Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2017/2018

Mr.H

murpho999 wrote: »

Not true at all. There were other bids. One from Peter Lim as shown in this article.
Even if that had not happened they best way for RBS to have got their money back was to sell the club. Somebody would have gotten it eventually.

There was NO BID from Lim. He wanted to bid or at least he claims to have wanted to bid. But the fact is the club was up for sale for a very very long time before FSG bought it and he made no offers.

I dont believe that RBS would have wound up Liverpool even though there was that real threat. I do however believe that they would have stepped in and sold assets including players and the stadium to recoup its money.

RBS are a bank and have no interest in managing a football club. They are in teh business of making money.

murpho999 wrote: »

As stated they got the club for £300m regardless of the debt level. A bargain price for one of the largest brands in World football.

And how much where similar sized clubs up for sale at the time???

£300 million for a club that was bleeding money

murpho999 wrote: »

Liverpool were valued at £1bn last year when there were rumours of the club being sold. It's a fair assessment when you see that Southampton, a much smaller club are recently valued at £262m.

They were valued at £1Bn because of the work done by FSG

Again if they were for sale in the morning it doesnt mean they would get £1Bn

Plus the fact that minus the loans they have given Liverpool plus outstanding debt and their profit would be very marginal. Unless of course a new owner was to pay more than the £1Bn you suggest

murpho999 wrote: »

Selling best players and not reinvesting.
Original ticket price plan.

But the accounts are public knowledge and you can look at them if you wish. They have not withdrawn the money for their own benefit??

murpho999 wrote: »

Based on your figures it's £6m and also extra ancillaries, like coffee and donuts. The stand will pay for itself.

I didnt say the stand wouldnt pay for itself. I am saying its not exactly offering us extra revenue to spend as you suggested it should

murpho999 wrote: »

An embarrassing climb down that was a PR disaster and they had to back down as they'd made a mess of it and were trying to screw the fans for more cash. I don't see how this can be argued with.

They tried to charge more so they could pay for the stand quicker and have the financial means to go ahead with the rest of the expansion. Yes it was a PR nightmare but they had business intentions to increase our stadium. Thats the only way to increase the stadium (business)

murpho999 wrote: »

You are making excuses for them all the time. Rodgers did not want Ballotelli.
The committee was an FSG creation and was a disaster.
Gone when a stronger manager came in.

Salah is a good example, who joined a stronger Chelsea and did not get the chance he would have gotten at LFC. Missed out for the sake of a couple of million.

We will never know if he would have made it at the time. But we have missed out on loads of players throughout history. Ronaldo, Cantona, Veron to name but a few. Not our owners fault though is it?

murpho999 wrote: »

Michael Edwards is supposed to do this so I would imagine that Klopp would only speak to the player after his clearance.

Well it was Klopp that was caught simple as

murpho999 wrote: »

Again you are promoting the myth that FSG are the only people who would have bought Liverpool at the time which I have shown not to be true.
Nor did they do it for sentimental or altruistic reasons. It was a cold blooded and completely sensible business decision that will pay them handsomely when they decide to sell up or start taking dividends from the club.

You didnt prove anything other than some guy said he would have bought Liverpool when there is no proof that he even wanted to. He did however get a lot of publicity for his other business ventures.........

Noone else made a bid. If they made a better bid then tehy woudl have gotten the club. Thats how bids work (not trying to sound pedantic).

murpho999 wrote: »

I also don't agree that the club does not have the money that City or Chelsea do. Why can't Liverpool but a £100m player this season with all the money that's around?

What the f88k are you on about??

They wanted to spend 70 million each on two players!!!

murpho999 wrote: »

Why do people believe the club is poor when the opposite is true?
FSG have done an excellent job in convincing supporters that they cannot compete with other clubs and therefore lower expectations on the field.

Again the accounts are public knowledge. We have made very little profit in the last few years. If we were witholding money then our profit would surely look higher??

In fact were we not already investigated for spending too much by the financial fair play??????

murpho999 wrote: »

You say they are building slowly, well it's very slow. 7 years now.

In that time we had 3 major management teams. Kenny had our biggest war chest ever and spent big time.

Rodgers was given a committee because of Kennys wild spending. He again spent a lot. Now Klopp has jsut broken our record on a player!!

murpho999 wrote: »

As for what they can do? State their ambitions and back the manager fully.

