Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 12/13

whatawaster

daithijjj wrote: »

What do you say when your chairman says 'we want to increase wages' and then do the opposite?

That he shouldn't be saying these things in the first place.

Ultimately, his words may ring hollow, but the job of the owners imo is to:
- Safeguard the financial future of the club
- Sort out the stadium issue
- Put in place a footballing structure that will do the business for us

If they do all 3 in the end it won't matter if Werner went against his word

Roger Sterling

daithijjj wrote: »

What do you say when your chairman says 'we want to increase wages' and then do the opposite?. The cost cutting isn't needed in terms of overall running of the club. The cost cutting is needed because there are players at the club who are not deemed value for their wages.

LFC wages as a % of turnover was in the same bracket as Everton, Fulham and Birmingham City in 09/10, all clubs in the 60-70% bracket.

That made us the 6th most efficient club in the league, with 14 teams having a higher %.......ie, the cost cutting is not needed.

Forget everyone else tbh. From what knowledge I have gaimed of such things a healthy club shoulld be keeping that ratio around fiftyy per cent. Given that turnover isnt enjoying the boost of the aul maguic CL money itts no surprise high earning mutts like Aquilani et al are getting the door and players at the level ofOrini and Allen wholl not be on much are being brought in.
Everton and Birmingham arent exactly good examples of well run clubs that are on an upward trajectory either btw.
Youre right to be questioning Werner tho. What happened this much talked about structure over Rodgers. Things seem .......aimless at the mo at Anfield.

daithijjj

whatawaster wrote: »

Tell me how you plug the loss that is inherent in the club's current structure then . . .
Increasing revenue?
or
Cutting costs?

Premier league clubs lost half a billion in 09/10.

Cost cutting is fine, but dont expect any success to come with it.

Jesus Wept

I think we should put the players on a 4 day week.
I estimate this would save 43% on the wage bill.

whatawaster

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Forget everyone else tbh. From what knowledge I have gaimed of such things a healthy club shoulld be keeping that ratio around fiftyy per cent. Given that turnover isnt enjoying the boost of the aul maguic CL money itts no surprise high earning mutts like Aquilani et al are getting the door and players at the level ofOrini and Allen wholl not be on much are being brought in.
Everton and Birmingham arent exactly good examples of well run clubs that are on an upward trajectory either btw.

Yeah 55-60% is generally spoken of as a sustainable % - it's what Spurs and Arsenal operate at. United are even lower. They are the three best run clubs in England. Liverpool's 70% is not sustainable in the long-term.

Mr Alan

No issue with the club deciding to move on players like Bellamy, Maxi & Kuyt. However, they need to be replaced and replaced well, improving the team & our options. pretty simple.

daithijjj

whatawaster wrote: »

That he shouldn't be saying these things in the first place.

Ultimately, his words may ring hollow, but the job of the owners imo is to:
- Safeguard the financial future of the club
- Sort out the stadium issue
- Put in place a footballing structure that will do the business for us

If they do all 3 in the end it won't matter if Werner went against his word

You clearly have the rosier outlook, what can i say?, come back to me in 2 or 3 years after the drought.

Roger Sterling

Mr Alan wrote: »

No issue with the club deciding to move on players like Bellamy, Maxi & Kuyt. However, they need to be replaced and replaced well, improving the team & our options. pretty simple.

If the funds arent there though its prettu simple too. Money in. less out.

Roger Sterling

Andy Carroll wrote: »

I think we should put the players on a 4 day week.
I estimate this would save 43% on the wage bill.

Maybe get the goalscoring bonus off downigs contract before he catches fire too.

whatawaster

daithijjj wrote: »

Premier league clubs lost half a billion in 09/10.

Cost cutting is fine, but dont expect any success to come with it.

When the bubble bursts, do you want us to be with United, Arsenal and Spurs in the safe pile?

FFP is widely ridiculed, but the way I see it - Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Manchester United - the big revenue clubs of Europe, will want to see it enforced and I think they will hold far more power than the new money at City, Chelsea and PSG.

Maybe success won't come, but I'd rather us break even and come 5th than endanger the future of the club by running up debts and challenging for the league. If we had won the title in 08/09, it wouldn't have justified H&G's destruction of the club.

