Hansen issues Liverpool warning

Ardent

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/4203315.stm

In short, Hansen reckons Liverpool are in danger of becoming a football "relic" if they don't get investment very soon, and they should open the doors for Steve Morgan.

I know the club is pretty much broke but if Hansen, who you'd imagine knows the club inside out, reckons we are in trouble then this article is like a slap in the face. Is he right, are in danger of becoming another Aston Villa (no disrespect to Villa fans)?

p.pete

I think Hansen is friends with Morgan, so he'd like to see the club going in that direction but it's obvious that we can't be the force that we want to be way things are at present.

During the transfer window we needed a defender a striker and a goal-keeper and we got them. I you look deeper however the keeper was for peanuts due to being near the end of his contract. The defender was free (and looking like he's worth every penny at the minute) while Morientes was 6mil but he's coming from a club that owe us about that much anyway, so I don't really see it as an expenditure.

The club needs investment and to get the stadium built will need even more.

Moores has previously admitted that he can't compete financially with the like of Morgan so I welcome people like Hansen putting the presure on.

BolBill

p.pete wrote:

I think Hansen is friends with Morgan, so he'd like to see the club going in that direction but it's obvious that we can't be the force that we want to be way things are at present.

During the transfer window we needed a defender a striker and a goal-keeper and we got them. I you look deeper however the keeper was for peanuts due to being near the end of his contract. The defender was free (and looking like he's worth every penny at the minute) while Morientes was 6mil but he's coming from a club that owe us about that much anyway, so I don't really see it as an expenditure.

The club needs investment and to get the stadium built will need even more.

Moores has previously admitted that he can't compete financially with the like of Morgan so I welcome people like Hansen putting the presure on.

Yeah me too pete, Moores should just get lost, hes a jink for starters
But he won't, I heard Morgan is fed up and is looking to invest elsewhere. :rolleyes:

laoisfan

being a lifelong liverpool supporter i would agree with hansen....i do not always agree with him but in this case i do.

liverpool are a joke at the moment. half the players are not up to the standard required by liverpool let alone the premiership. consistency is a major problem.

i would not go blaming benitez....as he is just in the door. while houlier did win us cups overall he screwed the club pretty bad IMO

we need investment and quick!!! at the end of last season we were shocked because we were so far behind arsenal and man utd etc......it looks like it may be a hell of a lot worst by the end of this season!!!

let morgan invest!! he has the money. he is a supporter.....give him a go

--laoisfan

yop

"hes a jink for starters"
Is a jink a new form of scouser???


Ya it is not a good sign when you heard the old pros coming out saying things are not good. The last club to start doing that was Leeds and we now know where they are.

Someone (Mark L) said on a radion show the last day that pool made a loss of 20million last year, is that correct?? If so then things are only getting worse.

Ye are about 10 players off a side that will challenge for the title, could take five more years for that to happen

p.pete

yop wrote:

Is a jink a new form of scouser???

Well he's not really young enough for whatever he is to be a new form of anything

yop wrote:

Ye are about 10 players off a side that will challenge for the title, could take five more years for that to happen

Is that based on Hansens assessment of having 6 or 7 good players and needing 16 or 17 in the squad?

Yep the 20mil is true, tis funny that you're comparing us to Leeds though :rolleyes:

yop

" tis funny that you're comparing us to Leeds though"
Why is it funny?? Ye are well in debt with no really money coming in from investors or player sales, this debt could grow if none of these 2 situations change.
Leeds were/are in a similar situation, obviously since they are in Div 1 then they money they are getting in is now where near what PL clubs get.


"Is that based on Hansens assessment of having 6 or 7 good players and needing 16 or 17 in the squad?!"

You need a large squad of good players to have any chance of pushing for the titles.
Yes if you have a core of 6 or 7 top notch player then the will needed, but if you have 11 other muppets, if you have 1 or 2 of the top players out then you have no real replacement, look at United, Ferdinand out, there was not one near as good as him to bring in, RVN same as, Chelsea have a squad of 16 players who are excellent, that is why they are in the position that they are in at the minute

mike65

yop wrote:

Someone (Mark L) said on a radion show the last day that pool made a loss of 20million last year, is that correct?? If so then things are only getting worse.

