FSG continue to receive criticism from some sections of the LFC fanbase for their alleged parsimony when it comes to transfer funds. According to some fans, FSG is miserly organisation, which operates a sell-to-buy policy at Anfield. Well, as the following figures show, that is simply not true.
FSG set out an unambiguously clear approach to transfers right at the start of their tenure:
"We’ve always spent money we’ve generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool.
"It’s up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that"
In the group's recent open letter to fans, the same principles were reiterated once again:
"Spending is not merely about buying talent. Our ambitions do not lie in expensive, short-term quick fixes that will only contribute for a couple of years. We will invest to succeed, but we will not mortgage the future with risky spending.
"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"
Fans should be applauding FSG's commitment to financial sustainability, not deriding it. As I've illustrated many times in the past:
* Liverpool have OUTSPENT both Man United and Arsenal on transfers over the last 22 years,
* Despite this, United and Arsenal have won more trophies, specifically league titles, with Arsenal qualified for the CL 16 years in a row (as well as winning three league titles)
Should the club just continue to waste tens of millions of pounds every year on overpaid, underperforming dross? Should FSG jut follow the example set by David Moores, Tom Hicks, George Gillett, Rafa Benitez (occasionally), and Kenny Dalglish?
Fans with a little objectivity will acknowledge the need for financial, operational and philosophical change at Anfield, and that is precisely what FSG and Brendan Rodgers are trying to push through. As such, taking an overview of transfer spending since FSG's arrival in 2010, there is (IMO) no credible basis upon which to criticise the group's transfer outlay.
Don't take my word for it though. Let's look at the facts! The table below represents a factual refutation of the following claims:
a) FSG have not made enough money available for transfers.
b) LFC's transfer policy is based on 'sell-to-buy'.
Transfer Spending under FSG: First Three Years in Charge
* Year ONE Accounts Snippet: Click HERE
* Year TWO Accounts Snippet: Click HERE
REMEMBER!
This is FSG's transfer spending only. They bought the club on 15th October 2010, so Roy Hodgson's transfer spending is obviously NOT included. In Year One, only spending/Sales from 15th October onwards is included.
KEY POINTS
* More money spent on transfers during FSG's 3-year tenure that at any comparable three-year point in the club's entire history.
* FSG spent 26% more on transfers than H+G did in their first three years.
* FSG's £109.5m net spend is higher than any three-year net spend figure during Rafa Benitez's reign.
* FSG's average net spend per year = £39.6m. Rafa Benitez's average net spend in first 3 years = £16m.. FSG have basically doubled the club's net spend.
* FSG have already spent 78% of Rafa Benitez's entire 6-year £289m gross spend total. If they continue spending at this rate over the next three years, total gross spending will reach £456m.
The figures and the facts speak for themselves: Over a three-year period, FSG spent more money on transfers than any other regime in the LFC's entire history.
Granted, FSG made the mistake of unquestioningly trusting the judgment of Damien Comolli and Kenny Dalglish on transfers, but it's not the group's fault that Dalglish bought a series of massive flops; if they couldn't trust the experience and insight of one of the club's greatest servants, who could they trust? Henry acknowledged the group's mistakes in his open letter to the fans last year:
"We are still in the process of reversing the errors of previous regimes. It has been compounded by our own mistakes in a difficult first two years of ownership. It has been a harsh education, but make no mistake, the club is healthier today than when we took over"
Financial sustainability is not an option; it is utterly imperative for LFC's future success, especially in light of the last 22 years of financial negligence. And as Henry states above: 'the club is healthier today than when we took over'.
As you can see, that's certainly case when it comes to transfer spending.
Jaimie Kanwar
FSG set out an unambiguously clear approach to transfers right at the start of their tenure:
"We’ve always spent money we’ve generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool.
"It’s up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that"
In the group's recent open letter to fans, the same principles were reiterated once again:
"Spending is not merely about buying talent. Our ambitions do not lie in expensive, short-term quick fixes that will only contribute for a couple of years. We will invest to succeed, but we will not mortgage the future with risky spending.
"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"
Fans should be applauding FSG's commitment to financial sustainability, not deriding it. As I've illustrated many times in the past:
* Liverpool have OUTSPENT both Man United and Arsenal on transfers over the last 22 years,
* Despite this, United and Arsenal have won more trophies, specifically league titles, with Arsenal qualified for the CL 16 years in a row (as well as winning three league titles)
Should the club just continue to waste tens of millions of pounds every year on overpaid, underperforming dross? Should FSG jut follow the example set by David Moores, Tom Hicks, George Gillett, Rafa Benitez (occasionally), and Kenny Dalglish?
Fans with a little objectivity will acknowledge the need for financial, operational and philosophical change at Anfield, and that is precisely what FSG and Brendan Rodgers are trying to push through. As such, taking an overview of transfer spending since FSG's arrival in 2010, there is (IMO) no credible basis upon which to criticise the group's transfer outlay.
Don't take my word for it though. Let's look at the facts! The table below represents a factual refutation of the following claims:
a) FSG have not made enough money available for transfers.
b) LFC's transfer policy is based on 'sell-to-buy'.
Transfer Spending under FSG: First Three Years in Charge
* Year ONE Accounts Snippet: Click HERE
* Year TWO Accounts Snippet: Click HERE
REMEMBER!