Mr Alan

Roger Sterling wrote: »

If the funds arent there though its prettu simple too. Money in. less out.

If the funds aren't there, then we've been had by another set of yanks.

whatawaster

Mr Alan wrote: »

No issue with the club deciding to move on players like Bellamy, Maxi & Kuyt. However, they need to be replaced and replaced well, improving the team & our options. pretty simple.

Of course we all hope they are replaced and improved upon.

You understand though that our replacement have to cost less than those coming out, and therefore the challenge we face?

Mr Alan

whatawaster wrote: »

Of course we all hope they are replaced and improved upon.

You understand though that our replacement have to cost less than those coming out, and therefore the challenge we face?

It was my understanding that we are totally fine under the FFP rules?

Why are you making out we have to get our house in order or we're ****ed?

The only way we can get back to the top table is to improve our team, it can be done somewhat sensibly & we shouldn't expect nor encourage flippant spending but we're on course to finish this transfer window with a HUGELY slashed wage bill & having made a chunky profit in the transfer market.

whatawaster

Mr Alan wrote: »

If the funds aren't there, then we've been had by another set of yanks.

What???

The club has an operating deficit. Overwhelmingly the legacy of the last owners. FSG were never going to pump money into a loss-making business, and they never said they would.

What do you not get about this? The club has to be self-sufficient.

Roger Sterling

Mr Alan wrote: »

If the funds aren't there, then we've been had by another set of yanks.

Im beginning to suspect you very well may have been. They have much to prove.

Gbear

whatawaster wrote: »

If we had won the title in 08/09, it wouldn't have justified H&G's destruction of the club.

That's not really relevant. We weren't going down the swanny because we kept overpaying on transfers and wages - we had colossal debt repayments on debt that had nothing to do with creating the squad.

We can almost certainly spend the same amount that Rafa spent under the current constraints - he had to sell to buy for the most part anyway.
The benefit of not having dickheads in charge is that we have an actual budget.
Rafa's problem was continuously shifting goalposts.

The difference between now and then is that I don't think there's the window to challenge for the title anymore with that kind of level of investment - there's an extra Chelsea to contend with and the likes of Newcastle and Spurs are considerably stronger.

whatawaster

Mr Alan wrote: »

It was my understanding that we are totally fine under the FFP rules?

Why are you making out we have to get our house in order or we're ****ed?

I've checked here and the club have an underlying loss (as of Summer 2011) of £34 million.

So as of last summer we aren't fine by FFP rules.

A £34 million hole needs to be plugged. Revenue must go one way, and costs another. Without CL football, the overwhelming majority has to come from the cost side (wages)

Mr Alan

FFP allow clubs to operate at a loss afaik. I'm 99% sure we weren't/aren't in breach of it.

FSG bought a struggling asset in need of investment in order to return to the top table & start earning more money through increased success/tv/commercial deals etc. They need to either expand Anfield or build a new stadium in order to dramatically increase match day revenues & they need to get us back to the CL to do that. We appear to be moving further away from those two things.

What you're effectively saying is that we're settling into a future as a mid table club?

Gbear

whatawaster wrote: »

I've checked here and the club have an underlying loss (as of Summer 2011) of £34 million.

So as of last summer we aren't fine by FFP rules.

A £34 million hole needs to be plugged. Revenue must go one way, and costs another. Without CL football, the overwhelming majority has to come from the cost side (wages)

One thing - I seem to recall there being a line from the club that they reduced the wage bill last summer - that won't show up, whether it's true or not, until the accounts covering last season are included.

whatawaster

Gbear wrote: »

One thing - I seem to recall there being a line from the club that they reduced the wage bill last summer - that won't show up, whether it's true or not, until the accounts covering last season are included.

True, the wage bill may have decreased in the last year, and our turnover may have increased significantly. We just don't know yet.

Just as we don't know where we will be come August 31st in terms of the playing squad.

Roger Sterling

Mr Alan wrote: »

FFP allow clubs to operate at a loss afaik. I'm 99% sure we weren't/aren't in breach of it.

FSG bought a struggling asset in need of investment in order to return to the top table & start earning more money through increased success/tv/commercial deals etc. They need to either expand Anfield or build a new stadium in order to dramatically increase match day revenues & they need to get us back to the CL to do that. We appear to be moving further away from those two things.