The loss is mainly due to transfers and paying off Houllier and others, in the change over. 20 mill is not the end of the world and certainly compares well to Leeds 100 mill (now 25) and Man Citys 65 million.

The silly thing is there has been a line of potential investors waiting to throw money at the club and the board has managed to rebuff them all.

Mike.

jesus_thats_gre

yop wrote:

Why is it funny?? Ye are well in debt with no really money coming in from investors or player sales, this debt could grow if none of these 2 situations change.
Leeds were/are in a similar situation, obviously since they are in Div 1 then they money they are getting in is now where near what PL clubs get.

Considering you seem to know they are in debt, just how much money do they owe?

yop

"The silly thing is there has been a line of potential investors waiting to throw money at the club and the board has managed to rebuff them all."

Ya that seems strange alright, politics within the club I would suspect.

"Considering you seem to know they are in debt, just how much money do they owe?"

Where did I say that I knew that they are in debt???? Read up the previous post, I said I hear it on a Radio show.

p.pete

yop wrote:

Ye are well in debt with no really money coming in from investors or player sales, this debt could grow if none of these 2 situations change.

You're equating a yearly financial loss with debt? What school of economics threw you up?

I think one of the things we need for long term stability is a larger stadium. Making money by selling players is always going to be a dubious option if your aim is to be the top of the table so I'll ignore that one (though we do have a lot of crap needing to be offloaded to shave the wage bill).

And yes, we need investment - kind of the point to the whole thread :rolleyes:

jesus_thats_gre

There is no doubting that something needs to happen with the club... However, to suggest that the club is going to follow Leeds down the tubes is a gross exaduration!!

The club are in debt as of this season.. During the summer, they made the decision to get rid of GH and his buddies and make some decent signings such as Cisse and Alonso.. Those three combined cost near 30 million and it is this, and this only, that put the club into debt.. The club allowed this to happen as Benitez felt he needed to add quality to the squad in order to ensure a CL finish..

This "gamble" is still a very good possibility and would have been a considerably easier task if it wasn't for the injuries we have suffered.. The injuries are not an excuse but a very realistic and understandable reason.. Of course there is those amoung you that will dismiss the reason but ye are wrong..

There is still potentially 2 groups still wanting to invest nearly 70 million into the club for a relatively small stake.. We are also in the middle of building a new stadium that already had the complete funds allocated to it before some rises in costs..

Compare that to Leeds.. Debt of 100 million.. Forced to sell off their only talent for knock down prices... Grossly inflated wage bill... No stadium or training ground of their own..


Lets not get excited about figures of 20 million.. If you followed the PL for the past few season you will notice the amount of money that GH shelled out during his reign and that was still while the club was operating at a profit.. The club is not really in any worse of a position at the moment than it was during those times..

jesus_thats_gre

yop wrote:

Where did I say that I knew that they are in debt???? Read up the previous post, I said I hear it on a Radio show.

Well look at the text that I quoted...

The club pretty much broke even last season even after paying off GH and his mates...

galactus

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

There is no doubting that something needs to happen with the club... However, to suggest that the club is going to follow Leeds down the tubes is a gross exaduration!!

It probably is but Leeds wage bill in the Prem was 80% of turnover, far in excess of the 50 per cent level recommended by accountants Deloitte Touche. I don't know the latest figure for Liverpool but they were over 80% when Houllier was in charge.

jesus_thats_gre

galactus wrote:

It probably is but Leeds wage bill in the Prem was 80% of turnover, far in excess of the 50 per cent level recommended by accountants Deloitte Touche. I don't know the latest figure for Liverpool but they were over 80% when Houllier was in charge.

I am pretty certain that this is not the case... Any links?

jesus_thats_gre

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/3986649.stm

Liverpool announce record losses

Houllier is said to have got a £4m pay-off
Liverpool have assured fans the club is on sound financial footing despite announcing record losses of £21.9m for the last financial year.