This is FSG's transfer spending only. They bought the club on 15th October 2010, so Roy Hodgson's transfer spending is obviously NOT included. In Year One, only spending/Sales from 15th October onwards is included.
KEY POINTS
* More money spent on transfers during FSG's 3-year tenure that at any comparable three-year point in the club's entire history.
* FSG spent 26% more on transfers than H+G did in their first three years.
* FSG's £109.5m net spend is higher than any three-year net spend figure during Rafa Benitez's reign.
* FSG's average net spend per year = £39.6m. Rafa Benitez's average net spend in first 3 years = £16m.. FSG have basically doubled the club's net spend.
* FSG have already spent 78% of Rafa Benitez's entire 6-year £289m gross spend total. If they continue spending at this rate over the next three years, total gross spending will reach £456m.
The figures and the facts speak for themselves: Over a three-year period, FSG spent more money on transfers than any other regime in the LFC's entire history.
Granted, FSG made the mistake of unquestioningly trusting the judgment of Damien Comolli and Kenny Dalglish on transfers, but it's not the group's fault that Dalglish bought a series of massive flops; if they couldn't trust the experience and insight of one of the club's greatest servants, who could they trust? Henry acknowledged the group's mistakes in his open letter to the fans last year:
"We are still in the process of reversing the errors of previous regimes. It has been compounded by our own mistakes in a difficult first two years of ownership. It has been a harsh education, but make no mistake, the club is healthier today than when we took over"
Financial sustainability is not an option; it is utterly imperative for LFC's future success, especially in light of the last 22 years of financial negligence. And as Henry states above: 'the club is healthier today than when we took over'.
As you can see, that's certainly case when it comes to transfer spending.
Jaimie Kanwar
Brilliant article, hopefully it stops the FSG vendetta people hold.
ReplyDeleteFSG. .....Feels Soo Gooooood
ReplyDeletePerhaps a breakdown of each transfer (in & out) with confirmed fees rather than speculated ones might help to prove those people wrong who think they have been thrifty...
ReplyDeleteSo Over three years
ReplyDeleteGross spend players sales net spend
228m 118.8 m 109.2
does this also allow the last transfer window
Thanks JK I was wondering when you would do this. I'm sure people are still gonna moan that they haven't spent enough, despite the fact they have quite clearly backed the manager in this transfer window. People forget the dire circumstances we were in prior to their arrival. What I'm personally excited about is what we're gonna look like as a club/team once we qualify for the Champions League again.
ReplyDeleteThis will shut a few people right up.............top work JK!!!!...... :-)
ReplyDeleteWell if it didn't you'd be adding roughly £20+m to the net spend.
ReplyDeleteThink you are wrong lots are happy with what was done last week.
ReplyDeleteThink for once higher % are happy
I've not got a problem with what they have been doing. They proved this window they are willing to spend big money on the right players. Ie Mkhitaryan, Willian, Costa and finally Sakho who we managed to get. They put in big offers but refuses to go above board. I think this shows they are willing to spend big money but sensibly .
ReplyDeletePleasing article in many ways, and I applaud you for it.
ReplyDeleteI genuinely believe that FSG, whilst not being the sugar daddies that some people seem to want them to be, are coming into their own. They took some time to understand things. They gave the wrong people huge amounts of money and it failed. They've given a decent amount of money to Brendan and, with a couple of arguable exceptions, he's spent well. Even where most disagree with him, i.e. Borini and Allen, he spent it on young players who could either still come good or still have resale value. If Borini has a good loan spell we could easily see us recouping our money. Buying players isn't a guaranteed science and ALL managers have some complete duffers.
The important thing is that FSG are investing. I live in the North East of England now and believe me, NUFC fans would crawl over hot coals for owners like Henry et al.
can someone explain how reina agrees a deal with barca while on napoli without liverpools consent ?
ReplyDeletewhen we sold torres we also sold other players where is the missing money ?
ReplyDeleteFirst year sales 51,3 you say so Torres went for 50 are you trying to tell uss Babel went for 1,3 and all others left for nothing !!
ReplyDeleteIts the personal terms and not the transfer I reckon. The club itself must have allowed Reina as he isn't even going to return to the club at the end.
ReplyDeleteYes gotta be happy so many seasons of waste years gone by i am also glad to see the owners have spent well and responsibly the past 2 seasons.
ReplyDeleteIn Janaury only babel and Torres left? If I'm not mistaken.....
ReplyDeleteYes I think it does. The third year ends 2Sep 2013.
ReplyDeleteSorry, my bad. I posted the wrong version of the table. It's updated now.
ReplyDeleteFSG have definitely been very good the club yet there are still be people who believe they are ready to pack up and sell :-o Shoots itself...
ReplyDeleteThis shows that FSG have invested heavily into the club and will continue to do so to get us back where we belong!
i will not bother getting involved with this love in
ReplyDeleteGuess how many managers United and Arsenal have had over the past 16 years excluding this one, during which time we have seen 6 managers.
ReplyDeleteWith every new manager, there will be massive spending, there will also normally be a bedding in period(United and Arsenal did experience this). It is not surprising we have spent more and won less.
