Liverpool FC News/Gossip/Rumours Summer '15

LuckyLloyd

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I think we all knew it was going to fail anyway.

It was just a method to ring fence the elite clubs in the game really. I think people should have the right to buy a business and invest as much money as they like in it upfront in an attempt to make it a market leader. So long as they pay their taxes and obey the laws of the land it should be allowed. The idea that football would block sugar daddies (a concept as old as football itself) was mad really.

Dickerty

I think they need to maintain some control to ensure that clubs are solvent and that someone's overspending (usually overborrowing) doesn't result in contracted players and staff going unpaid for months, or 100 year old clubs being wound down...

LuckyLloyd

Dickerty wrote: »

I think they need to maintain some control to ensure that clubs are solvent and that someone's overspending (usually overborrowing) doesn't result in contracted players and staff going unpaid for months, or 100 year old clubs being wound down...

I disagree that they should be doing anything above what a tech start up would do. 'Solvency' is not really a concept that start up businesses worry about. You get a pile of cash and you start hiring and getting up and going on the assumption that you'll be successful in a later round of funding. It has to be this way, otherwise the status quo of the biggest clubs in Europe will never be challenged to any great degree. It takes a huge amount of money upfront to get a non elite club to the elite level quickly, and it may not be possible for a non elite club to gradually work its way to elite status organically.

And if a club fails then, like any old business, they should be wound up within the laws of the jurisdiction concerned.

I know that FFP was alluring for many fans on a partisan basis, i.e. fans that would prefer City / Chelsea weren't upsetting the applecart. It is nice to throw stones about how they are artificial clubs or whatever. But philosophically or ethically speaking, if a man / corporation wants to pay for the dream within football while staying compliant with the laws of the land they should be allowed to do it. That's capitalism.

Dickerty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I disagree that they should be doing anything above what a tech start up would do. 'Solvency' is not really a concept that start up businesses worry about. You get a pile of cash and you start hiring and getting up and going on the assumption that you'll be successful in a later round of funding. It has to be this way, otherwise the status quo of the biggest clubs in Europe will never be challenged to any great degree. It takes a huge amount of money upfront to get a non elite club to the elite level quickly, and it may not be possible for a non elite club to gradually work its way to elite status organically.

And if a club fails then, like any old business, they should be wound up within the laws of the jurisdiction concerned.

I know that FFP was alluring for many fans on a partisan basis, i.e. fans that would prefer City / Chelsea weren't upsetting the applecart. It is nice to throw stones about how they are artificial clubs or whatever. But philosophically or ethically speaking, if a man / corporation wants to pay for the dream within football while staying compliant with the laws of the land they should be allowed to do it. That's capitalism.

But a tech start-up doesn't have it's roots in a small northern town in England, or Spain, or Denmark. It doesn't have a stadium, and all the history, and local rivalries. Local kids don't aspire to work for them while they watch from the terrace. It exists on it's own, and if it fails, it only means some lost money and lost jobs.

A football club should mean a lot more than that.

ush

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

ethically speaking....That's capitalism.

Ethics and capitalism? As if capitalism was some sort of natural law.

Football has governing bodies. They may want to do whats best for the game/product. Its their baby, not club owners'.

Harry Palmr

Lucky Lloyd would make me become a commie! :pac:

LuckyLloyd

Dickerty wrote: »

But a tech start-up doesn't have it's roots in a small northern town in England, or Spain, or Denmark. It doesn't have a stadium, and all the history, and local rivalries. Local kids don't aspire to work for them while they watch from the terrace. It exists on it's own, and if it fails, it only means some lost money and lost jobs.

A football club should mean a lot more than that.

We were comfortable with Sugar Daddies when it was some Lancashire Steel Magnate. I fail to see how the current situation is any different than the 70's, bar the fact that those buying the clubs are non nationals. Clubs suffered terrible reverses of fortune after overreaching all throughout the history of football. Peter Risdale wasn't a Qatari Oil baron after all.

I feel that the above emotive rhetoric sounds nice, but the reality of FFP at the sharp end of the game is a protection mechanism for the already established clubs that maintains their competitive advantage which maintains their revenue streams.

LuckyLloyd

ush wrote: »

Ethics and capitalism? As if capitalism was some sort of natural law.

Football has governing bodies. They may want to do whats best for the game/product. Its their baby, not club owners'.

Then lets talk about salary caps and rules on the procurement of young talent. But that would be a real playing field leveller wouldn't it? FFP amounts to 'stay in your lane' dressed up in terms that manipulate the romanticism and partisanship of football fans.

Knex*

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Then lets talk about salary caps and rules on the procurement of young talent. But that would be a real playing field leveller wouldn't it? FFP amounts to 'stay in your lane' dressed up in terms that manipulate the romanticism and partisanship of football fans.