If they leak to the press that they will spend £200m in the next transfer window then spend it and identify other targets if first ones are unsuccessful, which is what other clubs do.
We are more like Arsenal.
To me it looks like the money was not really there in the first place.

Salah - 40 million
Solanke - tribunal could end up around 10 million by all accounts
Robertson - 10 million
VVD - were willing to spend between 50-70 million
Keita - final bid was 67 million but were by all means willing to go higher

Im not sure but no way they would make bids if they didnt have the money to actually give???

As for other targets, Klopp has gone on record to say there are no other targets. He only wants his first choice players.

Mr.H

murpho999 wrote: »

All you have done above is listed failures apart from one league cup.

Bob Paisley regarding a season as a disaster if they finisihed second in the league.:)

Bob Paisley was also in charge of the richest club in the league at the time!!

These days we are not in the top 5

super_furry

FSG always seem to be 'willing' to spend big money to get players in but never quite manage to spend it.

Mr.H

murpho999 wrote: »

They have not get the deals over the line so bids mean nothing.

Salah is done, but is not a major deal when you see Everton spending £45m on Siggurddson.

When they sell players like Markvovic, Sakho, etc and take in how much extra money there is from TV this year then you'll see how little money they are spending.

Salah is our most expensive player ever!!!!!

Markovic and Sakho?? Nobody wants to buy them for the price we want.

The tv money, every club in the league has that. It doesnt mean we are no richer. We are the the exact same level of richness comparatively to the rest of the league as we were last season.

Everyone has more money not just us. It means the price of players has gone up so our extra money dont mean sh1t

Mr.H

super_furry wrote: »

FSG always seem to be 'willing' to spend big money to get players in but never quite manage to spend it.

Salah might think your wrong

You know, our record signing

Agent Coulson

super_furry wrote: »

FSG always seem to be 'willing' to spend big money to get players in but never quite manage to spend it.

They let Kenny and the previous manager spend the guts of half a billion and 90% of the players they brought in were rubbish.

That seems like they did spend it to me.

Mr.H

murpho999 wrote: »

Stuff like how there were more bidders than FSG is fact so why not pull up Mr H for his non-facts.
I only "imagined" about Michael Edwards so I don't know what you're getting at.



Don't care, has no impact on LFC.

What non facts are you talking about????

As for The Red Sox it proves exactly the type of owners they are. They allow the club to generate its own funds and they are willing to allow them to spend big.

Arsenal for example generate HUGE funds but they do not allow the club to spend them

Utopia Parkway

super_furry wrote: »

FSG always seem to be 'willing' to spend big money to get players in but never quite manage to spend it.

Happy to spend on baseball anyway. The Red Sox have consistently been big spenders under them. In fact they've handed out some of the worst contracts in baseball in recent years to players like Carl Crawford and Pablo Sandoval.

murpho999

Mr.H wrote: »

Bob Paisley was also in charge of the richest club in the league at the time!!

These days we are not in the top 5

It's getting late so I'm not going to respond to all your points on this and your previous post.

However, a little more research has shown that there were actually three bidders at the time of the sale, not two as reported this year in the Liverpool Echo that people her usually trust.

Link to article

So can you provide any evidence that FSG were the only bidders?

As for Paisley, I would say Utd were probably wealthy at the time but the point is that the club was run from top to bottom by winners and that's the difference.

murpho999

Mr.H wrote: »

What non facts are you talking about????

As for The Red Sox it proves exactly the type of owners they are. They allow the club to generate its own funds and they are willing to allow them to spend big.

Arsenal for example generate HUGE funds but they do not allow the club to spend them

The non fact is that FSG was the only bidder in 2010.

I will judge FSG on what they do with Liverpool not rounders teams or racing drivers.

Damien360

murpho999 wrote: »

Damien360 wrote: »

I wont quote your large post but who decides on valuations ?

LFC made a pre-tax loss of 19.8m for 2016. Valuations in most businesses are typically 7 times the outgoing profit. We are not making profit so how is it valued at 1bn ?

Don't worry about that loss that was down to transfer business and sacking Rodgers.
The next release will be a lot healthier.

As for the value. It was done by KPMG and is based on profitability, popularity, sporting potential, broadcasting rights and stadium ownership.

