5 Nov 2009

EXCLUSIVE - The real cost of Jan Kromkamp's Liverpool transfer

It is widely believed that Liverpool acquired Jan Kromkamp for free as part of a player-exchange with Josemi. Every official source that has looked into Liverpool's transfer dealings has stated the same alleged fact. Well, after some research, that myth can now be debunked - Liverpool actually paid a surprisingly large transfer fee for the ineffective Krompkamp, the amount of which some may find surprising

According to Liverpool's annual report for 2005, Kromkamp cost the club £4.3m!


The deal for Josemi quite clearly seems to have been a completely separate transaction.

The official Liverpool FC site states the following about Kromkamp:

Dutch international Jan Kromkamp became Rafael Benitez's first major signing of 2006. He arrived at Anfield from Villarreal in a swap deal that involved Josemi moving in the opposite direction.


The implication here is that Kromkamp did not cost the club any money. Based on the evidence above, this is quite categorically untrue.

So - £4.3m for a player who made a grand total of 18 appearances and was shipped out after 7 months. Excluding the player's salary, Krompkamp cost Liverpool £241,000 per appearance.

Was this money well-spent?

No - In my view, it was a complete and utter waste of £4.3m of Liverpool FC's money.

I highlight this issue to illustrate that not everything is as black and white as the media or fans make out when it comes to transfers.

I find it disturbing that every media outlet and every official source (including all newspapers; the BBC and every Liverpool FC site) failed to conduct even rudimentary research into the true cost of this transfer.

This is why the majority of Liverpool FC transfer breakdowns currently available on the internet are woefully inaccurate.

Figures like this will also have an impact on the club's net spend over the last 5 years, something that seems to be quite a hot topic at the moment. The question is, how many other inaccurate transfer fees are floating around in cyberspace?

£4.3m for Krompkamp?

Surely one of the most financially irresponsible transfer in Liverpool FC's recent history?

EDIT - 9PM

I feel the need to clarify/add a few things after the comment discussion below:

Aim of this article

The aim of this article was merely to clarify Kromkamp's transfer fee. Every analysis of Liverpool's spending on the net (including analyses by 'The Times' and 'The Daily Mail') fails to provide a monetary value for Kromkamp's transfer. Given the fact he cost 4.3m, this is blatantly inaccurate.

This is relevant because the failure to include any transfer fee leads to inaccurate gross spend/net spend results.

I feel that it is important for the truth to be made available, and would argue tha this is preferable to the inaccuracies and exaggerations currently being perpetuated about Liverpool's transfer spending.

I am researching transfer fees under Benitez in order to paint an accurate picture of what has been spent and recouped, and I am doing this purely for information purposes, not to attack Benitez.

In fact, tomorrow I will publishing another article looking at the transfer fees of two of Benitez's most successful signings. It turns out they were alot cheaper than people think. This information will actually make Benitez's transfer spending look even better. Why would I do this if I wanted to paint him in a bad light?

I am only interested in the facts, and if the facts end up showing that Benitez's performance in the transfer market is better than he's currently given credit for then I'm perfectly fine with that. And based on the research I've done so far, that could well be the case.

Swap deal?

The consensus amongst fans and the media seems to be that Kromkamp and Josemi was a swap-deal. That may have been the public face of the deal (as both players were going to each others' respective clubs), but my argument is that the deal was actually two separate transactions, and this is reflected in the annual report.

Logic seems to dictate that if they were one transaction there would be some kind of reference to this in the report. There isn't. What is the point/where is the benefit in presenting things in a manner that does not reflect the reality of the situation? The report is explicit:

* Baros, Diouf and Josemi sold for 13.84m
* Kromkamp bought for 4.3m

Why doesn't it say something along the lines of:

Josemi sold for X amount as part of a player exchange with Kromkamp, who was acquired for 4.3m

Where is the reason to hide this information?! At the very least, when considering Liverpool's gross/net spending, the fees used must reflect what is stated in the annual report.

Josemi - sold for 4.3m?


It is possible that Josemi was sold for 4.3m but in my view it is not very probable. He made only 23 appearances for Liverpool AND suffered a couple of niggling injuries along the way. As such, I believe that Liverpool probably received a nominal fee for Josemi.

People should remember that this is only my opinion. At no point have I suggested this is fact. The article itself contains one major fact (Kromkamp's fee) and my opinions about that fact. People in the comment section seem to have a problem with me arguing that Josemi might have gone for a nominal fee, but they argue that he could've been sold for up to 4m. It's just a difference of opinion.

I think anyone who thinks about this sensibly would reject the possibility that Liverpool could make 200% profit on Josemi (!). As I said above, it's possible, but not very probable.

Jaimie Kanwar

Now watch the typical 'you're a manc' comments roll in. Is the truth no longer important?

----

Join the site's new Facebook page!


Become a fan on Facebook!



258 comments:

  1. jamie are u a manc or what? ffs,

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dont you have something better to do with your time?  How much was Kevin Keegan's lunch for example.  Really get a life or maybe swap teams.

    ReplyDelete
  3. get a life, you're boring

    ReplyDelete
  4. well done... with the immediate issues the club is facing you find a way the to look at the past. your right we shouldf be focusing on how an inept right back costed us, whilst we are out of all competition by november. mate your spot on.

    find it funny that you have a go at the media.

    its embarasing to think we are both liverpool fans.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kromkamp or Krompkamp which is it? Make your mind up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. so hes made a few errors...alonso?pepe?masch?torres?kuyt?surely he's made some wonders no?

    ReplyDelete
  7. So what's the problem? Josemi sold for notional £4.3m, Kromkamp bought for a notional £4.3m...net cost = zero. Ties in with rumoured fees for Diouf (c£2m) and Baros (c£7m)...non-story

    ReplyDelete
  8. actually that 4.3 mill for the registration of the player could include his contract cost and signing on fee so he still could be a free transfer. it says registration not transfer fee!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Grow up.  When did the truth become off-limits?  Everyone and his dog is going on about transfer fees at the moment (which include inaccurate figures like Kromkamp's) but when I clarify a blatant inaccuracy, I'm somehow not a fan?!  Get a grip.  truth is truth.  If you don't like it, go and stick your head back in the sand.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Joke of an article.

    Somehow every resource in the world is wrong apart from big Jamie.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mate whenever players are swaped a transfer fee has to be agreed for insuramce reasons.  the clubs will then show that money as an outgoing and as fee recieved for tax reasons.
    Baros felt for £6.5m that leaves £7.3m for the sale of Josemi and Diouf.  the fee was undisclosed for Diouf but was widely reported as £3m which leaves £4.3m for the sale of Josemi.  So Krompkamp didn't cost anything.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You could be right or this could be viewed in another way.

    £13,845,000
    -£6,500,000 for Baros
    -£3,000,000 for Diouf
    =£4,345,000 for Josemi

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jeez, the denial of some people is amazing.

    In Liverpool's annual report for 2006, it states that the club paid '10m for Dirk Kuyt's registration'.  Did he come ona  free too?!

    Registration = transfer.

    Semantics aside, the bottom line is Liverpool paid 4.3m for Kromkamp.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That's not really worth of an 'EXCLUSIVE' tagline though.

    Clearly there are lots of different takes on spending under Rafa, but to say that he hasn't improved the team is rubbish; Reina, Agger, Johnson, Mascherano, Aquilani, and Torres (you could probably argue for some others too) would have walked into the team that won the European Cup in 2005 and would get into any of our rivals' teams too.

    We finished second last year with almost exactly the same squad and lost Alonso but got Johnson and Aquilani this summer. The sudden 'crisis' is a nonsense, players have not been pulling their weight and Rafa needs to take responsibility for it. It's too late now to realistically expect a challenge for the league or the Champion's League but LFC will get their act together and give us something to shout about before the end of the season.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Have u read Paul Tomkins article on his meeting with Rafa? Rafa just said which players he wanted and he was amazed how much was paid for them in the end..

    ReplyDelete
  16. Did you not see that the figure is taken from LIVERPOOL"S ANNUAL ACCOUNTS?! 

    is the club wrong too?!

    Get a grip.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Im hoping voronin was a free and nothing more!

    ReplyDelete
  18. once again Jamie you are spot on with the facts. As a 40 year season ticket holder at liverpool, home and away, league and cup i love the responses you get from these so called fans.

    They hate the truth Jamie, you keep stating the true facts and they hate it.

    Face facts, Rafa is not the right man for the job, i remember these so called fans also loved Houllier.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Please provide evidence for your assertion that "whenever players are swaped a transfer fee has to be agreed for insurance reasons.  the clubs will then show that money as an outgoing and as fee recieved for tax reasons".

    A fee was paid. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nail on head. Non-story

    ReplyDelete
  21. it is exclusive because this information has never been released anywhere before by any other news source/website.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pure speculation.  There is no way of knowing exactly how much Baros/Diuf went for.  Figures flying around at the moment are just guesswork. It could easily be 7m for Baros and 5m for Diouf for all we know.

    The only FACT here is that Liverpool paid 4.3m for Kromkamp

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jamie has yet to explain the extra 4.3 million the others have highlighted. Will we get an apology or a retraction if he can't?
    Or will he just hope it goes away?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Baros went for 6 Mill, Diouf went for 3.5. that's 9.5. £13,845,000 - £9,500,000 = £4,345,5000.

    If we sold Josemi for 4.3 mill then signed Kromkamp for, hang on, £4.3 mill does that not mean that no money traded hands.

    You my friend are a complete tool. Try spending more time studying basic maths instead of writing tedious, boring, pointless articles that just take up 3 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.

    ReplyDelete
  25. i have just put £10 on liverpool to win the Europa league.  Lets face they have no chance of winning f all else :)


    Same old Liverpool fans settling for mediocratie, i think its great

    ReplyDelete
  26. You really are unable to comprehend the most obvious facts. 

    Fact 1: Kromkamp cost 4.3m

    Fact 2. Baros, Diouf and Josemi were sold for a combined 13.84m

    * Both facts from 2005 annual report.

    There is no way of knowing the idividual cost of each player, but the idea that Josemi was sold for 4m is friggin ludicrous.

    It is more likely that the bulk of the 13m went on Baros and Diouf, with a nominal fee for Josemi.

    And retraction?  For what?  Publishing the truth?  This really is hilarious :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jaimie you really need to get a grip.

    Why the hell have you gone and dug this up? It's just another way for you to belittle Benitez. We played well last night, Lucas was probably our best player behind Mascherano, a player who's come in for criticism by you previously. So you've got nothing to have a go about after last night, instead you dig up the "registration" details of a player who left the Club 4 years ago!

    Did the same report you clearly have print the details of the Baros, Diouf and Josemi sales? I'd like you to report how those figures in their singular form make up the £13,845,000.I'll bet you won't as those contributary factors don't fit in with your attempts to belittle ANOTHER Benitez signing.

    By the way it says "registration" not transfer, you've no idea what that might include.

    I'd urge you to make the report accessible to the forum so we can see what figures were actually involved in the Josemi, Baros and Diouf transfers otherwise give it a rest.

    Does it not bother you that most people only come on here to discredit you? How proud you must be.

    You get people's attention with sensationalist headlines printed on linked web pages, and when people come to check it out it turns out to be garbage.

    People at Liverpool FC have their own opinions about you and your "site", I'm inclined to take their opinion with more regard than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jaimie you really need to get a grip.

    Why the hell have you gone and dug this up? It's just another way for you to belittle Benitez. We played well last night, Lucas was probably our best player behind Mascherano, a player who's come in for criticism by you previously. So you've got nothing to have a go about after last night, instead you dig up the "registration" details of a player who left the Club 4 years ago!

    Did the same report you clearly have print the details of the Baros, Diouf and Josemi sales? I'd like you to report how those figures in their singular form make up the £13,845,000.I'll bet you won't as those contributary factors don't fit in with your attempts to belittle ANOTHER Benitez signing.

