THIS POST HAS BEEN MOVED HERE:
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/debunking-liverpool-fc-myths-no-8-top.html
Please join the debate :-)
Thanks!
JK
28 May 2010
LIVERPOOL FC transfer fees - Top 10 myths/inaccuracies
THIS POST HAS BEEN MOVED HERE:
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2010/10/debunking-liverpool-fc-myths-no-8-top.html
Please join the debate :-)
Thanks!
JK
Interesting article Jaimie, however here (below) you've used LFC.History to support your assumption:
ReplyDelete"Most sites report Salif Diao's transfer fee as anywhere between £4.5-£5m (LFChistory has it at £4.7m)."
Yet at the start of your article you've questioned the validity of that very site and "most" internet sites?
It's just as possible to assume that Luzi was a free and unfortunately Diao cost us £6.5m! Just a thought as a possible addition to the article.
Good article though, it seems to me that the figures in the media do appear somewhat final (perhaps all add ons etc included?) and the figures from the Club are some what convoluted, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? I suppose we'd only ever know the entire truth if we got to view the actual sale document as with Aquilani's transfer.
Interesting article Jaimie, however here (below) you've used LFC.History to support your assumption:
ReplyDelete"Most sites report Salif Diao's transfer fee as anywhere between £4.5-£5m (LFChistory has it at £4.7m)."
Yet at the start of your article you've questioned the validity of that very site and "most" internet sites?
It's just as possible to assume that Luzi was a free and unfortunately Diao cost us £6.5m! Just a thought as a possible addition to the article.
Good article though, it seems to me that the figures in the media do appear somewhat final (perhaps all add ons etc included?) and the figures from the Club are some what convoluted, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? I suppose we'd only ever know the entire truth if we got to view the actual sale document as with Aquilani's transfer.
Interesting article Jaimie, however here (below) you've used LFC.History to support your assumption:
ReplyDelete"Most sites report Salif Diao's transfer fee as anywhere between £4.5-£5m (LFChistory has it at £4.7m)."
Yet at the start of your article you've questioned the validity of that very site and "most" internet sites?
It's just as possible to assume that Luzi was a free and unfortunately Diao cost us £6.5m! Just a thought as a possible addition to the article.
Good article though, it seems to me that the figures in the media do appear somewhat final (perhaps all add ons etc included?) and the figures from the Club are some what convoluted, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? I suppose we'd only ever know the entire truth if we got to view the actual sale document as with Aquilani's transfer.
Jamie, your getting confused with Acquisitions, Acquisitions are player purchased, it doesn't mean they have been paid in full, only Acquisitions.
ReplyDeleteI Acquired a car, i didn't pay in full, pay over 3 years Get it?
Anfield81 - Yes, it's possible that Diao cost 6.5m but I highly doubt it. I made that statement to give people an idea of the generally accepted fee level. Furthermore, the snippet from the accounts states that the club has acquired Diao AND Luzi for 6.5m - that unambiguously means *some* money was paid for Luzi. There's no way he was free. If he was a free transfer, he wouldn't have been included in that snippet.
ReplyDeleteHow can the figures in the media be final? Where do they get their information from for the figures to be final? That doesn't wash. Journos don't generally have access to confidential player contracts. The figures in the accounts are final - they have to be as an accurate financial report needs to be submitted (by law). If further fees are payable in installments etc, it will be stated in the accounts.
Anfield81 - Yes, it's possible that Diao cost 6.5m but I highly doubt it. I made this statment:
ReplyDelete"Most sites report Salif Diao's transfer fee as anywhere between £4.5-£5m (LFChistory has it at £4.7m)."
...merely to give people an idea of the generally accepted fee level.
In any event, the snippet from the accounts states that the club has acquired Diao AND Luzi for 6.5m - that unambiguously means *some* money was paid for Luzi. There's no way he was free. If he was a free transfer, he wouldn't have been included in that snippet.
How can the figures in the media be final? Where do they get their information from for the figures to be final? That doesn't wash. Journos don't generally have access to confidential player contracts. The figures in the accounts are final - they have to be as an accurate financial report needs to be submitted (by law). If further fees are payable in installments etc, it will be stated in the accounts.
Jojo - re your deleted post: you are wrong. The notes in the club accounts prove you wrong. I can't be bothered to argue the point with you. Furthermore, I'm not going to give you a forum for deliberately spreading misinformation.