They value the club at €1.2bn-€1.4bn as shown here on their website.

murpho999 wrote: »

Damien360 wrote: »

I wont quote your large post but who decides on valuations ?

LFC made a pre-tax loss of 19.8m for 2016. Valuations in most businesses are typically 7 times the outgoing profit. We are not making profit so how is it valued at 1bn ?

Don't worry about that loss that was down to transfer business and sacking Rodgers.
The next release will be a lot healthier.

As for the value. It was done by KPMG and is based on profitability, popularity, sporting potential, broadcasting rights and stadium ownership.

They value the club at €1.2bn-€1.4bn as shown here on their website.

I read that report and the attached PDF and to be honest the valuation strategy is nonsense. Given that spurs are 10th globally and Leicester City are 16th, it tells you how much TV revenue skews the valuations. One big season propels Leicester into the big time....really ? The premier league is very reliant on tv revenue and it's a rug that could be easily pulled. There is only so much people will pay and then comes payback.

Mr.H

murpho999 wrote: »

It's getting late so I'm not going to respond to all your points on this and your previous post.

However, a little more research has shown that there were actually three bidders at the time of the sale, not two as reported this year in the Liverpool Echo that people her usually trust.

Link to article

So can you provide any evidence that FSG were the only bidders?

As for Paisley, I would say Utd were probably wealthy at the time but the point is that the club was run from top to bottom by winners and that's the difference.

You see I dont need evidence that FSG where the only bidders. you just provided evidence that FSG were seen as the only serious bidders.

Also you showed that Lim would have been a terrible owner having destroyed Valencia since he bought them.

If there was serious bidders willing to pay more then they would have made real bids instead of waiting for RBS to foreclose.

Either way it means nothing. FSG took over and saved the club. If it was someone else then they would have saved the club.

You have unrealistic expectations for our club and unless you can prove we have money that FSG are not willing to spend then your argument is nonsense

~Rebel~

Christ, can't believe we're gone back into this circular debate... seems like it hasn't been that long since the last time we went through exactly the same points.

To play my usual part anyway;

- Bought the club with their own money, as opposed to leveraging the cost afterwards onto the club, like the Glazers and most other buyers since then have done.

- Used their own personal line of credit to get us an interest free loan for the stadium (we pay additional cost of inflation, but thats all).

- Have turned the club into an actual profitable, well run business, and what money the club earns stays within the club.

- Have declined the opportunity to take their due dividends, which they are perfectly within their rights to do each year.

As owners, they've done everything exactly as I would have hoped. The only arguments for anti-FSG i'll accept are hiring choices. If someone has insider knowledge into the negligence or ineptitude of any high level club employees they personally hired and didn't replace swiftly, i'd be genuinely interested in hearing. I know someone has a major issue with Michael Edwards, but i've never seen any cogent analysis of his performance to back it up.

Mr.H

murpho999 wrote: »

The non fact is that FSG was the only bidder in 2010.

I will judge FSG on what they do with Liverpool not rounders teams or racing drivers.

They were!!!!

They made the offer before the others "got involved"

If there were other bidders they would have been considered. How do you not understand this?

super_furry

Mr.H wrote: »

Salah might think your wrong

You know, our record signing

And out record signing cost £13m less than Kyle Walker.

Mr.H

super_furry wrote: »

And out record signing cost £13m less than Kyle Walker.

I dont know if that makes me chuckle or tear up

NukaCola

~Rebel~ wrote: »

- Used their own personal line of credit to get us an interest free loan for the stadium (we pay additional cost of inflation, but thats all).

Not interest free but very favourable. We pay 1.24% vs a probable 5%. Inflation is lower than that I think. I'm nit picking I know, but we didn't get an interest free loan, just a very good deal thanks to FSG. Still a very good deal.

~Rebel~

As far as transfers go, the bottom line is that there is zero evidence that they're doing anything other than backing Klopp in whatever decisions he makes.

murpho999

Mr.H wrote: »

You see I dont need evidence that FSG where the only bidders. you just provided evidence that FSG were seen as the only serious bidders.

Also you showed that Lim would have been a terrible owner having destroyed Valencia since he bought them.

If there was serious bidders willing to pay more then they would have made real bids instead of waiting for RBS to foreclose.