    By the way it says "registration" not transfer, you've no idea what that might include.

    I'd urge you to make the report accessible to the forum so we can see what figures were actually involved in the Josemi, Baros and Diouf transfers otherwise give it a rest.

    Does it not bother you that most people only come on here to discredit you? How proud you must be.

    You get people's attention with sensationalist headlines printed on linked web pages, and when people come to check it out it turns out to be garbage.

    People at Liverpool FC have their own opinions about you and your "site", I'm inclined to take their opinion with more regard than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jaimie you really need to get a grip.

    Why the hell have you gone and dug this up? It's just another way for you to belittle Benitez. We played well last night, Lucas was probably our best player behind Mascherano, a player who's come in for criticism by you previously. So you've got nothing to have a go about after last night, instead you dig up the "registration" details of a player who left the Club 4 years ago!

    Did the same report you clearly have print the details of the Baros, Diouf and Josemi sales? I'd like you to report how those figures in their singular form make up the £13,845,000.I'll bet you won't as those contributary factors don't fit in with your attempts to belittle ANOTHER Benitez signing.

    By the way it says "registration" not transfer, you've no idea what that might include.

    I'd urge you to make the report accessible to the forum so we can see what figures were actually involved in the Josemi, Baros and Diouf transfers otherwise give it a rest.

    Does it not bother you that most people only come on here to discredit you? How proud you must be.

    You get people's attention with sensationalist headlines printed on linked web pages, and when people come to check it out it turns out to be garbage.

    People at Liverpool FC have their own opinions about you and your "site", I'm inclined to take their opinion with more regard than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  30. How do you know the EXACT figures Baros and Diouf went for?!  You state it so emphatically so please provide your evidence.

    Liverpool's annual report for 2005 states the following:
     
    Fact 2. Baros, Diouf and Josemi were sold for a combined 13.84m
     
    There is no way of knowing the idividual cost of each player, but the idea that Josemi was sold for 4m is friggin ludicrous.  Who would pay 4 and half million for Josemi?!
     
    It is more likely that the bulk of the 13m went on Baros and Diouf, with a nominal fee for Josemi.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Whenever a player is brought, swapped or justs signs on a free he must be given a value so the club can insure him.

    Krompkamp was sold for £3m anyway so the most we would of lost is £1.3m even if you actually are crazy enough to think bolton paid over £5m for Diouf.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jaimie you really need to get a grip.

    Why the hell have you gone and dug this up? It's just another way for you to belittle Benitez. We played well last night, Lucas was probably our best player behind Mascherano, a player who's come in for criticism by you previously. So you've got nothing to have a go about after last night, instead you dig up the "registration" details of a player who left the Club 4 years ago!

    Did the same report you clearly have print the details of the Baros, Diouf and Josemi sales? I'd like you to report how those figures in their singular form make up the £13,845,000.I'll bet you won't as those contributary factors don't fit in with your attempts to belittle ANOTHER Benitez signing.

    By the way it says "registration" not transfer, you've no idea what that might include.

    I'd urge you to make the report accessible to the forum so we can see what figures were actually involved in the Josemi, Baros and Diouf transfers otherwise give it a rest.

    Does it not bother you that most people only come on here to discredit you? How proud you must be.

    You get people's attention with sensationalist headlines printed on linked web pages, and when people come to check it out it turns out to be garbage.

    People at Liverpool FC have their own opinions about you and your "site", I'm inclined to take their opinion with more regard than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jaimie you really need to get a grip.

    Why the hell have you gone and dug this up? It's just another way for you to belittle Benitez. We played well last night, Lucas was probably our best player behind Mascherano, a player who's come in for criticism by you previously. So you've got nothing to have a go about after last night, instead you dig up the "registration" details of a player who left the Club 4 years ago!

    Did the same report you clearly have print the details of the Baros, Diouf and Josemi sales? I'd like you to report how those figures in their singular form make up the £13,845,000.I'll bet you won't as those contributary factors don't fit in with your attempts to belittle ANOTHER Benitez signing.

    By the way it says "registration" not transfer, you've no idea what that might include.

    I'd urge you to make the report accessible to the forum so we can see what figures were actually involved in the Josemi, Baros and Diouf transfers otherwise give it a rest.

    Does it not bother you that most people only come on here to discredit you? How proud you must be.

    You get people's attention with sensationalist headlines printed on linked web pages, and when people come to check it out it turns out to be garbage.

    People at Liverpool FC have their own opinions about you and your "site", I'm inclined to take their opinion with more regard than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jaimie you really need to get a grip.

    Why the hell have you gone and dug this up? It's just another way for you to belittle Benitez. We played well last night, Lucas was probably our best player behind Mascherano, a player who's come in for criticism by you previously. So you've got nothing to have a go about after last night, instead you dig up the "registration" details of a player who left the Club 4 years ago!

    Did the same report you clearly have print the details of the Baros, Diouf and Josemi sales? I'd like you to report how those figures in their singular form make up the £13,845,000.I'll bet you won't as those contributary factors don't fit in with your attempts to belittle ANOTHER Benitez signing.

    By the way it says "registration" not transfer, you've no idea what that might include.

    I'd urge you to make the report accessible to the forum so we can see what figures were actually involved in the Josemi, Baros and Diouf transfers otherwise give it a rest.

    Does it not bother you that most people only come on here to discredit you? How proud you must be.

    You get people's attention with sensationalist headlines printed on linked web pages, and when people come to check it out it turns out to be garbage.

    People at Liverpool FC have their own opinions about you and your "site", I'm inclined to take their opinion with more regard than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jaimie you really need to get a grip.

    Why the hell have you gone and dug this up? It's just another way for you to belittle Benitez. We played well last night, Lucas was probably our best player behind Mascherano, a player who's come in for criticism by you previously. So you've got nothing to have a go about after last night, instead you dig up the "registration" details of a player who left the Club 4 years ago!

    Did the same report you clearly have print the details of the Baros, Diouf and Josemi sales? I'd like you to report how those figures in their singular form make up the £13,845,000.I'll bet you won't as those contributary factors don't fit in with your attempts to belittle ANOTHER Benitez signing.

    By the way it says "registration" not transfer, you've no idea what that might include.

    I'd urge you to make the report accessible to the forum so we can see what figures were actually involved in the Josemi, Baros and Diouf transfers otherwise give it a rest.

    Does it not bother you that most people only come on here to discredit you? How proud you must be.

    You get people's attention with sensationalist headlines printed on linked web pages, and when people come to check it out it turns out to be garbage.

    People at Liverpool FC have their own opinions about you and your "site", I'm inclined to take their opinion with more regard than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  36. people at LFC have there bad opinion because they know Jamie is right you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jaimie you really need to get a grip.

    Why the hell have you gone and dug this up? It's just another way for you to belittle Benitez. We played well last night, Lucas was probably our best player behind Mascherano, a player who's come in for criticism by you previously. So you've got nothing to have a go about after last night, instead you dig up the "registration" details of a player who left the Club 4 years ago!

    Did the same report you clearly have print the details of the Baros, Diouf and Josemi sales? I'd like you to report how those figures in their singular form make up the £13,845,000.I'll bet you won't as those contributary factors don't fit in with your attempts to belittle ANOTHER Benitez signing.

    By the way it says "registration" not transfer, you've no idea what that might include.

    I'd urge you to make the report accessible to the forum so we can see what figures were actually involved in the Josemi, Baros and Diouf transfers otherwise give it a rest.

    Does it not bother you that most people only come on here to discredit you? How proud you must be.

    You get people's attention with sensationalist headlines printed on linked web pages, and when people come to check it out it turns out to be garbage.

    People at Liverpool FC have their own opinions about you and your "site", I'm inclined to take their opinion with more regard than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  38. shit stirring isnt truth, and thats all that seems to be on this site.

    Cant say ill be back any time soon. Its as bad as the s*n

    ReplyDelete
  39. That is not evidence - that is an unfounded assertion.

    And Kromkamp was NOT sold for 3m.  You see, this is the problem with people going around spouting stuff for the hell of it without any proof.

    In Liverpool's 2006 annual report, the following is stated:

    Djimi Traore, Chris Kirkland, Jan Kromkamp, Neil Mellor and Antonio Barragan were sold for total fees amounting to £4,549,000

    That is 5 players for a combined 4.5m

    That equates to 900k for each player (average)

    And you reckon Kromkamp took up 3m of that?  Highly improbable.

    Traore and Kirkland took up the bulk of that fee.  Kromkamps would, in all probaility, have been nominal.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Your denial and complete inability to accept the truth says alot about you and others like you.

    And you won't be back?  Nooooo. Please don't go.  Don't goooooooo.  I'm begging you to stay.


    http://www.youtube.com/v/7od-eyQaIY4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="170" height="140

    ReplyDelete
  41. You're quite right.  It could be that Josemi was sold for more than that figure proving to be even better business than expected.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jamie

    Are you aware that it was Rick Parry's responsibility to negotiate player transfers?  As that is an absolute fact, I fail to see why the Kronkamp story has any relevance now he has left.

    So just to make it crystal clear, RAFA DID NOT NEGOTIATE PLAYER TRANSFERS

    Sorry mate your point is meaningless

    ReplyDelete
  43. I find it hilarious that you're now being defended by "URL is optional" who is clearly not a Liverpool fan. He refers to LFC as a 3rd party continuously in his comments which would infer a feeling of detachment rather than one of togetherness. If he's a Liverpool fan I'll show my backside in Lord Street.

    Who gives a frick what Kromkamp cost? Josemi could have been sold for £4m, can you prove otherwise?

    Houllier bought Diouf for £10m and Cisse for £14m, they were two of the worst buys ever in all the years I've followed Liverpool.

    Fact is Jaimie, you don't like Rafa, you're a tubthumper.

    You'll not be happy until we 've won it all, sorry lad but that's not going to happen regardless of the manager - you're living in a dream world. We simply don't have the funds or support structure at the Club to financially challenge the likes of Manchester United, Cheslea or Manchester City. Christ, even Spurs have got more money than us!

    The irony is you scorn these fans that support Liverpool FC and Benitez no matter what, you may think they're deluded, but you are the one who's deluded Jaimie. We aren't one of the Top 4 Clubs in the Country anymore, we don't pay the biggest wage, we don't sign the most expensive players and we don't have a big stadium. None of that will change unless we get the investment we sorely need.

    But you keep thumping your tub atop of your soapbox, you seem to like the sound of your own key tapping.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I find it hilarious that you're now being defended by "URL is optional" who is clearly not a Liverpool fan. He refers to LFC as a 3rd party continuously in his comments which would infer a feeling of detachment rather than one of togetherness. If he's a Liverpool fan I'll show my backside in Lord Street.

    Who gives a frick what Kromkamp cost? Josemi could have been sold for £4m, can you prove otherwise?

    Houllier bought Diouf for £10m and Cisse for £14m, they were two of the worst buys ever in all the years I've followed Liverpool.

    Fact is Jaimie, you don't like Rafa, you're a tubthumper.

    You'll not be happy until we 've won it all, sorry lad but that's not going to happen regardless of the manager - you're living in a dream world. We simply don't have the funds or support structure at the Club to financially challenge the likes of Manchester United, Cheslea or Manchester City. Christ, even Spurs have got more money than us!

    The irony is you scorn these fans that support Liverpool FC and Benitez no matter what, you may think they're deluded, but you are the one who's deluded Jaimie. We aren't one of the Top 4 Clubs in the Country anymore, we don't pay the biggest wage, we don't sign the most expensive players and we don't have a big stadium. None of that will change unless we get the investment we sorely need.

    But you keep thumping your tub atop of your soapbox, you seem to like the sound of your own key tapping.