ReplyDeleteall you seem to want to do is slag the club and manager off in a clever and underhand way . who is to say these snipets you print are actual lfc accounts . are you sure your a red? from the city? why print all this inless you have a agenda ? you print one positive thing and 10 not so positive , you obviously havnt got lfc best interests at heart . stop raking up the past to suit your own means and lets look to the future . god help it if shanks was manager he broke the tranfer record on a dud striker and went years winning nothing , in your eyes he would be sacked
ReplyDeleteI believe you, but how do we no these are true, anyone could have written these and how did you get hold of them, are they published somewhere??
ReplyDeleteThey are published in the official club accounts. You can buy them from Companies House:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/
The info is easily verifiable.
Cheers mate, keep posting
ReplyDeletePaul - If you don't like it, go to another LFC site. Why keep visiting if you think what you do?! This is not an attack on Benitez, or an attack on the club. Just because you have a ridiculous vicarious persecution complex doesn't mean everyone is out to get LFC. My goal is and always has been to ensure that accurate information is in the public domain, instead of twisted generalisation and lies. if you can't hack that, I couldn't care less.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to debate about football, please do. Anymore posts like this, I'll ban you. If you have a problem with me, email me and we can discuss it. Otherwise, go elsewhere.
And the idea that these are not real snippets is an embarrassing assertion. Why would I post stuff that could be discredited in 5 seconds flat by anyone with 1 pound to spare?! Stop living in denial: accurate information is essential, even if you don't like it.
ReplyDeleteIs there a structural difference between the headline figures as reported by a newspaper and what is booked in the accounts. There appears to be a trend that received fees are lower and outgoing fees are higher. I suspect that the headline fees include agents' fees but don't include the transfer levy. Signing on fees may also be included in the incoming transfers.
ReplyDeleteThis would explain discrepancies. We may not have paid a transfer fee for Luzi, but we would have paid a signing fee and agents costs.
You're comparing apples and oranges and unsurprisingly they don't agree.
if these are true, then why not know the truth - how can it be damaging to be dealing with accurate figures? just need to put it in context that all other clubs' figures could be equally vague. Also, do we know if these incude agents fees? ie Kuyt 'was' 9m, but paid 10m, could be 9m for the player + 1m for agent's fees. Equally, when selling we will get less if the amount we receive has been stripped of an agent's fee, ie Keane/Alonso?
ReplyDeleteGreart article,
ReplyDeleteguys,before the barrage of abuse undoubtedly comes in, actually read the article, it has both pro's and cons for the clubs transfer history.
I would like to make an unfounded suggestion though! is it possible that if some of these myths, such as both alonso tranfer fees, were to be presented in euro they would atleast be considerably closer to reality? for example xabi + garcia + nunez was c18m euro? Just a thought which may explain the disparities in circulation. Correct me if i'm wrong.
and euro exchange rates have changed over time
ReplyDelete<span>Its widely reported that Gabriel Paletta went to Boca as part of the deal which saw Insua's loan deal made permanent.</span>
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case then the Paletta deal can't be considered simply a 1.5m loss.
No, Jon. That's not the case.
ReplyDeleteFigures reported in newspapers are just guesswork and supposition.
<span>1. According to Deloitte, under <span><span> </span>accounting requirements</span>, the cost of acquiring a player’s registration includes:
* The transfer fee payable
* Any probable <span>contingent</span> amounts (i.e. Fees that may become payable/receivable in the future depending on certain conditions being fulfilled)
* Other direct costs such as transfer fee levy and fees to agents.</span>
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_IE/ie/news/press-release/9af3c5275d0fb110VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm
The club's accounting policies adhere to these guidelines.
There is no correlation between what's reported in the media and what the club reports. The club has a legal duty to get it right; the media doesn't.
The only part of a transfer not included is signin-on fees, which are accounted for separately.
Account figures are gospel - no amount of twisting/muddying the waters is going to change that.
It doesn't matter what was 'widely reported' - that is not fact; it is media talk. According to the club's accounts, which are legal documents, a 1.5m loss was made on Palletta.
ReplyDeleteJK thank you for clearing that up. I have wasted many hours in the pub debating whether Luzi was free :-D . Now I know.
ReplyDeleteSeriously thought it is odd that the papers/media get so much wrong. Is it possible that the fees they print include everything; signing on fees, agent fees etc but the accounts only show teh actual transfer fees?
Good points. You're probably right about that - it would be typical media practice to use pounds instead of Euros, as it makes the fees seem bigger.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, people fail to spot that there are sveral myths included that actually look good for Benitez, i.e. the low costs of Alonso/Garcia; the low cost of Riera etc.
If this was an anti-Benitez article, I would surely only include stuff that reflects badly on him...?
