.

please see the attached image that proves my point.  In the 2008 report, the post balance sheet events section stated that Keane and Finnan were sold for 12.8m.  It also states that this would rise as other conditions were met.  The same would apply to the Alonso sale IF there were further fees payable.  There is not such note.  And since the club is consistent with it's accounts, a note WOULD have been included if there were further fees payable.

Max said...

I know this has nothing to do with the Alonso sale, got this from a Echo article and someone left the following comments, it is very long so I have split it up into 2 parts:

<span><span>Why do people continuously go on about Istanbul when they're trying to defend a man 5 years later?

Lets jog our memory back to that very season.

A 5th place finish in a four horse race in the league.

The league record was 58 points after losing 14 league games!!!! 58 points in a 38 game season is pathetic! We only scored 52 league goals that season, that’s the same as Fulham and 1 less than Middlesbrough.

A 3rd round exit in the FA cup to lower league opposition (Burnley).

We got to a carling cup final which he couldn't win.

On the way to the European cup final we lost 1-0 in Monaco, 1-0 away to Olympiakos in the group stage and yet still got through! Of course we won the European cup after 3-3 DRAW. I do thank Rafa for that but how long can he live on one match?

Lets go to the following season (05-06)

A final position of 3rd and a good improvement on the pathetic league campaign that came before it.
Points wise we amassed 82, 9 points behind winners Chelsea yet we still only scored 57 goals, but things did start to look bright league wise.

The FA cup trophy was somehow won (after another draw). But an improvement on the previous season

The league cup seen us exit at the 3rd round once again to lower league opposition. (Crystal Palace) so that’s not an improvement

And the European cup seen us go out with a whimper in the last 16 against Benfica. Again not an improvement

2006-7

The league seen us finish 3rd again only this time with 14 points less after losing 10 of our 38 league games we finished on 68 points scoring 57 goals again. That to me is not improvement but ok lets carry on.

The FA cup seen us bow out at the 3rd round AGAIN, albeit to Arsenal who outclassed us. Again not an improvement

The league cup also seen us bow out to arsenal (reserves) in the 5th round when the kids from London + the beast put 6 past a woeful Liverpool side with the beast Baptista scoring 4. The beast who was shipped off for being a joke. Ok it’s an improvement on the 3rd round the previous season.

The Champions League seen us get to another final and lose to an ageing AC Milan side we had "beaten" 2 years previous. Yes an improvement on the previous season

2007-8

This year Liverpool finished 4th dropping a place from the previous season although we amassed 8 more points. I would not call dropping a place an improvement but points wise it was.

The FA cup seen Liverpool bow out to Lower league opposition yet again this time in the form of Barnsley in the 5th round. That came after Liverpool beat Luton Town after a replay and struggled to overcome non league minnows Havant & Waterlooville. Ok its an improvement albeit a small one.

The league cup seen us lose 2-0 away to Chelsea in the 5th round which is the same distance we go the previous season so not an improvement.

The European Cup seen us also go out to Chelsea, This time in the semi final so again not an improvement. It gets progressively worse.

2008-9

This campaign seen us deliver are best results in the league under Benitez however finished 2nd on 86 points and scoring 77 goals was overshadowed because on 9th January 2009 Liverpool were 8 points clear of 2nd Place Manchester United before Rafa opened his mouth in what became known as Rafa’s Rant and by the end of February Liverpool were 8 points behind. A 16 points turn around in 7 weeks. Yes it’s an improvement on last year though.

The FA Cup seen Liverpool knocked out by Everton in the 4th round so that’s not an improvement on [...]

Max said...

<span>The European cup seen us go out again to Chelsea this time in the quarters. So we went from the final in 07 to the semis in 08 to the quarters in 09. Do you see a pattern?

2009-10

This campaign seen us end in 7th position scoring 61 goals and earning 63 points, the lowest number of points since erm Rafa’s first season. So that’s not an improvement.

The FA Cup seen us exit at the 3rd round to Reading who funnily enough were lower league opposition AGAIN. The same pattern emerges 2008 seen us exit at the 5th round 2009 at the 4th round and 2010 at the 3rd round. In my eyes that’s not progression.

The league cup seen us exit at the fourth round to Arsenal which again is not an improvement on the year before.

The European cup seen us exit at the group stage after only beating Debrecen twice and losing to Fiorentina twice and Lyon once. That to me is not an improvement again. So ok we get into a second rate European competition the Europa League and get to the semi final but lose therefore Rafa becoming only the 2nd ever Liverpool Manager to enter 3 cup competitions and get knocked out of four after Houllier and we all know what happened to him. Brilliant.

So to sum it up in 6 years of being at Liverpool Rafa Benitez has only improved on the previous season:

Twice in the league out of 6 attempts (we finished 4th in Houlliers last season and he couldn’t even achieve beating that)

Twice in the FA cup out of 6 attempts (Houllier got to the 5th round in his last season)

Twice in the League cup out of 6 attempts (including him getting us to the final in 05 bettering the previous seasons 4th round exit at home to Bolton under Houllier)

Twice in the Champions League out of 6 attempts (including improving on Houlliers 4th round exit in the Uefa cup in his last season as I would consider winning a European cup to be an improvement on the Uefa cup.)

To only improve twice in each competition out of 6 attempts to me is not good enough. And you might say my figures and facts are inaccurate by saying how can you improve on winning the Champions League you could only equal it if you won it again, but I also say how can you get any worse than 3rd round exits? You can only equal them and we have had more 3rd round exits than winning things under Benitez so it actually sways in that way.

My point is that technically we haven’t improved and the only “improvements” Rafa Benitez has achieved have been after he (or Houllier) has had a woeful season before.

You have got to look at where we are today not where we were 5 years ago and today we are 7th in the league, the lowest we have finished since 99 (Evans was strategically replaced that year), out of the FA cup at the 3rd round, out of the league cup at the fourth round and out of the Champions league at the group stages for the 1st time since 2002-3 season. That to me is not improvement.

I suppose if we finish 6th next year you will say…ah well it’s an improvement!</span>

Runar said...

All we know is that LFC got 29,7 in quaranteed fees for Alonso, Voronin and Dossena.  Everything else is "Paper talk".
Maybe we got 28,9 for Alonso, 0,6 for Dossena and 0,2 for Voronin in quaranteed fees.  The rest was addons.  That would at least match there ability :)

Anonymous said...

Jaimie can you do a breakdown of the comment you made regarding not posting on this site till Rafa has gone. Thank you. Twitter; Coops_LFC <-- real Liverpool fan.

Bob said...

Who gives a crap!

Fact is we sold one of our best players and allowed Rafa to waste it on an inferior Italian one who also happens to be injury prone

Voland said...

Hmmm, a little weak on the facts Jamie. Like others have mentioned above, "guaranteed" fees and total fees are different things. As Alonso has had significant playing time since moving to Real, I would be surprised if the full transfer fee including bonuses were not due sooner or later. Moreover, it seems that Real agreed to pay a significant percentage of the transfer fee upfront, more than is usually the case in the UK.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/11/alberto-aquilani-truth-about-his.html

Look at the date at which fees for Aquilani are due.  We have paid more than 4m.  Plus the club accounts directly contradict Mr Armstrong.  See the image attached: the club states it has pad 20.4m for Aquilani and Kyrgiakos.  Are people going to argue against that too?!

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Nearly all contract come with additional stipulations now


Stop making false generalisations!  How do you know 'almost all contracts come with additional stipulations now'?!  This is preciesley the kind of ingrained, inaccurate generalisation I'm trying to clear up with all these financial related posts.  You have no evidence for that - it is your opinion.
And I've updated the article to explain abouit potential further payments.  There are NONE sue for Alonso.  Get over it!

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Runar - THE CLUB'S WEBSITE REPORTED THE ACTUAL FEES FOR DOSSENA AND VORONIN!  You know, the CLUB - LIverpool FC. The Official website RUN BY THE CLUB.  O've even included the story in the article.

That means the figures are accurate.

The level of denial for some people is truly shocking.

Carrard said...

This is just nonsense. Because you are not working for LFC and have no sources inside the club, you can not make everyone believe, that you know everything and all others are idiots, who just publish rubbish!

@Jamie: Don't try to be cleverer than you really are...
Because now it gets laughable.

Voland said...

I would actually argue that player for player, with one or two exceptions, Rafa's Liverpool team today is vastly superior to the one he inherited from Houlier. Although 2009-10 was hugely disappointing because of missing balance in the team (which was not the case last season), the value of the Liverpool first team today is a considerable multiple of the team left behind by Houlier. Fine tuning and a strengthening of the overall squad should see a competitive Liverpool in the coming season with Rafa at the helm.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I've updated the post to respond to the excuse that there are further fees payable for Alonso's fee. There Aren't.

Be logical - Real Madrid are ful of cash.  They spent over 200m last summer, including 80m on Ronaldo and 57m on Kaka,  Yet they're so cash strapped, they pay 24m upfront for Alonso and the other 6m in installments>!  Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?!

me said...

where do you get these balance sheets from?

Jamal said...

I don't think you understand this. Liverpool sold Alonso for £30m but a part of the fee always goes to agent(s), the player himself and in this case also x% to his former club. This is why Liverpool didn't get the entire transfer fee. However the reports that Alonso was sold for £30m were NOT incorrect as that WAS the case even though Liverpool did NOT get the entire fee.

True Red said...

Now Rafa has said he is staying does this mean you will disappear again. If we got Christian Puslow to state Axbi was sold for 35 million you wouldnt believe it because you like to take the " FACTS " and put your own spin on them to achieve your aim which is basically to put down the manager and club at each opportunity. We all know how FACTS can be spun and delivered to achieve or prove points that arent really there to approve. There is not much opportunity on this site to disagree with you as any posting that doesnt agree with your point of view normally gets deleted. I am a Liverpool FC supporter not a member of a pro or anti Rafa brigade. I just want the team to do well with the minimum of fuss this may or may not be achieved under Rafa.
Even if your figures are correct with regards to Alonso (which they most definately are not) we still turned a good healthy profit on the player. Also it is well documented that although Players to sign where identified by Rafa and his team, transfer fees and players contracts where dealt with by Parry in his time so why would we or you blame Rafa for any loss made on the player.