    ReplyDelete
  45. No one takes Jamie seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I find it hilarious that you're now being defended by "URL is optional" who is clearly not a Liverpool fan. He refers to LFC as a 3rd party continuously in his comments which would infer a feeling of detachment rather than one of togetherness. If he's a Liverpool fan I'll show my backside in Lord Street.

    Who gives a frick what Kromkamp cost? Josemi could have been sold for £4m, can you prove otherwise?

    Houllier bought Diouf for £10m and Cisse for £14m, they were two of the worst buys ever in all the years I've followed Liverpool.

    Fact is Jaimie, you don't like Rafa, you're a tubthumper.

    You'll not be happy until we 've won it all, sorry lad but that's not going to happen regardless of the manager - you're living in a dream world. We simply don't have the funds or support structure at the Club to financially challenge the likes of Manchester United, Cheslea or Manchester City. Christ, even Spurs have got more money than us!

    The irony is you scorn these fans that support Liverpool FC and Benitez no matter what, you may think they're deluded, but you are the one who's deluded Jaimie. We aren't one of the Top 4 Clubs in the Country anymore, we don't pay the biggest wage, we don't sign the most expensive players and we don't have a big stadium. None of that will change unless we get the investment we sorely need.

    But you keep thumping your tub atop of your soapbox, you seem to like the sound of your own key tapping.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I don't understand your logic Jamie.  Surely it's possible that the £4.345m (as a notional value for Josemi) is included in the £13.845m?  The fact that both figures end in £45,000 seems a big coincidence otherwise.

    By all means search for the truth, but you have to disprove all other possibilities before you can claim to have found it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Why is the idea of Josemi being sold for £4 million ridiculous?  He was very highly rated in Spain.

    This is just you attempting to fuel the fire.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes you're right Jamie it is a fact that Kromkamp cost £4.3 mil, cannot dispute that there in black and white. However, without knowing how much Baros and Diouf were sold for it only paints part of a picture and ultimately for you it means that you wasted your time writing this article. If however you can provide the figures for Baros and Diouf then you're onto a story.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Steve - Please post the text from the article where I stated or intimated that Rafa negotiated Kromkamp's transfer.

    That's right, I didn't. 

    In fact, please show me anywhere in the post where Benitez's name is even mentioned.

    I'm talking about the CLUB spending money here. not benitez.

    And Rick Parry was part of the club - whoever negotiates is irrelevent - the club ends up paying the fee.

    I really find it interesting how people try and muddy the waters and deflect attention away from the point.

    I wonder what strategy is going to be used next 8-)

    ReplyDelete
  51. That sounds so much like David O'Leary and Leeds, its scary.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Exclusive

    Transfer fees aren't as simple as the headline figure shown in the papers.



    Unfortunately things aren't as simple as made out in the papers. When a player is bought for £10m its just not that straight forward. The ways in which fees are spread and a huge number of accounting rules come into player. Football is big business, football clubs have proper accountants, proper accountants do stuff like...

    Calculation of Useful Economic Life and Amortisation of an Intangible
    Asset, i.e a footballer


    <span>ttp://pastie.org/paste/asset/284542/Discussion_Accounting__Valuation_and_Duration_of_Football_Player_Contracts.pdf</span>

    Jamie have a look at this link on transfer accounting and tell me you can still say with absolute certainty that Krompkamp cost £4.3m? You can't and are putting out a potential incorrect and over sensationalized story you can't back up as we don't know the fees received for the other players.

    <span><span>Enjoy.</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  53. Any chance you could provide the entire financial reports for this story - from what i see you have taken one small fact and used it to make a story.

    Also where does it say he was free ? can you provide links to these pieces.
    There is a lot of heresay in this piece.

    Just a point -it was reported Torres was 27m and Garcia went the other way for 6m - do you think the clubs both handed over the huge amount of fees - or did Liverpool just offer 21m and hand over Garcia.

    From this piece you have taken a small amount of info from a massive document and used it to pad out a non-story.

    Who is the manc here ?

    ReplyDelete
  54. <span>Exclusive  
     
    Transfer fees aren't as simple as the headline figure shown in the papers.  
     
    Unfortunately things aren't as simple as made out in the papers. When a player is bought for £10m its just not that straight forward. The ways in which fees are spread and a huge number of accounting rules come into player. Football is big business, football clubs have proper accountants, proper accountants do stuff like...  
     
    Calculation of Useful Economic Life and Amortisation of an Intangible  Asset, i.e a footballer  
     
    <span>http://pastie.org/paste/asset/284542/Discussion_Accounting__Valuation_and_Duration_of_Football_Player_Contracts.pdf</span>  
     
    Jamie have a look at this link on transfer accounting and tell me you can still say with absolute certainty that Krompkamp cost £4.3m? You can't and are putting out a potential incorrect and over sensationalized story you can't back up as we don't know the fees received for the other players.  

    </span>

    ReplyDelete
  55. In my view, the probability that Liverpool made over 200% profit on Josemi - a bit part player who made only 21 appearances for Liverpool - is highly unlikely.

    We'll know soon enough though as I'm in the process of Acquiring Villareal's annual report for 2005-6, which should hopefully include the exact figure.

    ReplyDelete
  56. <span><span>Exclusive    
       
    Transfer fees aren't as simple as the headline figure shown in the papers.    
       
    Unfortunately things aren't as simple as made out in the papers. When a player is bought for £10m its just not that straight forward. The ways in which fees are spread and a huge number of accounting rules come into player. Football is big business, football clubs have proper accountants, proper accountants do stuff like...    
       
    Calculation of Useful Economic Life and Amortisation of an Intangible  Asset, i.e a footballer    
       
    <span>http://pastie.org/paste/asset/284542/Discussion_Accounting__Valuation_and_Duration_of_Football_Player_Contracts.pdf</span>    
       
    Jamie have a look at this link on transfer accounting and tell me you can still say with absolute certainty that Krompkamp cost £4.3m? You can't and are putting out a potential incorrect and over sensationalized story you can't back up as we don't know the fees received for the other players.    </span><span>
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  57. KB - are you wilfully refusing to acceot the truth?!

    I repeat again: LIVERPOOL FC'S OFFICAL CLUB ACCOUNTS FOR @))% STATE THAT KROMKAMP COST 4.5m.

    That is irrefutable!

    it is ILLEGAL to lie/omit information on these accounts.

    What part of this are you disputing exactly?!

    ReplyDelete
  58. 'It is more likely that the bulk of the 13m went on Baros and Diouf, with a nominal fee for Josemi.'

    -You all but accuse everyone that were are their facts that Josemi was sold for £4.3 mil but where are your facts that the bulk of the £13 mil was from Baros and Diouf? You've made a big assumption there, something you mock others for doing.

    You're guilty to some extent of all the things you accuse other media outlets and fans of being.

    ReplyDelete
  59. <span><span>Exclusive 
     
    Transfer fees aren't as simple as the headline figure shown in the papers. 
     
    Unfortunately things aren't as simple as made out in the papers. When a player is bought for £10m its just not that straight forward. The ways in which fees are spread and a huge number of accounting rules come into player. Football is big business, football clubs have proper accountants, proper accountants do stuff like... 
     
    Calculation of Useful Economic Life and Amortisation of an Intangible  Asset, i.e a footballer 
     
    http://pastie.org/paste/asset/284542/Discussion_Accounting__Valuation_and_Duration_of_Football_Player_Contracts.pdf 
     
    Jamie have a look at this link on transfer accounting and tell me you can still say with absolute certainty that Krompkamp cost £4.3m? You can't and are putting out a potential incorrect and over sensationalized story you can't back up as we don't know the fees received for the other players.
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  60. This is your assertion. Without the figures for the individual players you are just guessing. You need to provide EVIDENCE that Josemi's share was not the same as that outgoing for Kromkamp.

    A non-story without the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Jamie , Admit it. You want Rafa's Job. 

    ReplyDelete
  62. Jamie you started by saying....

    "It is widely believed that Rafa Benitez acquired Jan Kromkamp for free as part of a player-exchange with Josemi"

    A clear attempt on your part to lay the balme at the door of Benitez.  No mention of Rick Parry anywhere.
    In your response you went on to say....

    "In fact, please show me anywhere in the post where Benitez's name is even mentioned"

    OK - Well please refer to the very first line of you article, as quoted. 

    Erm.... Do you need me to go on? 

    ReplyDelete
  63. <span>
    You and the rest of us don't know the truth, thats why everyone is pointing out reasoned views that explain how the 4.34m is likely to be an accounting exercise.
    <span>Exclusive    
       
    Transfer fees aren't as simple as the headline figure shown in the papers.    
       
    Unfortunately things aren't as simple as made out in the papers. When a player is bought for £10m its just not that straight forward. The ways in which fees are spread and a huge number of accounting rules come into player. Football is big business, football clubs have proper accountants, proper accountants do stuff like...    
       
    Calculation of Useful Economic Life and Amortisation of an Intangible  Asset, i.e a footballer    
       
    <span>http://pastie.org/paste/asset/284542/Discussion_Accounting__Valuation_and_Duration_of_Football_Player_Contracts.pdf</span>    
       
    Jamie have a look at this link on transfer accounting and tell me you can still say with absolute certainty that Krompkamp cost £4.3m? You can't and are putting out a potential incorrect and over sensationalized story you can't back up as we don't know the fees received for the other players.    </span>

    <span></span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  64. The truth hurts, eh Jon?

    Just do a google search for Krompkamp transfer fee and you'll see the evidence.  And re the financial report - the 2005 one is freely available onf Liverpool's offical website.

    ReplyDelete
  65. i think you'll find Josemi was sold for the same amount.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jammie, stop pointing fingers. let us discuss the way forward. dont be like an African. here in Africa we comment on mistakes made more than success. give credit where its due. these are issues you would have posted on our mails instead of publishing it. many fans will use this weakness. to MESS the KOP

    ReplyDelete
  67. is this the friggin twilight Zone?  I can say with absolute certainty that Kromkamp cost 4.3m BECAUSE IT IS IN LFC'S OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS.

    Do you not grasp the fact that it is ILLEGAL to quote incorrect figures?!

    The FACT here is that 4.3m of Liverpool's money was paid out. 

    Are you now still going to dispute the indisputable?!

    ReplyDelete
  68. you both a couple of morons grow up

    ReplyDelete
  69. Rafas Goatee > Jaimie Kanwar1:20 pm, November 05, 2009

    Why does everybody rise this idiot? He is a nobody, a Benitez hater who takes great pleaseure in using rubbish stats to try his best to prove Rafa is a crap manager.

    You only have to look at his collaboration with the Scott the Red to know what this idiots agenda is.

    One word for you - MANC.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This is all just an attempt to avoid the issue.  it is typical sophistry designed to deflect attention away from what is being discussed.

    Whether it's benitez, rafa or santa claus, it doesn't matter 0 the club paid out 4.3m.

    ReplyDelete
  71. one of the most entertaining reads I have seen all week.  Jamie keep up the good work, your steadfast refusal to accept anyone elses comment is based on your own unproven "assumption" that josemi could not have been sold for 4.3m.  You cannot prove this.  Keep stating you have read the annual accounts, well done but you still cannot prove anything other than how much Krompkamp cost, nothing else.  The rest of your post is based on assumption and bone-headedness.  Who cares, I'm pretty disappointed in current performance but I havent found anything to make me feel better in the 2005 accounts.  You absolute clot!  

    ReplyDelete
  72. No it doesn't mean money was paid out, its called a Balance Sheet because it needs to balance! Hence it is highly likely the £4.3m is a balancing figure calculated to give a value to the swap deal.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I see you've now resorted to deleting comments that don't fall in line with your own views or make you look like the attention seeking tubthumper you are Kanwar.

    Did Rafa pay £4.3m for Kromkamp or did Liverpool FC money men pay that amount? Rafa can only say who he wants to sign, it's up to the Club to sort out the finances.