The club blamed the failure to qualify for last season's Champions League as one main reason for the figures.

But parting company with former boss Gerard Houllier, his managerial team and players also cost the club £10.7m.

Reds chief executive Rick Parry said overall debt had fallen by £3.5m, from £18.9 to £15.4m.

"The key business objective for the year was to secure an immediate return to the Champions League," said Parry.

"The board, therefore, took a conscious decision to continue to invest in the team in the summer of 2003 and to budget for a loss.

"Instead, the main financial target was to ensure there was no increase in net debt. Both these objectives were achieved.

"The loss is essentially attributable to two factors. The loss of Champions League revenue and the decision to change the management team. The loss in itself does not constrain player spending, after all we did invest significantly in the summer.

"It is the level of debt and future cash flows that govern our transfer activity."

So they had debt of 18 million before the season and actually reduced that to 15 million..

The club is definetly in trouble..

p.pete

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

I am pretty certain that this is not the case... Any links?

Here's a link to a previous article you posted

Doesn't mention Liverpool unfortunately but it paints English clubs in a reasonable light. Also as part of the G14 (or whatever) group of clubs I think we deliberately avoid having wages at 80% of turnover.

galactus

p.pete wrote:

Here's a link to a previous article you posted

Doesn't mention Liverpool unfortunately but it paints English clubs in a reasonable light. Also as part of the G14 (or whatever) group of clubs I think we deliberately avoid having wages at 80% of turnover.

Been looking for that Deloitte report (mental note: get a life man!) but no luck. I remember Pool definitely had the highest wages to turnover ratio of all the prem clubs (this a season or two back). Have been warning my Pool buddies about this for some time but i take no pleasure in seeing the club mismanaged (not refering to Benitez here but will admit possible Freudian slip)

HacksawEddie

i don't think there is a liverpool fan out there that wants moores to stay at the kop.
why wont he listen to all of us and sell up and go live in a nice villa in spain and buy himself a nice little 3rd division side, because we dont want him anyway!

p.pete

galactus wrote:

I remember Pool definitely had the highest wages to turnover ratio of all the prem clubs (this a season or two back).

I remember seeing Deloite reports too and I don't ever remember them being a cause for concern. The only way to settle this would be to find the actual report (which I'll try do when I get the time) but for the moment both of our arguments are unfounded except for jesus_that's_great who has links.

mayordenis

yop wrote:

" tis funny that you're comparing us to Leeds though"
Why is it funny?? Ye are well in debt with no really money coming in from investors or player sales, this debt could grow if none of these 2 situations change.

haha whats funny is liverpool arent in debt,
one of the richest clubs in the world loses money doesnt mean they have a negative balance.

Ardent

Whatever about losses versus debts, gross versus net, wages versus turnover
etc, the simple fact remains:

We don't have the players. And we don't have the money to buy the players we need to compete with Chelsea.

p.pete

Found another Deloitte report

Looks like are revenues aren't as high as United's which I'd expect but the wage bill is less then a few clubs and revenues are good too

Haven't read it but feel free to pluck a few facts from it

yop

"haha whats funny is liverpool arent in debt,"

So Parry is lying is he??

"Reds chief executive Rick Parry said overall debt had fallen by £3.5m, from £18.9 to £15.4m. "


"You're equating a yearly financial loss with debt? What school of economics threw you up?"

Again, read the report that jesus_thats_gre posted that the DEBT, was not 15.4m !
Yes the made a loss for the year (£21.9m ) and yes they are in debt (15.4m)!
No need to go to school to figure that out!

"However, to suggest that the club is going to follow Leeds down the tubes is a gross exaduration!!"
Yes it probably was a bit of an extreme statement, but point is that even after a new coach been appointed, a few new signings, too of them poor, pool are , bar the still been in CL, no better off.


"The club pretty much broke even last season even after paying off GH and his mates..."
Broke even? Regardless of whether or not they had or had not to pay off GH, they did not break even.