Karmacoma said...

I'm sorry Jaimie, but I think it's pretty clear that the word 'guaranteed' is a clear implication that additional fees are related to appearances etc. If the fee was a flat 24m then the 'guaranteed' would be redundant, wouldn't it? I think you rushed this to press without thinking it through. On another matter, you've mentioned several times that the club is not responsible for any of Kop Holdings debt. Again, I think you are wrong on this. RBS themselves have stated the club is responsible for just over 40m of the debt, which relates to the amount borrowed to cover the existing debts at the club when the Yanks took over. I'm posting this from my phone so I can't be bothered to look for links now, but a quick Google should find RBS comments on this matter...

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Voland - the facts are not weak at all.  Please read the updated post which included proof that Real do not owe liverpool anything else. 

Your views re installments are just opinion - there is no evidence for this.  There IS evidence to suggets that the full fee has been paid, which I have outlined.  Don't you see how ridiculous it sounds to suggest that a club with Madrid's resources would pay 24.3m upfront, but pay a tiny amount in future installments?!  They paid 137m for Kaka and Ronaldo (more likely to be installments) but could't scrape an extra 6m together for Alonso?!

Anyway, the club's practice is to stipulate if future feea are payable/receiveable, and that did not happen with the Alonso fee.

anteater said...

Well, to you it seems that Real paid more upfront than usual. And maybe the rest in installments which would explain the installments we agreed for the aquisition of Aquilani. Maybe they are based on each other. The total fees could include some 1 or 2m should Real win the CL within say three years. That is not guaranteed. I'd even go as far as to say that it is unlikely. So, all we can do is speculate if there are any not guaranteed add ons and if so under which conditions they will be paid. All in all 24.3m is a bit of a bargain price to sell Alonso to Real considering they allegedly paid 80m for a player who constantly falls over but sells a lot of shirts (probably women shirts).

Jaimie Kanwar said...

No - you are wrong.  Read the original article again, and see the evidence I've provided to show that there are no further fees payable for Alonso.

mark said...

i'd also assume the key word here is 'guaranteed'.  £24.3m might have been the innitial ammount, but it's fairly routine for performance related payments being added on for transfers of this size. it's safe to assume that this isn't going to be less than £5m or so.

anteater said...

Hm, so you think the club publishes 'cooked books'? Then we actually end up like Pompey, or Greece.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

It is you who does not understand, not me.  Everything you've said is supposition.  Provide evidence for your opinions.  I any event, it does't matter - for accounting purposes, the transfer fees payable/receivable INCLUDE agents fees.  It's all stated in the club accounts.  So the point is moot.  Furthermore, Deloitte, the accountancy firm that regularly audits football accounts, confirmed this here:

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_IE/ie/news/press-release/9af3c5275d0fb110VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm

Jaimie Kanwar said...

True red -I've had enough of your constant sniping and bitching about this site. You are now banned.  Again.

Carrard said...

Just because it would be logical to think, that it is like you say, it doesn't have to be like that...
You know, you want to make people believe, what you think but without any insideknowledge... Just because you can look at accounts, etc. it does not mean you know more than every newspaper or "expert". You even forget to include relevant figures, arguments oer whatever! And even if people from the club tell you otherwise, you wouldn't believe it...
So please, leave this comments/articles about how you know everything better than everyone else!

URS said...

Jamie

There are LFC fans that agree with you

Thanks

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Anteater - As I've illustrated in my article above:

1. if the club states a figure to be received/payable in the post balance sheet events section, a note will always be included to state that further fees are payable receivel in the future.  I've posted the Robbie Keane example which proves this.  The club has been consistent with this policy in every annual report.

Now, for the Alonso sale, there is not explanatory note about future fees receivable, which means there are none.  This is far more persuausive evidence than just stating without evidence 'further fees must be due'.

If further fees were due, it would be stated in the report.  It is not.

it is important that it IS stated in the repot so that shareholders and auditors can gain a complete overview of the club's finances.

Anonymous said...

Jaimie Kanwar has decided to take a break from Liverpool-Kop until Rafa has left the club. All lies Jaimie. Lies lies lies. You can delete our comments but you'll never silence out love for LFC. Liverpool-Flop.co.uk Hicks and Gillett lover.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I break into Christian Purslow's office whenever there's a game on and nab all the info I can.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Again with the focus on future payments?!

1. I've explained why this is not going to happen.  Why are you and others ignoring this?  It must be denial.  Read the edited article above - I even providde a snippet from one the reports that proves what I'm saying.

2. And like others, you've included an unsupported generalisation:

it's fairly routine for performance related payments being added on for transfers of this size

What is your basis for this opinion?  How do you know it's true?  Please proivide evidence.

anteater said...

Exactly. Fees that are only due if Real win this or that they would not be due at a certain date, because it may never happen. But it would explain why they write about guaranteed fees, wouldn't it. Maybe it's a sell-on clause. Would only become due as soon as Alonso is sold on which may not happen at all. Ok, if we take the Keane evidence there will be no further payments for Alonso under any circumstances, but why do they write 'guaranteed fees' then?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Carrad - the media gets it wrong sometimes.

The level of denial amongst fans is truly something to behold. Even when you give them irrefutable facts, they try and argue against it! Prime example: I posted something from the official LFC site which stated the fees received for Voronin and Dossena. Now, this is the official site - it's owned by LFC, thus press releases that appear on the <span>... <span>See More</span></span><span>site come directly from the LFC media office, who would obviously ensure the figures are correct!

Despite this, people *still* try and argue that the figures provided by the club are wrong. Unbelievable!</span>

The info I have provided is fact. The club would not say anything else BECAUSE THE INFO IS PROVIDED BY THE CLUB.  Do you not get that?!

If it's provided by the club in official legal documents, it is fact.  It does not then matter what is printed in the press - if it conflicts with official club information which, unde the law, has to be accurate, then the media is wrong.

It is not ME who is right, it is the CLUB who is right.  I am merely passing on the information and trying to correct mistakes.

fraggs said...

Right, so Alonso was sold for a guaranteed 24 million quid. Sounds like a good deal for everyone involved. 

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Fraggs - I agree with you.  I think that is a great piece of business!  14m profit, what's to complain about.  Well done to Benites for making a huge profit.

I don't know why people seem to be concluding that this is somehow an attack on Benitez.  I'm just trying to clarify the facts.  As I said, I think it's a great piece of business.

Yogi said...

Jamie, this is interesting and while there is no definative proof that there are add ons in the Alonso, Dossena or Voronin deals why would the accounts use the term 'guaranteed amount'. This suggests to me that there may well be unguaranteed amounts pending on certain outcomes, otherwise you wouldn't use that term. So if we take the term as delibrately vague, we have to suggest that somebody will possibly owe further money at some date, and if we accept this then the fact remains that Xabi Alonso is the most likely candidate for future payments (La Liga success, CL success, so whoops nowt this year then). The whole thing reminds of when Ferdinand moved to man u widely reported at £28 million, which turned out that was the max they could get, who reported the £28 million to the press, one would highly suspect Leeds. I've a feeling that the £30 million is exactly the same and us fans have believed every word, when will we learn?.

RC said...

Jamie you cant say for certain more money wont arrive for Alonso even if you think its ridiculous , so its debatable and the fees for Doss and Voro  are probably total fees and probably only half then amounts are guaranteed ?

all debatable ,,, but what the big thing if we got £30m or £24m for Alonso , better than the £16m we were looking for the season before ..

Jaimie Kanwar said...

It's just to be completely specific about what's been received.  You seem to discount the possibility that there *may* be further fees mayable for Dossena/Voronin, but not Alonso...

As you can see, in keane's example it is clearly stated that the:
<span>
The club has sold Steve Finnan and Robbie Keane for <span>total guaranteed fees</span> of 12.8m. This amount will increase significantly as further conditions are fulfilled'

The Alonso section ALSO states 'total guaranteed fees', yet unlike the Keane section above, it does NOT contain a note about further fees payable.

Such notes need to be included so shareholders/Auditors reading the report have an accurate picture of the club's finances.<span></span>

Thus, there are no further payments due to Liverpool for Alonso's transfer.</span>

Runar said...

<span>Jaimie I'm not saying that your report is wrong but at the same time I’m not sure that it is correct ether.</span>
<span>The only thing in the report that I could say is 100% correct is the 29,7 amount for Alonso, Dossena and Voronin.</span>
<span>LiverpoolFC is not ALWAYS correct.  I have seen more errors at LiverpoolFC.TV than for example on BBC or Independent</span>
<span>Also the LiverpoolFC.TV report doesn't say "guaranteed fee".  So maybe they are referring to fees including add-ons.  </span>
<span>Furthermore LiverpoolFC.TV does also pick up news from other sites and report it.</span>
<span>So in my opinion your evidence is not 100% bullet proof.  But you might still be correct.</span>
<span>I do on the other hand appreciate all the effort you put in to try to inform Liverpool fans about important issues.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>Regards,</span>
<span>Runar</span>

anteater said...

Considering what Real have paid for a player who is falling over all of the time it's not that good a deal anymore. Alonso can dictate the pace of a match, the one falling over can't do that. The damage done to our team is bigger than the damage done to Manure for losing fake Ronaldo. Under these circumstances 24.3 m feels like we've been robbed.

Runar said...

<span>Jaimie I'm not saying that your report is wrong but at the same time I’m not sure that it is correct ether.</span>
<span>The only thing in the report that I could say is 100% correct is the 29,7 amount for Alonso, Dossena and Voronin.</span>
<span>LiverpoolFC is not ALWAYS correct.  I have seen more errors at LiverpoolFC.TV than for example on BBC or Independent</span>
<span>Also the LiverpoolFC.TV report doesn't say "guaranteed fee".  So maybe they are referring to fees including add-ons.  </span>
<span>Furthermore LiverpoolFC.TV does also pick up news from other sites and report it.</span>
<span>So in my opinion your evidence is not 100% bullet proof.  But you might still be correct.</span>
<span>I do on the other hand appreciate all the effort you put in to try to inform Liverpool fans about important issues.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>Regards,</span>
<span>Runar</span>

Max said...