Either way it means nothing. FSG took over and saved the club. If it was someone else then they would have saved the club.

You have unrealistic expectations for our club and unless you can prove we have money that FSG are not willing to spend then your argument is nonsense

You really should read articles properly and stop twisting the words to suit your argument.

The article categorically states that three bids were recieved and Both Mill Financial and Meriton valued Liverpool FC higher than FSG’s offer but Broughton says neither bid was seriously considered because an agreement had already been signed with the Reds’ current owners.

As for Lim turning out to be a good owner or not is not the point, the point is that the club was attractive to investors, there were other bids and the club would definitely have found a buyer.

~Rebel~

NukaCola wrote: »

Not interest free but very favourable. We pay 1.24% vs a probable 5%. Inflation is lower than that I think. I'm nit picking I know, but we didn't get an interest free loan, just a very good deal thanks to FSG. Still a decent deal.

Inflation is currently 2.6% in the UK and 1.7% in the US. Either way, we're paying inflation, or less, on our deal. It fluctuates of course though, my point is that we only pay additional costs roughly in line with inflation, which is to be expected.

~Rebel~

murpho999 wrote: »

You really should read articles properly and stop twisting the words to suit your argument.

The article categorically states that three bids were recieved and Both Mill Financial and Meriton valued Liverpool FC higher than FSG’s offer but Broughton says neither bid was seriously considered because an agreement had already been signed with the Reds’ current owners.

As for Lim turning out to be a good owner or not is not the point, the point is that the club was attractive to investors, there were other bids and the club would definitely have found a buyer.

I daresay you might well be right, and there may even have been more potential interest that was not even brought up publicly because of the bidders track records, intentions etc. Broughton was specifically looking for a responsible bid, rather than any bid. He's been proven correct in his decision.

We were ripe to be picked off by someone looking to make a quick buck through asset stripping, but thankfully Broughton found exactly the right people to turn us into a proper self sufficient entity.

murpho999

Mr.H wrote: »

Salah might think your wrong

You know, our record signing

Record signing that stood since 2011 and has been beaten by Everton.

shamrock55

Mr.H wrote: »

Salah might think your wrong

You know, our record signing

It's amazing how we can get the 35m player in the door but never the 70 or 80 m players
Fsg aren't interested in success on the pitch,build the clubs structure and commercial side up,get all the sponsors in it's all for them at the end of the day for when they sell,its like buying a car doing it up buy all new shiny parts for it then put in a ****ty engine,everything looks great you'll get good money for it but it ain't gonna win no race

~Rebel~

shamrock55 wrote: »

It's amazing how we can get the 35m player in the door but never the 70 or 80 m players
Fsg aren't interested in success on the pitch,build the clubs structure and commercial side up,get all the sponsors in it's all for them at the end of the day for when they sell,its like buying a car doing it up buy all new shiny parts for it then put in a ****ty engine,everything looks great you'll get good money for it but it ain't gonna win no race

If you've a problem with the signings, blame the manager.

murpho999

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I daresay you might well be right, and there may even have been more potential interest that was not even brought up publicly because of the bidders track records, intentions etc. Broughton was specifically looking for a responsible bid, rather than any bid. He's been proven correct in his decision.

We were ripe to be picked off by someone looking to make a quick buck through asset stripping, but thankfully Broughton found exactly the right people to turn us into a proper self sufficient entity.

As I've said we do not have bad owners and they are running the club efficiently from a financial point of view but I'm not convinced they're really investing enough in the club to win and I also believe that they made a shrewd investment in buying the club rather than rescuing it.

shamrock55

~Rebel~ wrote: »

As far as transfers go, the bottom line is that there is zero evidence that they're doing anything other than backing Klopp in whatever decisions he makes.

Show me the evidence that shows they are backing him with regards to buying players I mean, why stop at 65m for Keita,if Klopp really wants him why not offer more,money talks Leipzig might have buckled if we did but we never tested them,the one player Klopp wanted fsg couldn't deliver

shamrock55

~Rebel~ wrote: »

If you've a problem with the signings, blame the manager.