"We don't have the players. And we don't have the money to buy the players we need to compete with Chelsea."

That is the core issue, United or Arsenal are not splilling with money either but pool are well behind the top 3 in the league


Interesting report that Deloitte paper

WhiteWashMan

jesus, youd argue over who had the better grass if you were let (although it is true that white hart lane obviously has the nicest grass to play on), but the fact of the matter is that hanson was referring to the footballing pegigre of the club when he made those comments.

while i have no idea what the stat of the club is, nor indeed do i really care, because no doubt some anal retentive here will demand an analytical view and positive proof of life for anything that is said which doesnt have 'in my opinion' plastered before it, i would agree that the club is in a state of disrepair. and it continues to slide slowly downhill.

unless some investment is made, or the team physio is shot and replaced by someone with a wet sponge and a water bottle at least, the club will only slide further (IN MY OH SO VERY HONEST OPINION)

by the way, how many strikers do you have left? im sure that someone has infultrated liverfool fc and is now breaking legs and pulling ligaments where ever tehy can.
jesus, forget the new stadium, try building a new hospital wing beside the home team dressing room.

Ardent

WhiteWashMan wrote:

jesus, forget the new stadium, try building a new hospital wing beside the home team dressing room.

LOL! True, so very true.

p.pete

WhiteWashMan wrote:

by the way, how many strikers do you have left?

IMHO, 2 that are of any use - one of which isn't fit and the other not long back from his last injury (I'm sure he's due another soon).

yop

"by the way, how many strikers do you have left? im sure that someone has infultrated liverfool fc and is now breaking legs and pulling ligaments where ever tehy can.
jesus, forget the new stadium, try building a new hospital wing beside the home team dressing room.!"



In my opinion that is a very good statement

d22ontour

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

This "gamble" is still a very good possibility and would have been a considerably easier task if it wasn't for the injuries we have suffered.. The injuries are not an excuse but a very realistic and understandable reason.. Of course there is those amoung you that will dismiss the reason but ye are wrong..

injuries injuries injuries

what club goes into a season with only 1 proven forward and another only coming into his 1st season in the premiership,hardly makes sense

if i remember correctly utd were without ruud,rooney,ole gunnar and saha at the same time and did utd fans start moaning"oh we will only be 13 points ahead of liverpool in january whatever will we do"

PiE

Wow, that's a good point. Please, tell us more.

Hansen's only big-upping his buddy, which isn't a bad thing.

WhiteWashMan

d22ontour wrote:

if i remember correctly utd were without ruud,rooney,ole gunnar and saha at the same time and did utd fans start moaning"oh we will only be 13 points ahead of liverpool in january whatever will we do"

the man yoo fans had other things to moan about, like how many relica shirts were going to be released, how the stock market is doing, the price of a prawn sandwich, who was going to play in real madrid next, and how beckham really wasnt *that* good.

of course, being only 13 points ahead of liverpool in january is a bit of a cause for worry i will admit.

Big Ears

d22ontour wrote:

injuries injuries injuries

what club goes into a season with only 1 proven forward and another only coming into his 1st season in the premiership,hardly makes sense

if i remember correctly utd were without ruud,rooney,ole gunnar and saha at the same time and did utd fans start moaning"oh we will only be 13 points ahead of liverpool in january whatever will we do"

Don't Liverpool have something like 9 players who compete for first team places injured ? arent Liverpools injurys long term (longer that Utd's that is) .

Did Utd fans start moaning ? yes they did , and they had a less case to do so than Liverpool fans currently .

Let that hopefully be the last comparison between the two clubs in this thread as I half suspect you're flamebaiting .

d22ontour

all the stick benitez is getting is uncalled for,he has a hell of a job cleaning the mess left by hoo hoo and will need time just like his signings to settle and get it right

i dont think there are any liverpool fans out there who realistically think they are anyway near to winning the league in the near future

p.pete

Big Ears wrote:

Let that hopefully be the last comparison between the two clubs in this thread as I half suspect you're flamebaiting .