FSG are the best thing to happen to Liverpool in a long time.
ReplyDeleteFSG bought the club *after* Roy Hodgson's transfer spending, so obviously, the sales of Mascherano/Riera et al are not included in the table. The article is about FSG's transfer spending only, and in January, only two players left: Torres and Babel.
ReplyDeleteThe accounts don't lie. Babel probably left for less than reported, or his transfer fee is instalment-based, with the first installment being approx 1.3m.
Nice post JK, and good work on the research, i firmly believe we are in good hands with FSG and BR the future is bright....YNWA
ReplyDeleteIf only the money had been spent wiser in the past then maybe we would have won more trophies? Houllier, Rafa and Dalglish/Comolli wasted loads of money between them.
ReplyDeleteJanuary 2013 to date has been the best business the club has done in a very, very long time.
right lets forget the last year because it does not include turnover and wages year 1 turnover 183.6 million,wages and net spend192.6m fsg put 9 million into the club ,year 2 wages and net spend(plus 7m)=111.6m turnover168.9m,fsg profit50.7m-the 9m they put in the year before=41.7m,profit ,nice little earner
ReplyDeleteI think people who are suggesting that FSG have made a profit clearly do not understand the basics of accounting?
ReplyDeleteIs that why carr71's post was deleted Jaimie?
Can't just do those stats without taking into consideration players, for example, that weren't sold like Pepe who would have made net spends lower if sold (Players we would make profits on) as in some years you sell more players and some sell less so this is nonsense without the bigger picture! Also players like Pepe were bought in different era's and these stats don't consider cross owner accounts. Again they could sell Luis in Jan for 50 million which would reduce their net spend so its all to do with the players in and when sold also. Too messy to really do comparisons on but without doing the proper math you can't compare.
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed by the player sales number in year 1! Can anyone tell me about much much FSG has invested in LFC and how much the club is now worth? My guess is ttheir investment isn't looking too shabby.
ReplyDeletewhy was my comment deleted i used your figures ,off your charts and it showed a profit after two years based on net spent and wages ,against income ,
ReplyDeleteLFC are worth about $651 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_the_most_valuable_football_clubs
ReplyDeleteLiverpool are worth about $651 mil according to the Forbes richest clubs.
ReplyDeleteif the accounts do not lie why have my comments been deleted ,based on your figures i showed facts
ReplyDeletePlayers alone will not ensure we would win anything. Our victory over Man U underscores that very clearly. Man U won their last league title with an average squad but Sir Alex was something else altogether. Without the belief and composure he brought to his teams, they're worth nothing. Man U's superior discipline and composure was what made them great. Van Persie, Valencia and Fellaini are just about their only players who'd walk into our team.
ReplyDeleteHoullier and Rafa were not able to buy what they wanted when they wanted to. Dalglish didn't have a good idea of what he needed.
VP and Fellaini i agree with but Velencia?? REALLY?
ReplyDeleteIf Suarez gets sold then we will get a replacement and his replacement will cost an arm and leg.
ReplyDeleteWhy people are so fixated on net spend is just beyond me.
Just because Norwich and Southampton have spent more in Net than Spurs in this window does, it mean Norwich and Southampton are guaranteed to finish ahead of Spurs?
I seem to remember Rafa winning some decent silverware and even Houllier had one good season acquiring silver. I love Dalglish, but sadly he and Comolli put us back years.
ReplyDeletePeople are entitled to have a view - be it players, managers or owners. However, what I hope is that people will at least acknowledge and respect what FSG have contributed (transfers and wider investment).
ReplyDeleteThere can be no argument that FSG are not prepared to provide funds for players.
Houllier and Rafa were not able to buy what they wanted when they wanted.
ReplyDeleteARE YOU SERIOUS?
tony if you add up net spend and wages over the 1st two years (forget the 3rd because it dose not have income genareted ,)and take it away from the clubs income for the 1st two years ,you will find that the club made 50 million
ReplyDeleteRafa won nothing in his last four seasons.
ReplyDeleteCL and FA cup was won with majpority of Houlliers players.
We've signed Moses on loan. He's a very similar player. He gets the ball, it is very unlikely he's going to be bullied off it. If you're looking for someone who is going to bring the ball up and keep it up, Valencia is such a player.
ReplyDeleteI kid you not. Houllier was not afforded the funds to sign Ronaldo. Rafa couldn't buy Vidic, but Agger has proven to be a better alternative. These are but 2 examples. The rest of the regs here probably know of a lot more instances.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's right.
ReplyDeleteRafa also tried to buy Matta, but couldnt get the funding.
ReplyDeleteAquilani, Keane etc.
ReplyDeleteI rest my case.
Cheers. So they're not doing too bad so far. I like and respect FSG but I don't get the outpouring of love on this site for them. They're investing in Liverpool to make money - potentially big money ( the glaziers and kronke have made fortunes already). They have no natural affinity for the club. They bought it because it was cheap and had great commercial potential. If I supported Chelsea I would love abramovich because of what he alone has done for them, but FSG?? Good owners, not benevolent ones....
ReplyDeleteOutpouring of love? Not from me. I've been one of FSG's biggest critics since they arrives, but I can also appreciate the positives too.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with JK for a change, though inflation should also be factored in. If we didn't acquire so called 'marque' signing, it wasn't for lack of trying or failure to put up the money. It's more a reflection of the sad fact that LFC doesn't have the same attraction to players, that it once had.