    Jaimie why not just admit you don't like Benitez and won't be happy until he's gone. Funny thing is, you'll be cheering if Liverpool achieve some success this season just like the rest of us - HYPOCRITE.

    Rafa wanted to sign Vidic, Pato, Simao and Turner to name a few which the money men wouldn't shell out for, where's their critic Jaimie? Where's there article?

    It doesn't take much to unearth you for what you are, a man who thrives on attention, a soapbox dictator.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This is all just an attempt to avoid the issue.  it is typical sophistry designed to deflect attention away from what is being discussed. 
     
    Whether it's benitez, rafa or santa claus, it doesn't matter 0 the club paid out 4.3m.

    ReplyDelete
  75. is this the friggin twilight Zone?  I can say with absolute certainty that Kromkamp cost 4.3m BECAUSE IT IS IN LFC'S OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS. 
     
    Do you not grasp the fact that it is ILLEGAL to quote incorrect figures?! 
     
    The FACT here is that 4.3m of Liverpool's money was paid out.  
     
    Are you now still going to dispute the indisputable?!

    ReplyDelete
  76. The aim of the article was only to clarify the money spent on Kromkamp.  The Josemi issue is not even relevant here.

    You're right, I can't prove how much Josemi was sold for yet, but as I stated in the article, everyone under the sun puts Kromkamp's fee at 0, and this is just not true.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I think you need to stop moaning about something that has been and gone and start looking at now and to the future, I have been to a few reserves game this season and Danny Pacheco is a master class why has Rafa not called him up ? he is head and shoulders above some first team players we need to get him in

    ReplyDelete
  78. JAIMIE IF YOU CAN PROVIDE THE COST OF KROMKAMP'S REGISTRATION PLEASE PROVIDE THE SALE DETAILS FOR JOSEMI.

    It should be in the same report from Companies House for the same financial year. You'll claim it's not there because it doesn't suit your inane and entirely pointless article.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Benitez is rubbish in the transfer market the only ones I have to rate him for is Pepe Reina, Benayoun and Xabi Alonso(yet its benitez fault he left).

    Torres everyone wanted he cost you over 20million so he aint no Wenger
    Mascherano again as above and 18m, evry1 wanted him.

    Kuyt and Riera in my eyes are both flops, even though livpool fans rate him.

    As for Lucas, Babel, Voronin, Degan, Kromkamp, Josemi, Ngog, Keane, Pennant, and Insua thats about 55+ million of crud lol

    Also selling good players like, Riise, Arbeloa, Sissoko, Crouch, Xabi and Finnan are baffling decisions considering he got so little for them and those kinda squad players could have got you some results this season

    Agree?

    ReplyDelete
  80. The cost of Josemi's registration will be with Villareal, not Liverpool.

    Anyway, you can check the figures yourself - the annual report is freely available on LFC's website.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I agree, Pacheco is great, which is why i wrote an article a few months ago calling for him to get more pitch time.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "The aim of the article was only to clarify the money spent on Kromkamp.  The Josemi issue is not even relevant here."

    No Jaimie, the aim of YOUR article was to lay the blame of Kromkamp's fee at the feet of Benitez, hence why you name Rafa twice in the same breath as Kromkamp's transfer. You do so to insinuate fault when it's no more Rafa's fault that Kromkamp cost £4.3m than it is that a season ticket costs as much as it does.

    Honestly lad, give it a rest.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Rafa has lost his mind thats why his not in

    ReplyDelete
  84. No - the aim is clear: clarify Kromkamp's fee so that everyone out there will stop including the figure of '0' in their transfer analysis.

    You can think the other way if you like, but that is just a simplistic way to look at it.

    The Liverpoo fan mafia just cannot hack it when the truth about anything is revealed, UNLESS that truth makes everything wonderful and rosy.

    It is the job of Liverpool writers to be fair and when presenting something factual, to ensure that the TRUTH is presented.

    I have presented the truth: Kromkamp cost 4.3m

    I have also included my own personal opinion in the article about whether it was a waste of money etc, but the bottom line is I have presented a fact.

    Some Liverpool fans can't hack it, hence the vitriol and attempts to discredit me/deflect the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I think this is cpmplete bull mud.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Jamie can you reply to my concerns please

    Also you say everyone says Kromkamps fee was 0 - who says this and where is your proof.

    The club says it was a swap deal - there could still have been money involved !

    ReplyDelete
  87. Jamie, what did you expect to get out of writing this article? I have read many articles that you have written for this site and honestly everytime i read one i can feel the anger buring inside me. You claim to be a Liverpool fan and yet all i see you do i pick up on things that are so irelevant now. Who cares what was paid for Krompkamp, he didnt cut the mustard and was sold off.

    Why not look at why so few of our transfers actually make the grade at our club?

    Or the utterly usless chairmen we have in Tom and Jerry?

    We have far more pressing issues at our club than looking at fees paid for players 3/4/5 yrs ago.

    Why not try writing something constructive rather than writing articles that insight bickering amongst fans. which in my opinion only serves your over inflated ego. Sorry for the personal attack. but your writing and articles, i see as a personal attack on my club.

    Joe

    Y.N.W.A

    ReplyDelete
  88. <span>Jamie... stop it now, although I admire your spirit, this is just not on.  You know it and I know it, this is yet another feeble attempt by you to stick the knife in to Rafa.  And as a Liverpool supporter, I am not prepared to let you get away with it.  </span>
    <span> </span>
    <span>This is not a pub conversation! You have a platform to promote your views and opinions to potentially millions of people, which means that you have a moral responsibility to be fair and unbiased.<span>  </span>It is wrong for you to take advantage of this position by spouting nonsense, and manipulating the truth simply to prove your own point.  If you don’t like Rafa - that's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, BUT you have no right to smear his management abilities simply because you don’t like him. And in my opinion this article is a thinly veiled attempt to do exactly that.<span>  </span>From where I am standing you are insinuating that it was Rafa that negotiated the transfer, signed the cheque, and then misled everybody about the true value of the deal.<span>  </span>None of which is true.</span>
    <span> </span>
    <span>And – when you put yourself up there to be fired at, which you do frequently, then you should be man enough to accept when you are wrong.<span>  </span>You are a good writer, and although I don’t agree with most of what you have to say I know you are passionate, which is why I continue to read your work.<span>  </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  89. <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    1.4 Intangible fixed assets
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The costs associated with the acquisition of players’ registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets. These costs are fully
    amortised in equal instalments over the period of players’ initial contracts. Where a player’s contract is extended beyond its initial period,
    amortisation is calculated over the period of the extended contract from the date on which it is signed. Players’ registrations are written
    down for impairment when the carrying amount exceeds the amount recoverable through use or sale.



    I've taken this from the same financial report Jaimie, it would appear that Kromkamp's registration could actually mean his contract, and if it were spread over three years it would work out at around £28k a week salary.

    I also pulled this:

    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    INTERNAL FINANCIAL CONTROL
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The Board has overall responsibility for the system of
    internal financial control which is designed to provide
    reasonable assurance against material misstatement or loss.


    So I suggest you take up your anger with Kromkamp's "fee" with Moores & Parry.
    </span></span>
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  90. <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    1.4 Intangible fixed assets
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The costs associated with the acquisition of players’ registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets. These costs are fully
    amortised in equal instalments over the period of players’ initial contracts. Where a player’s contract is extended beyond its initial period,
    amortisation is calculated over the period of the extended contract from the date on which it is signed. Players’ registrations are written
    down for impairment when the carrying amount exceeds the amount recoverable through use or sale.



    I've taken this from the same financial report Jaimie, it would appear that Kromkamp's registration could actually mean his contract, and if it were spread over three years it would work out at around £28k a week salary.

    I also pulled this:

    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    INTERNAL FINANCIAL CONTROL
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The Board has overall responsibility for the system of
    internal financial control which is designed to provide
    reasonable assurance against material misstatement or loss.


    So I suggest you take up your anger with Kromkamp's "fee" with Moores & Parry.
    </span></span>
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  91. <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    1.4 Intangible fixed assets
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The costs associated with the acquisition of players’ registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets. These costs are fully
    amortised in equal instalments over the period of players’ initial contracts. Where a player’s contract is extended beyond its initial period,
    amortisation is calculated over the period of the extended contract from the date on which it is signed. Players’ registrations are written
    down for impairment when the carrying amount exceeds the amount recoverable through use or sale.



    I've taken this from the same financial report Jaimie, it would appear that Kromkamp's registration could actually mean his contract, and if it were spread over three years it would work out at around £28k a week salary.

    I also pulled this:

    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    INTERNAL FINANCIAL CONTROL
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The Board has overall responsibility for the system of
    internal financial control which is designed to provide
    reasonable assurance against material misstatement or loss.


    So I suggest you take up your anger with Kromkamp's "fee" with Moores & Parry.
    </span></span>
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  92. <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    1.4 Intangible fixed assets
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The costs associated with the acquisition of players’ registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets. These costs are fully
    amortised in equal instalments over the period of players’ initial contracts. Where a player’s contract is extended beyond its initial period,
    amortisation is calculated over the period of the extended contract from the date on which it is signed. Players’ registrations are written
    down for impairment when the carrying amount exceeds the amount recoverable through use or sale.



    I've taken this from the same financial report Jaimie, it would appear that Kromkamp's registration could actually mean his contract, and if it were spread over three years it would work out at around £28k a week salary.

    I also pulled this:

    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    INTERNAL FINANCIAL CONTROL
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The Board has overall responsibility for the system of
    internal financial control which is designed to provide
    reasonable assurance against material misstatement or loss.


    So I suggest you take up your anger with Kromkamp's "fee" with Moores & Parry.
    </span></span>
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  93. <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    1.4 Intangible fixed assets
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The costs associated with the acquisition of players’ registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets. These costs are fully
    amortised in equal instalments over the period of players’ initial contracts. Where a player’s contract is extended beyond its initial period,
    amortisation is calculated over the period of the extended contract from the date on which it is signed. Players’ registrations are written
    down for impairment when the carrying amount exceeds the amount recoverable through use or sale.



    I've taken this from the same financial report Jaimie, it would appear that Kromkamp's registration could actually mean his contract, and if it were spread over three years it would work out at around £28k a week salary.

    I also pulled this:

    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    INTERNAL FINANCIAL CONTROL
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The Board has overall responsibility for the system of
    internal financial control which is designed to provide
    reasonable assurance against material misstatement or loss.


    So I suggest you take up your anger with Kromkamp's "fee" with Moores & Parry.
    </span></span>
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  94. Joe - why don't you move to China?  Everything would then be censored and you'd only read positive stuff that was deemed to be acceptable for the masses.

    The truth is the truth.  if you can't hack it, then that's not my problem.

    The real problem here is your lack of balance.  You call the owners ' Tom and Jerry'.  That tells me everything I need to kjnow about your standpoint: you hate the owners and love Rafa. Thus, you will defend anything questioning Rafa to the hilt, even if it's irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  95. This proves nothing.  The fact still remains: Liverpool paid out 4.3m for Kromkamp.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Jamie,

    The official accounts list Kromkamp as being aquired for £4.3m.  A companies accounts must attribute a value to this transaction as they could hardly just list in their annual accounts that they SWAPPED players with another team...  Not sure how it works with football etc but I would presume that as part of their accounts they have to show a value for their squad classing players as assets - what do you think?

    Josemi was initially bought for £2m I think?  If both teams agreed to a swap deal then it makes no odds to anybody what the value is set at other than for accounting purposes.  I would guess that showing an increase in value in Josemi, profit on Josemi or maybe even total value of assets/players would be beneficial to the team financially.

    I would be interested to see how the Owen/Nunez deal is listed in the accounts to back this theory up as in that deal we got £8m and Nunez in exchange for Owen didn't we?  So it would be fair to say that if I am correct then Nunez may be listed as an acquisition with a cost rather than a freebie as part of the deal??  Although it wasn't a straight swap like Josemi/Kromkamp so may be accounted differently.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I can't believe what I'm reading here:

    'moral responsibility to be fair'

    'take advantage of this position by spouting nonsense'.