ReplyDeleteI'd have to disagree on the Luzi point, just because he's been included with Diao doesn't mean we paid a fee for him. We could have acquired both players at a similar time which is why they're together in the report, it doesn't mean absolutely that we paid a fee for the player.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant by "final" was they don't give any information on what possible add-ons there are, perhaps, and I mean perhaps, they give the figure they may have been given by the Club? After all, all Clubs have a press relations officer including Liverpool.
It would be pointless for a newspaper to have a seperate story for additional fees for players a year after they've moved Clubs, so maybe they give the figure (ball park) they've been advised by the Club or an insider (We know they exist and talk to the press!)?
I don't neccessarily believe the figures quoted here are final, I believe there may be additional fees to be added on, we may have "aquired" a player for a certain fee but there is no way of proving completely that is the only money we will end up paying.
It's like Ronaldo, do we honestly believe Real Madrid paid £80m up front for the transfer? Highly doubtful.
I'd add, the evidence you've provided which refers to Aquilani & Krygiakos aquisitions advises that the "total" fees payable are £20.4m it doesn't state that those fees have already been paid. I'd add that Krygiakos fee was £1.5m, but you've already provided evidence to suggest that Aquilani's total fee will be in excess of £20m (a different article) so by the evidence you've provided Soto was a free? Again, highly doubtful given he was under contract at AEK.
I'd have to disagree on the Luzi point, just because he's been included with Diao doesn't mean we paid a fee for him. We could have acquired both players at a similar time which is why they're together in the report, it doesn't mean absolutely that we paid a fee for the player.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant by "final" was they don't give any information on what possible add-ons there are, perhaps, and I mean perhaps, they give the figure they may have been given by the Club? After all, all Clubs have a press relations officer including Liverpool.
It would be pointless for a newspaper to have a seperate story for additional fees for players a year after they've moved Clubs, so maybe they give the figure (ball park) they've been advised by the Club or an insider (We know they exist and talk to the press!)?
I don't neccessarily believe the figures quoted here are final, I believe there may be additional fees to be added on, we may have "aquired" a player for a certain fee but there is no way of proving completely that is the only money we will end up paying.
It's like Ronaldo, do we honestly believe Real Madrid paid £80m up front for the transfer? Highly doubtful.
I'd add, the evidence you've provided which refers to Aquilani & Krygiakos aquisitions advises that the "total" fees payable are £20.4m it doesn't state that those fees have already been paid. I'd add that Krygiakos fee was £1.5m, but you've already provided evidence to suggest that Aquilani's total fee will be in excess of £20m (a different article) so by the evidence you've provided Soto was a free? Again, highly doubtful given he was under contract at AEK.
I'd have to disagree on the Luzi point, just because he's been included with Diao doesn't mean we paid a fee for him. We could have acquired both players at a similar time which is why they're together in the report, it doesn't mean absolutely that we paid a fee for the player.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant by "final" was they don't give any information on what possible add-ons there are, perhaps, and I mean perhaps, they give the figure they may have been given by the Club? After all, all Clubs have a press relations officer including Liverpool.
It would be pointless for a newspaper to have a seperate story for additional fees for players a year after they've moved Clubs, so maybe they give the figure (ball park) they've been advised by the Club or an insider (We know they exist and talk to the press!)?
I don't neccessarily believe the figures quoted here are final, I believe there may be additional fees to be added on, we may have "aquired" a player for a certain fee but there is no way of proving completely that is the only money we will end up paying.
It's like Ronaldo, do we honestly believe Real Madrid paid £80m up front for the transfer? Highly doubtful.
I'd add, the evidence you've provided which refers to Aquilani & Krygiakos aquisitions advises that the "total" fees payable are £20.4m it doesn't state that those fees have already been paid. I'd add that Krygiakos fee was £1.5m, but you've already provided evidence to suggest that Aquilani's total fee will be in excess of £20m (a different article) so by the evidence you've provided Soto was a free? Again, highly doubtful given he was under contract at AEK.
Gary - I don't see how that can be. Let's look at it realistically:
ReplyDelete1. player contracts are confidential.
2. All details of a player's sale/purchase will be included in the contract.
3. For the media to see this information, they'd have to have to regular access to confidential information, which is probably further protected by confidentiality agreements.
Let's be serious here: the idea that journalists have regular access to player contracts is not very likely, is it?
If there was no problem release the figures, the club would just release them, wouldn't they?