What was this thread about again?
It point appears to have fallen on deaf ears as far as the powers that be are concerned (and those that don't be?) either way. No reaction from Moores...

p.pete

d22ontour wrote:

i dont think there are any liverpool fans out there who realistically think they are anyway near to winning the league in the near future

Yay, back on topic
Absolutely right, that's why we need investment, that's why Moores should get out of his ivory tower and try sort something out. Maybe not for this transfer window but by the Summer it'd be nice to think we'd start work on the stadium and have money left over to invest in the squad...

Big Ears

p.pete wrote:

What was this thread about again?

I meant comparison between fans of the two clubs .

d22ontour

Big Ears wrote:

Let that hopefully be the last comparison between the two clubs in this thread as I half suspect you're flamebaiting .

i cant say i am into flaming, baiting or otherwise

i read yet another post about their injury woes and posted my thoughts on it,isnt that what its all about

and yet you continue on about the injury problems, so can i ask you this

would liverpool be in a better position if they had more than 2 recognised forwards in the squad ?

that has been one of their major problems this season has it not?

d22ontour

WhiteWashMan wrote:

the man yoo fans had other things to moan about, like how many relica shirts were going to be released, how the stock market is doing, the price of a prawn sandwich, who was going to play in real madrid next, and how beckham really wasnt *that* good.

of course, being only 13 points ahead of liverpool in january is a bit of a cause for worry i will admit.

i dont really care about the plc side of things seeng as they rejected my takeover bid

beckham was great for united, his personal life wasnt

p.pete

d22ontour wrote:

would liverpool be in a better position if they had more than 2 recognised forwards in the squad ?

Currently we have 5 recognised forwards in the squad - 3 are available and as I posted above I'd consider 2 to be good.

While the squad needs investment I'm not too worried about the forwards with the addition of Morientes, in fact I've gone as far as saying that we could potentially let Mellor go in previous threads. I'd be regretting that now if we had though...

p.pete

Big Ears wrote:

I meant comparison between fans of the two clubs .

Wasn't aiming a jibe at you I was basicly just acknowledging that a lot of the thread has very little to do with Hansen's comments as advertised...

Big Ears

d22ontour wrote:

and yet you continue on about the injury problems, so can i ask you this

would liverpool be in a better position if they had more than 2 recognised forwards in the squad ?

that has been one of their major problems this season has it not?

im not a Liverpool fan though , so whats wrong with me continuing on about their problems ?

It would be a bad idea for Liverpool to sign a striker other than on loan or signed for a 6 month period.

d22ontour

i was on about before christmas when cisse and baros were both out and the fact they started the season with only the 2 of them ,surely the odds were at least 1 would get injured

Chucky the tree

pool didnt really have a huge amount of time to buy another striker when owen left, and rafa felt it was better to wait and get the right one then to rush out and buy someone you aint sure of.

WhiteWashMan

do you think morientes was the right buy to make?

Chucky the tree

yep, i think he looked decent against watford, i know not a great team but still. he just needs time to get used english football, also too get his match fitness, hasnt played many games for real.. For 6 odd million you would be hard pushed getting a better striker i think.

Jivin Turkey

yop wrote:

So Parry is lying is he??

"Reds chief executive Rick Parry said overall debt had fallen by £3.5m, from £18.9 to £15.4m. "


"You're equating a yearly financial loss with debt? What school of economics threw you up?"

Again, read the report that jesus_thats_gre posted that the DEBT, was not 15.4m !
Yes the made a loss for the year (£21.9m ) and yes they are in debt (15.4m)!
No need to go to school to figure that out!

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The club like any other business is financed by a mixture of debt (which is borrowed) and equity (which is owned), just because they have an amount of debt it doesnt mean they are IN DEBT. All debt is secured and long term. It is balanced against equity (the assets of the club i.e. stadium/players etc), and in one player (Gerrard) they have enough equity to pay all the debt twice over. BUT as I said the debt is long term so there would be no need to do this because it doesnt have to be repaid for probably 5 to 10 years.

