4 Dec 2012

FSG seal stunning £24m player deal: Good news for LFC's Jan transfer hopes...?

On Monday, the Boston Red Sox - owned by Liverpool FC principal owner John Henry - signed a staggering $39m(£24m), 3-year deal with free-agent first baseman Mike Napoli. Clearly, FSG have money to spend when they want to, and after scrimping and saving on transfers over the last year, this will hopefully bode well for the Reds.

LFC's absentee owner John Henry personally attended the meeting and took part in negotiations alongside Red Sox manager John Farrell and general manager Ben Cherington.

FSG is the parent company of both LFC and the Red Sox (and the company owns both Fenway Park and Anfield), and if Henry can afford to spend $39m on one player for the Red Sox, he sure as hell better put his hand in his pocket and find the cash to fund at least one top-class striker for Liverpool during the January transfer window.

The deal for Napoli may not include a transfer fee, but $39m one one player for a three year deal is a huge outlay, and shows that FSG do have money to spend.

Additionally, NESN - also owned by FSG - reported today that the Red Sox are also interested in Kyle Lohse and Anibal Sanchez, both of whom could end up costing the group a further $90m (£58m) (!)

In an open letter to Liverpool fans after the Clint Dempsey debacle, Henry laid out his approach to LFC transfer spending:

"The transfer policy was not about cutting costs. It was – and will be in the future – about getting maximum value for what is spent so that we can build quality and depth.

"Spending is not merely about buying talent. Our ambitions do not lie in cementing a mid-table place with expensive, short-term quick fixes that will only contribute for a couple of years.

"We will build and grow from within, buy prudently and cleverly and never again waste resources on inflated transfer fees and unrealistic wages. We have no fear of spending and competing with the very best but we will not overpay for players."


It could be argued that paying someone $39m for a three year deal is 'overpaying', but if Napoli helps the Red Sox win the World Series then it will be money well spent.

Henry claims FSG have 'no fear of spending'; the Napoli deal proves that, but whether he comes good on that implied promise to LFC remains to be seen.

It's a crucial time for Liverpool, and if the Reds start February 2013 without a new, top quality striker onboard, FSG are sure to feel the wrath of the club's fans.

Jaimie Kanwar


112 comments:

  1. We can only hope. We are trying to remain positive and give them the benefit of the doubt. But deep down I fear that there won't be too many strikers available for the "right price".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unless they are putting more money into Red Sox than Liverpool. I do think they will fork out at least 20 mil for a quality striker.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Didn't you know they only bought our club to fund another. FSG have no interests in Liverpools affairs other than making money. I will be highly suprised if we bought anyone this january. We need owners with a passion to help our club succeed. Otherwise we will be consistently be buying average Swansea players or loaning players from other clubs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You really can't compare the two sports in terms of money spent. Spending per player in MLB is far higher than in European football. The Red Sox also have a ton of money to spend, because the dumped 3 huge contracts last year and finished in last place. One sport really has nothing to do with the other. Plus, it's more than just being willing to spend. Will top players want to come to LFC without Champions League football, even if we're willing to pay? The Red Sox don't have to worry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Or else what?

    Unless Anfield hosts games in an empty stadium, the fans have no influence whatsoever, at any club - Chelsea have recently proved it and Liverpool is no different.
    What they do at the Red Sox is completely unrelated to what happens at Liverpool... if anything, their fans have probably been pretty pissed off about the couple of hundred million spent here in the last two years, while they've been plummeting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perry you obviously know nothing about LFC. We have always been able to attract top quality players!!! But we have have never had owners who are passionate enough to invest in those players.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do you actually have anything to back that up? Any proof? Something?

    How would they make money from Liverpool? Selling it on for a profit. What would be required to sell the club for a profit? A solid base and a successful team. Will this be achieved by taking money out of the club? No.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wouldn't hold your breath! FSG are more baseball than football orientated.

    ReplyDelete
  9. FSG have been doing the same thing at the Red Sox in the past year as at Liverpool. They have slashed the wage bill and are starting over. Oh and by the $39 mil over 3 years is not a massive deal in baseball. Some of the guys they got rid off wher on $20 million a year. The headline is thus completely misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I cant see FSG spending big on transfers until we're back in the champions league.