Who the hell cares about the value of the team, what has been achieved with "the value" of the team? And surely if the value is superior to that of Houlliers when he left, shouldnt we have won TROPHIES with the team Rafa has built seeing that the value is vastly superior? 

Anonymous said...

Jamie
 Not wishing to rubbish your theory but accounting law prevents disclosing events that are not fixed. All changed after Enron scandal when they disclosed potential performanced related contract revenue which never materialised leading to its collapse.
 Therefore LFC could not put £x million under contingent liabilities as you describe.
 Additionally i have to say your credibilty evaporated for me when you tried to argue that LFC's debt was only £220m as the debts of Kop Holdings doesn't count and anyway would be paid when the club is sold. Again in the case of administration or liquidation group debts would be called down based on asset security. I have never read anything to suggest all securities are grouped agains the assets of the club. Banks would not lend against non existant assets and neither HorG put overseas assets up as security.
 I sort of admire you campaign that all ills lie at the foot of Rafa but most of it is factually inacuarate .
Regards Kevin

anteater said...

We'll probably never learn. The market was pretty inflated last summer so 30m sounded better than 24.3 m and appeased fans a bit.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I agree, Anteater - but purely on a objective monetary basis (i.e. money made back on Alonso's original purchase price), the profit = a good deal. 

You're right though - the damage done to Liverpool as a result is huge, and the last sason has shown that.

Desy said...

Good bit of business there. Near £25M for a player that rarely scores or provide assists. A player at 27 who is unlikely to be worth anymore than this in his career. A player who we bought for about £11.4M and on the back of a transfer expenditure of a club who had already spent over £140M that summer. A player who wanted to leave and was made overtures by the biggest and most successful club in the world. A player who we couldn't sell for £16M a season before. Good bit of business however I still would have prefered Robben and Sneijder as a straight swap. As soon as the Americans get their hands on the cash it's never coming back. Straight player swap would have been the most forward thinking thing to do but forward thinking isn't exactly Rafa's strong point. Cautious management in the Premiership only wins you the league if you have sh!tloads of cash as Mourinho did. In the modern day only exciting teams have won the Premiership other than Mourinho's Chelsea who controlled games and used their stars individual pieces of magic to win them. When Rafa abandoned the cautious approach last season we were up with Barca playing the best football in Europe. But this year he shat himself played two defensive midfielders and worked for one nil wins. Problem is without Torres and Gerrard we just don't have the players to keep it tight and then change the game with a piece of magic. Rafa has tried his best and done some very good things which I will always appreciate him for. But his perfectionist approach just doesn't work for a club in our financial predicament. Cautious is taking a good sum for Alonso for the coffers. Risky would have been gambling that money on two enigmatic Dutch forward thinking midfielders who can exhilarate and underwhelm in equal proportion.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Look at the Keane example in the article - that's how I can say for certain no more money will arrive for Alonso.  Plus, in the club's reports for the last 15 years. *every single time* there is money due for players in the future, it is stated, just like it is in the Keane example.

Anonymous said...

There will probably be  a sell-on clause in the deal with Madrid for Xabi.

Most clubs will ask for something to be included- so when the deal goes through they take the percentage they asked and apply it to the deal that was done.

So if we sold him for 24m and asked for, say around, a fifth of the fee if he leaves then that would be over 5million - making it a deal of around 30million 

Never really happens that you get the money back in that way - if ALonso leave Madrid then he wont got for 24 million - probably - but liverpool will probably get cash

Anonymous said...

Jamie you've made a point about there being no added info re. add ons for Alonso's transfer yet it doesn't say anything about add-ons for Aquilani's transfer either.

Andy said...

Got to admit there have been times when I've wondered if this site, and Jaime, were really Manc supporters. That said, it's amazing to me that anyone disagrees with him on this one. Obviously ego's/prejudices at play.

It's NOT ROCKET SCIENCE guys. GUARANTEED means transfer income that is definitely coming in. All other unearned but potential transfer income is reported through THE NOTES.

I'm not sure the actual legal requirements for LFC but it seems unlikely that any professionally run business / or auditor for that matter, would fail to include potential income in its notes.

Of course, if anyone disagrees I suggest they comb through historical annual reports and provide specific evidence of trailing transfer instalments that were paid but not previously noted in a prior report.

Everything else you throw at Jaime is pure BS.

Mick said...

I just clicked on the 'Rafa Out' Facebook page.

Regardless of what opinion you hold, that's a total embarrassment to the football club.

It did give me a laugh to see 'Jaimie Kanwar likes this' under every other, pointlessly simple-minded comment.

At least you feel like you're doing your bit by championing the "media lies" like this. As though anyone with any intelligence believes what they read in the media anyway.

anteater said...

Well, yes, I discounted the possibility of further fees for Dossena or Voronin.

I am not into accounting so I will have to go with what you say about such notes having to be included.

Bob said...

I'll repeat as my last post was edited.

I cannot see the point in wasting time analysing what Alonso was sold for.

Irrespective of fee, we allowed Rafa to once again hack off our better players and replace him with rubbish like Aquilani for an overinflated fee - and that was before we knew he was built like a chocolate tea pot.

He could have bought Cattermole and Cana for that!!!!!

RC said...

So you think that total figure covers £29.7M covers all 3 and no more payments for any of the 3 .

RC said...

Could it be just a mistake it was omitted ? and even though the figures for Doss and Voro are on the official site i wouldn't personally take them as gospel but i think they are correct myself.

Rodge said...

Who gives a shit, all I know is we have done shit yet again.  What more evidence do we need?  I'm sure fans were less blinkered under Souey

Max said...

To add to that, if the value is vastly superior then it throws out the "RAFA had no backing" get out of jail card.

Any more excuses that you can think of to protect Rafa?  

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Bob - Your post was not deleted.

People need to try and understand this: only a certain number of posts appear on each page.  Since the posts are threaded, posts may drop to page 2 if lots of new posts appear on page 1!  That just means your post is not on page 2 and not page 1.  Bob - your post is here:

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/05/exclusive-truth-about-xabi-alonsos.html#jsid-1274443223-628

People can also click their name and see a list of things they've posted.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

That's because the fee for Aquilani has already been received in full.  Fans will never accept that though because of the widely publicised installment deal.  Aquilani is bought and paid for.  The accounts prove this.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

There may have been an installement plan at first, but we don't know the specific details of the contract.  There may have been a proivision whereby this changed.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I appreciate what you're saying, but the fact remains the club accounts stipulate that the full fee has been paid.  And as Andy reiterated above, potential transfer income that is not guaranteed is recorded in the Notes.  There are no such notes for Alonso.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Yes - that is what the report states.  If there were further fees payable, then that would be stated in the report in the notes section (Just like Keane - see the example in the article).

Jaimie Kanwar said...

It could also be 30m Euros as opposed to 30m pounds.  Last summer, 30m Euros probably = 30m pounds.  Whoever leaked the figure probably said pounds as it sounded better.

Josh said...

I believe that the fee for Alosno was some where near the 30 million mark, though I read that Real Sociedad has a sell on clause of some percentage of the total fee around the period of the sale. This percentage could be 20% thus accounting for the 6 million pound discrepancy, you also have to factor in agent fees etc for the transfer.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Another poster confirms this in the thread (Andy) - I'm sure other financially minded posters will also confirm it as the day goes on.

Anonymous said...

"generalisations"?

key word here - 'nearly'

and a lot are even stated in the media you don't need to go trawling through the clubs records.

Desy said...

Anteater if you talking Ronaldo you're crazy. The man almost won the title solo for Real Madrid this season. One of the best players I've ever seen and a marketing dream. Man U certainly know what they've lost this season. Trying to belittle the Alonso deal in light of a deal with arguably the best player in the world is foolhardy at best. And Utd couldn't hold onto Ronaldo why would you think Liverpool could? Exactly what price did you expect to get from Alonso? He was always gonna leave, it's Real Madrid for god's sake! Even without Rafa's lack of interpersonal skills he would have left. Think Fabregas and Barca. A younger player with more goals and assists and they talking £30-35M. A sum of £24M is a good price for any holding midfielder so to compare it to the marketing juggaknot which is Ronaldo is silly.

Anand said...

Kanwar Sahab - Some of the analysis that you do is brilliant. I would imagine that it takes a lot of time & effort on your part. Actually, i'm gonna go and do some digging in financial records now.

Just one suggestion - if i may. If people post comments or their POV, your response seems rude to the point that you do not want to listen to them at all. And that makes you looks arrogant. So, while you may feel that the question or point is absolutely dumb, please remember that most of the people are football lovers who love a bit of banter and opinionated discussions. 

Oh - I'm a man united fan by the way. Long may the fat waiter reign continue.

Nickname said...

It is good to see you back Jamie, i needed something to keep me awake after a long drinking session last night.

I wouldn't argue about how valid these reports are, i am sure you have done your homework well, but to say that they offer the full picture, to be hoonest i am not sure. I guess we will have to wait until next years reports to see if there are any extra fees. I will reserve judgement till then. Either way, i'm not sure if it really matters. Alonso is gone and we made a profit on him.

Desy said...