The problem isn't the manager it's the owners

~Rebel~

shamrock55 wrote: »

Show me the evidence that shows they are backing him with regards to buying players I mean, why stop at 65m for Keita,if Klopp really wants him why not offer more,money talks Leipzig might have buckled if we did but we never tested them,the one player Klopp wanted fsg couldn't deliver

That sounds like a question for him. It's naive to think that conversations weren't taking place outside an official bid, and that we don't have an idea of a figure Leipzig might accept at. Leipzig were obviously clear that they wanted a huge figure, far more than Liverpool valued Keita at. Exactly the same as Liverpool valuing Coutinho at far more than Barcelona do.

Things we know - there's 120m worth of transfer funds available to be spent, which have already been officially offered to clubs and he's choosing not to spend it on other options. That's up to him, and he'll live and die by that decision.

shamrock55 wrote: »

The problem isn't the manager it's the owners

Would love to see your evidence.

I just get the sense that people are wanting to blame the owners because they already have an issue with them, and they like the manager and don't want to blame him.

He himself has made it very clear that he's the man responsible for all incomings. I love Klopp too, but I'm happy to criticize his inactivity.

shamrock55

~Rebel~ wrote: »

That sounds like a question for him. It's naive to think that conversations weren't taking place outside an official bid, and that we don't have an idea of a figure Leipzig might accept at. Leipzig were obviously clear that they wanted a huge figure, far more than Liverpool valued Keita at. Exactly the same as Liverpool valuing Coutinho at far more than Barcelona do.

Things we know - there's 120m worth of transfer funds available to be spent, which have already been officially offered to clubs and he's choosing not to spend it on other options. That's up to him, and he'll live and die by that decision.

it's not a question for Klopp it's a question for fsg, he is a player Klopp really wanted,so they offer 65 to Leipzig and they say no,fsg say to Klopp is he worth more and you think Klopp turns around and says no leave it at that let's not make another bid,did he fcuk.
Fsg more then likely said Jurgen we know he's your main target we've offered 65 that looks good that we tried,we know Leipzig want 75 or 80 or whatever but we ain't budging on that sorry

~Rebel~

shamrock55 wrote: »

it's not a question for Klopp it's a question for fsg, he is a player Klopp really wanted,so they offer 65 to Leipzig and they say no,fsg say to Klopp is he worth more and you think Klopp turns around and says no leave it at that let's not make another bid,did he fcuk.
Fsg more then likely said Jurgen we know he's your main target we've offered 65 that looks good that we tried,we know Leipzig want 75 or 80 or whatever but we ain't budging on that sorry

We frankly have absolutely no idea on this. It's far more logical to assume that the transfer group has a total figure for the window, and they can spend that number as they see fit. After all, that's literally the transfer teams entire job - I really don't see FSG micromanaging the individual prospective assets worth.

What we do know for certain is that there is 65 million pounds available for a centre midfielder. I think that's pretty fair to be honest - if you as a manager feel like you need a CM, you should be able to find one that fits your system for that price.

Same goes for 50 million+ for a CB.

If he can't or won't bring in players for those figures, I'm going to blame him if it doesn't work out.

BorneTobyWilde

Coutinho needs to get his head back in the game now that it's clear he ain't going anywhere. Needs to lose a few pounds too.

ricero

Great to see the chickens coming home to roost and people are waking up about the mis management and lack of ambition from fsg. This summer will leave a terrible taste in most supporters mouths.

I just hope the backlash will make them sell up when we are back out of the top 4 next summer. They took us as far as they could imo and if they are not willing to break the bank on signings then time to sell up to the rumoured chinese and arab groups who are interested in bringing this club back to the top

punk_one82

shamrock55 wrote: »

It's amazing how we can get the 35m player in the door but never the 70 or 80 m players
Fsg aren't interested in success on the pitch,build the clubs structure and commercial side up,get all the sponsors in it's all for them at the end of the day for when they sell,its like buying a car doing it up buy all new shiny parts for it then put in a ****ty engine,everything looks great you'll get good money for it but it ain't gonna win no race

How are FSG to blame for RB and Southampton refusing to sell our two main targets this window? It's frustrating but it's neither Klopps nor FSGs fault. We'd have blown our record signing fee out of the water twice if those bids had have come off and our squad would look a hell of a lot better.

punk_one82

ricero wrote: »

if they are not willing to break the bank on signings then time to sell up to the rumoured chinese and arab groups who are interested in bringing this club back to the top

They clearly were willing to break the bank, other clubs weren't willing to sell!

shamrock55

~Rebel~ wrote: »

We frankly have absolutely no idea on this. It's far more logical to assume that the transfer group has a total figure for the window, and they can spend that number as they see fit. After all, that's literally the transfer teams entire job - I really don't see FSG micromanaging the individual prospective assets worth.