    Don't overstate the issue or anything.

    All I have done here is reveal how much the club paid for Kromkamp. You make it sound like I've made some personal accusation against Benitez.

    Everything you've said is being projected onto what I wrote because of your own personal view of me as a writer.  it has nothing to do with the reality of the article, which merely states a fact.

    And that fact is not nonsense at all.  It is irrefutable.

    The fact you would say something like "<span>ou have no right to smear his management abilities simply because you don’t like him. And in my opinion this article is a thinly veiled attempt to do exactly that" proves my point.</span>

    How have I 'smeared' Benitez's management abilities?!  That is just blatant lies.  Just because you read that into the article doesn't mean it's true.  There are many people out there who can just see this for what it is: an attempt to clarify a transfer fee.

    And I don't like Benitez?  Nonsense.

    I have nothing personal against the manager - when I criticise him it is purely in his capacity as a football manager.  Show me evidence that I 'don't like him'.

    As usual, it's always the same: unless you're part of the Liverpool fan-mafia, and adhere to the majority view, you are cast out as an outsider and an intruder.

    As I argued in another post recently, this is typical of the 'groupthink' concept, a symptom of which is labelling those who don't share the majority view as traitors, imposters and/or attacking them in a personal manner.

    This thread proves that the 'groupthink' concept is 100% right.

    ReplyDelete
  98. The real problem here is your lack of balance.  You call the owners ' Tom and Jerry'.  That tells me everything I need to kjnow about your standpoint: you hate the owners and love Rafa. Thus, you will defend anything questioning Rafa to the hilt, even if it's irrational.

    Jamie you are really detached, how can you draw that conclusion? Your right in saying that i dont like the owners howwever my interests are with the club. I dont love Rafa i think he is possible coming to the end of his Anfield reign. I love LIVERPOOL FC!!

    I go back to what i said which is why dont your focus on the real issude rather than sensationalise fees paid for players 3/4/5 yrs ago.

    You coming out and claiming i love Rafa only shows me and the rest of the reader how narrowminded youyr views are.

    in fact your prob paid to write this by Mr Hicks & Parry!

    I'm not looking for an arguement and i think my firt post may have struck a nerve seeing as you have just made wild acusations against me.

    ReplyDelete
  99. watch united do the 19!!2:26 pm, November 05, 2009

    i enjoy watching voroning play,it gives me hope one day i might as well play in the champions league :-D
                                              
                                        by yours truely THE REPUBLIK OF MANCUNIA ;)

    ReplyDelete
  100. No Jaimie, it proves EVERYTHING.

    Your article is about the supposed "fee" we paid for Kromkamp. I've taken the same information you used but read it far more carefully.

    You need to be sure that you know what "intangible" means, it means that a players registration cost is vagueas it includes a contract which will contain possible bonuses and clauses which may or may not be activated during the course of said contract.

    In short, you are wrong.

    We paid £4.3m for Kromkamp's registration (contract), we didn't pay £4.3m as a transfer fee. If it's publically accessible information why haven't Deloitte or any other financial institution reported it as such?

    The problem for you is Jaimie that we didn't end up paying £4.3m because he was sold before the end of his contract, hence the word "intangible" asset.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "The real problem here is your lack of balance.  You call the owners ' Tom and Jerry'.  That tells me everything I need to kjnow about your standpoint: you hate the owners and love Rafa. Thus, you will defend anything questioning Rafa to the hilt, even if it's irrational".  
     
    Jamie you are really detached, how can you draw that conclusion? Your right in saying that i dont like the owners howwever my interests are with the club. I dont love Rafa i think he is possibly coming to the end of his Anfield reign. I love LIVERPOOL FC!!  
     
    I go back to what i said which is why dont your focus on the real issude rather than sensationalise fees paid for players 3/4/5 yrs ago.  
     
    You coming out and claiming i love Rafa only shows me and the rest of the readers how narrowminded your views are.  
     
    in fact your prob paid to write this by Mr Hicks & Gilette!  
     
    I'm not looking for an arguement and i think my first post may have struck a nerve seeing as you have just made wild accusations against me.

    ReplyDelete
  102. This is a current issue because it ties into the club's net spend over the last 5 years, which eeryone and his dog is going on about at the moment.

    And I'm paid to write this by Hicks and Parry?  Yeah, right.

    I know for a fact that Mr Hicks reads this website, but I'm not paid by anyone to write.

    I write for myself and I write what I think, without outisde interference from anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Jamie your aim is clear as usual... sensationalise a nothing story!

    Kromkamp listed in the accounts with a cost of £4.3m when it is widely acknowledged that it was a direct swap for Josemi.  Next you will be posting an article:

    <span>EXCLUSIVE - The REAL cost of Josemi's Villareal transfer. And he was NOT free...
    </span>

    I am sure in that article you will exclusively reveal amazing new facts from Villareals accounts stating that Josemi cost them £4.3m in 2005 when all their fans thought it was a straight swap!!

    In business you can not just swap assets between companies.  You have to show a value of one asset removed from your books and the value of the new asset added.  I am sure that in the world of accounting the fact that 2 very average players values increased by £2-3m is a clever trick to improve the balance sheets or something.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Jamie...

    I noticed you edited your introduction to remove Rafa's name.  I will accept that as acknowledgement that you made a mistake, and that he had nothing to do with signing off transfers for LFC at the time.

    Thanks you

    ReplyDelete
  105. You say who would pay 4.5m for Josemi, wel who would pay 4.3m for Kromkamp....oh wait!!! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  106. Can't you see that you are just playing around with semantics here? 

    The fact is 4.3m WAS PAID OUT.  Whether you callit registration or transfer fee, 4.3m of the club's money was spent on Kromkamp.

    Besides, your entire point is negated by the fact that in the 2006 annual report, it states that Liverpool paid 10m for Dirk Kuyt's registration.

    Registration and transfer fee are clearly the same thing.  You can try and twist it all you like but it is the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  107. so what are you going to put down for the sale of josemi in your analysis?

    ReplyDelete
  108. sorry but your a spurs fan! you never seen a good transfer in your life. actually mayb 1 in a 100

    ReplyDelete
  109. I edited it to avoid people making the same false assumption you did about me blaming Rafa for the transfer.  That was nowhere near my mind but I gave people the fuel for that fire, so I changed it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. When I analyse the transfer spending, I will include baros, Diouf and Josemi as one transaction, which is ecxactlywhat it says  in the report:

    Baros, Diouf, Josemi: 13.84m

    When adding up the total spend, there's no real need for individual figures in this case because the total is there for all to see.

    The most accurate thing to do, therefore, is to include those three players as one transaction.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Jamie, I think you'll need to stop painting half-pictures.  If we even sold him for £2m your argument loses impact.  Nonetheless, if your point is that Kromkamp was expensive, then yes, IN HINDSIGHT, he was expensive. Just like Morientes was IN HINDSIGHT. 

    Kromkamp was an international defender for Holland when we bought him, so at the time so at that time the money would have been no great shakes.  How much is Wayne Bridge now worth? How much would he have been worth before Cole turned up at Chelsea?  Morientes was lauded as great business until he put the shirt on!

    If you want Rafa out, why not just say it instead of stirring rubbish up even a Manc would be proud of?

    ReplyDelete
  112. My point was not that he was expensive - it was to clarify the exact amount that was spent.  There have been all sorts of transfer spending breakdowns published recently, and none of them have Kromkamp's figure correct, and that goes for other figures too.

    Tommy Smith even posted an article in the Liverpool Echo yesterday lauding a transfer spending breakdown conducted by someone on RAWK.  many of the fees in that article are just plan wrong.

    I want accuracy, and I think Liverpool fans deserve accuracy.  So sue me if I try and introduce a little accuracy into all the exaggeration.

    To be honest, I wouldn't have minded the level of the fee if Liverpool got something out of Kromkamp, but considering he left after 7 months having made only 18 appearances, the transfer seems financially irresonsible to me.  But that is just my personal view. 

    What is NOT opinion is how much he cost, and tha wsa 4.3m.

    Now, when any news organisation does a spending breakdown and includes Kromkamp as '0' cost, it will be provably wrong.  People can point to the truth, and accuracy is increased, which is my overall goal here.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Surely one of the most financially irresponsible transfer in Liverpool FC's recent history?

    more reasons why parry had to go!!!

    ReplyDelete
  114. Oh Jamie

    Just when I thought we wre making some progress.

    You edited it because you were wrong to include Rafa's name when it came to negotiating transfers for LFC. Which was my point all along. 

    So thank you for changing it.

    ReplyDelete
  115. fedupwithidiotslikeu3:02 pm, November 05, 2009

    Everytime I look at this sight all I ever see is negative comments coming from u why don't you change the sight name to The Stretford Enders

    ReplyDelete
  116. this s not shit stirring but important to look at given our recent collapse. We are considering whether a man should remain as manager and can only do that by looking at his performance up to THIS point. Kromkamp and other transers are all relevant as they have all contributed to the squad we have or dont have today! If the author had gone on about houllier signings it would be fairer to slag him and even then you could look at the effect of signings such as cisse etc and their impact. Maybe you(the author) shoul dissect the Cisse transfer and see how badly that effected rafa's hand, thus creating some balance. That way the slaggers will have nothing to whinge about.

    ReplyDelete
  117. RAFA's GOATEE > JAIMIE KANWAR3:08 pm, November 05, 2009

    Jaimie, why was my reply to The Republik of Mancunia deleted?

    ReplyDelete
  118. I like this website, generally it offers a good balance of opinion and offers healthy debate.

    The problem is, we don't know how much Liverpool received for Josemi so this leaves open the argument that 'liverpool paid £4.3m for Kromkamp', which, i'll admit in hindsight is bad business. However, if Liverpool received the same fee (4.3m) for Josemi, then, in hindsight, I wouldn't have said this was a bad deal and it doesn therfore actuall amount to a 'swap'.

    I look forward to seeing the results of your search for the Villereal Accounts.

    YNWA.

    P.s. Loving the LFC 2005 Annual Report, which I'm going to try and get a hard copy of if just for all the pictures of Instanbul.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I like this website, generally it offers a good balance of opinion and offers healthy debate. 
     
    The problem is, we don't know how much Liverpool received for Josemi so this leaves open the argument that 'liverpool paid £4.3m for Kromkamp', which, i'll admit in hindsight is bad business. However, if Liverpool received the same fee (4.3m) for Josemi, then, in hindsight, I wouldn't have said this was a bad deal and it does therefore amount to a 'swap' of sorts. 
     
    I look forward to seeing the results of your search for the Villereal Accounts where hopefully the details of how much we received for Josemi will be revealed. 
     
    YNWA. 
     
    P.S. I'm loving the LFC 2005 Annual Report, which I'm going to try and get a hard copy of if just for all the pictures of Instanbul.

    ReplyDelete
  120. This is absolutely ridiculous!

    Your articles are always interesting and provoke debate but I feel that you choose your arguments based on one sided information which gives only marginal evidence to back up your own statements but then demand that everyone else provide you with rock solid evidence to back up theirs.  

    Yes, the annual report does state that there was a cost of £4.3m attributed to Kromkamp but it does not say that this was a payment made to Villareal or anyone else.  At the same time it states that £13m was generated by the sale of Josemi and two others.  It is widely recognised that the deal was a direct swap of Josemi for Kromkamp but for the sake of sensationalist story you ignore the fact that Josemi is linked as a SALE netting £13m with two other players and instead latch on the fact there is a value attributed to Kromkamp.

    There is no evidence to state that the £4.3m cost attributed to Kromkamp refers to any payment made by LFC so I ask you to provide evidence of this alleged payment to Villareal!  Personally I believe that if you were to look at Villareal's accounts you would see a similar comment referring to a cost attributed to the aquiring of Josemi and a value against the movement of Kromkamp.