ReplyDeleteSome time after we get some real success we can expect quality players to have their agents knocking at our door. Not bothered about marque signing anyway. Sturridge and Coutinho in last window was brilliant business and good as Ozil is, I wouldn't swap him for our two, which cost a lot less combined, than Ozil.
FSG are being prudent and patient, to achieve sustainable success.
I'm happy with them so far.
totally agree we are a chain of there buisness ,there is no love for the club ,and when the time is right for them they will sell up,and will make big money ,
ReplyDeleteSorry mate - wasn't directed at you, but I can see it reads that way.
ReplyDeleteThought so.
ReplyDeleteNo need to apologise :-) I was just clarifying.
ReplyDeleteso can you clarify why my post went missing ,it was not insulting ,it was based on your figures ,it just put another side to the story
ReplyDeleteThat question has already been answered Jason :-)
ReplyDeleteExactly. I have no problem with that, but it affects my view on them. The other thing that struck me from looking at these numbers is how poor we have been over the years at selling players (Torres aside)
ReplyDeleteYour post was deleted because, yet again, you were hellbent on being negative for the hell of it. The proof of this is that you tried to argue that FSG had made a profit, when the table clearly states that the club made a £90m LOSS in FSG's first two years.
ReplyDeleteYou ignored that fact and made a spurious attempt to claim that FSG had actually made a profit, which is totally inaccurate. In your zeal to be negative, you missed the pertinent facts.
There are lessons to be learnt about continuity here. When you let go of a manager the cost isnt just his compensation - but in the end cost 50 million more in cheap sales and expensive purchases. The market knows that when a new manager comes in he wants to make a mark so price of player increases. And the market is also aware that he may not fancy some players so the value of that player drops.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair BR and liverpool have got away lightly in the sense that we received 15 million for Carrol - whose injury record isnt the best. Granted he may have 5 massive games a season but is it worth paying 15 million for that? Add to that Downing - £20 million for him was way over the odds and to get 6 million for him is still decent.
KK and Comolli get a lot the blame because all the players were purchased in one transfer window - otherwise fergie has had similar flops (young, kagawa etc) but they have been spread out. I suppose we have to be grateful for enrique and suarez! Suarez on his own might cover the deficit we had from carol!
FSG have simply been over cautious having been stung the first time round. And BR has a couple of times has protested at having the rug pulled from beneath him. So in the end he has resorted to pulling rabbits out of the hat - though the jury is out on the likes of allen, aspas and alberto. but atleast they will be relatively small mistakes.
I do think UTD will now go through a period of uncertainty as having a manager who is desperate to make his own mark and get out of the shadow of fergie - could make one or two blunders in the market.
So, if Rodgers achieves any success this year (and bear in mind it's his second year and that was Rafa's first) we can attribute it to the regimes who bought in Gerrard, Agger, Skrtel, Lucas, Johnson, Enrique, Henderson, Wisdom, Sterling, all who have featured in our three league wins and all here before Rodgers?
ReplyDeleteThat is not my point.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that Rafa bought loads of players but had very little to show for it.
How many of the players Rafa signed actually won a trophy while he was here?
This whole article is based on Net spend, you don't like it then that's not my fault. How Much money is spent on players minus how much is sold is a big part of it also taking into account clubs income and other expenditure, plus a million other things which was my point that this is too much of a simplistic view in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteYour reply does not have any meaning to my original post that I can see, apologies if I am wrong in that.
Why would a replacement cost an arm and a leg? We would get 50 mill for him minus the 24 mill or there abouts means we make 26 mill which would mean less net spend. Can't see anywhere in my post about guaranteeing anything to be fair.
@liverpoolkop: Spending money on transfer is only tells part of the story. The other and arguably more important part is the wage bill. Higher wage bill = better players (at least if the ressources are efficiently managed, which probably wasn't the case under previous regimes).
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is no denying FSG has trimmed down the wage bill significantly when everybody else's will undoubtedly have increased massively over the last couple of years ... given that football is flushed with more and more money from various sources. Note that this is also true for Liverpool FC ... the commerical income has risen, TV money has risen etc ...
When FSG took over, I though that they would be just as G+H in terms of their motivation (which is purely making money) but that they'd be better managers and less prone to PR disasters. Bottom line is: They FSG probably earn potloads of money from their ownership of Liverpool FC, money that would ideally spent on top of what is spent now ...
Net spend is irrelevant. Just because Spurs sold Bale does it mean the spent nothing, zip, zero on the players they bought in this window?
ReplyDeleteThe article is about how much FSG has spent! NET!!! I am saying you need to take into account so many things so irrelevant n places in the prem it maybe but to this article it is wholly relevant my friend!!!!!
ReplyDeleteNo it is not.
ReplyDeleteIt is about how they have invested into the club.
And what is net spend?
ReplyDeletein a plus figure it shows how much they have spent in a minus figure shows how much they have earned!!!!!!!
So..................................???????
