Summer transfer thread

[Kev0909]

As is the case with most clubs.

In our case most of our key players have some of the best fitness records in Europe.

We can't have every circumstance covered, but we play the percentage game pretty well.

Bullshit, wolves have a better bench than us ffs

attacking-wise at least says it all to me, a team that's not even been up for that long


One of the weakest in the top 6

[RedNoodle]

As is the case with most clubs.

In our case most of our key players have some of the best fitness records in Europe.

We can't have every circumstance covered, but we play the percentage game pretty well.

Sid, it was supposed to be both a semi serious, but mainly a 'humourous' post.

Read my post and what I quoted above it.

[toneata]

So any purchases and sales have to come from selling our assets. to get back money for other trasnfers. The owners are basically not putting any money in at all. So if Klopp wanted to buy an expensive player,He would personally put the club in debt..
Would explain why the owners wanted to furlough the staff. they wanted a cheaper way and not coughing up money. I wonder how long this will continue for? looks like we will have to sell the likes of Mane and Salah to get money for other transfers.

FSG have ALWAYS operated like this, most of our record signings under them have come off the back of big sales.

...and to think a few months ago people on here were arguing whether we should sign Sancho or Mbappe.........those were the days.

[CCTV]

FSG have ALWAYS operated like this, most of our record signings under them have come off the back of big sales.

...and to think a few months ago people on here were arguing whether we should sign Sancho or Mbappe.........those were the days.

We should sign Mbappe.

[Balinkay]

Again I'm going to assume that your 'naivety' is down to your age.

[...] nothing will convince me I'm wrong, which I'm not.

Some people.

"Nothing can convince me I'm wrong" - that's really all I needed to hear, Noods. I'm not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist or a religios zealot on their chosen poison.

[teesred]

Like I keep trying to tell Balinkay, FSG will continue to Fudge the accounts as it's in their interest to do so. Wispa it quitely, but if one or two of our key players end up being out for a while, this season is likely to end up being no Picnic.

Haha, triple whammy. I luv dat!

[Steveo]

Sid, it was supposed to be both a semi serious, but mainly a 'humourous' post.

Read my post and what I quoted above it.

The thought that we are not all over the moon - has some folks in a twirl

[Balinkay]

Im not sure how the guardian piece was supposed to help, doesnt seem very on point.

The piece was meant to give an overview of player amortisation and illustrate why net spend isn't a super useful metric.

I had a reply that was timed out a quick reply.

I understand the amortisation as such, in reality we pay fees up front for the most part.
With Mane say at 35mill, we'll have paid 28 of his fee on our accounts now with the last installment this season.
Were we to sell Mane tomorrow for £35 mill, with amortisation paid already we would register a 28 mill profit.
Traditionally speaking wed see that as a no profit/loss sale or breaking even.

Were we to sell him for 150mill, amortised accounting practices would give us a 143mill profit.
Whereas most would say we made a 115 mill profit.

Yes, exactly!

Off transfermarkt:
Prior to Klopps arrival - 5 seasons - net spend was £195 mill
Since klopps arrival - 5 seasons - £72 mill

But does it list the cost of player amortisation during that timeframe? Since "net spend" apparently isn't really an all that meaningful metric (I mean it's more meaningful than just "spend", but still falls a ways short of telling a full story)? That seems to be the big factor along with wages.

Our wage bill still remains in what would be deemed a healthy range of turnover. Our top players arent being paid that much more than Lovren or Gerrard in the pre-klopp era.

It doesn't matter how much they're paid individually, does it? As you said, we still pay 60-ish (iirc) % for wages. Think that's really the important metric here.

Since the 3 seasons SR looked at weve seen high/higher waged but underperforming players leave:
Sturridge, Ings, Clyne, Moreno, Lallana, Lovren, Migno
With only Adrian, Minamino and Tsimikas arriving.

So if revenue has grown, above the real term rise in costs, leaving a surplus.
If wages are stable and healthy enough.

But has it though? According to the chart that's not been the case in the three seasons, since the operating profit has remained basically the same.

We don't have the numbers to confirm if that's the case compared to the previous period you mentioned. At least not easily accessible.

How can a net spend of 123 million less mean the club cant spend any money and certainly not like it did in the years prior to Klopp.

The way I see it is that since we've made those large signings they are on higher wages (let's say the total wage bill has remained at exactly the same level as it was in the previous period you mention) so the "remaining" cash should be greater, since the turnover has increased. I would guess that that "remaining" cash gets eaten up by the higher player amortisation caused by the exact expensive transfers you mention. Does that make sense? I'm a bit confused tbh, finances aren't my strong suit.

Those years prior to Klopp had early exits from Europe, no consistemt top 4/CL finishes, no titles, less revenue, less revenue available tv money and a rather similar wages as a % of turnover iirc.
Were FSG running LFC into the ground in the pre-Klopp era (5 years) as per SRs thread ?

That is a very interesting question. I'd love to see some numbers on it, perhaps something by SR. Anything else would at this point be pure guesswork. Unfortunately I don't have the numbers in an understandable for a layman like me format. Or any format for that matter.

What I think the thread demonstrates, along with the video I posted the other day, is that FSG are investing everything the club is currently making back into it. It'd be very surprising if they were being much less prudent prior to 2015, though even that is possible as they were very much learning on the job.

[ianlfc]

Haha, triple whammy. I luv dat!

He's got Bali by the curly wurlys

[RedNoodle]

"Nothing can convince me I'm wrong" - that's really all I needed to hear, Noods. I'm not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist or a religios zealot on their chosen poison.

Thank you for proving exactly what I'm talking about i.e. what it said/spun is very often different to the truth.

I said:-

Unless we suddenly go into administration and have a mass fire sale, nothing will convince me I'm wrong, which I'm not. I mean FFS Bali, If we are broke now, how much money did we have a few years back before our recent succeses when FSG decided to build a new stand and training ground? Think about it.

Which was on top of me saying that the truth would only be know for absolute certain if we (including myself) had access to all our books/financial information.

You then then spun all that into:-

Nothing will convince me that I'm wrong

You are the one that is steadfastly sticking to a nonsensical position, not me, nor anyone else who actually has some common sense and can see the situation for what it actually is. I've put your position down to your age, but it's possible that you're an FSG shill.