I'm in favour of divisional salary caps. As in the PL has a certain amount, the Championship less, and so on, so forth.

I'm starting to come around to your reason with regards to FFP, but I still feel something needs to be done.

Magico Gonzalez

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Then lets talk about salary caps and rules on the procurement of young talent. But that would be a real playing field leveller wouldn't it? FFP amounts to 'stay in your lane' dressed up in terms that manipulate the romanticism and partisanship of football fans.

Agreed, salary caps have to be implemented on a European level. This would require an exemption from European law but it's worth doing.

Obviously it will never happen as the big clubs will never put their investment at risk, sad to say. The days when coaching and development of talent where more important than money have gone.

LuckyLloyd

Knex. wrote: »

I'm in favour of divisional salary caps. As in the PL has a certain amount, the Championship less, and so on, so forth.

I'm starting to come around to your reason with regards to FFP, but I still feel something needs to be done.

:eek:

You're moderating your position on the Internet!!?

Knex*

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

:eek:

You're moderating your position on the Internet!!?

:pac:

I generally do when I find reason to, yeah

ush

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Then lets talk about salary caps and rules on the procurement of young talent. But that would be a real playing field leveller wouldn't it? FFP amounts to 'stay in your lane' dressed up in terms that manipulate the romanticism and partisanship of football fans.

Why not salary caps, rules on the procurement of young talent and FFP?

Anyway, so you think club owners are should be allowed to do whatever they want with their club. If you're so committed to that, why are you moaning about FSG all the time?

JohnDaniels

Someone already mentioned it in the last few days but the fallout when the TV money dries up will be interesting. As Sky Sports/BT jack up prices year on year the new consumer coming through will be far more tech savvy and the techology itself will move on to a degree that allows that consumer to use online to get flawless service then prices will bottom out completely. Something similar to the music industry. That kind of game changer isn't as far off as some think.

Harry Palmr

James Pearce sez Enrique to West Brom is not on. I think that means it's off.

googled eyes

Harry Palmr wrote: »

James Pearce sez Enrique to West Brom is not on. I think that means it's off.

I thought WestBrom denied all knowledge of said deal a couple of hours ago

Connavar

What would be interesting with salary caps would be how much value would then be placed on location.
Surely the likes of the London clubs, Madrid etc would gain a nice advantage there as they can offer the nicer lifestyle

Knex*

Harry Palmr wrote: »

James Pearce sez Enrique to West Brom is not on. I think that means it's off.

He mustn't like using them in FIFA.

Can't say I blame him.

Grayditch

I thought I'd be happy about a situation like that which is happening at United, but reading the thread, people calling for Austin and Berahino...

Ouch. Been there. Know them feels.

Although in their defence, nobody has called for Kevin Doyle, yet.

ush

JohnDaniels wrote: »

Someone already mentioned it in the last few days but the fallout when the TV money dries up will be interesting. As Sky Sports/BT jack up prices year on year the new consumer coming through will be far more tech savvy and the techology itself will move on to a degree that allows that consumer to use online to get flawless service then prices will bottom out completely. Something similar to the music industry. That kind of game changer isn't as far off as some think.

Hmmm....I thought the next step was clubs streaming their own matches? Cutting out Murdoch.

Football clubs have levels of loyalty that might not have existed in the music business.

Could end up as you describe though.

Harry Palmr

Grayditch wrote: »

I thought I'd be happy about a situation like that which is happening at United, but reading the thread, people calling for Austin and Berahino...

Ouch. Been there. Know them feels.

Although in their defence, nobody has called for Kevin Doyle, yet.

He can do a job.

Luckycharms_74

Damn you Enrique

JohnDaniels

ush wrote: »

Hmmm....I thought the next step was clubs streaming their own matches? Cutting out Murdoch.

Football clubs have levels of loyalty that might not have existed in the music business.

Could end up as you describe though.

I haven't thought much about the clubs streaming matches themselves but given the way TV money is now shared fairly evenly in the premiership surely that would be catastrophic for the smaller clubs like in Spain? 90% of matches involving the smaller clubs would be of no interest to the majority of viewing public. While music is now paid for legally by the masses through the likes of Spotify it has meant a fraction of the revenues which even for the clubs with huge global audiences would mean similar in having to price it so people feel comfortable with the value of the service versus getting illegally.

Cartman78

Grayditch wrote: »

I thought I'd be happy about a situation like that which is happening at United, but reading the thread, people calling for Austin and Berahino...

Ouch. Been there. Know them feels.

Although in their defence, nobody has called for Kevin Doyle, yet.

Is Carlton Cole not the default option at this point?