What you're effectively saying is that we're settling into a future as a mid table club?

Well theyve already plumped for an unproven flavour of the month midtable manager.....

daithijjj

whatawaster wrote: »

When the bubble bursts, do you want us to be with United, Arsenal and Spurs in the safe pile?

FFP is widely ridiculed, but the way I see it - Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Manchester United - the big revenue clubs of Europe, will want to see it enforced and I think they will hold far more power than the new money at City, Chelsea and PSG.

Maybe success won't come, but I'd rather us break even and come 5th than endanger the future of the club by running up debts and challenging for the league. If we had won the title in 08/09, it wouldn't have justified H&G's destruction of the club.

I only popped in here for a few minutes and i would love to reply but i dont have time right now to explain why the highlighted part is pear shaped logic.

There has never been anything wrong with the club or its finances that would put it at risk in isolation of itself. It was the owners situation that put us at risk, the club was fine if it was without them and how they got the money to purchase it. During the time when we were told that we had to sell to buy by the bank our wages went up, not down. And this was under the banks scrutiny and deemed acceptable.

By all means, cut the crap off the squad, drop wages all over the place and start again........in 3 years you will be begging for what Dalglish gave this club last season.

Gbear

Mr Alan wrote: »

FFP allow clubs to operate at a loss afaik. I'm 99% sure we weren't/aren't in breach of it.

FSG bought a struggling asset in need of investment in order to return to the top table & start earning more money through increased success/tv/commercial deals etc. They need to either expand Anfield or build a new stadium in order to dramatically increase match day revenues & they need to get us back to the CL to do that. We appear to be moving further away from those two things.

What you're effectively saying is that we're settling into a future as a mid table club?

Unless we're getting CL money there's no way in hell that we can justify expanding the stadium.

We'd probably have to be nearly doubling our matchday revenue to warrant a significant expansion or a new stadium.

If you want to blame them for anything, blame them for making unrealistic goals that aren't going to be financially viable. If it's good for the club, they're going to do it.

Mr Alan

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Well theyve already plumped for an unproven flavour of the month midtable manager.....

I get it. You're erect talking about Liverpool on the slide. Can you go away now?

Thanks.

Gbear

whatawaster wrote: »

True, the wage bill may have decreased in the last year, and our turnover may have increased significantly. We just don't know yet.

Just as we don't know where we will be come August 31st in terms of the playing squad.

Another point is that the ridiculous stadium expenses should come to an end aswell.

jesus_thats_gre

whatawaster wrote: »

I've checked here and the club have an underlying loss (as of Summer 2011) of £34 million.

So as of last summer we aren't fine by FFP rules.

A £34 million hole needs to be plugged. Revenue must go one way, and costs another. Without CL football, the overwhelming majority has to come from the cost side (wages)

Was that not down to a write down of the work done for the new stadium?

Edit: this table shows a one off cost for "Stadium Expenses" of 49.6m:



That is basically money that was spent long ago being accepted as being a waste, i.e. it is bollox when it comes to the clubs profitability.


Given that points that you are making and how strongly you seem to believe it them, using 2011 to back up your argument while not factoring that into your argument is.......

Mr Alan

Gbear wrote: »

Unless we're getting CL money there's no way in hell that we can justify expanding the stadium.

We'd probably have to be nearly doubling our matchday revenue to warrant a significant expansion or a new stadium.

If you want to blame them for anything, blame them for making unrealistic goals that aren't going to be financially viable. If it's good for the club, they're going to do it.

Was building a new stadium/expansion not a minimum requirement for any purchaser?

whatawaster

Mr Alan wrote: »

FFP allow clubs to operate at a loss afaik. I'm 99% sure we weren't/aren't in breach of it.

FSG bought a struggling asset in need of investment in order to return to the top table & start earning more money through increased success/tv/commercial deals etc. They need to either expand Anfield or build a new stadium in order to dramatically increase match day revenues & they need to get us back to the CL to do that. We appear to be moving further away from those two things.

What you're effectively saying is that we're settling into a future as a mid table club?