Who cares whether they love the club, what I want from owners is good stewardship. I have respect for FSG I don't love them. The only loyalty in football is from fans. But as long as they continue to provide a reasonable level of transfer funds (which JK has demonstrated is the case) and manage the club efficiently - and remember we were heading for bankruptcy - they will continue to have my respect.
ReplyDeleteYes, FSG will sell up and leave at some point and may make a profit on their investment but they are business people and to expect them to just invest for the fun of it is totally naïve.
The days of the paternalistic owner are well over.
The club has made a LOSS in the first two year FSG have been here.
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to try and challenge me then you have to make sure you know what you are talking about :-)
See above reply...
ReplyDeleteIt appears your post as to why carr71's post was deleted is true with regards to basic accounting. I am neither slating nor applauding FSG, just pointing out the facts from someone who has AAT 1, 2 and 3 in accounting that that's the 'basics' of accounting here do not show a true reflection on any of the previous owners gross/net spend of player transfers good or bad.
ReplyDeleteunited and Liverpool were both competing for the best of British talent (!) at the time. The Andy Carroll deal was obviously crazy and stood out and you're right we did well to get what we did from WHU. I remember reading at the time that Ayre told Chelsea we wanted Carroll fee plus 15m for Torres and once Newcastle got wind of that his price shot up. Might be an urban myth, but either way it was a disaster...
ReplyDeleteWith respect, there's no consistent correlation between wage spend and success. For example: between 1990 and 2009, Man Utd spent an average of £1.1m more per year on wages than LFC. This is a tiny amount, but who won more league titles? Overall, in that 19 year period:
ReplyDelete* LFC spent £700m on wages
* Man Utd spent £720m
Are we to believe that the extra £20m is the reason why United won 11 Prem titles during that period?!
Didn't know the details, thanks! As fans it's natural you want your club to make big signing when other clubs do so. I hope BR's coaching strategy and the additions we've made this summer take us right into the very top, as I think they will. The squad is quite balanced now. Well done BR, and thank you FSG.
ReplyDeletebased on your figures the turnover for the 1st 2 years was 372.5m the net spend was 50.9m the wages were 253.3 that equals 304.2m that leaves 68.3 million,i know they are other expences but if we lost 90million thats a total of 158.3 million,can you tell me were the majority went it was not being negative it was just using the charts above,its a hell of a lot of difference in money it must go somewhere ,tax ,academy transport drink and food ,hotel expences ,but even then it seems a massive amount
ReplyDelete:-O
ReplyDeleteCan you tell me any football club thats not a business now??
ReplyDeleteYes I can
ReplyDeleteWho do you think pays for the grounds man, the locker room staff, the chefs and doctors etc etc
ReplyDeleteDo you understand the meaning of LOSS?
ReplyDeleteman city and chelsea ,monoco psg if they were they would be bankrupt
ReplyDeleteJust a footnote: FSG are sport franchise owners. They are not oil rich Arabs nor Oligarch (spelling) Russians. The own a legendary baseball franchise in the US and a legendary football club in the EPL. They will not, NOT, let the team down. John Henry is a great team owner (Watch Moneyball the movie) He and FSG and Brendan Rodgers will make Liverpool great again. WATCH THIS SPACE AND KEEP THE FAITH!
ReplyDelete158.3 million the tea lady must be on 5grand a week ,and i would assume that everyones wages was included in wages
ReplyDeleteExactly. There are dozens of administrative/staff etc costs that erode that figure. There are also termination fees, taxes, tangible fixed assets and the list goes on.
ReplyDeleteJason - Ultimately, as stated in the table, Liverpool made a £90m LOSS in the FSG's first two years That is a fact. You don't work out the club's profit by simply subtracting player sales from turnover (!)
The actual accounts are 50 pages long - this is one table simply to illustrate transfer spending.
Champions league fa cup , cl qualification in every year barring the one that got him sacked for Roy hodgson. 2009 we got 86 points!
ReplyDeletePlease stop with this pointless and inaccurate tangent. LFC made a £90m loss in FSG's first two years, thus a profit in that timeframe is factually impossible. Any further posts pushing this spurious theory will be deleted.
ReplyDeleteNot all of the costs the club occurred is stated in Jaimie's article.
ReplyDeleteDo you still want to challenge me?
but would not everyone paid by the club eg staff come under wages
ReplyDeleteExactly. The accounts are 50 pages long, and there are dozens of other costs to take into account.
ReplyDeleteSo if you have a company, will your only cost consist of wages?
ReplyDeleteWhy you are even trying to argue just shows how little you know.
;%)
ReplyDeleteOn your bike.
ReplyDeleteTry and change the subject why don't you.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how Kagawa can be called a flop when his first season was marred by injuries and did well when fit. I'd take him at Liverpool in a flash.
ReplyDeleteYoung is average and bit of a dud for the first XI for a top 4 team but as a squad player, he hasn't been all that bad, especially considering the injuries. First season he looked good but last season, he was pants. As a squad player, I think he suffices but he was expensive. But they can afford to have expensive squad players and they have shown how to exploit well the size of the squad over the years. Whereas we have to make the pennies count as we're at a different stage. They don't have to worry about that as much, nowhere near as much.
But yes, it is better when bad purchases are spread out, rather than concentrated in one or two windows. No excuses for happened under KK II, Comolli and FSG then.
lol @movie....just one scene mate.