Harry Palmr

Darren Bent, Shirley?

ush

JohnDaniels wrote: »

I haven't thought much about the clubs streaming matches themselves but given the way TV money is now shared fairly evenly in the premiership surely that would be catastrophic for the smaller clubs like in Spain? 90% of matches involving the smaller clubs would be of no interest to the majority of viewing public. While music is now paid for legally by the masses through the likes of Spotify it has meant a fraction of the revenues which even for the clubs with huge global audiences would mean similar in having to price it so people feel comfortable with the value of the service versus getting illegally.

Yeah, disaster for smaller clubs. Big return on investment for larger club owners.

Dickerty

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Darren Bent, Shirley?

Cue pictures of bent "Liverpool" Intercity sign...

Turtyturd

Well in Jose.

Swarlez

Luckycharms_74 wrote: »

Damn you Enrique

I don't get the Enrique hate, i think hes a fairly solid full back who could still do a job if needed. He's no worse than Moreno, and has shown that he can be better

Pighead

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

2012 / 13:

Joe Allen, £15m: squad player
Borini, £10m: gone
Sahin, Loan: gone
Assaidi, £2.3m: gone
Yesil, £1m: gone
Sturridge, £12m: brilliant when fit
Coutinho, £8.5m: :):)
Ibe, £0.5m: squad player

£49.3m

2013 / 14:

Alberto, £6.8m: gone
Aspas, £7m: gone
Toure, Free: squad player
Mignolet, £10m: decent goalkeeper
Ilori, £7m: gone?
Sakho, £18m: squad player (rather perplexingly)
Moses, Loan: gone

£48.8m

2014 / 15:

Can, £10m: a ways to go, but flashes
Lambert, £4m: gone
Lallana, £25m: :mad:
Marković, £20m: gone
Lovren, £20m: :(:(
Origi, £10m: squad player
Moreno, £12m: poor squad player
Balotelli, £16m: gone
Vigouroux, Free: ...
Stewart, Free: ...

£117m

£215m total, 13 of 24 signings not contributing as of today

I am impressed at those retaining such faith in this windows dealings given what has come before tbh!

With all the back and forth arguing over the merits of keeping Rogers I think the above post kinda trumps all other arguments. Three shocking years in a row with almost a quarter of a billion spent. His last chance of salvation was last summers window.

He had to find more hits than misses. A year later the majority of those signings look like they'll be also heading for the bundle marked 'Flop'.

Agent Coulson

It's taken 3 years and nearly £300m for Rodgers to turn Liverpool into a version of his Swansea team.

Vicxas

Agent Coulson wrote: »

It's taken 3 years and nearly £300m for Rodgers to turn Liverpool into a version of his Swansea team.

Ooooh, that hurts

LuckyLloyd

ush wrote: »

Why not salary caps, rules on the procurement of young talent and FFP?

Anyway, so you think club owners are should be allowed to do whatever they want with their club. If you're so committed to that, why are you moaning about FSG all the time?

Because I don't think their strategy is a winning one, I don't believe they have demonstrated a huge amount of competency and I don't think they're taking advantage of the changed landscape of TV money, etc. But that's a poor effort to argue my point anyway.

Salary caps would obviously be tied to average revenue streams so would in effect achieve what FFP theoretically aims to. But the established elite clubs would fight bitterly against it, and it couldn't be imposed by UEFA / FIFA from the top as it would technically contravene EU regulations.

ush

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because I don't think their strategy is a winning one,

But its their club to with as they wish. Your logic.

LuckyLloyd

ush wrote: »

But its their club to with as they wish. Your logic.

:rolleyes:

I think it's very clear that Roman and the owners of City / PSG are taking the decisions they are taking because winning is their objective. I'm not sure what flaw in my position you believe you are exposing?

ush

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I think it's very clear that Roman and the owners of City / PSG are taking the decisions they are taking because winning is their objective. I'm not sure what flaw in my position you believe you are exposing?

You think that UEFA has no right to object to the owner's running of a club. Despite the fact that UEFA govern the game. But as a fan you think you can object, at length.

Kirby

ush wrote: »

You think that UEFA has no right to object to the owner's running of a club. Despite the fact that UEFA govern the game. But as a fan you think you can object, at length.

UEFA govern the game but they are subject to EU law. It's a bit of a murky area but the reason why FFP rules were relaxed was because they werent sure they would win a legal challenge.....and the big clubs were challenging it.

ush

Kirby wrote: »

UEFA govern the game but they are subject to EU law.

Thats a separate point though.

Kirby

Its not though. Any discussion on what clubs owners do/should be allowed do has got to include the legal ramifications.

Magico Gonzalez

ush wrote: »

You think that UEFA has no right to object to the owner's running of a club. Despite the fact that UEFA govern the game. But as a fan you think you can object, at length.

I think the distinction between the controllers/administrators of the game in Europe from a fan or consumer should be so obvious that it's not worth remarking upon?

FPP is a half baked effort at a fair and level playing field.