    The only reason to spend big would be if Suarez was sold.
    I could certainly see that money being reinvested in big dollar signings.
    Us keeping tabs on Llorente or Damio make sense in that instance.

    However, far more likely is Ince and Sturridge... unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  11. These to Americans are as bad as the last cowboys we had its just they speak intelligent business but don't know how to put it into place

    ReplyDelete
  12. So who exactly should take over from FSG? Rather have them than Abramovich and his plaything who can leave tomorrow and leave Chelsea in the hole.

    Look at UTD, they might be one of the richest clubs in the world but their debt is out of control but luckily for them they make more money than what they spend. That is the only thing that is keeping UTD alive. No CL and no trophies will see UTD drown.

    FSG might seem stingy but clearly you cannot see that you have to make money in order to spend it i.e. Liverpool FC needs to be self sustainable. That is the plan by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Really? I know nothing about LFC? I'm an LFC fan, not a Red Sox fan. But the fact is, the modern football player wants Champions League football and the money that goes with it. And Liverpool, right now, can't offer either. So we need to look for bargains, guys from smaller leagues, like Suarez. Because we can't get the Hazard's of the world right now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Personally, I think FSG can compete with teams such as Chelsea or Man United when it comes to spending power, but they will only pay out when they think it's worth it, which they've a right to since Dalglish's big spending flop. Also, given the overpriced values of some of the worlds younger footballing talents (e.g. 20m for Zaha???), this could be a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Prior to signing Napoli for $39 million (which contrary to what you seem to think is not 'staggering' in MLB) they got rid of three players worth $260 million in total. The Red Sox as a ball club (independent from FSG) are sitting on huge piles of cash and everyone knows they're never afraid to spend. If you find this shocking wait until they sign a Josh Hamilton or a Zack Greinke (think $20 million per year or more).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Red Sox's play 82 HOME games a season they have had a so called sell out for 783 games in a row from 2003 (37819 seats) the money rolling into Baseball team must dwarf our ticket sales. Remember the owners want us self sufficient and only spending money we can afford.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was reading about baseball and they play for 5 days in a row to a full stadium 164 games a season home and away. You can't compare football to baseball the whole set up is completely different.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Surely they are waiting for FFP Jamie. Things will look a lot different in the coming years with clubs having to spend within their means. Thankfully we have a massive fanbase world-wide and we will be able to weather the storm. They have done all the right things commercially and if we can up capacity at Anfield by 15,000 ish we won't have anything to worry about. We may not be challenging but for the first time in god knows how many years we finally have a direction and an ethos at the club.

    Just look at the youth players coming through now that would never have happened previously (Thanks to Rafa, Rodolfo etc for that one). I see us getting to the stage where we will be buying just quality players instead of the average squad players under the Benitez era. But I do feel that we need to get another potent goal threat and my personal choice would be Cavani or dare I say it, Walcott. Hell let's get both.

    ReplyDelete
  19. bought our club to fund another?!? really? Please explain, dying to hear that reasoning!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Are you saying hazard is a better player than suarez. doubt it very much suarez is twice the player hazard is

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm saying that, at the time purchase, Hazard was worth more in the marketplace than Suarez was. Suarez is a better player. But when he was purchased, people had questions about whether he could play in England, mostly because of previous Dutch league players who had failed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I hope he never pays 15 mill for Chelsea Rentboy Sturidge.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I agree with Perry - LFC can't even get half decent players like Dempsey or Sigi to join without paying over market price, let alone star talent. With 3 (soon to be 4) seasons with no CL football and the likes of Man City and Chelsea paying ridiculous wages, bringing in the Torres' and Alonsos are a thing of the past.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cmon really? At least these yanks have a realistic value of what the club was worth, not 800M quid!

    ReplyDelete
  25. The whole "Best of British" experiment has been a failure. Sign players based on there qualities and merits, not on the front cover of there passports and we might actually get somewhere

    ReplyDelete
  26. So was the French and Spanish experiments when it came to winning the league!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jaimie i don't know if you came across this article but the CEO of Redsox Larry Lucchino says Henry and Werner’s biggest concern is the baseball team.