ReplyDeleteValencia? No thanks. His quality has dropped big time since that injury in CL. But I'd take Vidic, Evra (Yes, I'm prepared to be stoned!), Rafael, Carrick, Rooney as well as Van Persie.
ReplyDeleteVidic > Agger by a country mile
ReplyDeleteMr Henry told Abramovich that he had to pay x amount (the price of Carroll) plus 15 million on top of that for Torres.
ReplyDeleteSo if Carroll was going to cost LFC 40 million then Chelsea would have had to pay 55 million for Torres.
Mr Henry not as stupid as some make him out to be.
Jason give it a rest, you are wrong, facts back that, also you said Suarez will be sold (so fsg dont have to reinvest and bank the fee) at end of the window did that happen? NO.
ReplyDeleteHate seeing you bring to attention our PL era spending but it is what it is :(
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy how much the club has spent and the return on success being very little but at least what FSG have spent and the players we have acquired gives me hope that we will return to our former glory of the 60's. 70's and 80's.
ReplyDeleteMalaga, Angi, both had rich owners but they didn't want to reinvest anymore so both clubs had to sell their star players.
ReplyDeleteYes but in 2010 we got knocked out of the group stages of the CL league and finished 7th :-)
ReplyDeleteMoses like to try things and different things but Valencia, if he isn't given a open invitation by the opposition full back to drill a cross in, has no other answers. He has been poor since that injury in CL.
ReplyDeleteName the players who won a trophy signed by Rafa while he was our manager.
ReplyDeleteHoullier basically said we didn't have the wage structure/scale to justify giving that much money to a raw unproven youngster. He himself agreed with the rationale behind it.
ReplyDeleteWe could have afforded it but it seems like it was a case of whether it fair to give high wages to a young raw player.
Comparing FSG's net spending over the last three years to previous regimes is pretty pointless.
ReplyDeleteThey are being given millions of pounds more by the Premier League now.
And have, all credit to them, boosted income from sponsorship & merchandising etc etc.
Therefore, they have more income and can spend more on players.
Very simple, doesn't need a table of complicated figures.
An extremely well written article Jaimie but in my opinion it has a fundamental flaw. That is you have assumed that by presenting an objective article grounded in irrefutable facts and sound financial accounting that readers would come to an informed decision on how FSG are performing against their own roadmap to success which they set out on purchasing the club. The FSG haters made their minds up on FSG based on Hicks & Gillette, the Glazers and the unrealistic expectations of new age fans who want rich foreign owners with unlimited funds to buy overnight success. FSG are trying to build perpetual success and that is not achieved overnight.
ReplyDeleteJohn Henry made it very clear on the day he purchased the club that he was not a sheikh and has worked hard to maximise the club revenues through commercial deals, something that we were sadly lacking in as Man United disappeared over the horizon on the financial front. The stadium issue will also be resolved and when it is we will have a stadium of which we can all be proud but, like player transfers, the decision must be the right one not a quick one.
I don't think they're doing a bad job, but they could do better. Not paying over the odds for players and their salaries (alla Carrol) is a good thing, however they need to get over their traumatic experience and see the benefit in big signings.
ReplyDeleteThey have made a pile of signings this year, and for the most part have been shrewd signings - but one game changer, a marquee signing, would probably have been worth their while.
It's a close call, but this year there is an opening with the goings on at the other top clubs, for the most part there is stability at LFC in that the majority of players and the manager are the same. You can't say that the same thing has gone on with MU, TH, Chelsea, or Man City. There is an opportunity to be seized, which might happen without a big signing, but would be more probable with one. It's about marginal utility. A few extra million for a top player that would improve the starting 11 would be worth it - goals and assists of said player could pay itself off with a CL place.
Even if they have to pay a couple million over market value it would be worth it do so.
But the season has just started, maybe they are going to wait until january and see how things are going, and maybe get a marquee player in then.
Don't get me wrong, the defense and keeper improvements are huge - they were the weaker areas last season. The offense could use 1 more proven player. It'll be tight this season and a player that could provide even a handful of extra goals could make all the difference this season for CL spaces, or even the title.
I don't know if FSG see the opportunity there, but it definitely is there to be exploited - we'll see what happens come January.
While LFC have made a loss in FSG's first two seasons with the club.
ReplyDeleteCan't be that difficult to understand that that FSG have piled money into the club? Interest free...
What is a marquee player?
ReplyDeleteGiven the two trophies were won in the first two years, that would only be Alonso, Garcia, reina etc. You're not trying to pass on the credit for us winning the champions league onto GH are you? :-) And also don't forget how close we came in 2009 to winning the league, not to mention a second final in 2007. Rafa signed some not great players but he also signed some truly great ones
ReplyDeleteRevenue from Warrior, Garuda, Chevrolet, new TV deal etc etc won't actually show until the 2013/14 accounts.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't mean it hasn't already been spent though... thus creating a loss on the current books.
Mesut Ozil
ReplyDeleteReally they don't run like a business?? Sorry Mate I had no idea they were not running like a business. Per names you mentioned Anzhi and Malaga should be in that bracket. How are they doing now?? How much debt is Madrid, Barca and Man U in?? How much debt is Bayern and BVB is??