Anteater if you talking Ronaldo you're crazy. The man almost won the title solo for Real Madrid this season. One of the best players I've ever seen and a marketing dream. Man U certainly know what they've lost this season. Trying to belittle the Alonso deal in light of a deal with arguably the best player in the world is foolhardy at best. And Utd couldn't hold onto Ronaldo why would you think Liverpool could? Exactly what price did you expect to get from Alonso? He was always gonna leave, it's Real Madrid for god's sake! Even without Rafa's lack of interpersonal skills he would have left. Think Fabregas and Barca. A younger player with more goals and assists and they talking £30-35M. A sum of £24M is a good price for any holding midfielder so to compare it to the marketing juggaknot which is Ronaldo is silly.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

You have to consider the prior history between me and lots of posters on the site.  Many of them have been majorly abusive over the years so my responses to them are fuelled by that.  I don't hurl insults/slag people off - I am firm and forthright.  Furthermore, certain posters deliberately argue the contrary even though they know it's wrong.  They're so wrapped up in protecting Benitez's reputation that they deliberately say things are wrong and muddy the waters just to confuse the issue. 

It's ironic that I'm considered rude when I'm te one who receives all the abuse/insults etc.  Every day, 100s of posts are deleted from people just saying stuff like 'You're a cunt!" and other variations (!).

I think I've earned the right to be firm and forthright.  If I was slagging people off it would be a different story.

I take your point though about other peoples' perceptions of how I respond to posters. 

Oh, and re Man United - I'll be posting a comparison between Feguson and Benitez's first 6 years in charge soon.  It makes interesting reading ;)

Sam said...

MAYBE IT WAS 30MILLION EUROS AND THE WHOLE WORLD'S MEDIA AND JOURNO'S MADE A TYPO.

OF COURSE YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS THE TRUE FIGURE AS A "FACT". KUDOS TO YOU JAIMIE, YOU ARE DA MAN, YOU KNOW ALL AND ARE THE GREATEST LFC FAN IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD FOR POINTING OUT SOMETHING SO IRRELEVANT!

Granted, Rafa (and to some extent the Club) didnt handle Alonso in the best way during the summer before he moved. But the most important FACT you keep choosing to ignore is that Alonso eventually WANTED TO MOVE! Whether he was angry and upset at Rafa or not.. he wanted to move.. so we sold him! END OF!

No point in going on and on and on and on about it. A player who the manager and the club didnt handle in the best way left the club for a massive profit.. SHOCK HORROR! its not like it hasnt happened at any other football club has it?!?!? 

This is a pointless article that does the club or the fans any favours. It's totally unproductive and it achieves nothing.

Nickolobster said...

Jaimie, you wrote: "Be logical - Real Madrid are ful of cash.  They spent over 200m last summer, including 80m on Ronaldo and 57m on Kaka,  Yet they're so cash strapped, they pay 24m upfront for Alonso and the other 6m in installments>!  Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?!"
Now I'm not going to get into debate about whether the Alonso fee did or did not include installments as that is irrelevant to my comment, which is that for someone who has argued as long and hard about financial matters as you have in the last few posts, your statement above displays a lack of understanding of basic financial matters, and also a lack of respect to your readers.Why do you think clubs pay in installments? Is it because their bank accounts are so full they might as well offload it to some other club to make room for more profit? Or is it more likely to:1. Add security to a massive expenditure - a player on a transfer fee based on installments due to appearances/ trophies will cost less up front, and much, much less should he end up crocked for a long period, frozen out by a new manager (happens lots at Real) or the team not be successful (see Real's track record of spending biggest and not winning).2. Even if they did end up paying the total transfer fee in installments over 12, 18 or 24 months rather than in full up front, the interest gained on keeping part of the transfer fee in their own bank account is substantial enough to be worth their while paying in this manner.3. Real splashed £137m by your counting on Ronaldo and Kaka last summer prior to buying Alonso, and also had to stump up for Benzema and various other cheaper additions. That very expenditure which you argue means they are 'full of cash' surely makes it prudent financial sense to attempt to save £6m here and there if possible doesn't it?I don't care how 'full of cash' Real may be, it's still businessmen that sign the cheques, and all 3 of those reasons would appeal to businessmen - be it protecting an investment by placing potential limitations on the price, making money through interest or attempting to limit further expenditure having just spend vast amounts of money.

Nickolobster said...

"Look at the Keane example in the article - that's how I can say for certain no more money will arrive for Alonso."
So this is supposition based on another event? Ok, it seems a reasonable conclusion to draw, albeit a conclusion based on one piece of evidence which may or may not be indictative of the actual truth, but I can see why you would draw it.But based on the same argument, do you not agree that it therefore seems a little hypocritical for you to criticise others for making conclusions based on the evidence that most transfers do include add-ons or installments? For clarity, that's MOST, so we're drawing on a far larger pool of evidence than your one piece.Again, to repeat, I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm not saying that those doubting you are right, I'm just trying to highlight that your argument does have some potential flaws in it, yet you act as though it is gospel truth.I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Anand said...

Oh yes sir - I really know some of the comments you get cuz ive been reading your blog well before you stopped last yr. Welcome back btw.

I'm looking forward to the waiter - fergie comparison for sure. I'm also waiting for May 28th when the united quarterly results are released. Will know what the huge revenue gain is that the board keeps talking about.

anteater said...

He almost won them the title. Well, first is first, second is nothing. Heard that before?

I don't know if the fake Ronaldo is the best player in the world, simply because I haven't seen all other players. What I do know is that he falls over a lot, feigns injury and girls seem to find something in this greasy, self-adsorbed guy. I could go on.

Whether or not Alonso would have left if he wasn't alienated the previous year by his own manager we'll never know.

Purely on the value Alonso had to our course/team I would have expected more than 24.3m for him. And I don't think that I am crazy for thinking so. Real were throwing money around as if there was no tomorrow. Why shouldn't they pay 30m for one of our most important players.

'it's Real Madrid for god's sake'. You may find them great, but I never found that much special about them. As much as I don't find that much special about ManU or Chelsea. I wasn't aware that the Basques were too keen on anything from Madrid so please exuse me not thinking in this kind of way.

If Arsenal let Fabregas go to Barca for 30-35m I think they are getting robbed, too. The market is crazy. Not me. And it doesn't matter to me whether selling clubs ask for inflated prices because they think that the buying club is getting lots of money from perverted media deals or because they saddle themselves with debt their government will eventually pay.

anteater said...

He almost won them the title. Well, first is first, second is nothing. Heard that before?

I don't know if the fake Ronaldo is the best player in the world, simply because I haven't seen all other players. What I do know is that he falls over a lot, feigns injury and girls seem to find something in this greasy, self-adsorbed guy. I could go on.

Whether or not Alonso would have left if he wasn't alienated the previous year by his own manager we'll never know.

Purely on the value Alonso had to our course/team I would have expected more than 24.3m for him. And I don't think that I am crazy for thinking so. Real were throwing money around as if there was no tomorrow. Why shouldn't they pay 30m for one of our most important players.

'it's Real Madrid for god's sake'. You may find them great, but I never found that much special about them. As much as I don't find that much special about ManU or Chelsea. I wasn't aware that the Basques were too keen on anything from Madrid so please exuse me not thinking in this kind of way.

If Arsenal let Fabregas go to Barca for 30-35m I think they are getting robbed, too. The market is crazy. Not me. And it doesn't matter to me whether selling clubs ask for inflated prices because they think that the buying club is getting lots of money from perverted media deals or because they saddle themselves with debt their government will eventually pay.

anteater said...

He almost won them the title. Well, first is first, second is nothing. Heard that before?

I don't know if the fake Ronaldo is the best player in the world, simply because I haven't seen all other players. What I do know is that he falls over a lot, feigns injury and girls seem to find something in this greasy, self-adsorbed guy. I could go on.

Whether or not Alonso would have left if he wasn't alienated the previous year by his own manager we'll never know.

Purely on the value Alonso had to our course/team I would have expected more than 24.3m for him. And I don't think that I am crazy for thinking so. Real were throwing money around as if there was no tomorrow. Why shouldn't they pay 30m for one of our most important players.

'it's Real Madrid for god's sake'. You may find them great, but I never found that much special about them. As much as I don't find that much special about ManU or Chelsea. I wasn't aware that the Basques were too keen on anything from Madrid so please exuse me not thinking in this kind of way.

If Arsenal let Fabregas go to Barca for 30-35m I think they are getting robbed, too. The market is crazy. Not me. And it doesn't matter to me whether selling clubs ask for inflated prices because they think that the buying club is getting lots of money from perverted media deals or because they saddle themselves with debt their government will eventually pay.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Don't you see the problem with your thinking here?  You'd rather rely on the media that the facts stated in the club accounts?

matt said...

What about the Arbeloa deal, why is there no mention of him. Wasn't there 4 million for him that goes onto the Alonso fee which then makes it up to 28 million.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Fair enough, Nick.  You are of course right that to get final confirmation we'll have to wait for next year's reports.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Nick - I don't believe it is hypocritical.  My conclusion is drawn from factual evidence (the accounts), and the club's own policies/consistency level when dealing with transfer fees in its reports.

people who say things like ' most transfers do include add-ons or installments', have absolutely no way of proving this, even slightly, thus it is not really a fair thing to see.  it is a belief, based on god knows what to be honest (!)

If you can provide some kind of persuasive evidence that 'most transfers do include add-ons or installments' then I will accept it :)

Simon said...

Jaimie

Your article from November 2009 highlighted the true terms of Aquilani transfer, so how does this equate with the director's report quoted above?
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/11/alberto-aquilani-truth-about-his.html

Therefore how can we trust anything in that little snippet or anything released by the club that is related to the current owner's who "conned" (offered him a little extra cash for himself) a "guillibe" (greedy)David Moores to sell to them

Simon

Anonymous said...

Jamie I think your fighting a loosing battle here, no matter how many facts you present people won't believe it especially if it goes against what they perceive to be true from information they read in the press, the same press they lambast when they go on about anti-LFC bias and shoddy journalism when it comes to transfer rumours (you can't have it both ways). What I'm trying to say is people will believe what they want to believe.

Regarding the questions regarding the total garenteed fees and additional payments,  none of the posters who disagree with you have given evidence to the contrary or explained the difference in the wording of the of the two reports.  I'm in no way trying to say people can't have an opinion and should take your word as gospel, but you do need to do the research and back up your arguments with evidence and not just make assumptions. Some deals are done with instalment plans and add-ons I know that but I too would think these extras would have to be included or at least mentioned in any financial report (especially in todays financial climate).