FFP only kicked in last season, so we don't yet have the accounts to show if we are compliant with it or not. I believe it allows a loss of £10 million or thereabout over 3 years (not too sure) and of course we can spend what we want on Stadiums and Academies

I'm not saying we should be content with mid-table.

We have the 4th highest turnover in the league (maybe 5th if City go a long way in the CL this season). No reason why we shouldn't have been achieving these positions for the last few years and why those positions shouldn't be our short-term aim.

Medium and long-term we are obviously looking for a stadium to increase revenues and the academy to produce the players we need cheaply.

Mr Alan

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Was that not down to a write down of the work done for the new stadium?

That's true actually, remember that being mentioned.

whatawaster

Gbear wrote: »

Another point is that the ridiculous stadium expenses should come to an end aswell.

They aren't part of the structural loss underlying last year's accounts as they are one-off items

whatawaster

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Was that not down to a write down of the work done for the new stadium?

If we exclude the stadium costs, the profit was £10 million. But that includes profits on the sales of Torres and Mascherano (£43 million) which cannot be relied upon to repeat in future years, so there is definitely a hole in the finances still.

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Given that points that you are making and how strongly you seem to believe it them, using 2011 to back up your argument while not factoring that into your argument is.......

is . . .

jesus_thats_gre

whatawaster wrote: »

If we exclude the stadium costs, the profit was £10 million. But that includes profits on the sales of Torres and Mascherano (£43 million) which cannot be relied upon to repeat in future years, so there is definitely a hole in the finances still.

Depends which way you look at it? Are you one of those that have been rationalising the sale of Agger? It could be Skrtel next season, Lucas the next after that, then Suarez. Lets not forget Reina... Guts of 20m plus a season there...

jesus_thats_gre

whatawaster wrote: »

is . . .

effectively negating the validity of your argument.

I don't think that things are terrible but I don't believe that the new owners are going to solve our problems anytime soon either. You, and others, seem to have a unique ability to rationalise that goings on at our club recently and I don't really get it.

I have stronger opinions on it but I haven't been using this forums recently, nor am I inclined to doing some digging on old posts, so I will leave it at that.

whatawaster

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Are you one of those that have been rationalising the sale of Agger?

I dunno, have I?

I mean if he doesn't sign a new contract we probably have to sell him or everyone will be complaining when he leaves for £10 million next summer.

I would do everything I can to keep him here.

I just don't see where anything near a £43 million profit on player sales is going to come from and the club certainly cannot budget for these massive one-off costs. They would be stupid to do so.

whatawaster

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

effectively negating the validity of your argument.

I was factoring all the figures in, INCLUDING the stadium cost write-off. Our operating loss for that year excluding the exceptional stadium costs, was £34 million.

So how is that negating the validity of my argument?

opr

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Was that not down to a write down of the work done for the new stadium?

Edit: this table shows a one off cost for "Stadium Expenses" of 49.6m:


That is basically money that was spent long ago being accepted as being a waste, i.e. it is bollox when it comes to the clubs profitability.

Given that points that you are making and how strongly you seem to believe it them, using 2011 to back up your argument while not factoring that into your argument is.......

He's completely right in what he's saying. The £30m figure is after the exceptional expenses are factored into the overall picture to get what the club is actually making as an underlying loss. It was discussed at length on here and other forums at the time of the accounts being released.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78497341&postcount=5418

Opr

Roger Sterling

Mr Alan wrote: »

I get it. You're erect talking about Liverpool on the slide. Can you go away now?

Thanks.

Im just saying what Ive hard many LFC fans saying over this summer. Standards are slipping as the years pas by yet you seem unconcerned.

Mr Alan

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Im just saying what Ive hard many LFC fans saying over this summer. Standards are slipping as the years pas by yet you seem unconcerned.

Really? If you read any of my posts I'd have thought it was quite obvious that I'm very concerned? :concerned:

opr

John Henry taking much the same abuse from Red Sox fans on the other side of pond this week.

Pete Sheppard wants to know where John Henry has been during this Red Sox debacle!

I googled fans forums to see what they were saying about things.

We have all heard about the mess that exists on the team and within the organization itself much of it revolving around a lack of communication between the manager and the players and also mass questions of confusion re: such matter as the duties/interference of the ownership re:/with with the FO and with the manager.