The media estimates/guesses and just plain makes things up. They do this because the know nothing they say can be verified unless:
1. Someone from the club publicly refutes the figure (unlikely)
2. Someone checks the accounts a year later, and even then, only certain figures are released.
paulw, how come you blame Jaimie for "raking up the past" or at least tell him to stop it and in the next sentence rake up the past yourself by making comparisons to Shanks?
ReplyDeleteI may be wrong, but doesn't "<span>Any probable <span>contingent</span> amounts (i.e. Fees that may become payable/receivable in the future depending on certain conditions being fulfilled)" mean that maybe we actually have to pay for Aquilani the way Roma have posted it (installments)?
ReplyDelete</span>
Jamie,
ReplyDeleteI really have to echo <span>Paulw's</span> post. Your articles in the main have been portraying all at <span>lfc</span> in a negative light, add to this the overall divisive nature of your posts
I know that you have a job to do i appreciate this.
But really you have to ask yourself, is what your doing the best thing for the club you profess to love so much.
Surely with the events both on and off the pitch this past year, what we truly need is fan unity and not the sniping death by a thousand cuts approach of this website.
And yes you can say 'if you <span>dont</span> like it you can go somewhere else'. But if you say that you miss the point; you and commentators like you are influencing peoples views with a biased agenda causing disunity at precisely the time when OUR club needs the opposite.
<span>Dont</span> get me wrong i <span>dont</span> want everyone to adopt a 'Pollyanna' approach to <span>lfc</span> at the moment, but you average 1 article a day- with 90% potraying things in a negative light
Your site professes to critical realism, but is it critical realism?
Kromkamp wasn't exactly great business then, eh. Paying <span>£4.3m and recouping </span><span>£4.5m for him Kirkland (how much have we paid for him? 5m?), Mellor and Barragan combined. For half a season.
ReplyDelete</span>
an FA cup and a 3rd place finish in the league are costly, anteater! ;)
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments Anfield81, but I've noticed that you seem (to me) to focused on trying to confuse things and or/drawing unreasonable conclusions.
ReplyDelete1. The wording of the Diao/Luzi section is unambiguous.
The company HAS ACQUIRED the registrations of Diao and Luzi FOR 6.5m.
There is absolutely no other interpretation to this section other than Diao and Luzi cost a combined 6.5m. It DOES absolutely mean we paid a fee for the player. If not, please explain why not, with concrete examples/reasoning. The accounts do not state false/ambiguous information. If Luzi was free, he would not have ben included in that section. And there were other players acquired that year at a similar time, but they were not included in the same section. To persist with the notion that LFC did not pay for Luzi in light of the clear evidence is just stubbornness and/or some agenda at play.
2. As I explained in a comment below, the club's accounting policies (underlined by Deloitte) stipulate that all associated costs and contingent liabilities are included in the recorded fee. The figure in the accounts includes any add-ons.
3. Newspapers do not have access to confidential player contracts, so anything they print is based on guesswork. Of course, players may leak their details, but I see no hard evidence to support that.
4. Whether you believe the figures are final is irrelevant; the figures ARE final. General footballing accounting policy states this to be true, and the club follows this principle.
5. re Ronaldo: whether they paid 80m upfront is irrelevant. The accounts will record a fee of 80m for that year, and each year thereafter, the breakdown will be recorded. That doesn't change the fact that toe *total* fee is recorded in the year of sale (for accounting purposes.
6. Another example of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. You state:
The evidence you've provided which refers to Aquilani & Krygiakos aquisitions advises that the "total" fees payable are £20.4m
No. That is wrong. The section does not say 'total fees payable' - that suggest that the fees are to be paid at some point in the future. That is deliberate misdirection by you ;)
The section states:
Aquisitions...are...Aquilani and Kyrigakos FOR TOTAL TRANSFER FEES of 20.4m
There is a big difference. The section is emphatic: FOR total fees OF. it does NOT say Total fees PAYABLE. That is your attempt to spin the facts.
Aquilani has been paid for. End of story.
You use the total guaranteed fees here. This is not an accurate basis for comparison. If you can dig out the clauses, actuals and forecasted fee totals based on agreement then you may have more credibility. Keep trying.
ReplyDeleteYes, that would normally be the case. However, in such cases, there would be no statement in the report saying that we'd paid the total fee. There would be no need for it.
ReplyDeleteJim Bob - to be honest, I'm past caring what you or anyone else think about my approach. If you think I'm portraying LFC in a negative light, then good for you. The truth is, unless I adhere to your expectations of how LFC *should* be portrayed, then it will be deemed to be negative.