Desy said...

If you don't Ronaldo or can't appreciate his commercial value then there's only so far I can take this conversation. If you can't understand the pull of playing for the most successful football club of all time then again it makes the conversation difficult. All I can say is that is a great passer of the ball and can control the tempo of the game but unlike the Ronaldos, Gerrards, Fabregas', Messis, Iniestas and Xavis he cannot win a game by himself. His goals and assists recotd bores this out for itself. It's hard to value a quiet unassuming player like Alonso but to compare with a marquee signing like Ronaldo is foolish. The problem with the deal is that Rafa didn't use the opportunity to sign more incisive players like Robben or Sneijder. If he did you would be mentioning Alonso in the same breath as Michael Owen.

crizzle said...

yes i think it is pretty much common knowledge that some of the alonso fee is installment based - winning champions league, league, number of appearances etc. a good price for someone who wanted to leave. well done rafa.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

it is pretty much common knowledge that some of the alonso fee is installment based

Really?  Okay.  Based on what?  If it's common knowledge as you say, then there must be evidence out there that created this 'common knowledge'  I'd be really grateful if you could point me in the direction of this evidence.  if you can't, then you're another person who is just making unfounded generalisations.

Thanks!

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Matt - the idea that Arbeloa and Alonso's fees are linked is, once again, press talkm and is in fact fals. Arbeloa joined Madrid *before* the 31 July deadline for accounts (his sale was announded on the 29 July 2009), which means his fee is included in the accounts.

Alonso was sold 8after* 31 July, which is why his fee appears in 'Post Balance Sheet Events'. if Arbeloa and Alonso were linked, Arby's transfer would've appeared in post balance sheet events.

crizzle said...

you don't need to provide evidence for an opinion, thats the whole point of an opinion. looks like your point is moot. fail.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Simon - The terms of Aquilani's deal were placed on Roma's official site at the time of sale.  However, there may have been other terms in the sale contract to which we were not privy that stipulated that the full amount would be paid if x/y happened.  Clearly, since the purchased and the new accounts, the full amount has been paid.  This is beyond dispute. It is illegal for the club to report income received if it has not, in fact, received it.

Furthermore, this fraud would be discovered in next year's accounts, when the transfer fee would be reported.

LFC is a professional business - there is no way they would like about such a huge amount of money on their report.  What do they have to gain from doing that? Nothing.

At the time I wrote the Aquilano article, I was using the only information available at the time.  It was correct at the time.  A year later, we have to defer to the club's accounts because that is where the truth lies.

Jack said...

Can you tell us what Aquilani has cost us up to now? Not how much we may pay with bonuses, perfomances and appearances. Just what LFC have paid till this moment in time.  

crizzle said...

haha you took the bait, i knew you would. but anyway, mark yourself down another personal cyber victory. what happened to never posting again until rafa went? fail no.2. bad day..

mark said...

firstly, i posted this quite early on, before you replied about the guaranteed fees point.

i'd still argue that this DOESN'T include bonus payments. your inclusion of the steve finnan/robbie keane transfer -

<span>"The club has sold Steve Finnan and Robbie Keane for <span>total guaranteed fees</span> of </span><span>£</span><span>12.8m. This amount will <span>increase significantly as further conditions are fulfilled</span>"</span>

i think this in itself is pretty vague. doesn't really turn it into a watertight financial document. doesn't state any figures.

the exclusion of such a statement in the alonso transfer does not mean there aren't bonus'. i would think that the phrase 'guaranteed fee' on both the reports would indicate that there ARE some kind of bonus payments throughout the alonso/dossena/voronin transfers.

maybe the sum total of the bonus payments isn't that much, hence not including the "increase significantly" phrase.

also, ithe point about read madrid not being strapped for cash and would have paid all the money upfront is pure speculation. if you remember, even after it was obvious that alonso was leaving it was still a protracted affair. took a while to sort out and the two clubs dissagreed on a fee and liverpool didn't back down. this could have been the compromise.

alot of this is opinion, but i don't think your original article can constitute absolute fact about the fee and any potential add ons. it's just too vague.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Indeed, and I feel a lot of shame for returning before I said I would.  How will I ever be able to look at myself with a clear conscience again?

I returned because the club was being battered with false information over the state of its finances.  My love for the club exceeds my problems with Benitez's management, so I returned to tackle the lies and misinformation being spread by the media - AND Liverpool fans - that was casting the club in a bad light.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

RfQ
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Your name here...daboy said...

I for one cannot see Alonso going at that price are Liverpool mad no i think you will find there is some condition of sale thats either unavailable or been overlooked.
A thought maybe cash payments under the table hell who knows but i ask what about Arbeloa that was a fine donation to the Spanish cause!!!!!!

FarEast_RED said...

So what if its true ?! What exactly you want to convey ?! Too many people are digging too much into the past... Let's stop moaning and move forward. 

Anonymous said...

I saw the report for 2008, and it mentioned 14.3m from the sales of Sissoko, Carson, Riise, Guthrie, Crouch...(which doesn't sound right...) and it didn't mention anything about future fees...(which surely would apply, considering Crouchy & Sissoko fees alone were more than 14.3m)

Can I see the actual Director's Report?

crizzle said...

well said.

kazzak said...

There is no right answer for you is there Jaime.  If we say 25m with 6m bonuses you ask for proof or agent fees are conjecture, but surely Real Madrid would have announced the true value.  The reality is Aqua was bought for 18 + bonuses but everyone relates to his transfer as 20m same went for keane and probably same for many players.

Why don't you wait for next years figures to be released to see how much was recieved for bonuses etc.

In all honesty what is your point anyway.  You talk about accurate information but your assumptions are flawed as you are suggesting that there were no bonuses involved Alonso's fee.  Where did you get this information?  How can you be sure that that 24m is the extent of what we will recieve.  You have seen how football deals are carried out and in all honsetly your claims also need to be verified.

Not your best piece of work, maybe you could get a job with piers morgan.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Do you not think that having accurate information in the public domain is important?  or do you think that lies and misinformation are they way forward? 

Trying to get to the truth of things is never pointless.

I have no doubt that if I proved something that placed Benitez in a really great light then you wouldn't have problem with it ;)

Jaimie Kanwar said...

When you are trying to disprove a fact, you need facts, not opinion. 

If someone argues that water is wet, you can't just say 'well, my opinion is that it's dry'.  It's a fact that water is wet, so if you want to prove the opposite, you need facts.  Opinion doesn't cut it, especially if you want people to listen.

Tony said...

Dont like people questioning you do you? what happened to not posting again until Rafa has gone? Go and rim Martin O Neill you fucking bellend.

<span>What we're all forgetting here is that man cannot create perfection. He can only destroy it. That is the nature of the beast.</span>

Desy said...

If you don't Ronaldo or can't appreciate his commercial value then there's only so far I can take this conversation. If you can't understand the pull of playing for the most successful football club of all time then again it makes the conversation difficult. All I can say is that is a great passer of the ball and can control the tempo of the game but unlike the Ronaldos, Gerrards, Fabregas', Messis, Iniestas and Xavis he cannot win a game by himself. His goals and assists recotd bores this out for itself. It's hard to value a quiet unassuming player like Alonso but to compare with a marquee signing like Ronaldo is foolish. The problem with the deal is that Rafa didn't use the opportunity to sign more incisive players like Robben or Sneijder. If he did you would be mentioning Alonso in the same breath as Michael Owen.

Desy said...

If you don't Ronaldo or can't appreciate his commercial value then there's only so far I can take this conversation. If you can't understand the pull of playing for the most successful football club of all time then again it makes the conversation difficult. All I can say is that is a great passer of the ball and can control the tempo of the game but unlike the Ronaldos, Gerrards, Fabregas', Messis, Iniestas and Xavis he cannot win a game by himself. His goals and assists recotd bores this out for itself. It's hard to value a quiet unassuming player like Alonso but to compare with a marquee signing like Ronaldo is foolish. The problem with the deal is that Rafa didn't use the opportunity to sign more incisive players like Robben or Sneijder. If he did you would be mentioning Alonso in the same breath as Michael Owen.

Markus said...

Maybe the figures about the sales of Voronin and Dossena as stated by LFC.tv include further bonus payments ... in that case, 24.3m is not the correct fee for the Alonso deal either.

Or maybe the editors just did not see reason to put that phrase about further additional payments into the report whereas with regards to the Robbie Keane transfer people would have been shocked to find out that we only reclaimed such a small fraction of the fee we paid to Tottenham.

Also there might be agent fees included in the 30m figure. Or maybe some compensation other than money ...

Jaimie, you cannot take anything for granted what you read in official reports, the media or LFC.tv as people always have agendas when handing out information to the public. The truth may or may not be in there somewhere, we'll never know.

Markus said...

Maybe the figures about the sales of Voronin and Dossena as stated by LFC.tv include further bonus payments ... in that case, 24.3m is not the correct fee for the Alonso deal either.

Or maybe the editors just did not see reason to put that phrase about further additional payments into the report whereas with regards to the Robbie Keane transfer people would have been shocked to find out that we only reclaimed such a small fraction of the fee we paid to Tottenham.

Also there might be agent fees included in the 30m figure. Or maybe some compensation other than money ...

Jaimie, you cannot take anything for granted what you read in official reports, the media or LFC.tv as people always have agendas when handing out information to the public. The truth may or may not be in there somewhere, we'll never know.

Anonymous said...

who give a shit what Liverpool get for Alonso.. as long as the bloody yanks are owners, Liverpool will continue to be a selling club

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I'm sorry, Markus, but I don't agree.  There is no agenda in a financial report; it is fact. It is a legal duty to include accurate info.  Furthermore, the financial report is audited by trained accountants who are looking for mistakes/fraud.  If it turned out that LFC were committing accountancy fraud, the penalties would be severe, not to mention the negative publicity it would generate.