ReplyDeleteName the players that won a trophy signed by Rafa manged by Rafa.
ReplyDeleteHow many players did Rafa sign and how many of those players won a trophy?
?????????????????????????????????????????
Under his management????????????????????????????????????????????????
ReplyDeleteAm sure you think money is growing on Melwood and Anfield trees and FSG is just pocketing them right?
ReplyDeleteOh please.
ReplyDeleteI am talking Liverpool language.
So it's neither Kenny or Comolli's fault for what we paid for Carroll? John Henry is no fool, but that deal doesn't make him sound smart to me
ReplyDeleteLiverpool FC that is.
ReplyDeletebilly smart or cocco the clown
ReplyDeleteI was hoping you were going to post Andy Carroll.
ReplyDeleteReina, Kromkamp, Morientes, Alonso, Sissoko, Alonso, Garcia, Crouch, Josemi, Nunez
ReplyDeletegreat article , best thing I have read this week hope this puts an end to all the critics of FSG investments into this club....will be interesting to see how and where the funding, sponsorships etc , comes from for the extensions to Anfield but I have no doubts that FSG are into this for the long haul........good one Jaimie...
ReplyDeleteYour point?
ReplyDeleteBut that is why he got rid of Comolli first ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, Agger, Pennant, Zenden,Aurelio and Bellamy were part of the squad that went on to win the community shield.
ReplyDeleteOk..... You're correct rafa was awful..... All that champions league stu was a waste of time, and second in nowhere. Well done Max for setting me straight
ReplyDeleteI am not saying Rafa was awful but I am definitely not going to roll out the red carpet for him.
ReplyDeleteI was part of the IRWT for his first four seasons and woke up after that to realise that we were going nowhere slowly.
How many of these players are still with the club and were sold by Benitez himself?
ReplyDeleteCommunity shield. Oh my word.
ReplyDeleteThat would be great - but a player just under that category, e.g. Soldado, Negredo - someone of quality in the 25M - 35M range.
ReplyDeleteSoldado has been pants so far. Expensive penalty taker.
ReplyDeleteSoldado has been poor so far. Expensive penalty taker.
ReplyDeletePeople tend to not rate the community shield and super cup, but you have to win a competition just to have the chance to lift that piece of silverware.
ReplyDeleteNone the less, Agger and technically Reina are still there.
Aurellio was not sold by Rafa. I think the rest were. Possibly not sold in some instances, as contracts may simply have expired.
Wait, it gets better
ReplyDeleteNot strictly true, while it could be said inflation of the market always means per year spending should be higher, you can see from the accounts that for the first two years earnings have been dropping. I would expect year 3`s accounts to have a higher turnover, as this is when the sponsorship deals and new TV deal money should be coming into the club, so I`m keen to see them.
ReplyDeleteI do understand your point that market inflation usually means more recent years will have a higher spending, in exactly the same way as a house now costs a lot more than 15 years ago.
Maybe a better comparison would be amount spent on transfers % of gross income, compared to previous owners. That should give a truer reflection imo.
That's what I am saying! I know how long the accounts are for this one owner, so for multiple owners over each year has hundreds of pages. To base how good or bad or how much or little FSG have put in or taken out cannot be made on the figures shown. That is my point and Jamie confirmed that point I am making even if he didn't mean too!
ReplyDeleteMr Henry is indeed incredibly smart, esp when it comes to numbers and money, as after all this is what he does, very well.
ReplyDeleteRangers....or werent for a bit (Sorry to any Rangers fans, nothing personal, just easy reply)
ReplyDelete"Biggest Critics"??? ummm, not exactly how its come over JK. Forgetting the "100% behind FSG and Rodgers" tag line that was on your profile for some time, I think most would agree there is a lot bigger critics out there.
ReplyDeleteWTF.
ReplyDeleteCan you understand that they have had to accommodate a loss of 90 million pounds?
Cause ur a easy target, and your names Jas, what more reason does he need? ;-) You go to utd game fella?
ReplyDeleteyes they are planning on selling the club aren't they ha ha
ReplyDeleteCant hear you here at the back of the class mate. Enjoying your seat at the front?
ReplyDeleteAre you still at school?
ReplyDeletewhats that teachers pet? Speak up :-)
ReplyDeleteI am earning something called money. Maybe you still need to be educated about that.
ReplyDeleteWell Moneyball is more about the Oakland A's but he John Henry did instill the philosophy in to the Red Sox (come on NY Mets) The football equivalent is called soccernomics. I try to use that on FM 13 (doesn't work as well)
ReplyDeleteGetting paid to be on ur knees is it? each to there own bud. You go fella, you will get there in the end. Don`t let the dream die. Try clicking your heels 3 times to :-)
ReplyDeleteSorry but you are still sitting in the back of the class thinking that FSG will sell Liverpool at a loss.
ReplyDeleteLuckily i am not in business with you!
Yea it is, cause im rather large...
ReplyDeleteLarger than life...
ReplyDeletelike your mum... Which reminds me, she said to tell you to not be so late back this evening. She does worry, bless her ;-)
ReplyDeleteI see you have learnt from the best.
ReplyDeleteStill the victim? :-o
No victim Max, just don`t like bullies, which you are. Clearly you are unbanable, Therefore by my nature I will rinse you instead, as its fun.