For my money FSG have committed vast sums of cash into stadium redevelopment (the quickest way to add new match day revenue) vast sums of money into player recruitment (mostly misspent, not a reflection on their commitment) and have done a great deal in the commercial side in terms of sponsorship and "the brand" , especially in the US.

For me the missing link is someone to assess the on pitch progress for the money spent to date, there needs to be a stateside advisor who has actual football experience and understand the US sports business.

I'd nominate Steve Nicol, 10 years coaching experience in the US, obviously understands Liverpool. I think he'd be a great man to have on hand in the US to talk to the suits about the club.

K-9

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I think it's very clear that Roman and the owners of City / PSG are taking the decisions they are taking because winning is their objective. I'm not sure what flaw in my position you believe you are exposing?

FSG don't have the cash that those have, we only spend big when we've a Torres or Suarez to finance it. Plus we've a stadium to build.

Even Abram has cut back a hell of a lot, I'd assume the stadium there would be a factor in that too.

LuckyLloyd

ush wrote: »

You think that UEFA has no right to object to the owner's running of a club. Despite the fact that UEFA govern the game. But as a fan you think you can object, at length.

It doesn't look like you and I will be able to converse constructively on this topic. Probably my fault.

ush

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It doesn't look like you and I will be able to converse constructively on this topic. Probably my fault.

Apology accepted.

rob316

United's strike force is laughable, an over the hill Rooney and an unproven 19 year old. Get Sturridge fit and the rest of the attacking players clicking we should get Top 4.

ush

rob316 wrote: »

United's strike force is laughable, an over the hill Rooney and an unproven 19 year old. Get Sturridge fit and the rest of the attacking players clicking we should get Top 4.

If only it were that easy.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Thought I'd dust down Morzadec's alternative table from 2013/14 as it was a lucky charm, plus with the tough Away games we have early doors, it should give a bit more context as to how on track we are for 4th:

City +3.00
Liverpool +1.50
United +0.50
Chelsea -1.50
Arsenal -2.50
Spurs -3.50

Early days and this is more to start the thing up, but an impressive start from City wining both away games and beating Chelsea. We did well, but it shows you how tough this table is when a point away to Arsenal is the norm.

To recap how it works:

1. 'Weak' team at home. Target: 2.5 ppg
2. 'Strong' teams at home. Target: 2ppg

3. 'Weak' teams away. Target: 2ppg
4. 'Strong' teams away. Target 1ppg

ppg = points per game
Strong Teams are categorised based on the top 7 from last season, and then the other 10 teams and the 3 promoted clubs.

That gives a target of 76 points, 44 at home and 32 away. Arsenal got 3rd with that last season so it is more than enough, United got 70 last season and the average for 4th over the last 6 seasons was 71.50 points, the only outlier Arsenal in 13/14.

Southampton are included, as counting the top 6 only as strong leaves a target of 78 points, which is even ahead of the average for 3rd over the last 6 seasons, 75 points. Everton aren't included as a strong team this time whereas they did under the old table. It could go a top 9/10 as strong but I think the problem would be accuracy and relevance, there isn't a set 7-10 over the last 4 or 5 seasons, and with the amount of manager changes hard to predict.

City +3.50
Liverpool -1.00
Arsenal -1.50
United -1.50
Chelsea -4.00
Spurs -5.00

I was spared watching Saturdays calamity but even early days, a significant loss. We really needed to make the 2 good away results count and would have been +2.00 if we did, which would have been a significant lead on the top 4 teams.

Pighead

Pighead wrote: »

With all the back and forth arguing over the merits of keeping Rogers I think the above post kinda trumps all other arguments. Three shocking years in a row with almost a quarter of a billion spent. His last chance of salvation was last summers window.

He had to find more hits than misses. A year later the majority of those signings look like they'll be also heading for the bundle marked 'Flop'.

The transfer window just gone will be key, should clyne, Milner, firminio & Benteke become hits this season top4 is quite likely. Ings and Gomez aren't expected to be as influential as the other 4.

Lots to play for yet chaps, the season is only 4 games old.

Oranage2

K-9 wrote: »

City +3.50
Liverpool -1.00
Arsenal -1.50
United -1.50
Chelsea -4.00
Spurs -5.00

I was spared watching Saturdays calamity but even early days, a significant loss. We really needed to make the 2 good away results count and would have been +2.00 if we did, which would have been a significant lead on the top 4 teams.

Just out of interest and no ill will meant, but why do I only ever see an 'alternative table' on Liverpool forums?

Turtyturd

But this is a soccer forum.

JohnDaniels

Oranage2 wrote: »

Just out of interest and no ill will meant, but why do I only ever see an 'alternative table' on Liverpool forums?

Smart people use alternative tables all the time. They are a better measuring tool when you have variables involved that may not yet be reflected in the 'true' table which gives you a better analysis of the current points total. I guess they seem a little complicated for your average Sky Sports fan. What is your problem with them?