Anything is possible in this world, but you're just looking for any eventuality you can think of because what I've posted doesn't fit with your expectations.

No amount of muddying the waters with endless (unproveable) possibilities is going to change the fact that based on the factual evidence *available*, Alonso's sale fee was 24m.

FarEast RED said...

I agreed that getting accurate and truth information to the public domain is important and is never pointless, but it depends usefulness or even criticality of that information can be used...

This piece of information only serve to tell us what's the deal for Alonso between the clubs... you think he should cost more, that is because he has a very good season.. But if you looked at his performances for earlier seasons, you'll think that we got a steal. 

Anyway, as I've said. I don't find this post that useful but your efforts is also appreciated.

Anonymous said...

- 4 cash instalments of
- - 5 million EURO upfront
- - 3 million EURO by 4th January 2010
- - 7 million EURO by June 30th 2010
- - 5 million EURO by June 30th 2011.

Alberto Aquilani why would be pay in advance  of 12m Euro

moranilfc said...

Any TAX payable ( companies pay tax, hence the 24m unless they talk about net fees on transfers of player)

Gord said...

Does it really matter what the exact fee for Alonso was? He left and we didn't spend any money strengthening the squad. The Yanks are broke, thats why we haven't got much (some might say anything) off them and why they want to sell the club for as much as they can get for it.

I'm so sick of having finance at the forefrfont of football discussions, cos isn't it supposed to be an 'escape' from real life and the pressures of money? Football died the day the Premier League was formed and money became more important than all else.

RedJohn40 said...

This seems quite simple to me. Nobody can comprehensively say that 24.3m (or whatever) is all we received for Alonso, and nobody can comprehensively say that there adds-ons to take it to £30m.

Regardless, this fact and the knowledge of it changes nothing, so why argue/debate it?

RedJohn40 said...

This seems quite simple to me. Nobody can comprehensively say that 24.3m (or whatever) is all we received for Alonso, and nobody can comprehensively say that there are adds-ons to take it to £30m. 
 
Regardless, this fact and the knowledge of it changes nothing, so why argue/debate it?

RedJohn40 said...

This seems quite simple to me. Nobody can comprehensively say that 24.3m (or whatever) is all we will receive for Alonso, and nobody can comprehensively say that there are adds-ons to take it to £30m.  
  
Regardless, this fact and the knowledge of it changes nothing, so why argue/debate it?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Yes, why argue or denate anything.  Are you serious?!  If you have nothing to add other than pointless comments like 'why debate it' then don't bother.

It's obvious WHY debate it: to get to the truth.  Just because you don't like that truth is not a reason to not debate it.

If it was an issue you agreed with, you would not be saying 'why debate it'.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

You don't find it useful because it conflicts with your expectations/beliefs.  Like so many others, you want to believe that Alonso cost 30m. 

If, however, the post proved that we received 40m for Alonso, I have no doubt you would be singing a different tune ;)

anteater said...

Yes, looking at profit only and nothing else it was a good deal.

R said...

what ive just read and remember when i think back , papers in Spain at the time saying the fee was 30m Euros , looks spot on ...

But no point worrying about it .....

Jaimie Kanwar said...

30m Euros is most likely true.  A year ago, 30m Euros probably = 24m pounds.

anteater said...

Not so sure about the Owen comparison, but well, opinions are different.

I actually mentioned his commercial value so please don't claim that I didn't.

And there are surely differnt ways to look at a club like Real Madrid. You have yours and I have mine. It would be nice if you could simply accept that your opinion may not be that of everyone else.

I never said we should have got 80m for Alonso, but you don't seem to get my point. If you have a team full of Ronaldos it may well get you nowhere. There must be someone who does the dirty work and those players are unfortunately undervalued and maybe not as much appreciated by fans as they should. Alonso is such a player. He can make a team tick and he often did. I think it was two seasons ago that, looking at results, it became evident that it hurt us more when Alonso was missing than when Gerrard didn't play.

anteater said...

Not so sure about the Owen comparison, but well, opinions are different.

I actually mentioned his commercial value so please don't claim that I didn't.

And there are surely differnt ways to look at a club like Real Madrid. You have yours and I have mine. It would be nice if you could simply accept that your opinion may not be that of everyone else.

I never said we should have got 80m for Alonso, but you don't seem to get my point. If you have a team full of Ronaldos it may well get you nowhere. There must be someone who does the dirty work and those players are unfortunately undervalued and maybe not as much appreciated by fans as they should. Alonso is such a player. He can make a team tick and he often did. I think it was two seasons ago that, looking at results, it became evident that it hurt us more when Alonso was missing than when Gerrard didn't play.

anteater said...

Not so sure about the Owen comparison, but well, opinions are different.

I actually mentioned his commercial value so please don't claim that I didn't.

And there are surely differnt ways to look at a club like Real Madrid. You have yours and I have mine. It would be nice if you could simply accept that your opinion may not be that of everyone else.

I never said we should have got 80m for Alonso, but you don't seem to get my point. If you have a team full of Ronaldos it may well get you nowhere. There must be someone who does the dirty work and those players are unfortunately undervalued and maybe not as much appreciated by fans as they should. Alonso is such a player. He can make a team tick and he often did. I think it was two seasons ago that, looking at results, it became evident that it hurt us more when Alonso was missing than when Gerrard didn't play.

RC said...

Seems so  , still hopefull we will get our Keane money back :-$

RC said...

But disappointed with £24m with how badly Madrid wanted him , should have got that plus <span>Wesley Sneijder </span>  or Robben or both and a few £££

RC said...

Why do we always not do great with player sales even worse with Houllier before .....

Wait and see if Torres sold for £100m ..... next season we see in the accounts it was only £10m ....

is parry defo gone ..... lol

Markus said...

@Jaimie: So based on the evidence that is available, yes: Alonsos transfer fee was 24.3m. Great, you can calculate ... omg.

The evidence may or may not be correct though. I mentioned a few cases that would lead to a different outcome and that are legal. I don't bother wether we got 24.3m or 30m for Xabi ... I just don't care. But you, my friend, see an enemy behind every corner.

RC said...

Also what years accounts did it have £12.8m for Keane and Steve.fin
.
. just doing a bit of research ..

Anonymous said...

Hey Jamie

Thanks for the info....do you have a copy of the cash flow statement?

Anonymous said...

just type companies house on google....you get any f/s you like

Jaimie Kanwar said...

No, markus.  You are placing a negative interpretation on something when it isn't justified.  It is you with the problem here, not me.  You could just take this as an attempt to clarify inaccurate information but no - you have to try and turn it into something negative.

There is *nothing* negative in my article.  Furthermore, I even praise Benitez at the end of it for making a huge profit on the player. as I said, people like you who try and turn it into something negative have the problem here, not me.

All I'm interested in is getting to the truth.  And since it is an LFC related issue - ands this is an LFC site - it's fair game.

It's always better to have accurate info out there than media spin/exhaggeration.

Prophet Mohammed said...

Your whole article is full of flaws just look at the very first so called 'piece of evidence' this scanned document has no factual information in it! Have you just plucked this out of your arsehole? So this is the official "Directors Report" is it! ha! What a load of rubbish! Even if they were legit, the word GUARANTEED says it all. Very few transfers are completed these days without several different player clauses. Also these show year end figures, there will be numerous installments to pay over the next few years related to these transfers. I think you need to get your 'facts' right, leave these things to people who know what there talking about instead of googling random information and throwing an article together and finally get a life! Alonso has been sold, deal done, £25m or £30m, move on buddy!

Jaimie Kanwar said...

2008 accounts for LFCAGL.

RC said...

- 4 cash instalments of  
- - 5 million EURO upfront 
- - 3 million EURO by 4th January 2010 
- - 7 million EURO by June 30th 2010 
- - 5 million EURO by June 30th 2011. 
 
Alberto Aquilani why would be pay in advance  of 12m Euro

are you saying we already paid the fee in full for  Alberto  and it shows It in Roma's Accounts or ours ....

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Do you mean the balance sheet?  Email me and I'll send you a copy:

editor@liverpool-kop.com

RC said...

"It is illegal for the club to report<span> income</span> " if on our books surely not as income more outgoing payments

This will be deleted coz kanwar disagrees said...

Great article exposing kanwars lies....

http://invinciblebastion.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/kanwar-is-back/

Guest said...

This is very interesting,  of course in the interest of keeping things true then no one can say we have spent 20m of Aquilani untill June of next year ;)

RC said...

“In addition, the Company has sold Alonso, Dossena and Voronin for total guaranteed fees of £29.7million. These sales will result in a profit of £17.1 million”
Yes he’s added the additions but not the disposals. Net spend from above £90.8m minus £29.7m = £61.1m (or £10.2m a year). There’s a bit of a difference there, isn’t there?

just read that part ?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

RC - That point is irrelevant because I have posted TWO net spend tables: one containing the 2004-2009 net spend tables only, and one containing Aqiuilani and Kyrgiakos.

And if you post anything again from that site, I will ban you.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I don't have time for people who fall for propaganda so easily without stopping to *think* and *question* what they're reading first, and consider *motivations* of the person who wrote it.

Because of my strong stance against Benitez and SOS, there is a section of Liverpool fans online who are hellbent on trying to discredit me in any way possible, including  misrepresenting my views, and generally just lying about things I write.

Anyone who doesn't want to visit this site can just leave.

Guest said...

It would be interesting to see RM accounts re the Alonso deal.  JK in the interest of putting this discusson to bed surely you could put this to bed by showing us them?

Anonymous said...

I posted something that showed a less net spend , nothing more nothing less .... only was looking for a explanation ... from a link on HERE

.... why would you want to ban ANYONE has never been abusive but just asking about your articles and posting things that say different in the best intentions to hear a reasonable response .