Historically Liverpool dont make losses, aside from last year when the cleaning out of management led to a huge once off charge, so there is no danger of this debt becoming a problem.

yop wrote:

"However, to suggest that the club is going to follow Leeds down the tubes is a gross exaduration!!"
Yes it probably was a bit of an extreme statement, but point is that even after a new coach been appointed, a few new signings, too of them poor, pool are , bar the still been in CL, no better off.

Yes they are. They are in roughly the same position as they were last year in the league, they are still in the CL (which means a huge amount of extra money), and they are in the final of the Carling Cup.

yop wrote:

"The club pretty much broke even last season even after paying off GH and his mates..."
Broke even? Regardless of whether or not they had or had not to pay off GH, they did not break even.

It was estimated to have been $10M to pay off GH and his crew. Cisse, one of his signings cost £14M, Alonso a further £10m. These all contributed to the reported loss of "£20M". Its not far off at all braking even.

yop wrote:

"We don't have the players. And we don't have the money to buy the players we need to compete with Chelsea."

That is the core issue, United or Arsenal are not splilling with money either but pool are well behind the top 3 in the league

United have spent over £40M on two players in the last year (Saha, Rooney). They also bought Smith and Heinze in the Summer (close to another £15M). They havnt sold anybody.

Arsenal bought Reyes for £17M last year. And purchased a further three or four players in the Summer for about £10M total.

They both obviously do have the money.

yop

"You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about."
But of course you do , at the end of the day pool have little or no money now to spend, what little they do will not go out and buy world class players, morientes aside, of course the CL games will earn big money but with current form 4th place may not even be achieved. IF this is the aim of a "top club" then that is what Hansen is on about

jesus_thats_gre

yop wrote:

But of course you do , at the end of the day pool have little or no money now to spend, what little they do will not go out and buy world class players, morientes aside, of course the CL games will earn big money but with current form 4th place may not even be achieved. IF this is the aim of a "top club" then that is what Hansen is on about

What you have said in this thread and the information/assumptions you provided in the thread have all been proven to be incorrect or misunderstood...

Hansen is an ex-player, a television pundit, and a rumoured friend of Morgan. He is simply stating his opinion and he is entitled to do so.. It does not mean he is correct however and his rumoured friendship with Morgan suggests he is trying to unsettle fans and the management. No one knows the exact facts of what was offered by Morgan and there is the possibility that it could have been a bad deal for the club in the long term...

jesus_thats_gre

Big Ears wrote:

Don't Liverpool have something like 9 players who compete for first team places injured ? arent Liverpools injurys long term (longer that Utd's that is) .

Did Utd fans start moaning ? yes they did , and they had a less case to do so than Liverpool fans currently .

Let that hopefully be the last comparison between the two clubs in this thread as I half suspect you're flamebaiting .

Perfect..

WhiteWashMan

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Perfect..

translate as:

oh, someone agrees with my opinion, therefor i will take the chance to act smug and make like this opinion is the correct onebe justified in my thinking.
even though i obviously have no idea what on earth im talking about.


still, as a liverpool fan, i am in no way surprised at this ostrich like 'head in sand' mentality.
still, you'll be up there competing next year, eh?

Ardent

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

No one knows the exact facts of what was offered by Morgan and there is the possibility that it could have been a bad deal for the club in the long term...

True, but let's put the obvious pieces together:

1) Morgan's offers were based on buying out Moores and him stepping down as chairman. I think that was a problem for Moores and something he obviously doesn't want to do.

2) It seems the LFC board tired to subsequently sell 30% of the club to the L4 consortium for 50 million smackers but they deemed that too expensive for a non-controlling stake in the club.

3) The Thais wanted representation on the LFC board as well as marketing rights in Asia. No dice.

It would seem that Moores and Parry want their cake and eat it too. I am delighted they didn't deal with the Thai PM and hand over LFC's marketing rights in Asia (that would have been foolish in the extreme) but I think they may have to consider their positions at the club if investement is as badly needed as it appears. It their insistence to remain in their current roles is blocking investment in the club then they should do the honourable thing and leave for the good of the club. A la Ken Bates.