ReplyDeleteDont give it out, if you cant take it Maxi Boy.
Would i still be here if I could not take it?
ReplyDeleteAmatures need to step aside.
You prefer pro`s... figures.. ;-)
ReplyDeleteYip there is no room for cry babies like you.
ReplyDeleteGet it, cry baby...
That obviously does not make you a pro. Step aside.
ReplyDeleteno I dont work the street, but good to see your hunting for more customers online too Max. I admire your commitment :-)
ReplyDeleteYou are doing a great job yourself.
ReplyDeleteSorry, how big did you say my mom is?
umm..you may have been educated in money, but clearly they didnt do reading.
ReplyDeleteThat is why you sold a business when it was not making money. Counting your losses?
ReplyDeleteI rest ,my case.
Arms getting tired?
ReplyDeleteRunning out of sarcasm?
ReplyDeleteRunning out of living in a world where you read something different from what is in front of you?
ReplyDeleteThought so.
ReplyDeleteThank you for proving me right. Round 1 to me. Make use of the break before round 2, you will need it.
ReplyDeletewould that be you and jaimie sniping ,like you snipe constantlly
ReplyDelete“Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.”
ReplyDeleteRound 2 to me.
ReplyDeleteYou do not give up do you?
ReplyDeleteSince when is this a boxing match?
ReplyDeleteI prefer cage fighting.
jaimie question are you and max the same person ,it seems strange when i was banned max dissappeared ,now i aqm back he s back and gets away with murder ,no warnings no nothing ,i only ask as one of your top posters ,who hardley coes on anymore brung it to my attention
ReplyDeleteWith a naked man more likely, and no audience.
ReplyDeleteI have thought the same, however JC, from what I have learnt, is its ok to belittle as Max is allowed, thus everyone is prob allowed now, and its prob a rule change or something, so just enjoy the new found freedom you should have.
ReplyDeletecheers zantos ,i know what your saying ,but jaimie tried to make me go to rehab ,and i said no no no
ReplyDeletehaha. See you in a bit, after I return from being banned.
ReplyDeleteI dared to dream haha.
banned what for ,for sticking up to the school bully
ReplyDeletewell we shall see, maybe I wont, but I got a feeling I will be. Worth every word though :-)
ReplyDeleteI would prefer if you at least have the decency to show up in some form of underwear.
ReplyDeleteahh, you enjoy the unwrapping, I get ya. Will put on my best for ya.
ReplyDeleteSerious note for a sec tho, do you do cage fighting? As I train 3 times a week, although only once in MMA, other two times are in Boxing and BJJ, If so how long you been doing it?
Fans sometimes think it's just transfer fees and wages that runs a club. Not mentioning the almighty taxes and insurances.
ReplyDeleteOrder your Playstation 4 ASAP to avoid disappointment.
ReplyDeleteYou what? If you are saying I am a liar, I am happy to show proof to JK, which he could then confirm, however, I don`t think you like the truth.
ReplyDeleteI didnt think you did it, kinda a shame as we might have actually had something we agreed on/common. Still better to carry on as it is, much more fun :-)
Practice what you preach.
ReplyDeleteYou actually calling me out, saying you want to fight? hahaha brilliant Max, well done on getting first place on in the Internet Warriors comp. Good work son.
ReplyDeleteExactly. No losers here are there?
ReplyDeleteNo Max, def no losers here, being a Internet Warrior, and actually saying you want to Fight someone online, is def not a loser thing to do. I think you proved that its def what winners do, and most certainly not a loser act.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to your request to fight me, while I`m sure it would be great fun, I will take the slightly more adult approach and decline, purely as I dont think suggesting violence online towards other posters is that big, or smart tbh.
You had many Fights from people you threatened to fight online with? How did that work out for you?
Or telling me my mom is larger than life. i get you :-)
ReplyDeleteDo you rally think I am a cage fighter? Crikey.
Why wouldnt I think that, you said it, or said you prefer it, so why would you lie? I have no reason to doubt you, or anyone.
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, I do, do MMA, Boxing and BJJ (not saying I`m the best, but I do all three and have for some time, as a hobby really and to stay in shape - no not round, although that is a shape lol). I actually thought for a sec, we might have something in common lol.
no way m8 if you do it sucks max or is it jk should be barred ;-) ,i am starting to believe the rumours ,he constantly belittles posters and no action taken i used to respond to him,and got barred several times now ido not bother,because i have been warned ,but still he carry on,one rule for one ,one rule for another,infact if i had been half as rude as he hasbeen on this thread i would not be posting now
ReplyDeleteYou would probably believe me if I told you that I was Batman and that I had sent Robin to hunt you down.
ReplyDeleteThe world has gone mad or is the Internet to much for some people?
Only yourself and Zanatos are complaining about me.
ReplyDeleteObviously I am to hot to handle for the both of you.
max i do not want to offend you ,but i think you will find they are plenty more,question ,when i was banned why did you dissapear
ReplyDeleteWhere did I disappear to?
ReplyDeletefreedom is a short lived thing i will end up being the nelson mandela of this site:-)
ReplyDeletenow that really does sound like jaimie
ReplyDeleteif you do not know i cannot tell you
ReplyDelete