ReplyDeleteAny fair-minded person can tell the difference. Any reasonable and fair-mionded person can see my real agenda, which is clarifying inaccurate information and slowly invcreasing the level of true information about LFC in the public domain.
And the proof that you are not being fair is the fact that this article is balanced in its choices: there are several myths in the article that make the club - and Benitez - look great when it comes to transfers.
So why don't you stop making false generalisations and try and be fair and reasonable?
Agreed. Kromkamp was a shocking piece of business. I don't advise you to think about it in any great detail as it jus becomes worse the more you think about it!
ReplyDelete*sigh*
ReplyDeleteThis issue has already been discussed to death on another thread, and I proved that the wording makes no difference.
If you're so in denial that you can't accept fact, that's your problem. I've studied the accounts in detail for years; I've checked everything with accountants, including this particular issue; I've discussed the accounts with my sources at the club (which is why I am so emphatic when I make my points).
I don't just cut and paste something and that's it. My process is:
1. Compile the article etc
2. Ask an accountant questions to verify my points.
3. Discuss contentious issues with a source at the club.
4. Post the article.
What do you think I've been doing for the last 6 months while I was away? I've been compiling stats, accounts, evidence etc for an assault on LFC-related misinformation. In that time, I've been verifying countless pieces of info as much as I can. The result of that is the series of financial-related articles over the last week (and many more to come, much to your chagrin, I'm sure ;)
jim bob, you should try to become a criminal barrister. As soon as some evidence was shown you would claim that the court is only trying to portrait the defendant in a negative light. Would hit the headlines.
ReplyDeleteHow winning a FA Cup and finishing third with a club like Liverpool lowers the value of a player is beyond me, DRP.
ReplyDeleteJaimie, I think you're a little bit paranoid, this isn't the Cold War mate!
ReplyDeleteI'm just offering my opinion which is what this is all about I don't have "an agenda" I'm not a politician, I'm a Liverpool fan!
My point about the Aquilani/Krygiakos deal is that you've written an article previously which stated:
"On the 8th August 2009, Roma released <span><span> </span><span>official details of Aquilani's transfer fee</span></span>. The fee is broken down as follows:
Four cash installments:
* €5m upfront
* €3m by 4th January 2010
* €7m by June 30th 2010
* €5m by June 30th 2011."
Read more: <span>http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/11/alberto-aquilani-truth-about-his.html#ixzz0pEP2vDLo</span>
However according to the information you've used here, we've apparently paid the entire fee already?
I don't get it, either we (out of the kindness of our heart) have scrapped the deal as classified in the sale document which seems highly unlikely (why would we pay more than we had to early given our situation?) or the figure quoted in the section you've provided doesn't include the defintive total.
Your article about Aquilani said the "potential cost of transfer = £22.45m" including the additional possible fees, if that is correct then you're wrong here or vice versa?
As I said, both can't be true, you've said the figure you've provided is the total fee payable including any possible add-ons and can't be argued with, but the document from Roma (when you analysed it) said we could end up paying in excess of £22m?
It doesn't add up.
A couple of points Jaimie
ReplyDeleteWe know that the media always quote the full price including any add ons.
Your evidence states that the GUARANTEED fees for Alonso,Dossena and Voronin were 29.7. By using the term Guaranteed fees this implies that other payments may also be forthcoming. It isn't inconceivable that a further 5 or 6 million could be still to come on the Alonso sale dependent on Madrid winning the league and or champions league taking the full sales value to around the 30m mark.
Also, regarding the Aquilani purchase I would have to disagree with your assertion that "the accounts clearly show that arrangement changed".
A directors report does not state the amount of cash paid to purchase an asset, just the total fee payable.
As an example, if the agreed fee for a player is 20 million pounds of which 10 is to be paid immediately and 10 later then the amount shown as an asset on the balance sheet (and in the directors report) would be 20 million and then there would be a reduction in cash of 10 million and an increase in debtors of 10 million.
Jaimie it is quite obvious that you have put much time and effort into youre articles, but are we not know at the stage where we can all agree that the only way the club can move forward is for h and g to go.We are not going to truely compete under the current circumstances. What do you think is a realalistic valueation of the club and is hicks in particular putting new investors off by wanting up to 800 million for lfc
ReplyDeleteQuick question - if the figures in the accounts are final, how do they legislate for clauses that have been agreed upon that haven't been triggered yet eg: additional fees based on appearances, performance-related bonuses, sell-on fees etc?
ReplyDeleteIn Aqualani's case, for example, where we know we're paying it in portions over time, would the accounts reflect the full amount or simply the first installment?
To be fair to Anfield81, "acquired the registration of" does not necessarily just refer to the transfer fee, but could refer to any signing on fees as well, which are typically not mentioned in the press. The transfer is still referred to as a free transfer but we could have paid a (stupidly high) signing on fee to Luzi.
ReplyDeleteDo the accounts show any fees paid for "percentage of next sale" agreements with clubs or the cuts of transfer fees to players who havent handed in a transfer request by the way? I'm curious, but not enough to look myself.
http://www.sportingo.com/authors/jaimie-kanwar/articleSortingType/5
ReplyDeleteIf you click on the above link you hopefully will be brought to a set of articles that Jamie Kanwar has oublished on the Sportingo site. 95% of the articles are no just nti Benitez but anti Liverpool, anti Gerrard, anti all Liverpool players. I dont mind one or two articles showing some of Liverpools shortcomings but the bile that was present in these articles was sickening. Jamie Kanwar you may be a football fan but it is painfully obvious you are not a Liverpool fan.
No. Signing-on fees are not included in the transfer fee figure. They are accounted for entirely separately. Why do people insist on trying toi find exceptions/excuses where there are none? It is stated quite clearly in the accounts that signing-on fees are accounted for diferently. See the image attached as proof.
ReplyDeleteThe club is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. If that's 800m, then club is worth 800m. If it's 500m, the club is worth 500m.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think investors are being 'put off' buying? Where is your evidence for that? That is media doom and gloom as usual. it doesn't take 5 minutes to sell a football club; just because it doesn't happen quickly doesn't mean people are being put-off. Look how long it tooks Moores to find a buyer.
Agreed, keep up your good work, your context in these turbulent times is essential.
ReplyDeleteI happen to be a supporter of Benitez, but i can appreciate the work your your doing, people really judge your work based on this assumption that all your work is aimed at tarnishing the man. I find your posts good in challenging my opinion in this respect, and often reassuring me also! Just because one supports him doesn't mean they have to tear shreds out of those who don't! It's a game of opinions, I just wish people were more subjective in theirs.
Looking forward to your next article.
Jaimie, when you get a moment can you provide a response to the query I've raised in my above comment?
ReplyDeleteThanks.
no, it is a much bigger loss, as we ended up with Insua, who more to blame for the poor season than anyone else (IMO)
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the accounts show what the club borrowed from H + G initially to pay for these players, and not how this was subsequently paid to the selling club for the players?
ReplyDeleteYes, I will.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the term "total guaranteed" mean?
ReplyDeleteIs it total guaranteed fees if no performance related payments are triggered and PRP's aren't guaranteed by their very nature and guaranteed suggest a minimum amount otherwise why would it say guaranteed? Surely it would just say something regarding the acquirement of the players registration for a fee of X like it does in Dirk Kuyts case?
So whilst we have sold Robbie Keane and Steve Finnan for a guaranteed total fee of £12.8 doesn't that imply that there are add on's based on PRP and therefore the total sale price is still unclear? It could be higher.
I may be wrong (However, that only happened once before. And that was when I thought I was wrong but I was actually right!!!! <img></img>) but didn't Robbie Keane's purchase total £20m including PRP's or was that a guaranteed cost?
In the same way that Alonso's is and many others either coming in or going out of the club.
What this does it muddy the waters and makes it impossible to find out exactly how much a player costs in transfer fees and PRP's during the course of his contract.
Jaimie as you have all the accounts for the various clubs would you be good enough to compile. Total wages for each club into a similar format as your are for transfers?
Cheers
Ps where's Max gone? has he been sent to his room?
ReplyDeleteWhere's the bit that details Keane's purchase?
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling that this is being left out intentionally! ;)
ReplyDeletemark - I have responded to this point in 'truth about Alonso's fee' article. if further fees are payable, it will be specifically stated in the accounts. If there are no notes about further fees, then that is final. People continually try and complicate things for some reason.
ReplyDeleteThe wages comparison is on my to-do list, and will be posted in the next couple of days.
Yes - all loans to the club are specifically stated in the accounts. I've attached on example. I will do an article charting all money coming from h+G to the club and how it was spent soon.
ReplyDeleteNot at all - Keane's original fee is not specified individually, only as a group combined total. See image attached:
ReplyDeleteI sincerely doubt that the Aquilani deal was all upfront. With his injury record and the willingness of Roma to sell I can't see what last minute miracle would make Roma suddenly decide to demand the full payment. Fees payable is probably a big clue. Also Jaimie is it possible to get the figures for Glen Johnson's rumoured £8M deal? I asked before but you must have missed it. I hear that monies owed on the Crouch deal was used as leverage but it's never been cleared up.
ReplyDeleteNot at all - Keane's original fee is not specified individually, only as a group combined total. See image attached:
ReplyDeleteDesy - it does say 'fees payable' in the snippet. It says 'for total transfer fees of'.
ReplyDeleteI've looked into the Glen Johnson situation but as a result of portsmouth's financial strife, their report is an administrators report rather than straight club accounts. It's a huge, unwieldy document, and the approach is different. I'm working my through it, and when I have an answer, I will post it. Same goes for Crouch.
<span><span>
ReplyDeletewhat a Freudian slip littered megalomaniac rant!
why dont u follow up with im not playing any more and ill take my ball home!
It looks like u dont like it when your views are interpreted for what they are 'slanted'
please!!!!! if YOU dont like it why have a public forum for goodness sake!
</span></span>
err
ReplyDeleteyou riddicule people on a regular basis - and this is predominatley due to the fact they question your attitude!
pots calling kettles balck anyone!?
Mark
ReplyDeleteI actually have some work to do, but you know what?
Got a call from your Mom and she told me that Rafa is waiting in your room. Hurry on now before you miss out on a good time...
Before you go to your room though, your Gran has left her teeth on the kitchen counter for you to clean...
Catch up with all of you on Monday again!!!
Jamie, why do "they" always turn to insulting people?
Jaimie you need to get this notion that I'm on some personal quest to prove you wrong out of your head, I'm not!
ReplyDeleteYou yourself are a firm believer in polarised debate which is what this is, you believe one thing and I believe another.
You believe that Liverpool FC have thrown caution to the wind and paid £12m (Euros) to Roma before its due, based on the fact that they would end up paying it anyway, in what world of finance would that be a logical step?
What you're saying is from August 2009 (Purchase date), at some point LFC decided to pay the whole sum due for Aquilani before December of the same year for a player who'd been injured for the majority of that time, instead of sticking to the installment plan?
I believe that the figure quoted (£20.4m) is the EVENTUAL total GUARANTEED fees to be paid for Aquilani & Krygiakos, £1.5m (approx) for Krygiakos and £18.9m (approx) for Aquilani, which considering the document from Roma sounds far more feasible to me.
Jaimie you need to get this notion that I'm on some personal quest to prove you wrong out of your head, I'm not!
ReplyDeleteYou yourself are a firm believer in polarised debate which is what this is, you believe one thing and I believe another.
You believe that Liverpool FC have thrown caution to the wind and paid £12m (Euros) to Roma before its due, based on the fact that they would end up paying it anyway, in what world of finance would that be a logical step?
What you're saying is from August 2009 (Purchase date), at some point LFC decided to pay the whole sum due for Aquilani before December of the same year for a player who'd been injured for the majority of that time, instead of sticking to the installment plan?
I believe that the figure quoted (£20.4m) is the EVENTUAL total GUARANTEED fees to be paid for Aquilani & Krygiakos, £1.5m (approx) for Krygiakos and £18.9m (approx) for Aquilani, which considering the document from Roma sounds far more feasible to me.
Jaimie you need to get this notion that I'm on some personal quest to prove you wrong out of your head, I'm not!
ReplyDeleteYou yourself are a firm believer in polarised debate which is what this is, you believe one thing and I believe another.
You believe that Liverpool FC have thrown caution to the wind and paid £12m (Euros) to Roma before its due, based on the fact that they would end up paying it anyway, in what world of finance would that be a logical step?
What you're saying is from August 2009 (Purchase date), at some point LFC decided to pay the whole sum due for Aquilani before December of the same year for a player who'd been injured for the majority of that time, instead of sticking to the installment plan?
I believe that the figure quoted (£20.4m) is the EVENTUAL total GUARANTEED fees to be paid for Aquilani & Krygiakos, £1.5m (approx) for Krygiakos and £18.9m (approx) for Aquilani, which considering the document from Roma sounds far more feasible to me.
Well, kuik, allow me to give a brief answer to your post. I too find it kind of disturbing that people ask exactly the same questions over and over again, even if they have been answered before. Example here is "who is to say these snipets you print are actual lfc accounts". I've got nothing to do with this site, only read it and post some comments, but even I go *sigh* when reading such stuff and wonder whether the poster who asked that question has actually read the article or comes here only to slag Jaimie off.
ReplyDeleteSame goes for the constant claim that Jaimie tries to "slag the club and manager off in a clever and underhand way", though one has to say that the club claim is kind of new here. Usually people question whether Jaimie is a Liverpool supporter, which the poster you refer to does as well, of course. This guy puts so much time into writing articles about our club and to put things right by finding truth that I find it at least silly to claim that he's a manc.
My impression is that if people argue in a well mannered way and don't play dumb, they get good responses even if they have different opinions than Jaimie.
Well, kuik, allow me to give a brief answer to your post. I too find it kind of disturbing that people ask exactly the same questions over and over again, even if they have been answered before. Example here is "who is to say these snipets you print are actual lfc accounts". I've got nothing to do with this site, only read it and post some comments, but even I go *sigh* when reading such stuff and wonder whether the poster who asked that question has actually read the article or comes here only to slag Jaimie off.
ReplyDeleteSame goes for the constant claim that Jaimie tries to "slag the club and manager off in a clever and underhand way", though one has to say that the club claim is kind of new here. Usually people question whether Jaimie is a Liverpool supporter, which the poster you refer to does as well, of course. This guy puts so much time into writing articles about our club and to put things right by finding truth that I find it at least silly to claim that he's a manc.
My impression is that if people argue in a well mannered way and don't play dumb, they get good responses even if they have different opinions than Jaimie.
Well, kuik, allow me to give a brief answer to your post. I too find it kind of disturbing that people ask exactly the same questions over and over again, even if they have been answered before. Example here is "who is to say these snipets you print are actual lfc accounts". I've got nothing to do with this site, only read it and post some comments, but even I go *sigh* when reading such stuff and wonder whether the poster who asked that question has actually read the article or comes here only to slag Jaimie off.
ReplyDeleteSame goes for the constant claim that Jaimie tries to "slag the club and manager off in a clever and underhand way", though one has to say that the club claim is kind of new here. Usually people question whether Jaimie is a Liverpool supporter, which the poster you refer to does as well, of course. This guy puts so much time into writing articles about our club and to put things right by finding truth that I find it at least silly to claim that he's a manc.
My impression is that if people argue in a well mannered way and don't play dumb, they get good responses even if they have different opinions than Jaimie.
Ha ha ha.
ReplyDeleteWe have a biter!!
On 28 May 2010, at 16:52, "Echo"
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the Aquilani issue. We'll know for sure when next year's accounts are published. 8-)
ReplyDeleteMaybe they only get that treatment at home. Like father, like son.
ReplyDeleteinteresting. where did you get these from?
ReplyDeleteFair enough mate, I've enjoyed your most recent articles to be frank. I'm glad you've put aside your feelings for Benitez for the time being, it makes for a far more nuetral ground for a good debate!
ReplyDelete<p>A quick note...when talking about transfer fee's, UK tabloids/websites often quote figures that have been handed down by third parties..e.g.
ReplyDelete<span>Someone mentions 30 million for a player and UK tabloids/websites claim a player has been/is to be sold for 30m GB POUNDS - when the original figure was actually 30m EUROS..this always throws the value of players... this is where the value of Torres/Alonso etc has always differed depending on what report you read..</span></p>
why do you show the figure only from the post balance sheet event. Since all the transaction had been completed, can you show the actual figure in the actual financial statement ?
ReplyDeleteJamie, I cant see anything from the statement regarding Aquilani "total transfer fees of 20.4m" which states that this has been paid in full. Surely seeing as "<span>Any probable <span>contingent</span> amounts (i.e. Fees that may become payable/receivable in the future depending on certain conditions being fulfilled)", then Aquilanis fee is most likely being paid in installmentts?</span>
ReplyDeleteSome items are on post balance sheet events because they took place after the accounting period deadline of 31 July. Thus, they will not be on the balance sheet. This is standard practice, and doesn't make any difference to the validity of the figures.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Myth 5, it looks more like Paletta cost £2.5 million; if he was then sold for £500K, the impairment loss in the accounts of LFC would be the difference, i.e. £2 million.
ReplyDelete<span>August 18, 2006
ReplyDeleteSigns Dirk Kuyt from Feyenoord for £9m.</span>
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/rafael-benitez-timeline
It's official. What's your opinion?
The LFC accounts say different, as the snippet in the article shows.
ReplyDeleteI hope that Liverpool bring in some big names in January, have heard of loads of links and a potential return for Aquilani.
ReplyDeleteP
Trampolines
I firmly believe that Suarez and Carrol and take us straight back into the campaions league next season...
ReplyDeleteAbove Ground Pools
I firmly believe that Suarez and Carrol and take us straight back into the campaions league next season...
ReplyDeleteAbove Ground Pools