As for

"
I don't have time for people who fall for propaganda so easily without stopping to *think* and *question* what they're reading first, and consider *motivations* of the person who wrote it."why would i think it was propaganda , motivations etc , when it was just a question about net spend , nothing more nothing less...Ive put a side your anti rafa campaign didn't know about you anti sos stance but im a half full glass type of bloke who likes to hear all sides and make my own mind up and definitely would attack a decent a non abusive poster like myself like you just did .... don't know what else to say ..... but taken back by your comments ... 

RC. said...

Do you have a link to where this can be shown .... payments all done or a attachment ..

cheers ...

Lfc4life said...

Another in depth pointless article...
Well done jamie your ploy is working....
I swear I thought your site had been banished and was not sad to see the back of you!
Keep talking about our beloved club and they will come...
And in doing so bring you hits!
You use the kop name and always trash talk us...
I'm still waiting for a positive LFC article on here... But I won't hold my breath.
You won't post this...
But atleast you know that most true Liverpool fans take your for a complete manca!

Desy said...

Let me explain the Owen thing. Owen was nearing legendary status when he left for Real Madrid. Eventually however we replaced him with Torres and no one cares about him. Alonso was excellent but we could have replaced him with £24M and could have got better if we went for Sneijder and Robben. The mistake was not in the fee or the transfer itself, it was in the replacement. Now I actually believe that Aquilani could yet be a star and actually more influential than Alonso. He gets beyond the strikers and has a very clever short passing game. He can also contribute with goals and assists. However he is a sicknote and his backup is Lucas. Therefore we needed a more reliable replacement for Alonso and our season has suffered. Despite this and going by the Kanwar Method of stats based justification £24M is a good price for a non-goalscoring, non-assistmaking, non-tackling midfielder. Yes his qualities lay elsewhere (his passing, positional play etc) but when you talking marquee players like Ronaldo, Messi, Gerrard and Kaka, he just isn't going to match up in price tag, not close. Compare him with the Yaya Toures, Lassana Diarras, Van Der Vaarts and Cambiassos or this world and then we can have a conversation about price tags. in that company £24M is a decent price IMO. My problem is that Benitez chose to deposit it with the Bank of Hicks & Gillett (he might as well as just given it to Del Boy Trotter) instead of taking a risk and bringing in two somewhat maverick players. But Benitez doesn't do maverick so he opted to bank it. If you're gonna slag Benitez off slag him off. I just can't abide by silly comparisons and simple biased perspectives on what is a key issue on a club that I genuinely love and respect. This site has moved from being a site for 'critical realism' to the most egotisical platform to disrupt the harmony that we have enjoyed for years. Only a trained psychologist will ever work out why but we all rush in head first to argue points designed to divide us in some way or the other. We all know that Benitez would have been gone by xmas if a) we had the money to pay him off and b) we had the money to give a new manager a decent transfer budget. But the club doesn't have the money and won't have with the Americans in charge. It's quite simple really. Concocting talking points that would be likely to undermine the manager and divide the fans is the work of someone who sees himself as some kind of puppetmaster revelling in using stats to 'prove' to everyone how clever he is. We all fall for it because our passion for the club fuels us but the reality is that we are in limbo and that vacuum is being used as an excuse for people to make a name for themselves by antagonising the majority to no end. It's not you Anteater that p!sses me off its the fact that we both fall for it.

Desy said...

Let me explain the Owen thing. Owen was nearing legendary status when he left for Real Madrid. Eventually however we replaced him with Torres and no one cares about him. Alonso was excellent but we could have replaced him with £24M and could have got better if we went for Sneijder and Robben. The mistake was not in the fee or the transfer itself, it was in the replacement. Now I actually believe that Aquilani could yet be a star and actually more influential than Alonso. He gets beyond the strikers and has a very clever short passing game. He can also contribute with goals and assists. However he is a sicknote and his backup is Lucas. Therefore we needed a more reliable replacement for Alonso and our season has suffered. Despite this and going by the Kanwar Method of stats based justification £24M is a good price for a non-goalscoring, non-assistmaking, non-tackling midfielder. Yes his qualities lay elsewhere (his passing, positional play etc) but when you talking marquee players like Ronaldo, Messi, Gerrard and Kaka, he just isn't going to match up in price tag, not close. Compare him with the Yaya Toures, Lassana Diarras, Van Der Vaarts and Cambiassos or this world and then we can have a conversation about price tags. in that company £24M is a decent price IMO. My problem is that Benitez chose to deposit it with the Bank of Hicks & Gillett (he might as well as just given it to Del Boy Trotter) instead of taking a risk and bringing in two somewhat maverick players. But Benitez doesn't do maverick so he opted to bank it. If you're gonna slag Benitez off slag him off. I just can't abide by silly comparisons and simple biased perspectives on what is a key issue on a club that I genuinely love and respect. This site has moved from being a site for 'critical realism' to the most egotisical platform to disrupt the harmony that we have enjoyed for years. Only a trained psychologist will ever work out why but we all rush in head first to argue points designed to divide us in some way or the other. We all know that Benitez would have been gone by xmas if a) we had the money to pay him off and b) we had the money to give a new manager a decent transfer budget. But the club doesn't have the money and won't have with the Americans in charge. It's quite simple really. Concocting talking points that would be likely to undermine the manager and divide the fans is the work of someone who sees himself as some kind of puppetmaster revelling in using stats to 'prove' to everyone how clever he is. We all fall for it because our passion for the club fuels us but the reality is that we are in limbo and that vacuum is being used as an excuse for people to make a name for themselves by antagonising the majority to no end. It's not you Anteater that p!sses me off its the fact that we both fall for it.

Guest said...

Why do you threaten to ban anyone who tries  to provide any evidence against your facts?  Surely if you are so confident in what you write then you would not need to delete them.  You keep claiming that your trying to make sure that peole do not get manipulated by the press but then you only leave mostly supportive posts and posts where you try to ridicule people who have differing opinions

Desy said...

Let me explain the Owen thing. Owen was nearing legendary status when he left for Real Madrid. Eventually however we replaced him with Torres and no one cares about him. Alonso was excellent but we could have replaced him with £24M and could have got better if we went for Sneijder and Robben. 

The mistake was not in the fee or the transfer itself, it was in the replacement. Now I actually believe that Aquilani could yet be a star and actually more influential than Alonso. He gets beyond the strikers and has a very clever short passing game. He can also contribute with goals and assists. However he is a sicknote and his backup is Lucas. Therefore we needed a more reliable replacement for Alonso and our season has suffered. Despite this and going by the Kanwar Method of stats based justification £24M is a good price for a non-goalscoring, non-assistmaking, non-tackling midfielder. Yes his qualities lay elsewhere (his passing, positional play etc) but when you talking marquee players like Ronaldo, Messi, Gerrard and Kaka, he just isn't going to match up in price tag, not close. 

Compare him with the Yaya Toures, Lassana Diarras, Van Der Vaarts and Cambiassos or this world and then we can have a conversation about price tags. in that company £24M is a decent price IMO. 

My problem is that Benitez chose to deposit it with the Bank of Hicks & Gillett (he might as well as just given it to Del Boy Trotter) instead of taking a risk and bringing in two somewhat maverick players. But Benitez doesn't do maverick so he opted to bank it. 

If you're gonna slag Benitez off slag him off. I just can't abide by silly comparisons and simple biased perspectives on what is a key issue on a club that I genuinely love and respect. 

This site has moved from being a site for 'critical realism' to the most egotisical platform to disrupt the harmony that we have enjoyed for years. Only a trained psychologist will ever work out why it's become this but we all rush in head first to argue points designed to divide us in some way or the other. 

We all know that Benitez would have been gone by xmas if a) we had the money to pay him off and b) we had the money to give a new manager a decent transfer budget. But the club doesn't have the money and won't have with the Americans in charge. It's quite simple really. 

Concocting talking points that would be likely to undermine the manager and divide the fans is the work of someone who sees himself as some kind of puppetmaster revelling in using stats to 'prove' to everyone how clever he is. We all fall for it because our passion for the club fuels us but the reality is that we are in limbo. None of us know what is going on at the club. We been misled so often that it's created a vacuum of knowledge that is killing us. That vacuum is now being used as an excuse for people to make a name for themselves by antagonising the majority to no end. 

It's not you Anteater that p!sses me off its the fact that we both fall for it.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Oh please.  Drop the crocodile tears already!  If you wanted an answer to a question then you should have asked me directly, not just post a snippet from that site as if to say 'look at this - you're wrong'.  If you really wanted clarification, you would've asked.

Anyway, as I said, through experience of writing online, and how people are so unbelievably fickle with their views about LFC, I have no time for those who are so weak-minded that they fall hook, line and sinker for some random article on a site written specifically to try and denigrate me. 

As I said in my original reply, the point they make about net spend is irrelevant.  I've posted two tables - the first one is the *actual* net spend from the published accounts available to date. The second one includeds AA and SK.  Their transfer figures are known absolutely from the post balance sheet event section of the report *plus* Roma's statement on their website.  Since I knew those figures were true, I included them.

I did not include the Alonso figure because I was unsure whether the 29.7 figure was actually accurate, which is why I researched it and posted the Alonso article today.

In any event, I will take down the second table as the only way to be  100% inalienably accurate is to include only stuff that is in the published accounts, even though we know that aquilani and Kyrgiakos were signed in 2009.

anteater said...

I like and agree on most of the things you write here.

Simon said...

Fair enough I guess, thanks for replying

Welcome back by the way, the break will have done you good

I often feel that you have a grudge against Rafa and this is why people often respond negatively to your comments without maybe properly reading your points. I guess i immediately suspected that this article was attempting to increase Rafa's net spend total by reducing profit on Alonso

It's just that every media outlet and "Sunday Supplement" on S*y spend all their time sneering and laughing at LFC and Rafa, with sports writers suddenly able to "expertly" talk about finance and sports economics

Economics is not an exact science and we could never get a true picture of performance in terms of manager performance wrt net spend etc

Before the Man City v Tottenham match, Sky had a net spend graphic over last 3 years. Man City were -£200m+, Spurs -£72m and LFC -£26m. That is a paultry sum of money to outlay over 3 years. (Their figures obviously could be out slightly)

The root of LFCs problem i think is purely bad luck. Had Anfield been on an industrial estate like Old Trafford, we could have expanded as the years went on. Finance has the game ruined, eg Chelsea and Man City, it's not a place for well run businesses any more.