    As companies they have to show a paper trail for the loss or gain of assets.  They can not simply swap them between each other.  Therefore in order to balance the books and the Intagible Assets section mentioned before each player needed to be given a value for the transactions on and off each teams books.

    ReplyDelete
  121. you have a story based on a line in LFC's accounts.  If they had listed the actual values against Baros, Diouf and Josemi you would have had no story at all!  Can't you find something else to write about without resorting to the same sort of football reporting we are used to seeing in the Sun and the Daily Mail!

    ReplyDelete
  122. You're missing one important thing:  The way the figures were presented.

    If Josemi/Kromkamp were one transaction, then why have they been listed as two separate trannsactions?  Logic dictates that if they were one transaction there would be some kind of reference to this in the report.

    There isn't.

    However, every other transaction that involves more than one player in the same deal IS listed as a single transaction.

    Example:

    Baros, Diouf and Josemi listed together at a combined sale price of 13.84m.

    If Josemi/Kromkamp was a swap deal involving the same amount of money, why did the report not record this?

    The figures could still have been included.

    Reading it as it is there is only one conclusions: Josemi and Kromkamp were separate transactions.

    What is the point in presenting things in a manner that does not reflect the reality of the situation?  There is no benefit to this, is there?

    The report is explicit:

    Baros, Diouf and Josemi sold for 13.84m

    Kromkamp bought for 4.3m

    Why doesn't it say:

    Josemi sold for X amount as part of a player exchange with Kromkamp, who was acquired for 4.3m

    Where is the reason to hide this information?!

    There is no reason because it didn't happen. 

    The public face of the Kromkamp/Josemi situation is that it was a player swap.

    The reality is there were two different and completely separate transactions.

    ReplyDelete
  123. small piece of information - big bullsh@t story !

    You need to examine the whole financial records on the matter - then show them to someone who understands them and they will tell you what it all means.

    You have seen something you do not understand and taken the simplest route to being wrong on the matter

    Where is your proof he was sold for ZERO - you say everyone said - but who said??

    I reiterate - the club says a swap deal - it does not say free deal  !

    ReplyDelete
  124. You have a serious comprehension problem.  Stop making things up - I did not say he was 'sold for '0'.  I said that lots of sites/news agencies who had analysed Liverpool's transfer spending had listed Kromkamp's transfer fee as 0.

    Do google search for 'kromkamp transfer fee' and you will see many of them (including 'The Times' and 'The Daily Mail') list Kromkamp as 0 spend of player swap, which is basically 0 anyway because no money is added into the equation.

    When calculating total money spent on transfers, the correct figure needs to be included.  Using a figure of 0 for kromkamp is, as I have shown, wrong.  Thus, the overall spend figure compiled by the likes of 'The Times' is also wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  125. why don't you publish your article after you find out EXACTLY HOW MUCH lfc were paid for Josemi?

    that's right you probably know that the overall figure will be nominal.

    WHY DON'T I WRITE ANOTHER HEADLINE FOR YOU? THE  REAL COST OF JOSEMI'S TRANSFER. HE ACTUALLY MADE US SOME MONEY.
    this website in my opinion is even worse that THE SUN & NOTW. there is always an open mind towards debate but whole hearted sensationalism will not endear you to anybody.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Jamie,

    Although i appreciate you spending the time to go through our club accounts it does not make any difference.

    According to the accounts we paid well over the odds for Kromkamp, however is it so unreasonable to believe that we did not sell Josemi for an inflated value?

    13.84 million for Baros, Diouf and Kromkamp could easily be viewed as:

    Baros - 7.5 million, Diouf 3 million, Kromkamp - 3.84 million. Therefore a net loss of 500k.

    From where i am sitting this is a good deal as the guy never lived up to his national performances and we got rid quickly to avoid a further loss.

    Please inform us all of any more of your crazy assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Sorry made a mistake came to kanwarworld again. You cannot make the calculation that Kromkamp cost any REAL money. Unless we know what Josemi was valued at in the the combined fee of £13.845m we can't say what he cost (nett).

    All we know is A+B+C = 13.845
    D= 4.345

    You really are a sad person. Any bit of twisted logic to further your anti-Rafa propoganda

    If C=D A+B= 13.845-4.345=9.5


    QED
                        

    ReplyDelete
  128. apologies the maths were incorrect we sold him for 3.34 million. still losing less than 1 million.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Are you saying that Diouf and Baros were sold for a combined 13.8 million?

    Or do you think part of this 13.8 includes a fee for Josemi?

    If not, explain with proof.

    If so, explain with proof.

    There is nowhere in your argument proof of the Josemi fee. Until then, you are as misguided as the people you rail against.
    Without proof your article is opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  130. You may be right - however, it is my opinion that Josemi would not have gone for a large fee.  You have your view, I have mine.

    Tell me this though - why the secrecy?  if we got 3-4m for Josemi, why has this info not been released by the club.  That would mean a prifut of 2m, which is a positive thing, is it not?

    No, for me, there is no way Josemi went for 3-4m.  Remember, this is my opinion only, okay?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Jaimie young man, unless you are an accountant (I am) leave it to the big boys.

    I have just spent 53k on a new Merc. The bill of sale says guess what 53k, and indeed thats exactly what I want it to say, as stated in above post's for insurance liability.  

    Guess what though, I didn't pay 53k.

    I paid 22k..................... What a bargain eh

    Not really I traded in my previous car which I got a price to change of 31k.

    Bill of sale still says 53k.

    Any arse can play games with numbers, I am qualified and paid to do it -you buddy boy, from your inability to know that a pot of money for 3 players with no financial breakdown in it can be spun any way you like, are clearly not. Back to your paper round

    ReplyDelete
  132. yet another person who tries to twist things and doesn't look at what I actually wrote.

    At no point did I suggest the entire 13.8m was spent on Baros and Diouf.  In this comment thread, I suggested that the bulk of that would probably have gone on B + D, with Josemi going for nominal fee.

    And I KNOW this is an opinion - I haven't argued it's a fact.

    The original article set out to clarify one issue alone: the money paid out for Kromkamp's signature.

    That information is a fact, and no amount of twisting or deflecting from the issue will change that.

    ReplyDelete
  133. It is your opinion that is based on one fact, however you are choosing to ignore the other facts as you do not have these to hand.

    until you know the breakdown of all the transfer this is not correct.

    I agree we got spanked on kromkamp, however i dont agree with your maths to suggest that we sold josemi for less than 2 mill. Villa would not have paid more than 7.5 for baros. and Bolton certainly would not have paid more than 3 for diouf.

    you need to be realistic about everything not just the one fact you hold

    ReplyDelete
  134. Jamie you are looking at things in the wrong way here.  You are getting your info from a companies annual financial report so it is set out in a financial way.  The section you refer to as evidence is referring to information relevant to the years Financial Profit/Loss account etc.

    Your argument above is that if Josemi/Kromkamp were one deal they would be grouped together like Baros, Diouff and Josemi but this is where you are confusing issues.  These three are grouped together as Sales and Kromkamp is listed as a purchase.  This does not mean that LFC paid £4.3m for Kromkamp  but simply puts his value for the accounts at £4.3m.  Although the deal was a swap and no cash allegedly changed hands the movement of money has to be shown in the accounts.  You can not simply lose a £2-4m asset and then "find" another one in your changing rooms.  If we were to get access to full financial information we would likely see that Josemi's transfer was listed at £4.3m.

    Your evidence is purely the paper trail to show the transfer of assets between two clubs.  You also ask what is the reason to hide this information and correctly state there is no reason just as there is no reason to state word for word every single deal.  If that were the case we should argue that maybe something is being hidden in the blocking together of the 3 sales...

    ReplyDelete
  135. On this argument you would also have to list the transfer value of Josemi which most of us are stating will have been £4.3m but as the figures are purely for accounts purposes everyone else is happy to conclude that this swap deal where no money changed is a Free Transfer to and from Anfield.

    ReplyDelete
  136. The fee paid for Josemi in effect determines how much of the 4.3 was in fact paid over for Kromkamp.
    If Josemi went for 100,000 we would say Kromkamp cost us 4.2.
    Do we have proof of this ? No.
    If Josemi went for 4.3 we would say Kromkamp cost us nothing.
    Do we have proof of this? No.
    Were the two transfers connected? Yes. Both clubs announced together a deal had been done.

    "Villarreal have a reached an agreement with Liverpool for the transfer of Dutch defender Jan Kromkamp to the English team and the arrival of Josemi," said a statement on Villarreal's official website.

    To believe that 4.3 M is the transfer fee for Kromkamp without having taking into account the fee, if any, received for Josemi is a very selective usage of the known facts and is obviously being used as a way to attack Liverpool FC.

    If it is true that we recieved nothing for Josemi and that 4.3 m exchanged hands, that would be bad business. You have only demonstrated your anger at the fact that you believe this is what happened.
    You should re write the article to portray this more truthfully. It is bad journalism and it is also vitriolic as only attacks without evidence are.
    The implication here is that Kromkamp did not cost the club any money. Based on the evidence above, this is quite categorically untrue.


    Read more: <span>http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/11/exclusive-real-cost-of-jan-krompkamps.html#ixzz0W0B8hkPC</span>
    The implication here is that Kromkamp did not cost the club any money. Based on the evidence above, this is quite categorically untrue.


    Read more: <span>http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/11/exclusive-real-cost-of-jan-krompkamps.html#ixzz0W0B8hkPC</span>

    ReplyDelete
  137. the times says it was a swap deal - so does the Mail - this does not mean there was no cash involved.

    I have looked at other sites and none, so far, have said it was a zero transfer deal  they have just said it was a swap deal!

    It was interesting reading the Daily Mail - apparently at the time of this deal Rafa refused to pay over the odds for a guy called Vidic !

    Who then went on to play for some scum

    Anyways Jamie - why are you concerned with this deal ? why can you not expose the working of the club now and the perilious financial situation it is in ? Or is that too difficult !  

    ReplyDelete
  138. You just don't get it do you?

    For the purposes of analysing Liverpool's transfer spend over the last 5 years, The Times, The Mail etc have listed Kromkamp as 'player swap'.

    This is the key point: when all the figures are added up at the end, it does  not include the Kromkamp figure!

    Example - I have the following transfers...

    Alonso - 10.5m
    Garcia - 6m
    Kromkamp - player swap


    No fee is attributed to Kromkamp, therefore the total spend will be listed as 16.5m (Alonso + Garcia). 

    Do you see this yet?

    So - when Kromkamp is listed as 'player swap' it means he is being listed as a 0 transfer fee.

    This is clear - why do you continue to misunderstand?

    ReplyDelete
  139. Look - why the hell does anyone bother to rise to the bait of this bloke who spends his days writing this stuff. That may seem a tad hypocritical given I've obviously read it and decided to comment - my 'excuse' is that his constant anti .....oopps no must correct myself ......."critical realism" (?!?!?! ha ha) actually makes me giggle after a day at work.

    Let him have his say / rant / attack etc etc - just dont bother to reply.

    ReplyDelete
  140. That is your view and that's fine, but once again: the annual report lists Josemi and Kromkamp seperately.  What is the point of this if they were part of the same deal.

    They were only a swap insomuch as they went to each others' respective clubs  Individual transfer fees were clearly involved, which is why they are listed sepately on the annual report.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Agree with Dave completely. Jaimie you need to drop this one.

    ReplyDelete
  142. I don't think you are making a reasonable comparison. If the net spend on kromkamp was zero because we received the same amount for Josemi, you can't reasonably argue that Rafa spent that 4.3 on
    Kromkamp, that he could have invested elsewhere.

    As you have admitted yourself, we don't know how much Josemi was sold for, so you can't prove that the net spend was greater than zero

    More likely both clubs realised they had crap players and thought why not just swap them. The paper value is irrelevant, if they both had a nominal value of £15 million each, would you feel better because we had sold Josemi for £15 million?

    If you sole argument is that it is a fact that we bought kromkamp for £4.3 million and aren't interested in how much we got in return for Josemi then I'm afraid you will have to do better than that.

    p.s. have you noticed that noone else that has posted a reply agrees with you, maybe you should take that into account before quoting your facts!

    ReplyDelete
  143. <span><span>Could you just tell me why you right these ridiculous articles?</span></span>
    Did you not see what went on last night, or whats going on at the moment?
    Are you happy to have so many people hate you and your work with a passion? People thinking your a manc or a blue? Do you care even one bit?

    So we payed 4m whatever for Kronkamp. SO FUCKING WHAT!!!!!

    WHAT IS THE NEED TO BRING UP THESE RIDICULOUS THINGS NOW???

    IS IT AFFECTING US NOW? NO.

    DOES ANYONE ELSE APART FROM YOU GIVE A FLYING FUCK?? NO.

    SO WHY????????? I just dont get you Jaimie.

    A part of me thinks you are doing it for responses like mine, you stir up so much shit you know will irritate people, then you see 3 pages of comments (even if 90% are abusive and disregard any of the nonsense you spout) and get a hard on..

    And the other part of me thinks you might actually believe the ridiculous things you say..

    I really dont know which is worse.

    One thing is clear, your a fucking cunt.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Where is the Agger deal in the report?

    Answers on a postcard please. Same transfer window as this deal. Wheres Agger?

    Did we get him for free?

    Write an article about that.

    AGGER COST NOTHING BECAUSE THE REPORT SAYS SO.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Why?  Dave is arguing that Josemi's fee 'will have been 4.3m'.  The probability of this is - IMO - very unlikely.

    If Josemi had been sold for 200% profit then why would the club not release that information?  That is a massive feather in Benitez/Parry's cap, is it not? 

    The facts in the report suport my version of events more than Dave's.

    FACT 1: Liverpool paid out 4.3m for Kromkamp.  This is irrefutable.  The reports states 'for a fee' of 4.3m, which means money was handed over.

    FACT 2: Liverpool sold Baros, Diouf and Josemi for a combined 13.8m

    FACT 3: The Josemi/Kromkamp deals are listed as separate transactions.

    FACT 4: There is no evidence whatsoever in the annual report that the Josemi/Kromkamp deals were financially linked.

    if they were financially linked, why is there no reference to this in the report?  What would be the point of failing to mention this?  It is the club's duty to be clear and accurate, and iven the report goes to shareholders, don't you think the club would be specific about something like that.

    Look at it from a shareholder's POV: the only conclusion that can be made from the report itself is that the Kromkamp and Josemi transfers were separate transactions.

    The who response to this post illustrates the sheer hypocrisy of Liverpool fans.

    if I had posted something which showed Liverpool had received 10m for Sissoko instead of only 5m, people would be over the moon and lauding the club etc.

    Just because I'm suggesting that the club spent a large sum of money on a failed player, people choose to ignore simple logic and the most obvious probabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Are all the people on here manc u fans or something delving into past transfers it still doesnt sort out the mess the team is in now does it, leave the investigating to Columbo in future eh.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Get a grip.  Agger's fee is accounted for in the 2006-7 report.

    ReplyDelete
  148. No.  I don't give a damn.

    I say things that need to be said.  if you can't hack it, that's your problem.

    And given the number of people who visit this site, the percentage of people who spit out vitriol and personal insults is only about 0.01%

    The majority of people visit, read and then make up their own minds.

    ReplyDelete
  149. josemi was not sold for 3.34m.  That is an assumption.

    According to LFChistory.net, Josemi went for 2m.  I'm not saying that figure is 100% accurate, but I would say it's far more accurate than 3.34m

    That's a loss of 2.4m, not including wages and probable signing-on fee.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Quote the report where the Agger fee is mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Spot on. I myself find it hard to believe that JK i an actually Liverpool fan. More a follower that got cauth up in the winnig days and now is desperate to marginalize himself from the club. If we still struggle in Liverpool I predict that JK will be writing for manure about two or three years from now.

    ReplyDelete
  152. quote, please quote....i can handle the truth

    AGGER COST NOTHING - methodology courtesy of j "i can handle the truth" kanwar

    ReplyDelete
  153. Oh, so you edited on my last post to miss out all my points...

    'i say things that need to be said'

    Wrong... thats your opinion. Who are you to tell me that Kronkamps transfer fee needs to be said? And again, if you hadn't have edited my post you may have answered that 1st time round??

    <span>'the majority of people visit, read and then make up their own minds.'</span>

    <span>please confirm to me how many people have commented that this is a good, current article with information that we all really needed to know, or actually, if you looked over your entire aticle archive i would place a healthy wager that you've got more negative comments than positive.</span>

    Lastly, if theres things you dont agree with, dont just edit them out you pathetic excuse for a journalist and please answer my main question.

    Why is this article necessary

    ReplyDelete
  154. Dave posted earlier explaining why their is no breakdown in the fiancial report:

    "Jamie you are looking at things in the wrong way here.  You are getting your info from a companies annual financial report so it is set out in a financial way.  The section you refer to as evidence is referring to information relevant to the years Financial Profit/Loss account etc.  
     
    Your argument above is that if Josemi/Kromkamp were one deal they would be grouped together like Baros, Diouff and Josemi but this is where you are confusing issues.  These three are grouped together as Sales and Kromkamp is listed as a purchase.  This does not mean that LFC paid £4.3m for Kromkamp  but simply puts his value for the accounts at £4.3m.  Although the deal was a swap and no cash allegedly changed hands the movement of money has to be shown in the accounts.  You can not simply lose a £2-4m asset and then "find" another one in your changing rooms.  If we were to get access to full financial information we would likely see that Josemi's transfer was listed at £4.3m.  
     
    Your evidence is purely the paper trail to show the transfer of assets between two clubs.  You also ask what is the reason to hide this information and correctly state there is no reason just as there is no reason to state word for word every single deal.  If that were the case we should argue that maybe something is being hidden in the blocking together of the 3 sales.."

    ReplyDelete
  155. Dave posted earlier explaining why there is no individual breakdown in the fiancial report:  
     
    "Jamie you are looking at things in the wrong way here.  You are getting your info from a companies annual financial report so it is set out in a financial way.  The section you refer to as evidence is referring to information relevant to the years Financial Profit/Loss account etc.    
       
    Your argument above is that if Josemi/Kromkamp were one deal they would be grouped together like Baros, Diouff and Josemi but this is where you are confusing issues.  These three are grouped together as Sales and Kromkamp is listed as a purchase.  This does not mean that LFC paid £4.3m for Kromkamp  but simply puts his value for the accounts at £4.3m.  Although the deal was a swap and no cash allegedly changed hands the movement of money has to be shown in the accounts.  You can not simply lose a £2-4m asset and then "find" another one in your changing rooms.  If we were to get access to full financial information we would likely see that Josemi's transfer was listed at £4.3m.    
       
    Your evidence is purely the paper trail to show the transfer of assets between two clubs.  You also ask what is the reason to hide this information and correctly state there is no reason just as there is no reason to state word for word every single deal.  If that were the case we should argue that maybe something is being hidden in the blocking together of the 3 sales.."

    ReplyDelete
  156. But your contention is that he was free ! a player swap does not mean FREE

    Newspapers often speculate on the price and their evidence it refutable

    ReplyDelete
  157. Jamie i'm sorry but you keep making out people are idiots for making assumptions without proof but i have every annual report for liverpool fc for the past 23 years untill the stupid americans bought us out and it is impossible to know exactly what any fee's stated are as a player can be bought and payed for over several years so unless you have the numbers behind the report it really means nothing and is just a guide. players may crop up more than once over several years so taking just a small sample of one years report means nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  158. i think its safe to say knowbody cares now and thank you for the information, however much he cost is irrelivent now... we have more importamnet issues to consider... like what really happend at teh end of hollyoaks last night? and how did he meet their mother...

    ReplyDelete
  159. cant handle the truth or just feeling a little silly at rushing to report on a voluntary document, i repeat, a voluntary document, not a legal and binding document, no a report.

    Yes.

    A report. Not legal. Not binding. Not anything. A report. Hence not all transfer information is in them.

    So Mr Truth. Publish that you got it wrong. You based your FACTs on a report that doesnt contain all the facts.

    If you dont, you are as one sided as the people you rail against. I look forward to some dignity on your behalf.

    ReplyDelete
  160. No, the point made is it could be the life time value of his contract taken into the accounts up front.

    ReplyDelete
  161. yet more attempts to muddy the waters!

    That may well be the case with players who are at Liverpool for several years but Kromkamp left after 7 months.  He appears in one annual report and one alone.  he was not paid for over several yers; he was paid for in one financial year.

    ReplyDelete
  162. You remove comments that disagree with you in a rational way.
    Deceitful and misleading and censoring.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Absolute rubbish.  Read the comment policy (the link is on the right-hand side).

    The policy is clear:

    1. Anyone who can't debate wothout resorting to name-calling and derogatory/snide comments will have the comment deleted.

    2. If somone submits a comment that contains good points but then finishes it off with name-calling/derogatory comments then that will also be deleted.

    If people don't like that there is a simple solution: debate in a civil, adult manner.

    I will not have discussions on this site descending into the usual mess of juvenile name-calling you find on most LFC message boards.

    The fact is people have to sometimes be forced to debate properly.  if I had no moderation here then discussions would quickly descend into a mass of name-calling.

    Stick to debating the issues and we don't have aq problem.  Make it personal then your comment will be deleted.

    If people don't like that policy thenthere are dozens of other LFC message boards out there that to go and visit.

    ReplyDelete
  164. From what I have seen baros left for 6,5 m and Diouf left for 3,5 m which would leave around 3,8 m for Josemi.
    I also realise that you think that this doesn't seem reasonable on account of that Josemi wasn't worth that amount. But on the other hand neither was kromkamp, so I think your logic is a bit flawed with this argument.
    A more interesting point for me would be that it didn't really mattered what the actual transfer fees were if the were the same or close to, going in each direction. Maybe there was a reason for the inflated values, it could have been that Villareal didn't want to take a loss on Kromkamp for their books or some other reason. It also may be the case that they valued Josemi higher than us partly  because he's spanish, but also because he was quite successful ther before moving to Liverpool.

    Publishing stories like this with no information regarding the amounts of each transfer seems redundant. There is no real evidence to support your theory and it's not like the club tried to hide the information, I mean the facts that you base your asssumptions on are from the annual report.

    Articles like this probably only hurts the club or the manager, but most of all your credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  165. i really don't see the point in this "story"

    the facts:
    1. we know we paid 4.3m for kromkamp
    2. we know we got 13.8m for 3 players including josemi
    3. the club has said it was a swap deal.

    presented with these facts it would be fair to assume that we got 4.3m for josemi and 9.5m for baros and diouf. this would also fit into the widely reported figures for the sales for baros and diouf.

    yes we don't know the breakdown of the 13.8m but maybe we sold josemi for 12m!! without further information we don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Whatever I post there will always be someone out there coming up with some reason to dispute it.

    You state: Maybe there was a reason for the inflated values, it could have been that Villareal didn't want to take a loss on Kromkamp for their books or some other reason.

    Right. So you're suggesting Liverpool submitted fraudulent end of year accounts just to help out Villareal?

    Okay then.

    ReplyDelete
  167. You manage to contradict yourself in a spectacular manner here
    - "My point was not that he was expensive"
    - "the transfer seems financially irresonsible to me."

    Make your mind up mate.

    What was your point again?  That we paid a fee for a player.  Big wow - what next?

    EXCLUSIVE:  Club expenses for fresh coffee beans £1,400 in SINGLE year

    ReplyDelete
  168. Do I have to explain every tiny detail?  Are you incapable of making obvious distinctions?

    Financially irresponsible = wasting money

    The amount is not relevant.  A transfer of 2m could be financially irresponsible if no money was made back.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I'm Swedish so I don't know English law not very well at least. But I would say that in this case it shouldn't differ so much from other contries in Europe.
    This wouldn't be fraudulent.

    It would be fraudulent to to increase the price of an asset in the books over the market value, but if he's sold at that price then that would mean that, that is the market value.

    You seem to argue your points for the sake of arguing instead of being humble enough to say, sorry I jumped the gun on this article and didn't do enough research to support my theory.

    ReplyDelete
  170. I'm not apologising for this article because I haven't jumped the gun.  Just because the pro-Rafa brigade decide to get on my case because they feel I'm slighting their beloved deity doesn't mean I'll back down.

    Re the law: It is ILLEGAL to include deliberately inaccurate figures in end of year financial accounts. 

    I doubt that Liverpool, being a professional organisation, would do that.

    The 4.3m figure for kromkamp is accurate - it is not inflated.

    Furthermore, Liverpool's accounts are audited by an independent auditor before they are published, so any inflation would be caught.

    I always admit when I'm wrong, and there are lots of examples of this, but in this case, why should I back down?  Facts are facts, and if the RCDNW brigade are offended by this particular fact then they need to get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  171. great another anti-liverpool artical by jamie kanwar,how suprising!

    ReplyDelete
  172. To be honest I dont know where you find time to run this website, I mean surely Scotland Yard, Interpol or the FBI would be better served with your investigation and fact finding skills.

    As you quite clearly know more than most.

    ReplyDelete
  173. you state that the cost for josemi is in the liverpool accounts, so how many other transfers are misleading and not accurate? well the answer is obviously none. because they will all show up in Liverpool's accounts, so will the wages, the bonuses and any other expense, so in fact all the topics on who cost what are irrelevant because all we need to do is wait for the accounts. also in the accounts if they are so accurate there must be a figure for how much we got for him which seems to be missing from this post or heaped in with other sales. you tend to state only half the facts, you should become a MP, they to only present what helps there argument to 

    ReplyDelete
  174. Ah... there was have it again.  Half a fact, presented as the trust but infact surrounded by a whole host of subjecture.  In truth, no one outside of those doing the deals knows for sure what the Josemi-Kronkamp swap transfer really cost (if it indeed did cost anything), so this, like so many articles is just sensationalist clap-trap.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Look at the screenshot of the annual report in the article - there IS a figure for how much Liverpool received for Josemi, but it is a bulk figure mixed in with baros and diouf. 

    If there was an individual figure Josemi then I would've included it.  I've trawled the report, and there is no individual figure.

    That fiugure wil probably be in the Villareal annual report for the same year.  When I get hold of that (it's very difficult), then I will of course post the figure.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Alternatively you could do your homework and check the Bolton or Villa accounts to make sure - Bolton won't have signed many high profile players in 2005.....  When embarking on a journalistic voyage, one must make sure they have really uncovered the facts and are able to corroborate them.  Nice try though [pat on the head], but alas not good enough

    ReplyDelete
  177. If the clubs agreed on these fees then the figures aren't inaccurate. This is not fraud.

    I highly doubt that what I wrote would be fraudulent in England. I would go as far as to say that I'm 99,99999% certain it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  178. to be honest the cost of a player does not matter, none are worth the money you pay for them, in fee or wages as most will not pay for them selves on a individual basis. it is the cost of the team or squad against what they achieve in bring in, ie. money they get for winning the prem, cups or champions league that is the only way of knowing if you are getting value for money.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Who Cares!!! We've got more pressing issues like why does Voronin still put on a Red shirt!

    ReplyDelete
  180. Say for arguments sake we did pay £4.345m for Kromkamp, so what? We could have easily recouped the same amount in the sale of Josemi. Jaimie can't prove we didn't. It was widely reported Baros left Liverpool for £6.5m, it was also widely reported that Diouf joined Bolton for £2.6m (which would't surprise me) that would mean we sold Josemi for around £4.745m which I doubt, however I doubt at the same time we got much more for Diouf than £2.6m maybe £3m-£3.5m at a push. It's logical to assume that we got around the same money for Josemi as we bought Kromkamp for.

    I don't understand what the witch hunt is about Jaimie? Both Clubs reported that a swap-deal had been done, for the purposes of the financial report perhaps listing the fee was an excercise purely for financial reasons, maybe it was the value of Kromkamps contract (which could also be listed as a registration and is often done in that manner with free transfers).

    it would make sense for the purposes of the report to list Kromkamps contract value as a fee.

    In the report it states:

    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    1.4 Intangible fixed assets
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The costs associated with the acquisition of players’ registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets. These costs are fully
    amortised in equal instalments over the period of players’ initial contracts.


    Intangible meaning VAGUE. So it's quite possible that the "fee" for Kromkamp could be his contract. That's my opinion, I may be wrong but you'd have to prove I was, which you cannot to an exact degree of clarity.

    It's a legal loophole many Clubs use with regards to transfers and contracts as fees can be repayable over a number of years so their costs could change from one year to the next.
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  181. Say for arguments sake we did pay £4.345m for Kromkamp, so what? We could have easily recouped the same amount in the sale of Josemi. Jaimie can't prove we didn't. It was widely reported Baros left Liverpool for £6.5m, it was also widely reported that Diouf joined Bolton for £2.6m (which would't surprise me) that would mean we sold Josemi for around £4.745m which I doubt, however I doubt at the same time we got much more for Diouf than £2.6m maybe £3m-£3.5m at a push. It's logical to assume that we got around the same money for Josemi as we bought Kromkamp for.

    I don't understand what the witch hunt is about Jaimie? Both Clubs reported that a swap-deal had been done, for the purposes of the financial report perhaps listing the fee was an excercise purely for financial reasons, maybe it was the value of Kromkamps contract (which could also be listed as a registration and is often done in that manner with free transfers).

    it would make sense for the purposes of the report to list Kromkamps contract value as a fee.

    In the report it states:

    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    1.4 Intangible fixed assets
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The costs associated with the acquisition of players’ registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets. These costs are fully
    amortised in equal instalments over the period of players’ initial contracts.


    Intangible meaning VAGUE. So it's quite possible that the "fee" for Kromkamp could be his contract. That's my opinion, I may be wrong but you'd have to prove I was, which you cannot to an exact degree of clarity.

    It's a legal loophole many Clubs use with regards to transfers and contracts as fees can be repayable over a number of years so their costs could change from one year to the next.
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  182. Say for arguments sake we did pay £4.345m for Kromkamp, so what? We could have easily recouped the same amount in the sale of Josemi. Jaimie can't prove we didn't. It was widely reported Baros left Liverpool for £6.5m, it was also widely reported that Diouf joined Bolton for £2.6m (which would't surprise me) that would mean we sold Josemi for around £4.745m which I doubt, however I doubt at the same time we got much more for Diouf than £2.6m maybe £3m-£3.5m at a push. It's logical to assume that we got around the same money for Josemi as we bought Kromkamp for.

    I don't understand what the witch hunt is about Jaimie? Both Clubs reported that a swap-deal had been done, for the purposes of the financial report perhaps listing the fee was an excercise purely for financial reasons, maybe it was the value of Kromkamps contract (which could also be listed as a registration and is often done in that manner with free transfers).

    it would make sense for the purposes of the report to list Kromkamps contract value as a fee.

    In the report it states:

    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>

    1.4 Intangible fixed assets
    </span></span>
    <span><span>

    The costs associated with the acquisition of players’ registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets. These costs are fully
    amortised in equal instalments over the period of players’ initial contracts.


    Intangible meaning VAGUE. So it's quite possible that the "fee" for Kromkamp could be his contract. That's my opinion, I may be wrong but you'd have to prove I was, which you cannot to an exact degree of clarity.

    It's a legal loophole many Clubs use with regards to transfers and contracts as fees can be repayable over a number of years so their costs could change from one year to the next.
    </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  183. how do you have liverpool's official club accounts you absolute douche! i often read the column's on this awful website and they are always so fucking negative it's almolst like you want us to lose so you can say "i told you so". you're such a stubborn tosser and how you call yourself a liverpool fc fan is beyond me. start posting stuff to support the team or don't posy owt at all pal

    ReplyDelete
  184. Nowhere does it implicate that it was a free deal ! It quite clearly states that it was a "<span><span>swap deal that involved Josemi moving in the opposite direction" </span></span>
    meaning that Josemi going in one direction was part of the deal but not the whole deal !
    Yet again another example of poor journalism on your part in making a quote serve your own purposes. Give it up dude

    ReplyDelete
  185. That just ridiculous, the accounts are public record.

    Exclusive means sole rights to publication, which you aint got Jaimie boy

    ReplyDelete
  186. You are just incapable of grasping simple statements.  What exactly is so hard to understand about the following:


    Swap deal = 0 cost for the purposes of adding up overall transfer spending.

    When newspapers like 'The Times' try and come up with a figure for Liverpool's spending, they (and others) put ;swap deal' for Kromkamp.

    They do not include a montary figure in their calculations.  Do you get it yet?  how many friggin times do i have to say this?

    In practice, there WAS a fee.  But people are not including this in their calculations of Liverpool's transfer spend.

    This is a very simple concept to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  187. I asked about the Agger transfer.

    Where is that mentioned?

    If its not mentioned, then by your logic we got him for free.

    He was transferred in the same window you are talking about. His transfer is not mentioned in 05 or 06 report.

    Agger Joined January 2006
    Kromkamp joined january 2006

    Explain why one is in the report and the other is not.



    For someone who supports Liverpool you are exceedingly quick to jump down their throat at any chance and takes away any of the validity of some of your other arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  188. What a pointless load of drivel!

    ReplyDelete
  189. Dear Jamie the benitez,
    I am glad so many people are having a go at you.
     i dont care if he cost us a penny or 4 million, as i know all managers make some bad signing which cost millions, Ferguson bought veron for 30 million, nani for 20 million and they were flops, the truth is both ferguson and Benitez are good managers. and if you are trying to make an argument for benitez not telling the truth again that mud may stick to newspaers or people who run the communication of the liverpool and not benitez
    liverpool performance last night against Lyon inspite of all injuries proves we are still a very good team and players support their manager and each other, its time all fans stick behind their manager,, palyers and club as we walk together through the storm. those people who keep having a go at benitez or lucas are a minority of liverpool fans who unfortunetly make themselves big in any phone in radio or tv programme. as an avid liverpool supporters who go to all liverpool games, i know the majority of us who go to the matches are sick and tired the mourners/
    thanks   

    ReplyDelete
  190. Jamie are you Dunk? 

    ReplyDelete
  191. Idiot! As Josemi was an asset, his value was in the clubs books, therefore the value of that asset is part (most) or all of that £4.3m. I take it you are not an accountant?

    ReplyDelete
  192. i think Jaime should be manager of LFC he is great & the font of all knowledge!

    How do we solve the problem of global warming and achieve world peace     

    ReplyDelete
  193. If the overall outgoings for Baros, Josemi and soft lad Diouf was 13.84m, does that mean that you (Jamie) think there is a possibility that we could of recieved more than £7mil or £3mil for Baros and Diouf respectively?
    If it can be proved that they were sold for more (which as a human being with eyes is highly doubtful) then we could get to the bottom of this once and for all instead of speculating (which I too am doing). I don't think it's out of the question to suggest that Josemi could of been sold for the same it cost to get Kromkamp in, and before you say it I know I have no proof, but that would mean that we got more than £7 & £3 for them 2 bog standard players.
    Jamie can you access the individual fees for Baros and Diouf?
    This would put the argument to rest once and for all and I could get back to watching a good bluey.

    ReplyDelete