    Heres the article:

    http://lfcboston.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/red-sox-ceo-lucchino-says-henry-and-werners-biggest-concern-is-baseball-success/

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lets get things right here fsg are a franshise , And if you look at any franshise that the yanks are involved in , its about profits . If they get 40 million for suarez its a good profit of 18 million and then they buy another for 12 million at the age of 20 and sell him its more profit. Andy carrol was only a front to the fsg to keep the fans happy , as they still made profit on torres, Also they cut there bill on wages by selling kuyt,bellamy etc and maxi. Yes they want also to have champions league football which will come ,As they have the right manager in Brendan. And regarding Sterling i would sell him for a profit , and the same time get rid of the folowing Downing henderson .cole ,reina more profit !!. I have supported Liverpool since i was a kid and have been to every European cup final that they have been in , And seen all the players who have been on pittance compared to players now a days , And you cant blame the players for what they are on weekly now , but you can blame the clubs and agents and Directors . So you can see where FSG are coming from to cut the wage bill and make profit , Just like David Moores done when the Arxxsole!! sold liverpool to the first Yanks.When he had other options to sell for less profit to himself . So all the blame you are all going on About Started with your David moores!!! YWNWAL

    ReplyDelete
  29. if only it was sold to Al Maktoum years ago (the father in law of citys ower).. y dont we make a petition and see how he reacts to it? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Matias Suarez and Wilfried Bony must be scouted by Liverpool, both are good strikers. These are the types we need to help Luis, they would not cost too much money.

    ReplyDelete
  31. When people go on about they are just in it for the profit. It is not necessarily a bad thing yes they aren't genuine fans of the club like us, but in order for them to make money they need to make Liverpool a great team again, so they will want Liverpool to succeed and to do this they will know they need to buy players so although they may not be "real" fans of the club they need the team to succeed just as much as we do

    ReplyDelete
  32. 39 million dollars is about 24 million pound which makes 8 million pounds in wages. Considering that a quality football players costs around 80k in wages per week, that makes a rough 4 million a year not including company taxes etc. Anyhow, a 24 million pound deal for a quality player leaves about half of that for the actual fee which leaves you to wonder how many top quality players are going for 12 million pound transfer fees.

    I, for one, can only applaud Henry's stance on this. We will never again pay overinflated fees like we did on Downing, Henderson and Carrol. The only lub that has been consistently successful over the past two decades is Man United and they have combined paying huge fees for extraordinary players with smart buys like Ronaldo and Cantona. Sure, they've had their share of transfers that didn't work out but they've always made sure that their transfers and superstars did not upset the balance in their squad. That's why Giggs and Scholes are still there and the likes of Beckham, Stam and Van Nisterlrooy are not.

    We don't need a 35 million pound striker to solve our problems. Would I like Falcao at the club? Sure! Do I think he is the only player on the planet that can fix our issues in front of goal? Nope. We need to find the balance in our squad. There are quite a few good players around that would complement our squad and just because FSG are smart about the money they spend doesn't make them bad owners. I'd take smart businessmen over oil barons who want a toy any day.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Just hope we dont get Sturridge from the rentboys, lets hope weve really done our homework on any prospective signings, personally i rate sean long, love his work rate & he,s no mean striker, ive seen so much dross wear the sacred red jersey in the last 20 years its drpressing

    ReplyDelete
  34. Spot on bud there are plenty of good strikers around for reasonable fees, the value is in continental europe not here. FSG are too clever to keep blowing cash on dross, something good is coming I'm sure of it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. i personally don't want fsg to try and compete with chelsea, utd or city. success can be achieved with out spending silly money. look at the likes of dortmund, they don't have superstars, they play as a strong commited team. there are many others. now, i know what the come back on this will be. i will be told that they haven't done anything in europe etc,etc....my answer would be, give it time, and that is exactly what we need to give brendan. i don't believe we need expensive signings, we need the right signings. after all, look where big money buys have got us. it's basics, good players who do their jobs right.

    ReplyDelete
  36. What will all that money matter when financial fair play kicks in? City can't sell their stadiums naming rights again to try and cover up their massive losses...

    Unfortunately City are going to have to balance their books sooner or later. Ridiculous wages, splashing the cash etc cannot go on forever and when the Sheikh can no longer have fun with his bottomless amounts of money then he is going to get bored and will leave City overnight and go find another toy to play with.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Great post and I agree totally.

    ReplyDelete
  38. forget sturridge he wont be wearing the red jersey!! get a player who will run and score shane long is one to watch , great engine to compliment suarz

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sorry, but as an American baseball fan you need to check your optimism because $39M is chickenfeed in terms of MLB free agent contracts. The New York Mets - who are broke compared to the Red Sox - just gave David Wright an 8-year $140M contract. Temper any conclusions you have of this being a "stunning" deal. Also, Kyle Lohse and Anibal Sanchez wouldn't cost $20M, much less $90M. Stick to futbol my friend, which you are excellent at.

    ReplyDelete
  40. FSG have never taken a dividend from the Red Sox ever, that is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  41. With respect, you are missing the point. $39m may be chickenfeed for baseball, but that's not the issue. The point is FSG clearly have money to invest, and $39m in football terms is pretty big.
    If they can spend that on wages for one player, then they can cough up half that figure for LFC to buy a striker.

    ReplyDelete
  42. RED SOX FINANCIAL REPORT 2012
    CURRENT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
    Attendance 1,741,641
    Attendance per Game 37,056

    Gate Revenue $60,876,335
    Playoff Revenue $0
    Media Revenue $90,000,000
    Merchandising Revenue $9,375,820
    Revenue Sharing $-5,547,663
    CASH $0

    Player Expenses $103,293,179
    Staff Expenses $0

    BALANCE $41,563,976

    Team Focus Neutral
    Staff Payroll $0
    Player Payroll $145,720,000
    Current Budget $186,000,000
    Projected Balance $11,542,438

    Average Player Salary $3,035,833
    League Average Salary $2,519,367
    Highest Paid Players:
    1) Adrian Gonzalez $21,000,000
    2) Troy Tulowitzki $20,000,000
    3) Kevin Youkilis $15,000,000
    4) Jon Lester $14,980,000
    5) Dustin Pedroia $14,220,000

    From the looks of those figures they are only spending what they earn.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I dont know why you bother explaining yourself to numpteys. Spot on by the way. Lets hope there is another gem like saurez to be had in jan. Dont think JK will agree tho.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Wow that is just disgusting. 39M...just wow.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Exactly!!

    Firstly FSG are running the club within its means and within the rules.

    Secondly LFC and Bostons finances arent even slightly connected so wind your necks in

    Thirdly If all you want are £20m mercenary players let get lost down the road and watch Citys passionless team!!

    You call yourselves fans!!! Jeez

    FACT: we are 2 wrongly disallowed goals away from sitting nicely in 6th just 3 points off a CL place.

    ReplyDelete
  46. With respect I think your missing the point Jaime.

    whether Boston spend $39m or whatever its within their means which is how FSG are running Liverpool. Debt free within the clubs means and rules!!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Shane Long PMSL please god help us!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Headline grabbin again?

    ReplyDelete
  49. No, I am not missing the point. LFC and RS may be two separate organisations, but they are financially managed by FSG. Profits from LFC and RS go to FSG. They should share the wealth a bit, and funnel some cash into LFC.

    It is in their best interests to do so. If FSG want to make any real money out of LFC then the club needs to be in the Champions League. If they don't spend in January, they can kiss that goodbye for another year.

    ReplyDelete
  50. LFC and RS's finances ARE linked via the parent company, FSG. All profits from both teams go to FSG, thus they are linked.

    The two teams are not directly linked, and at no point did I argue that. They are connected via FSG, who should, IMO, funnel some cash into LFC.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Why pmsl over shane long? The guy is a fighter, has good skill & i,d take him over sturridge, bent & some of the other cack ive seen us linked with any day of the week!

    ReplyDelete
  52. There are rumours saying that lfc have agreed and unofficial deal with the rentboys for sturridge. :( WHAT A WASTE

    ReplyDelete
  53. One word, MICHU! Nuff said

    ReplyDelete
  54. They are connected your right, although they have said they run them on seperate books. Most Red Sox fans are worried there being used to fund us lol, so it seems both sides worry over the same thing (this was to one of the people above you Jameister).

    The other point worth mentioning for those thinking we are being used to fund them is we haven`t yet turned a profit. So how would we be funding them?

    Personally I would rather in Jan they spent 24mil on the best player we could get upfront, or on the wings than get three or four also rans. The core is here, just need top top notch additions now. One now. One more in the summer etc

    ReplyDelete
  55. thats just not true, over the last 20 years we have spent more than man utd. FSG spent 100mil last season.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This is such a ridiculous story & some of the comments are just as idiotic, it's like comparing chalk and cheese!
    Firstly he didn't 'put his hand in his pocket,' they are running each organisation as a self sustaining entity.
    Secondly there was no fee, so on your exchange rate (£24m for 3yrs) the guy's receiving about £150k per week for 3yrs (Loads of top Prem players getting paid this much or more). If you include a reasonable transfer fee of £15m for a top striker this would leave a wage of about £58k per week for 3yrs (not incl sign on fee, agent fee, bonuses etc) which isn't much in todays market.
    Thirdly the Red Sox play at least 81 HOME games a season and with an average attendance of over 37,000 and an average ticket price of $150 (approx £92). Compared to our MAX of about 30 home games & a MAX ticket price of £50 with a MAX attendance of 45,500 leaves a difference of over £207m per annum in Red Sox favour per season on gate receipts. Obviously loads of other factors come in to play like tv money, sponsorships etc but again it's chalk & cheese.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You no what, the fact is that Man U have done so well because the heart and sole of the team were all brought through the you system. Look at the team they had for all those years with Giggs, Bekham, Scholes, Gunner, Keane etc etc. They built the team around players they knew in and out from a VEREY young age. Thats what we have happening now at LFC. Me MUST hold onto the youngsters and top players we have now and add quality to them. We WILL rise again if we keep going in this direction, and we get funding for the right players at the right price.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Think you hit the nail squarely on the head there

    ReplyDelete
  59. He's 100% better then Sturridge (who we will most likely get) and on a lot less in wages and has a good attitude about him.

    Saying that I'd prefer an established striker who can hit the ground running right now and also Long or someone with potential as back up also

    ReplyDelete
  60. You hit the nail on the head. I was going to say the same thing, but I think that you said it better.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Just did some research on baseball wages and they are crazy!

    ReplyDelete
  62. I think the point here is that neither Keane or Solksjaer were superstars before they came to Man U either. I doubt many of their supporters were overly excited by their initial signings. The Man U golden age generation was complemented very well by shrewd buys. Irwin, Schmeichel and Sheringham all cost very little money and a bigger outlay on Stam, Yorke and Cole but in no way did they spend the fortune that the likes of Real, Milan, Barca and later Chelsea and Citeh did to be not even as successful. I don't like Ferguson too much mate but I am in awe of what he's done at that club.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I can't find the part in Kingkenny73's message where he accuses you of pointing out that the teams are connected. Hence I don't understand your 'counter-argument'.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thanks. You are a native speaker? You surely would have been able to say it better than me :-)

    ReplyDelete
  65. Um, I would like to contest that. Don't want to defend H&G or any other owner, but how come the following players, to name a few, every played at Liverpool if "we have never had owners [...] to invest in those players": Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano, Fernando Torres, John Barnes, Peter Beardsley, José Manuel Reina, Luis Suarez. Never invested in any good player, eh.

    ReplyDelete
  66. So FSG have saddled us with debt? Ah, no, they didn't. I am not pro-US in any walk of life, but your hatred towards them leaves you blinkered.

    ReplyDelete
  67. roy keane came for a massive fee

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thanks for some insight into your club. Most of us probably don't know too much about Red Sox or your sport in general, and that includes me.

    Now, as some of those who know nothing about Red Sox claim that you guys don't like FSG/Henry, would you please give us (me) some information about that. From what I've found on the net you are quite happy with you owners, aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I think we should wait until January before we judge. We will either be very pleasantly surprised or very disappointed. Either way, it will show FSG's intentions and the way forward for LFC. I have personally seen interviews with Werner where he has said that we CAN compete financially with the very best. That reaffirms what JWH said in the letter to fans and that gives me hope.

    ReplyDelete
  70. So you want our club to be turned into the play-thing of some bored, oil-rich Arab (or Russian). I'll tell you something. I'd rather see us win the league in ten years achieved because of living within our means, good scouting, constant growths, bringing through youngsters than winning it in three years by investing half a billion which we couldn't afford on our own.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Only spending what they earn? Now, that's a good thing, isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Personally I don't think that MCFC's scouting team would have left City where they could scout & acquire any player in the world, to come to LFC, if LFC were skint and they could only scout very young, cheap players with "potential" or Championship players. I'm sure they must have been given some reassurances to make the move.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Mr Henry said we don't want to be a mid table club, well what are we now and not just now for the last three yrs.I am afraid things didn't change much and likely to remain same come Jan,FSG will not be spending on any quality player and why are we going for Sturridge?? only becasue of his age? he is a decent player at the best not top quality, am not being pessimistic just being realistic .

    ReplyDelete
  74. Three million they signed him for. It was a record at the time but none the less a pittance. There is actually a story going around Cork that the day Keane was transferred his dad walked into his local, pulled out his "member" and said to his friends: "C'mere, find out what three million quid feels like"

    ReplyDelete
  75. Always?
    You are aware that we were around before 1992?
    John Smith and Peter Robinson had no problem investing in top quality players... then again, they had managers in charge who knew what they were doing.
    That said, back in the 70s we had a saying, "Liverpool makes stars, it doesn't buy them."

    ReplyDelete
  76. Well we clearly have targets for January and rogers has already made it clear that he's going to purchase at least one forward. Tom Werner even confirmed that there will be business happening in jan and that the fans will be happy. In my opinion the player we look set on purchasing seems to be Daniel sturridge which is not a bad move in my opinion for the quoted price of £12mill. Especially when you consider we paid £11 mill for fabio borini. Other than that we might get someone on loan.

    ReplyDelete
  77. ...Kevin Keegan, Alun Evans (the most expensive teenager at the time), Kenny Dalglish (UK record fee), Graeme Souness, Stan Collymore (another UK record fee), Andy Carroll (Record for English player), Dean Saunders, Djibril Cisse...

    Some legends there and a couple of maybe nots... but you can't question the commitment of the men who signed the cheques... and that's NEVER the team manager.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Has anyone mentioned their motor racing team, yet?
    The spending there will eclipse what is spent by LFC and the Red Sox combined by light years.
    http://www.roushfenway.com/

    ReplyDelete
  79. Well, we probably can agree then that Aslavery apparently doesn't have too much of a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  80. It's a pittance in todays money, but it wasn't back then if it was a record, right.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Jamie your financial sense has eluded you it seems.
    FSG haven't "pumped" money into the Red Sox.
    The Red Sox have generated vast levels of revenues through ticket sales, sponsorships, licensing deals and all other commercial things that we at Liverpool do. The Red Sox spend the money they EARN.
    No sane business owner will be stupid enough to just chuck £20m at a business with no return to fund a player purchase. In business you a buy an entity, improve it's money generating capabilities then use the spare cash to further improve the business.
    And Liverpool and R's finances are ONLY linked upon consolidation of each entity's financial accounts. This is done PURELY to show a complete picture of FSG's Assets and Liabilities, and the Revenue and Costs generated during the financial year for all the business they own as well as their own.
    Aside from a loan, a related party transaction (banned under FFP), or an increase in equity from FSG themselves Liverpool CANNOT just take money from FSG.

    NB.
    An increase in equity would mean FSG just pumping money into the business from their own cash reserves. What I said was stupid for any sane business owner to do.

    ReplyDelete
  82. A record at the time but a pittance. What a ridiculous statement.

    ReplyDelete
  83. They cut 28 million off the wage bill this summer. Something which had to be done. There was always going to be a few steps backwards before we move forward.

    ReplyDelete
  84. With respect your so far from the point that you can't even see it anymore!
    The profits ARE NOT linked. Liverpool and Red Sox don't receive an invoice from FSG asking for them to pay the value of their profits for the year. That's not how finance and accounting works!
    Liverpool's profits, Red Sox's profits AND FSG's profits are their OWN! They are separate entity's, what you're suggesting would pretty much cause chaos as it's illegal...in any country!

    I suggest you check your facts before writing mis-informed articles. It's poor journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  85. They were under pressure in the US because the Boston fans thought FSG were more into LFC. So its pressure from them to delivery. I think FSG just need to split the money they are able to spend on both teams. $39m is around £30m I believe which is enough to bring in Walcott, Ba and Sturridge.

    ReplyDelete
  86. NASCAR is only topped by American football when it comes to TV audiences. Again they are self sufficient and are the second most valuable team in NASCAR.

    ReplyDelete
  87. No, it merely shows how prices have gone totally out of control in no time. If you want to buy a midfielder of Keane's quality today it will cost you at least 30 million but prices in general haven't increased by 100% have they? So even considering inflation Keane's fee will nothave been more than five million.

    ReplyDelete
  88. You are correct I should have worded it better

    ReplyDelete
  89. YYou kind of jump on any little thing don't you. You fail to mention all the contracts that they have got off their books.

    ReplyDelete
  90. You said yourself that Red Sox and LFC are run as 2 seperate entities. So surely taking money from 1 to fund the other is against quite a few rules?? Regardless of the fact all profit goes to/comes from just 1 parent FSG

    Imagine the uproar if money was taken from LFC to fund the Red Sox from LFC fans but your all ok with it the other way round!!

    It is also against the Financial Fair Play rules for owners/clubs to spend beyond their means. I want us to respect these rules. Others can do as they please!!

    ReplyDelete
  91. HingleMcCringleberry3:33 pm, December 05, 2012

    Will someone please tell Kramwar that Henry doesn't just write checks out of his own back account for players, virtually no owners do. Both the Red Sox and Liverpool are self sustaining entities. He didn't shell out the cash for the player, the Red Sox did.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Amature article at best.. Thats not a transfer fee that they forked out for the first baseman, its all wages and bonus for a player who might play 155 games next season getting $13mil a season. Compare that to Gerrard who earns about $9.75 mil a year and plays 45 games tops. They get more bang for their buck with the baseball players not to mention the gameday receipts for the games are higher.

    What you failed to mention was the amount of salary they dumped off the payroll when they traded 3 of their star players last season to the dodgers, thus paving the way to bring in these new players at a lower cost to their organisation.

    Your article should have been about the money they have saved while getting better value for their investment in players that allow them to remain competitive in MLB and how their approach to baseball is the same as their approach to liverpool. They achieved a net savings.

    Just to finish off.. before you start sounding off about the owners and what they spend on football players do an analysis on players total cost of contract and compare them to the red sox players contracts and you'll see that they get a raw deal for over priced and over paid footballers.

    ReplyDelete
  93. And our interest payments to fund the purchase/signings are hiding somewhere I presume? What a blinkered comment

    ReplyDelete
  94. 15m for a ball greedy benchwarmer is over spending.... so he's already put his foot in it

    ReplyDelete
  95. Transfer price index. Inflation is totally different in football to everything else.get your head round that and you start to see the bigger picture

    ReplyDelete
  96. Then you don't want to win bad enough.. period..

    ReplyDelete
  97. No more British crap! Look at the average crap that is being linked with us.. Bent, Defoe, Walcott, Long, Sturridge?? Those names would scare nobody and explains why the national team is complete crap! NO MORE BRITS! We are a GLOBAL brand ... the owners don't have to pander to the nationalist tendencies of people like dalglish anymore.. go for world class quality.. not passport..

    ReplyDelete
  98. Staff payroll 0?.. where are managers salaries? trainers salaries? janitors? Building maintenance? Groundskeepers?? Minor league affiliates costs...etc...this is a very incomplete financial picture..

    ReplyDelete
  99. Don't know how much prices rose in the past 20 or so years, but they did quite a bit. And so did income. Agree that both rose at a different rate in football. Difficult to compare. The price of gasoline for instance rose more than the price of milk.

    ReplyDelete
  100. No, I am not desperate enough to possibly jeopardise the future of the club for instant success. What do you think would happen to Man City, Chelsea and PSG if their respective owners found another pastime?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Also top quality is entirely subjective. What if we buy Huntelaar and he underperforms or takes awhile to adapt and doesn't score a goal, will that make him less quality than a player we buy for 2million that no one has heard of and bangs in goals for fun?

    ReplyDelete
  102. This is a ridiculous posting. FSG are success orientated. The Red Sox, like Liverpool are an institution and they make millions of dollars every season. The purchases made for the Red Sox are 100% financed from Red Sox revenue not Liverpool revenue, just like the purchases that Liverpool make will be 100% financed by Liverpool revenue and not Red Sox revenue. Another thing a lot of football fans don't realise and maybe Jaimie can be painted with the same brush as this, is that the Major League baseball season consists of nearly 150 regular season games per team, if they make it to the playoffs, that is more. So even if a team is underperforming, they are still making a lot of money off TV deals, plus ticket sales as they have already refurbished Fenway Park. I also follow baseball somewhat and know that Mark Napoli is a huge pick up for the Red Sox, him as a free agent, would be the same as a player like Edinson Cavani on a Bosman. Not the absolute best, but definately in the higher echelons. This proves that for the right player, they are willing to spend. Which is exactly what they have stated to us.

    ReplyDelete
  103. So, are you saying that the cash we make should be funneled into purchases for the Red Sox? The answer is no. The Red Sox have a much bigger revenue than Liverpool due, mostly due to the fact that there are nearly triple the games per season, coupled with an extended playing venue. Therefore, they spend within their means. FSG are the holding company, but they choose, and rightly so, to keep their individual brands seperate. Liverpool are spending within Liverpool's means. This is good business sense.

    ReplyDelete
  104. With respect, he is missing THE point, but not HIS point. I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. A baseball season has nearly triple the normal season matches that we do, that coupled with a refurbished stadium means more money coming in. In relation to that, then $39m isn't that much. Regardless, this shows that FSG are willing to spend money on the right players, which is really what the point is. They stated this in an open letter to us and they are backing that statement up indirectly through their other brand, BRS. Yes Liverpool have money, but they don't have as much as the teams that qualified for CL, nor should they spend out of their means. We had owners that put us in huge debt, their was a huge uproar, FSG are preventing that and there are a portion of fans who don't like that either.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Finally someone who talks some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I believe wholeheartedly we can compete financially, but I also believe we are going to be smart about who we buy. We aren't going to buy for buying's sake. We aren't going to be held to ransom by a club who will sell a player to another club for 10m but hold out for 15 or 20m with us because we are Liverpool. Which is why we pulled out of both the Sigurdsson and Dempsey deals. Not because we didn't have the money, but because they weren't value for money deals. Simple as that. They clearly stated that they will fork out the money for the right player. And by the way, their first January, regardless of the Carroll deal which was or wasn't financed by the Torres deal, they bought Suarez, who was bought as a partner for Torres. They also bought Enrique, Coates and then the players that everyone is dirty over, but imho, the players themselves aren't the problem, it's the amount of money they were bought for, if they were bought for half the amount, then the uproar wouldn't be going on. FSG have brought in a new manager who has experience buying players on the cheap who have proved successful, they are making sure the majority of these deals do prove successful on whatever level before making more cash available, which is smart business.

    ReplyDelete
  107. FSG can't win, can they? They are under pressure in the US because Boston fans thought they were more into LFC. They are under pressure in Britain, because a portion of fans think they are more into Red Sox. I would bring in Walcott who has quite a handy goalscoring record, as well as Ba, especially if the buyout clause is to believed, Sturridge? Nah, wouldn't take him. He has too many attitude problems. Also I would have a look at a New Zealand player playing in the A-League who is far and away the best player of the season so far, Marco Rojas. He is young, 20 or 21, he is very fast, very skillful, is a wide player in the mold of Sterling, and is scoring goals for fun. 5 goals and 2 assists in 9 games and we could probably get him for a max of 5m. Definately worth a punt. As most of you haven't heard of him, look him up on youtube.

    ReplyDelete
  108. With respect, you're lost on this one. $39M is not "pretty big" when the Red Sox are a)FSG's moneymaker/top priority; b) huge spenders in MLB every year; and c) just cleared an ENORMOUS amount of payroll in the Dodgers trade. The two teams are in no way related in terms of future expenditures. That's my point, which you hopelessly whiffed on. I do think FSG will put money back into LFC, but taking anything from the Napoli signing is fruitless and calling it a "stunning" signing proves how little you understand about baseball, its salaries, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Not to mention they just spent another 3 year deal worth $34M on an aging, declining outfielder who came off a bad/injury-prone season. Why wasn't FSG's signing of Shane Victorino "stunning" as well?

    ReplyDelete