Chelsea bought the league with a huge splurge on real talent over 2 years, we can only trade up on players, hence the 70+ alleged transfers in Rafa's time

Until spending cap as a percentage of turnover is brought in we will never compete. We can only sign the half decent£7-8 million players that chelsea etc don't want

Hopefully we can address it with such signgings as Jonjo shelvey, Raheem Sterling and the kid from West Brom today

Rafa does frustrate with his cautious approach at times, eg showing Stoke city too much respect when Man U etc just blow them out of the water and his game probably suits Europe more so than premier league. We are stuck with him now anyhow

We will probably lose Masch, Gerrard this year. Hopefully we can spend the money rpoperly

Keep up the good work man, you wouldn't be doing this if you didn't care

Simon

Jaimie Kanwar said...

if I can get hold of RM's accounts, I will.  it's difficult though!

anteater said...

Good point, but shouldn't someone else do some research, too? We can't leave it all for Jaimie to prove, eh.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

RC - I did not state:

'It is illegal to report income'.  That would be obviously wrong (!)

I wrote:

It is illegal for the club to report income received if it has not, in fact, received it.

That would clearly be fraud.

RC. said...

Question was there to be asked nothing more nothing less ......


If you want to look at it in the way you say .... that's your choice ...


Just wondering if net figure after taking away that money received was bringing the net figure down to £10m , makes not a big difference to me as i think Rafa has done well on £15m net spend  and i have a lot of admiration for what he does , even if this season i have been scratching my head a t a lot of team selections and playing lucas and masch together etc etc..

But ive faith in Rafa to Deliver and Faith in SOS to have the clubs future as their drive forward ... find in sad you have A face book page up for Rafa out to be honest , but if your Anti Rafa i can see where your coming from and  leave you to your ideals ...


But the away you can respond to people at times ..  find very strange as not in my character ...
.
.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Great points, Simon.  I see why people think I post stuff just to have a go at Benitez, but it's not true!  My stance against him has been pretty tough over the last couple of years, so in that respect, I'm pretty much the author of my destruction.

I agree that money has ruined the game.  A spending cap as a percentage of turnover as you suggest, can only be a good thing. 

I personally don't mind if we lose Masch.  I've been a critic of Gerrard's in the past too but I've never denied he's a great player.  It would be a shame to lose him now.  I just hope whoever is in charge in a month or spends whatever money we wisely.  With Benitez's record over the past two years, I just don't have any confidence in him to do that.

We'll see I guess!

Cheers,
JK

Jaimie Kanwar said...

RC - I apologise if my response seemed a bit harsh.  I mistakenly thought you were one of my *many* detractors under an alias trying to get their stuff (slagging me off) on the site.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

It does bring it down to 10m if you only include the Alonso sale. There are still 2 months of the current accounting window to go - in that time, we'll sign more players, and that will also need to be included, which will take the net spend back up to 15m probably,

it was my mistake including the AA and SG transfers in the first place - I should only have used the info from the published reports from 2004-9.  I included them because their transfer fees were known.

RC. said...

Anyway good night to all ,  going to relax with my few beers and sabe myself for the championship £50-£100m game play off { fancy blackpool } and then themain event  , i then fancy inter 3-1 .


Sweet dreams ...... if Rafa apperas Jamie its not a nightmare , maybe just your mind saying give him another season ,,

For tonight

Aidos
Ciao {chow}
Slán agat

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Another season with Benitez?

Noooooooo! :-P

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Desy - I'm just about sick of your snide comments and attempts to paint a picture of me that just isn't true.  I've deleted the stuff about me from your post that is lies.  I can't  be bothered to waste time with this sort of thing anymore.  Stick to debating the issues - if you persist in attacking me personally, then I will ban you.  You clearly have a problem with this site so why the hell do  you bother?  This is your last chance.  if you have a problem with me personally, email me and we'll discuss it.

John k said...

awful awful awful liverpool website
nothing ever ever ever positive on this site about liverpool football club written by Kanwar

If you call yourself a liverpool fan, id like to say your a disgrace

I am yet to see a post from YOU which gives OUR club credit

Do you run this site?
Because if you dont, the owner needs to be rid of you mate

You must sit in your house/flat/bedroom, thinking of what utter shit you can come up with next.... then have a little bit of "research" on the internet and make liverpool football club look like a laughing stock

look mate, what YOU an us do not know about Liverpool, is not for us to be known ie transfer fees, how theyre paid etc.
You need to realise, you cannot make things up, you cannot assume and publish this crap on an alleged LFC website.

Anonymous said...

can you post the link to the original financial statements

Jaimie Kanwar said...

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/05/revealed-proof-that-liverpool-fc-does.html

The 2009 report is embedded in thr above post, under the 'sources' section.  The one you need is the LFCAGL report.

Jaimie Kanwar said...

If for some reason you don't believe that's the report (!), then you buy the report off the companies house website.

LFC said...

Test

LFC said...

test

Anonymous said...

Is this a "I hate Rafa" site or what? So the guy comes in and steadily improves the squad, he ruthlessly makes wholesale changes wherever possible to improve youth team, reserve team, commercial income, to basically make the club more competitive in the long run. He brings in regular Champions League appearances, and finally (even though we weren't really ready) made a realistic challenge for the title last season after 20 years! We r competing against big money London clubs Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, and of course the 2 big Manchester clubs. Even Villa has spent a bit of money now. When we talk money we not only talk of transfers, but salaries as well!!! Since Rafa's come in he has overachieved or you might want to say other clubs have underachieved. Either way he's had 5 good seasons exceeding expectations, and now for various valid reasons he has had 1 bad season. I'm starting to understand why supporters of other teams hate us. Is it our divine right to win trophies every year? Don't supporters of other teams feel the same way? This is my opionion, if you want to be a perfectionist, and only the best is acceptable, you a glory hunter who wants only victory and can't be around for the bad times, move on mate, become a manure, chelsea or city supporter and leave us true fans to support LFC and the people who fight their hardest for LFC through thick and thin - after all our motto is You'll Never Walk Alone!!!! Walk on!!!!!!!

Hmmm said...

why use the word 'guaranteed'? it is slightly redundant?

Kraken said...

Jaimie,

You mentioned in response to another question that "in the club's reports for the last 15 years. *every single time* there is money due for players in the future, it is stated".

You've provided the Keane transfer as an example of this, but can you give an indication of how many other times in the 15 years of accounts you have there has been money due for players subsequent to their initial transfer fee, and perhaps some more examples?

Jaimie Kanwar said...

I've done enough research on this issue - if you don't believe me, then go and look at the accounts and check through them yourself.  You can buy them for 1 pound each from companies house; hardly a bank-breaker. The Keane example by itself is enough to prove my point. In the reports you will find sections on 'contingent liabilities', wherein there will be details of future fees to be paid.  There will also be details in the "director's report' and 'Post Balance Sheet Events'

Guest said...

Actually, I think you'll find journalists have to try to report a transfer fee at the time rather than wait until the accounts come out 12 months later!
If you want to post the true and accurate fees for any player we buy/sell this summer then please feel free.
I'll come back with the accounts next year and, I'll bet £1000, you won't have got them correct!!

Jamie K said...

jamie kanwar. you should get a proper job instead of posting random stuff online and wait for people to answer

guest said...

Sorry I'd opened that in a new window and it gave me an excess denied message so I was not sure what's going on. Is there any place I can download this from? Thanks.

guest said...

I saw the embedded file after you pointed it out but i prefer a diff pdf reader where I can actually type comments and make notes in the file itself. 

Kraken said...

Jaimie, it changes the complexion of your argument if the Keane transfer is the only time that future money due is stated within the accounts. I'm just asking, given you've evidently done the research already, for an indication of how many times it is stated. We're both just looking to present the facts here.

GoodKopBadKop said...

The figures given and supporting evidence do suggest that the Alonso fee was overstated in the media. This doesn't surprise me to be honest.  Officially the fee was "undisclosed" and it would seem logical that a board under pressure from fans would try to sugar coat the loss of a key player and fan favourite.  

Most liverpool transfers these days are officially "undisclosed" so I dont really take any fees information in the press as gospel.  I can't say how, why or who but I have seen the actual contract of an ex player and from that realise that the weekly wage figures oft quoted in the media are not entirely accurate either - I would say it would be a rare occurrence of a player earning exactly the same amount each week due to bonus's etc

Coming back to the original point of this article I can see one way in which you could further make your evidence bullet proof.  

Without seeing details of previous examples of potential future fees quoted it could be wondered by the reader if different rules apply to transfers around different countries.

Paying fees as installments over the lifetime of the initial contract has long been standard practice in mainland europe and the premier league only passed a motion in the last few years to ratify it as an acceptable practice in this country (previously installments tended to be paid in the first few years not over the entire contract period).

We have been lead to believe that Alonso's initial purchase was on installments and had performance related clauses. and we bought him from a spanish club.

It would be interesting to see if the initial purchase was reported in the accounts in the exact same manner - if the purchase states installments and bonus' then it would bolster the view that that sale doesn't have them attached

Jaimie Kanwar said...

Excellent points, <span>GoodKopBadKop.  I've attached the section of the 2004-5 report that contains details of Alonso's initial transfer.  It states that the clkub acquired Alonso, Nunez and Garcia for total fees of 13m.  No mention of installmnts/bonues.</span>

Jaimie Kanwar said...

You're suggesting that the keane transfer might be only time because, inside, you don't believe me.  As such, it's your responsibility to go and do the research.  I've stated that it's happened before - I've provided one such example,  If you think differently, go and find the evidence.

RC said...

i know Nunez was part of the Owen deal but does this mean we paid less than £10-£11m for Alonso as Garcia was surely more than £2m

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 231   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment