Yesterday, I looked at the real cost of Jan Kromkamp’s transfer to Liverpool. Today, I attempt to establish the true cost of Xabi Alonso and Luis Garcia, two of Rafa Benitez’s most successful signings.
At the time of both transfers, the BBC reported that Garcia cost 6m, but in their report for Alonso’s transfer, a fee was not specified. The official LFC site lists Alonso as a 10.5m purchase but has no figure for Garcia.
Having looked at countless sources across the net (news sources, LFC sites etc), the most common figures quoted for both players seem to be:
Alonso – 10.5 - 10.7m
Garcia – 6m – 6.5m
The Liverpool FC annual report for 2004 tells a different story**:
As you can see, the initial cost Alonso, Garcia and Antonio Nunez was 13m, which is huge difference from the figures quoted above.
Notice the wording: the club has acquired the registrations…for a TOTAL fee of approximately 13m.
Total fee.
It is widely believed that Nunez was a makeweight in the Michael Owen transfer. The official LFC site states:
Nunez became Rafael Benitez's second signing since taking over as Liverpool manager when he arrived at Anfield in August 2004 as part of the Michael Owen transfer to Real Madrid.
Now, even if that was the case, and Nunez was included in the 13m figure for valuation purposes (unlikely in my view), the reported 10.5m and 6m fees for Garcia and Alonso still do not add up.
So what does this mean?
Clearly, Alonso and Garcia cost less money than we thought. Instead of a combined 16.5m, it’s 13m, with Alonso probably being the more expensive player.
It could be that Alonso’s 10.5m fee is correct, and Liverpool paid only 2.5m for Garcia; or Alonso could actually cost between 7 and 10m. There’s no way to know for sure.
It could also be the case that Liverpool actually paid money for Nunez, which is what the annual report is suggesting. If that is the case, then the fees for Alonso and Garcia are even smaller.
In any event, if both players combined cost approximately 13m together, then that is a truly superb piece of business by the club, especially given how influential both players turned out to be.
These figures will also make a difference to overall gross and net spend when considering Liverpool’s spending under Benitez.
Remember, my aim here is accuracy, and I don’t think you can get a more accurate source than Liverpool FC’s own financial records.
----
Join the site's new Facebook page!
At the time of both transfers, the BBC reported that Garcia cost 6m, but in their report for Alonso’s transfer, a fee was not specified. The official LFC site lists Alonso as a 10.5m purchase but has no figure for Garcia.
Having looked at countless sources across the net (news sources, LFC sites etc), the most common figures quoted for both players seem to be:
Alonso – 10.5 - 10.7m
Garcia – 6m – 6.5m
The Liverpool FC annual report for 2004 tells a different story**:
As you can see, the initial cost Alonso, Garcia and Antonio Nunez was 13m, which is huge difference from the figures quoted above.
Notice the wording: the club has acquired the registrations…for a TOTAL fee of approximately 13m.
Total fee.
It is widely believed that Nunez was a makeweight in the Michael Owen transfer. The official LFC site states:
Nunez became Rafael Benitez's second signing since taking over as Liverpool manager when he arrived at Anfield in August 2004 as part of the Michael Owen transfer to Real Madrid.
Now, even if that was the case, and Nunez was included in the 13m figure for valuation purposes (unlikely in my view), the reported 10.5m and 6m fees for Garcia and Alonso still do not add up.
So what does this mean?
Clearly, Alonso and Garcia cost less money than we thought. Instead of a combined 16.5m, it’s 13m, with Alonso probably being the more expensive player.
It could be that Alonso’s 10.5m fee is correct, and Liverpool paid only 2.5m for Garcia; or Alonso could actually cost between 7 and 10m. There’s no way to know for sure.
It could also be the case that Liverpool actually paid money for Nunez, which is what the annual report is suggesting. If that is the case, then the fees for Alonso and Garcia are even smaller.
In any event, if both players combined cost approximately 13m together, then that is a truly superb piece of business by the club, especially given how influential both players turned out to be.
These figures will also make a difference to overall gross and net spend when considering Liverpool’s spending under Benitez.
Remember, my aim here is accuracy, and I don’t think you can get a more accurate source than Liverpool FC’s own financial records.
----
Join the site's new Facebook page!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThe club did not mis-spell his name. Xabi is a shortened version, his actual full name is Xabier "Xabi" Alonso Olano.
It's highly likely that you are wrong again.
ReplyDeleteXabier Alonso Olano thinks we was worth £10.5m
To be fair, it is probable that the initial payments were the £13m but the others were guaranteed.
The annual report for this season would list Aquilani as 5m, but we all know he cost more than that.
This gets my vote for the most pointless and irrelevant article you are likely to read today.
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression that "quoted" newspaper fees generally include all possible future payments. So it wouldn't be a surprise if the first fee was lower, if they weighted more money into appearances/success. What do you think.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree about the influence of Alonso and Garcia for LFC, they would have been cheap at double that price!
mate. what e4xactly are you trying to prove get acroos or achieve, becausen this site has been pumping out the same old rubbish all week, the cost of kronkamp, the cost of a packet of chewing gum and any other rubbish you can dig up, while things are the way thaey are for the kop your input is unwelcome and far from needed, so do us all a favour and zip!! prat!!
ReplyDelete** Note how little you know about Alonso as you don't know his first name. His first name is Xabier, not Xabi. Xabi is just a shorter version, just as Xavi Hernandez first name is Xavier or Pepe Reinas is José.
ReplyDeleteI take your point about Aquilani, but it is widely reported (factually) that his deal is staggered over 2 years. If transfers of that kind are undertaken, a note is usually included in the annual report to say so. For example, in the 2008 report, it is stated that Liverpool sold Keane for 12.1m but it also states that extra money will be recouped if certain conditions are met.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the case with Alonso/garcia. Furthermore, nowehere has it everbeen reported that one or both players' fees were staggered and/or subject to conditions.
I imagine that with Aquilani, it will be explicitly stated that the club will ave to pay out further for his fee in the future.
ReplyDeleteMy mistake. Thanks for clearing that up.
ReplyDeleteWhen will you liverpool fans realise that the gross/net spend arguement against/for benitez is utterly irrelevant. He has spent enough to have a team that is more than two good players. FACT.
ReplyDeleteThis analysis of his spending is laughable its like two bald men fighting over a comb.
When you comit to a lost cause you really go all out, we could have a whip round and get next years calander so you can work some current stuff.
ReplyDeleteI like that 'two men bald men fighting over a comb' :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with yout completely - Benitez has had enough to spend.
Where do you get this info from? Are you claiming it's in Liverpool FC's published accounts? If you are I can say that this is completely wrong. I know this as I used to work for Companies House and no company/football club's accounts include details of personal employees, be they their wages or the cost for their individual recruitment.
ReplyDeleteThe accounts would only detail an overall total for player recruitment/sales and not details of each and every individual transfer with named players.
With this in mind we can disregard this supposed "exclusive"
At last, someone talking sense.
ReplyDeleteGosh - look at the utter stupidity on display here!
ReplyDeleteSomeone comes along and says 'Oh, I used to work at companies house and no club accounts contain details of personal employees'. Then a weak-minded sheep comes along and says 'Oh, okay. That must be true'.
Therein lies the problem with the world in a nutshell: people without the ability to THINK just blindly accepting things that are blatantly wrong.
Ever wonder why Nazi Germany lasted so long? Because weak-minded people just accepted everything that was fed to them without question. Groupthink on a grand scale.
I don't 'claim it is in Liverpool's published accounts. I KNOW it is because I checked them myself, I purchsed the club's annual accounts, which if you DID work at CH, you would know is a staple of their business.
And where have I mentioned wages or salaries?! You're even bringing things into this that I haven't even mentioned.
Did you faile to see the snippet from the annual report (which includes all the accoutns, profit and loss statements etc) in the article itself?! Are you blind? le me guess - I made that snippet myself, right?
Check this link: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/fa378e9e96c8af19ccf4eb77b3824158/wcprodorder?ft=1
Scroll down to near the bottom and you will find this:
FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/07/04
This report is for sale.
Now stop talking complete and utter rubbish.
Now, now. You are quick to stamp on people that go off-topic with abuse when they're criticising someone you agree with.
ReplyDeleteHe is correct that they don't list all of the transfers but these are "post balance sheet events".
Doesn't change the fact that they are for accounting purposes and therefore full of it.
All transfers are listed as bulk figure in the profit and loss section, so although we don't have individual figures, we have an accurate bulk figure of what was spent.
ReplyDeleteSomething that is in 'post balance cheet events' is not any less accurate. It is still the correct figure paid.
The two epople who posted above (espeically the second person who jumped on the bandwagon) deserve the vitriol. The reaso the world has gone to the dogs is because of people who have their though process.
You're very hot Jaimie on other people not calling others names etc but
ReplyDeletewhen it comes to yourself i've noticed you're very quick to belittle others.
The poster has simply stated that details of transfer fees/wages are not stated for individuals within the accounts, but are noted as totals. Something that is borne out by your evidence from the accounts themselves. You do however go on to speculate on individual transfer fees within the article itself. Maybe the poster is unclear where you're getting that information from.
As for this little nugget... 'Ever wonder why Nazi Germany lasted so long? Because weak-minded people just accepted everything that was fed to them without question. Groupthink on a grand scale.' ...I'm pretty sure that oppression and terror was the main reason rather than weak minded people, I'm sure however that you yourself would have been the voice of freedom in the face of the SS, Gestapo and concentration camps.
That has to be the most stupidest thing I've read in a long time and it would probably behove you to read this link if you ever feel yourself reaching for this sort of comparison again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
As for the figures, you seem to be taking one fact and extrapolating from them, I'd suggest if you have a problem with them or wish to verify them you either seek professional advice from an accountant or contact the club itself. I'm sure they would be willing to help since as you've stated before you have such high contacts there.
No, I am not quick to belittle others at all. However, when people repeatedly post things in the comments that are completely inacurate (acorss a number of different threads) and accuse me of lying etc then I feel the need to highlight it.
ReplyDeleteThe post in question and its response was abject stupidity. The poster stated:
Are you claiming it's in Liverpool FC's published accounts? If you are I can say that this is completely wrong.
He then claimed to have worked at CH.
of course the info from from published accounts; I even posted the snippet from those accounts.
Furthermore, he went on about wages and salaries which was soomething that I did not even mention. This shows that the person did not bother to read or comprehnd what was written before calling me a liar. Stupidity is stupidity, and this kind of thing is the problem with society.
And re'Godwin's Law' - you missed the comparison I made with 'groupthink' and Nazi Germanu, which is a very valid comparison that has been made in countless papers, theses and publications.
Liverpool fans (and football fans in general) suffer from groupthink on a grand scale, and it impairs their ability to be fair.
I never, ever resort to name-calling and I rarely call people stupid, but in situations like this, there is no other choice. And I do not apologise for it. Weak-minded people like the guy who responded 'Finally, someone talking sense' are a real problem for societies across the globe, accepting as they do anything other people say without actually looking and cosidering the evidence for themselves.
Who cares!? they've both gone, cant u find a more interesting story rather than the costs of transfers made 5 years ago?
ReplyDeletethis is not true. it just shows how shallow your analysis actually is. benitez has spent no doubt about it but he had to revamp the whole squad. when he took over the squad was short on both quality and quantity. the reserve team was a joke back then. rafa had to spend to increase quality and quantity. so the 30 to 40 mill he spent each season ( not always mind you) had to be used to sign a greater number of players (about 5) each season. when you go for bargain buys you tend to take a big risk and its pretty much hit and miss. in comparison teams like chelsea, man u have spent a lot on fewer players. hell look at ferguson's transfer record - nani, anderson, valencia, tosic have all been aquired for 12-18 million range. none of them have lived up to their billing. even berbatov and carrick have not exactly been success. vidic was someone even benitez wanted. benitez couldn get many of his first choice playes.
ReplyDeleteanyway point is jaimie kanwar is an ass who only selectively responds to comments. and you aspire to be a football pundit?? you are a joke jaimie
<span>At last, someone talking sense.</span>
ReplyDeleteShort sighted nonsense. Mascherano, Aquilani, Jonhson, Reina and the now departed Alonso are all excellent players and all bought by Benitez. We have plenty of good players, and a far superior team to the one we had when Rafa arrived. I'm not saying that he has been perfect by any means, but everything is not black and white, we are not either the best, or complete gash.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of this story? Who cares? What are you trying to prove?
ReplyDeleteIf it is that players don't cost what the papers say they do they talleyho young chap, well done for stating the bleedin obvious.
You're headline makes it sound like something incredibly scandalous is happening when in reality it is the very mundane world of company accounts and how they are set out.
Next non story please.
I don't understand your point. The figures are solid:
ReplyDeleteAlonso<span> </span>£10.5m
Garcia<span> </span> £6.0m
Nuñez<span> </span>-£3.5m
--------------------
<span> </span>£13.0m
Where did you get the 3.5m for Nunez?
ReplyDeleteI suspect Madrid paid us £3.5m to take him. I also suspect they got a bargain.
ReplyDelete(Only kidding, Antonio, YNWA)
<p>Are you the Pete Gill from F365?
ReplyDelete</p><p>
</p><p>The argument always boils down to Net/Gross spend because people hammer Benitez unfairly for spending loads of money but dont ever look at the bigger picture.
</p><p>
</p><p>The champions league final in 2005 was in all honesty a fluke. I was there, I saw it. It cannot be used as an argument to say that we should continue winning because the squad inc reserve team Houllier (did a good job for many years) left us with was mostly poor.
</p><p>
</p><p>If Rafa had £200 to spend immediately then you would have seen what you are seeing at Chelsea, and immediate rise to the top.
</p><p>
</p><p>However, he didn't start from this position and neither did he start from the position Man Utd were in in 2004, ie with the squad strength and depth that they had. Therefore it is folly to draw comparisons as they did not start on a level footing yet we almost won the league last year.
</p><p>
</p><p>When you look to see if Benitez is successful then from this point of view he has been, with a couple of trophy's along the way.
</p><p>
</p><p>If you take is spending even as a gross figure of 247m (of which 134 was raised by himself & includes 14m on cisse, whom he did not want and 19m on keane who he didn't want) then he has build a 1st team squad and reserve team squad that is stronger than what it was 5 years ago by a long long way.
</p><p>
</p><p>So even if he had bought a max of 25 players over 5 years then that would still only be 10m a player. Hardly breakingt he bank.
</p><p>
</p><p>Whereas actually he has had to sell to buy in order to allow him to buy more expensive and better players.
</p><p>
</p><p>So to conclude, yes benitez had had enough money. To get us into the Champions league every season as the maximum expectation. From a weaker starting position that all his rivals last season saw us 2 wins off the league title, or even, 2 goals as some people have put it.
</p>
Are you the Pete Gill from F365?
ReplyDeleteThe argument always boils down to Net/Gross spend because people hammer Benitez unfairly for spending loads of money but dont ever look at the bigger picture.
The champions league final in 2005 was in all honesty a fluke. I was there, I saw it. It cannot be used as an argument to say that we should continue winning because the squad inc reserve team Houllier (did a good job for many years) left us with was mostly poor.
If Rafa had £200 to spend immediately then you would have seen what you are seeing at Chelsea, and immediate rise to the top.
However, he didn't start from this position and neither did he start from the position Man Utd were in in 2004, ie with the squad strength and depth that they had. Therefore it is folly to draw comparisons as they did not start on a level footing yet we almost won the league last year.
When you look to see if Benitez is successful then from this point of view he has been, with a couple of trophy's along the way.
If you take is spending even as a gross figure of 247m (of which 134 was raised by himself & includes 14m on cisse, whom he did not want and 19m on keane who he didn't want) then he has build a 1st team squad and reserve team squad that is stronger than what it was 5 years ago by a long long way.
So even if he had bought a max of 25 players over 5 years then that would still only be 10m a player. Hardly breakingt he bank.
Whereas actually he has had to sell to buy in order to allow him to buy more expensive and better players.
So to conclude, yes benitez had had enough money. To get us into the Champions league every season as the maximum expectation. From a weaker starting position that all his rivals last season saw us 2 wins off the league title, or even, 2 goals as some people have put it.
Pete
ReplyDeleteAre these good players
Reina
Agger
Johnson
Aquillani
Kuyt
Mascherano
Yes they are.
Fool of a took
If this is true then it is nothing short of outstanding business from Liverpool. It was part of a series of moves that led us to a Champions League trophy. Brilliant work from Rafa.
ReplyDeleteFinally, someone how can ad numbers.... ;)
ReplyDeleteFinally, someone who can ad numbers.... ;)
ReplyDeleteOh come on Jaimie, if you're clever enough to understand the concept of groupthink in relation to Nazi germany then you're clever enough to understand that it's one element in a whole plethora of reasons and processes involved in Nazism. You're also clever enough to understand that groupthink/conformity was also a situation that was actively fostered and encouraged by Nazis. There is nothing there to suggest that Nazism was engendered or prolonged by weak mindedness and it's disgusting to suggest so, especially by someone who has not and probably never will experience such a regime. There are other valid comparisons for groupthink, it's clear you chose Nazi Germany for the shock value and emotional load it carries, as such Godwin's law applies and I personally think it's a disgrace.
ReplyDelete'I never, ever resort to name-calling and I rarely call people stupid, but in situations like this, there is no other choice.'
Which is it Jaimie, you never name call or you rarely do, contradicting yourself there, and there is always a choice. Re the poster, it's clear he got the wrong end of the stick but there was no need to belittle him, nobody deserves vitriol, just because you're on the recieveing end of it doesn't mean you're justified in dishing it out.
And again I state 'As for the figures, you seem to be taking one fact and extrapolating from them, I'd suggest if you have a problem with them or wish to verify them you either seek professional advice from an accountant or contact the club itself. I'm sure they would be willing to help since as you've stated before you have such high contacts there.'
Come on Jaimie prove you've got the support of the club and Hicks himself and get your information directly from the source.
As for your comment about fellow fans, what are you trying to say, they're my fellow fans but not yours? Are you finally acknowledging you're not actually a Liverpool fan Jaimie?
Tired of this now, I only commented because of your deliberate and appaling correalation between the endurance of Nazism and weak-mindedness. If you have any decency you'll retract that statement.
What's happenned jamie I have made about 4 posts all of which have been deleted.....
ReplyDeleteYou posted comments like <span>'this post is pointless' and 'next non-story please'. Posts like that will be deleted. The comment policy is explicit on this. Also, look at the comment policy amendment at the top right of the page.</span>
ReplyDeleteI just can't be bothered to justify myself anymore, so any post that contain sniping/derogatory comments will be deleted.
Things that you've posted that stick to the issues have not been deleted.
what is the point of this article
ReplyDeleteHow can the story be an exclusive when the information is readily available in the clubs accounts?
ReplyDeleteJaimie
ReplyDeleteyou are such a plonker, shut up you fool
This a senile really. This is what the world is coming to . A lawyer with a computer access who is in reality (probably ) a fat couch potato who has never kicked a ball in his life is a critic. We all are critics now are't we? Even i am a critic. Not to mention the fact that you have a gestapo like tendency to screen comments. Yes, this is really brilliant. Just like mosad....mufc undercover...
ReplyDeleteSome of Rafa's buys have been brilliant, although some haven't.
ReplyDeleteHis big initial buys were excellent, Alonso and Garcia.
It's just a shame about some of the other ones, like Nunez.
The price payed for Alonso was a snip.
Pepe Reina, a year or two later was also a great buy.
One of the best keepers in the world today.
So too was Mascherano, we saved him, now he's top notch.
Torres, well what can we say about him, perfect...
That's the thing jamie. You DO have to justify what you say especially when you have your own website. It goes with the territory. If you put yourself up there to be shot at then don't be shocked when you get shot down
ReplyDeleteThis is the thing - why do I have to spell out every tiny detail. I'm not talking about justifying my opinions - that's fine - I'm talking about people constantly posting stuff like 'why is everything you post negative'. I can't be bothered to keep proiving to people that this is false.
ReplyDeleteBasically, I'm no longer going to waste my time explaining the same non-football stuff over and over again.
Net spending is very important. If you have 25m to spend and no need to sell your squad will be strong. If you have to sell to buy then your 1st team could be strong but your squad can become weakened.
ReplyDeleteEg. Mascherno in - Sissosko out
Torres in - Bellamy,Cisse out
Benayoun in - Garcia out
keane in - Crouch out
Aquilani/johnson in - Alonso/arbeloa out
Ideally what you want to do is bring in players and sell fringe but we obviosly do not have the money to do this.
This method which is used by mu and the chavs is what the manager would want if we had the money then we would have a superb squad of players.
Reina
Kirkland
Johnson Carragher Agger Aureilio
Arbeloa Skirtel Hyppia Riise
Benayoun Mascherano Alonso Bellamy
Kuyt Sissosko Aquilani Riera
Gerrard
Garcia
Torres
Crouch
This squad would give us trophies everyear. Dont forget we also could have in our squad the likes of Alves,Simao,Aguero,Pato,Vidic,Barry,Silva and Villa. This method also allows the club to up the transfer fee for players on the way out and not be forced to sell at a low price.
This website and it's author are one big waste of internet space.
ReplyDeleteNeil,
ReplyDeleteThats the best post I have seen about the current situation in years. Its not about the amount of spend, its about having to recruit and turnover the squad to actually improve it, even marginally.
Sissoko was improved by Mascherano, but, would have been great to keep both. Crouch, Bellamy moving on allowed us to get torres.
I've no idea if he did / didn't want Keane....but apart from that this is an excellent summary of Rafa's time. He inherited a poor squad. He added quality where he could...and then wheeled & dealed to try to improve the overall squad. Net spend counts. It is maths.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you trying to get at Jaimie first Kromkamp now Alonso and Garcia, what is all this nit picking thru LFC accounts leading to more support for the yanks????
ReplyDeleteare they not also your fellow fansaswell bit of a freudian slip methinks
ReplyDeleteIf we had the cash we could have spent massive bucks on this midfield Nani Anderson Carrick Hargreaves, thats what I call shit spending so lets not sweat over the odd few millions spent by Rafa trying to keep up with Utd and Chelsea
ReplyDeleteGood point.
ReplyDeleteRafas critics dont understand he has smallets resources of all top4 teams.
Resources in manager's disposal = team worth + net spend + payroll.
In 2004 Pool was 4th most valued team in the league.
During last five years Benitez's net spending was 3rd or 4th (depending on sources) in the league.
Our payroll is 5th in the league. (And durnig Rafa's reign it was never higher than 4th)
Moneywise Rafa hugely overachived and should be praised.
I really do despair ant the insularity and narrow-mindedness of some people. Why don't you open your mind just a tiny but, Bob? Can you not see that I am trying to search for the truth about LFC's transfers? There are 20 different figures floating around on the net for every transfer - do you not think that it would be good to have a definitive answer?
ReplyDeleteIf everyone in the world had your view then nothing would ever get done, and the human race would be living in a state of perpatual ignorance.
your still broke
ReplyDeleteyou say that the three players where added for a net cost of 13million that figure would be about right
ReplyDeleteNunez came as a 2m makeweight in the M Owen deal when sold to R Madrid for 8m if we say the 8m value inclueded Nunez then that would leave 6m to add to the 13m figure you quote comes to around 19m Alonso was signed for 10.5m and Garcia for around 6.5m total 17m but Alonso had 2 add on clauses of 1m each which would be included in the figures as they would have to be paid add them to the 17m and you get 19m so that means that both players where signed for 13m net
and that Alonso was 12.5m and Garcia 6.5m
I dont work at CH nor did i buy the accounts and i dont work for the club but the internet is a wonderfull tool
except for your site which i won't be adding further to as you just do the normall Liverpool Rafa bashing to build up traffic goodbye
What is the point of this story? Basically you have told us that we dont know the exact figures for the cost of Alonso and Garcia but whatever the cost was we got a deal. Tell us something we dont already know.
ReplyDeleteperpatual ignorance
ReplyDeleteThat's brilliant. I'll leave you to figure out why, if you have a dictionary.
Get a life who gives a f##k,my tickets still go up each year whatever.
ReplyDeleteHow much are beans on toast in the canteen you muppet
Jaimie what is the point of all this?
ReplyDeleteI'm of the opinion that the only reason you're doing this is because you've got nothing else to write about and by labelling these articles as "EXCLUSIVE" you're simply trying to generate hits to the site.
It's not an "exclusive" is it, as it's already been printed in the Annual Reports!
Exclusive: "noting that in which no others have a share"; or, "Not divided or shared with others".
This isn't an exclusive as it's readily available information from Companies House.
As somebody has said before the fees you've listed are not necessarily accurate as they could include additional un-listed fees in future seasons or bonuses.
ALL PLAYER REGISTRATIONS ARE LISTED UNDER INTANGIBLE ASSETS WITHIN THE DETAILS OF THE REPORT!
THIS MEANS THEIR FEES ARE "VAGUE" AS THEY COULD CHANGE FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT DEPENDING ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THROUGH THE YEAR - BONUSES ETC.
I really do not see what point you're trying to make here, if you're saying Alonso & Garcia cost us less than we've been led to believe you cannot know for sure as the figures given in the report are intangible.
Don't worry though, come Monday night you'll have something to write about again.
Jaimie what is the point of all this?
ReplyDeleteI'm of the opinion that the only reason you're doing this is because you've got nothing else to write about and by labelling these articles as "EXCLUSIVE" you're simply trying to generate hits to the site.
It's not an "exclusive" is it, as it's already been printed in the Annual Reports!
Exclusive: "noting that in which no others have a share"; or, "Not divided or shared with others".
This isn't an exclusive as it's readily available information from Companies House.
As somebody has said before the fees you've listed are not necessarily accurate as they could include additional un-listed fees in future seasons or bonuses.
ALL PLAYER REGISTRATIONS ARE LISTED UNDER INTANGIBLE ASSETS WITHIN THE DETAILS OF THE REPORT!
THIS MEANS THEIR FEES ARE "VAGUE" AS THEY COULD CHANGE FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT DEPENDING ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THROUGH THE YEAR - BONUSES ETC.
I really do not see what point you're trying to make here, if you're saying Alonso & Garcia cost us less than we've been led to believe you cannot know for sure as the figures given in the report are intangible.
Don't worry though, come Monday night you'll have something to write about again.
Jaimie what is the point of all this?
ReplyDeleteI'm of the opinion that the only reason you're doing this is because you've got nothing else to write about and by labelling these articles as "EXCLUSIVE" you're simply trying to generate hits to the site.
It's not an "exclusive" is it, as it's already been printed in the Annual Reports!
Exclusive: "noting that in which no others have a share"; or, "Not divided or shared with others".
This isn't an exclusive as it's readily available information from Companies House.
As somebody has said before the fees you've listed are not necessarily accurate as they could include additional un-listed fees in future seasons or bonuses.
ALL PLAYER REGISTRATIONS ARE LISTED UNDER INTANGIBLE ASSETS WITHIN THE DETAILS OF THE REPORT!
THIS MEANS THEIR FEES ARE "VAGUE" AS THEY COULD CHANGE FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT DEPENDING ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THROUGH THE YEAR - BONUSES ETC.
I really do not see what point you're trying to make here, if you're saying Alonso & Garcia cost us less than we've been led to believe you cannot know for sure as the figures given in the report are intangible.
Don't worry though, come Monday night you'll have something to write about again.
Jaimie what is the point of all this?
ReplyDeleteI'm of the opinion that the only reason you're doing this is because you've got nothing else to write about and by labelling these articles as "EXCLUSIVE" you're simply trying to generate hits to the site.
It's not an "exclusive" is it, as it's already been printed in the Annual Reports!
Exclusive: "noting that in which no others have a share"; or, "Not divided or shared with others".
This isn't an exclusive as it's readily available information from Companies House.
As somebody has said before the fees you've listed are not necessarily accurate as they could include additional un-listed fees in future seasons or bonuses.
ALL PLAYER REGISTRATIONS ARE LISTED UNDER INTANGIBLE ASSETS WITHIN THE DETAILS OF THE REPORT!
THIS MEANS THEIR FEES ARE "VAGUE" AS THEY COULD CHANGE FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT DEPENDING ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THROUGH THE YEAR - BONUSES ETC.
I really do not see what point you're trying to make here, if you're saying Alonso & Garcia cost us less than we've been led to believe you cannot know for sure as the figures given in the report are intangible.
Don't worry though, come Monday night you'll have something to write about again.
Why did you delete my comment Jaimie?
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't snide or offensive.
I merely pointed out that what you have published could be entirely inaccurate when being viewed as the definitive totals paid for those players.
In the reports you're so fond of ALL player registrations come under the term INTANGIBLE FIXED ASSETS, intangible meaning "VAGUE".
The reason for this is that the figures could changed depending on contractual obligations such as bonuses, clauses etc.
The figures provided for the Annual Report could merely be the initial registration fee, the FULL cost of those transfers could be higher as per the "Intangible fixed asset" clause.
I really don't see why you attach such importance to these figures they, by the Clubs disclosure, are a vague area.
Why do you bother Jamie? You write like a Manc - unfortunate and very much not the Liverpool way. We all need some postitivity considering the pressure the team is under. Fancy writing something friendly?
ReplyDeleteif it was deleted it's because it cotravened the comment policy in some way (foating link to the right), which means you were probably name-calling/slagging off the site in some way. If you want your comment to remain, stick the issues. If you want to coplain about me/the site etc, do so on the correct thread.
ReplyDelete<span>Read a proper website about Liverpool . Edited by Liverpool fans. Not this rubbish:
ReplyDeletehttp://robbohuyton.blogspot.com/2009/11/liverpool-fcs-off-field-crisis-spirit.html?
<span>Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/11/why-was-xabi-alonso-banned-from-writing.html?#ixzz0WB6LslQh</span></span>
gora xabi alonso is the best!!!! :)
ReplyDeleteWow! A new low. Likening the following of Rafa Benitez to support for the Nationalist Socialist Party.
ReplyDelete[<span>Ever wonder why Nazi Germany lasted so long? Because weak-minded people just accepted everything that was fed to them without question. Groupthink on a grand scale.]</span>
The acceptance of the Nazi Party can't and mustn't be explained by the over-simplification that is 'group think'. Widespread socio-economic issues, WW1 capitulation and the inequitable Treaty of Versailles were far more influential.
<p>Look up the term: 'Dolchstosslegende'. Resonates with this website doesn't it!
</p>
Yes. He has. It's called a team that went within a whisker of winning the league last season and reached the final stages of the Champions League again.
ReplyDeleteTake 11 players from that squad through injury and there is no way it can compete. Take 11 players from United, Chelsea of Arsenal and they will struggle also.
So Man City gain 5 points from 5 games!
ReplyDeleteWith untold riches and a squad containing the likes of Adebayor, Tevez, Bellamy, Santa Cruz, Toure, Barry, Lescott and Given.
Liverpool gain 6 points from 5 games!
With boardroom splits, huge debts and a massive injury crisis.
Hmmm... Wonder if Mark Hughes will get slaughtered for this? Wonder if he'll be criticised for subbing Tevez and then dropping points? Wonder if he'll be criticised for leaving last seasons best player (Stephen Ireland) on the bench for an hour?
Agreed. I've already made that point and had both posts deleted it seems. No doubt this will go the same way. Jaimie doesn't like to be pulled up on things it seems.
ReplyDeletemore trash from a hated wum
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have deleted posts asking you to let us know what the press offices of LFC / Deloittes said when you asked them to clarify the accounting treatment of transfer fees. Odd.
ReplyDeleteSorry Petegill but gross/net spend is NOT irrelevant. I will explain it in simple terms so both you and Kanwar can understand it once and for all. Eg LFC have, for arguments sake only 11 players in their squad, 10 who are worth 10 mill and 1 worth 1 mill. The same goes for Chelsea. LFC buy a player for 10 milll but sell one from their squad for 10 mill - the press claims lFC have spent 10 mill. Chelsea Buy a player for 10 mill but sell the mediocre player who is worth 1 mill for that same amount. The press say Chelsea spent 10 mill. Now which team would you rather be a manager of? I rest my case
ReplyDeleteJK: re the last two articles on transfer fees. Hopefully, I will try to clear up a few things re. Kronkamp, etc. transfers. I work at a big Accounting firm (not an accountant myself, but I have spoken to a qualified accountant re. this).
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the important thing is that the figures and information that is stated are balance sheet entries. They represent the value of registration, usually upon acquisition (i believe there are instances that football clubs have in the past revalued their assets. I dont know who, but Note 1 will state the accounting policies).
Given there is no 'market price' for a player (e.g. how much is torres worth today? on what basis? opinion... :-D ). Consequently, In <span>many</span> cases, the posting on the balance sheet will reflect the present value of the cash outlay for the registration itself but not always. The time this may not be the case is in swap deals (e.g. Josemi/Kromkamp). If a club is to acquire a player for "free" but can demonstrate and substantiate to the auditors what the value of the player is, then it can be posted. In fact, the higher the figure, the better as you can realise the amortisation of the registration over the life of the contract and reduce the tax bill in the future. So <span>it is possible</span> to have posting to the balance sheet with no cash transfer being paid...
In the case of Josemi/Kromkamp, we cannot be definitive (lack of information) but considering this is a 'swap deal', some element could be true, especially if some cash went one way or the other. But this leads me to my next point. The company is not obliged to disclose this information in their annual returns. They choose to do so (for disclosure, etc). Remember, there is an audit opinion which states the accounts are try and fair, so anything more is a plus. Consequently, I wouldnt read anything into the fact that they didnt write 'we bought x for y and sold p for q in the opposite direction'. there are plenty of plausible reasons for it not to be included - primarily confidential information (note - the purpose of annual accounts is to enable creditors to gauge the creditworthiness of a company and not to enable the public to evaluate the effectiveness in the transfer market).
Last point. Signing on and agents fees. There are ancillary costs to doing a transaction. My understanding is these these fees are not always included in the registration cost (i.e. not on the balance sheet). So it is possible that transfer fees quoted may or may not include these values. That just goes to muddy the waters even further.....
ps. JK - there is someone else posting under my name of Hmmm (i am hmmm... and hmmm - work and home computers)
Great explanation Hmmm and if any persons here had read the finer details of the report they would have been aware of this information.
ReplyDeleteWhat you've said is eluded to in the Report under the details of Amortisation and Intangible fixed assets, the "total fee" could have been anything but in the long run.
plus have access to accountants who can explain all of this...
ReplyDelete:-D
Good post Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteJaimie seems to have deleted my posts where I simply asked him what the LFC Press Office and / or Deloittes had told him about the accountacy treatment of transfer fees. I guess this means he did no research above & beyond opening the Annual Report. Hmmm's explanation sounds plausible, as clearly as asset will have a value even if it cost very little to acquire. For example, if we got Messi on a free I wouldn't expect the value of this intangible asset to be zero...