That was the first three lines in the first thread I came across.

Opr

Roger Sterling

Mr Alan wrote: »

Really? If you read any of my posts I'd have thought it was quite obvious that I'm very concerned? :concerned:

Ive never read any of your posts but it seems odd to be so hostile to omeone whos basically simging from the sa.e hymn sheet as you in that case.

Mr Alan

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Ive never read any of your posts but it seems odd to be so hostile to omeone whos basically simging from the sa.e hymn sheet as you in that case.

I guess I can just sense the glee in your posts

Roger Sterling

Gleeful or not Im right. I feel ye are at a monumental crossroads this summer. Several clubs above ye are making very positive moves. Can the same really be said at Anfield?

whatawaster

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Gleeful or not Im right. I feel ye are at a monumental crossroads this summer. Several clubs above ye are making very positive moves. Can the same really be said at Anfield?

Our squad has been weakened at this point in time, no doubt about it. But we can't judge our transfer dealings now while the window is still open and business is still ongoing.

I don't think our first XI has been weakened at all though. Borini and Allen probably improve it, in fact.

But again . . . long way to go in the window

whatawaster

I can't be the only one who thinks the Agger situation is now a very tricky one for the club. (Albeit, it's the club's fault for not tying him down earlier)

Firstly, we should look to extend his contract. He is our best defender and is in his prime, and is certainly worth £70,000-£80,000 a year.

If he signs . . . great

If he doesn't we are in an extremely difficult position. It's all well and good saying Agger is worth £30 million, but I can't see any club paying that for him, given his injury record. He would probably fetch £20 million this summer, £10 million next summer and obviously nothing the year after.

It's such a difficult decision for the manager/owners. On the one hand Agger is one of our best players and the fans will be angry if he's sold, but on the other hand, is he worth £12/13 million (loss in value plus wages over a season) for one extra season at the club?

opr

If Agger won't sign a new contract that's a completely different situation to the one most people are talking about. Everything from Agger and his agent have indicated he's willing to talk to the club about renewing his deal. The thing some of us are worried about is that the club aren't willing to sanction the kind of deal/wages needed to compete with what other clubs will offer him.

Opr

amiable

I have been saying for days that I think he'll be sold.

I think if hes offered a decent contract he'll stay but I think FSG are happy to cash in at the right price

whatawaster

opr wrote: »

If Agger won't sign a new contract that's a completely different situation to the one most people are talking about. Everything from Agger and his agent have indicated he's willing to talk to the club about renewing his deal. The thing some of us are worried about is that the club aren't willing to sanction the kind of deal/wages needed to compete with what other clubs will offer him.

Opr

I would prefer if people discussed it in realistic terms, in light of his contract situation, what wages he is worth, what fee he is worth, etc, rather than the general hysteria at the thought of him sold.

I guess we will learn a lot on Thursday (doesn't playing in the qualifying round affect his CL eligibility until January?)

I would be very disappointed if we weren't willing to meet his wage demands (unless they are into 6 figures or something crazy).

whatawaster

amiable wrote: »

I have been saying for days that I think he'll be sold.

I think if hes offered a decent contract he'll stay but I think FSG are happy to cash in at the right price

I think he will be sold too, unfortunately. I'd guess to Barcelona with Afellay or Tello or both coming the other way. Really the last thing we need this summer.
The Reina-Skrtel-Agger-Lucas axis looked a really solid foundation for Rodgers to build on.

Laika1986

Again as we all know things do change but i believe Skrtel will sign a new contract..

There is a very good chance Agger will be sold (£20 million plus)

There is interest in Walcott, not sure how strong..

We are trying to sign 4 players plus joe Allen and a loan signing.

Latest from Macca

Mr Alan

whatawaster wrote: »

I would prefer if people discussed it in realistic terms, in light of his contract situation, what wages he is worth, what fee he is worth, etc, rather than the general hysteria at the thought of him sold.

Realistic terms?

He has two years left.
He has openly said we haven't approached him about a new deal.
He has openly said he is interested in a new deal at the club.

People are dead right to question why we aren't seemingly interested in tying down one of our best players. In fact, the person moving away from the reality of the situation tonight is you in discussing him possibly refusing to sign a new deal in trying to excuse the possibility of selling him.