What we do know for certain is that there is 65 million pounds available for a centre midfielder. I think that's pretty fair to be honest - if you as a manager feel like you need a CM, you should be able to find one that fits your system for that price.

Same goes for 50 million+ for a CB.

If he can't or won't bring in players for those figures, I'm going to blame him if it doesn't work out.

The only reason Klopp can't or won't bring in players for those figures is because i believe fsg wont go beyond them,the players he wanted well KeIta anyway (vvd was just a balls up) wasn't funded or backed by fsg strongly enough

shamrock55

punk_one82 wrote: »

They clearly were willing to break the bank, other clubs weren't willing to sell!

Not enough though obviously

murpho999

punk_one82 wrote: »

They clearly were willing to break the bank, other clubs weren't willing to sell!

And there's no back up?

VVD is the only centre back in the whole world that would be an upgrade on Lovren and suit Klopp?

I find that totally bizzare.

shamrock55

punk_one82 wrote: »

How are FSG to blame for RB and Southampton refusing to sell our two main targets this window? It's frustrating but it's neither Klopps nor FSGs fault. We'd have blown our record signing fee out of the water twice if those bids had have come off and our squad would look a hell of a lot better.

I'm not blaming them for other teams not selling,but they didn't exactly put in an offer they couldn't refuse did they,and it wouldn't take much to blow our record fee out of the water either now would it

ardinn

shamrock55 wrote: »

I'm not blaming them for other teams not selling,but they didn't exactly put in an offer they couldn't refuse did they,and it wouldn't take much to blow our record fee out of the water either now would it

150 million should have been offered, each, with a go at Linda for everyone of the directors at each club!!!

Totally agree dude!!

punk_one82

shamrock55 wrote: »

Not enough though obviously

That's such rubbish. If a club isn't willing to do business then they're not willing to do business.

punk_one82

murpho999 wrote: »

And there's no back up?

VVD is the only centre back in the whole world that would be an upgrade on Lovren and suit Klopp?

I find that totally bizzare.

How is that related to FSG not willing to spend money? I also find it totally bizarre that we've no backups to VVD but it's completely unrelated to what I just said.

punk_one82

shamrock55 wrote: »

I'm not blaming them for other teams not selling,but they didn't exactly put in an offer they couldn't refuse did they,and it wouldn't take much to blow our record fee out of the water either now would it

So what? They put in a 150 million bid just to see if they can 100% get the player they want? That's not how it works. The evidence shows the money is there to be spent. If there are no other players coming in then I don't see how anyone can be blaming FSG for that.

sword1

ardinn wrote: »

150 million should have been offered, each, with a go at Linda for everyone of the directors at each club!!!

Totally agree dude!!

That would be a relegation battle with no clean sheets

Osmosis Jones

J Mysterio

ricero wrote: »

Great to see the chickens coming home to roost and people are waking up about the mis management and lack of ambition from fsg. This summer will leave a terrible taste in most supporters mouths.

I just hope the backlash will make them sell up when we are back out of the top 4 next summer. They took us as far as they could imo and if they are not willing to break the bank on signings then time to sell up to the rumoured chinese and arab groups who are interested in bringing this club back to the top

Do you really want some Arab or Chinese vulture fund to buy the club? That would be a goddamn disaster.

LuckyLloyd

J Mysterio wrote: »

Do you really want some Arab or Chinese vulture fund to buy the club? That would be a goddamn disaster.

Disaster? Might get to win the league.

J Mysterio

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Disaster? Might get to win the league.

Or ruin the club. We are on a stable upward trajectory now. Just nèed to make some damm signins

Ke the right signings to progress.

Turtyturd

Club need to bring Jonjo home for £50,000,001 to stop the indignity of Everton having spent more than us on our record signing and of having spent less than City on Kyle Walker.

It's bizarre that even in the inflated market of today people think that price guarantees quality.

dogbert27

I love when this thread goes around in circles

martyos121

Maybe we should sign Michail Antonio then