Under-investment

[CCTV]

Noods, "standing in the world of football" is not equal to nor commensurate with actual wealth.

You do know that, right?

Our so-called 'standing' as a global brand in the football world is built mostly on the reputation of our successful eras in the 70's and 80's during which periods we didn't actually capitalize on that dominance, off the field the way we could have.
Simply because nobody knew how to do that back then and the world (both sporting and wider) wasn't set-up for that at the time.

When the Mancs came along in the 90's under the Fergie era, as much as it pains me to admit it, they hired the right people who knew how to make the most of the success they were enjoying on the field, and built them to be the off-pitch financial brand that we know them to be.
They built the model that every other team now tries to emulate (the non-'Oil Money' teams that are mostly self-sustaining) - specifically those two powerhouses in Spain.

And which we, whether we want to admit it or not ourselves, are also hoping to emulate on some level now.

But it takes more than a decade of mostly continuous, if not uninterrupted success and dominance on the field (and a hell of a whole lot more than just "a global name in world football") alongside responsible custodianship off of it, to achieve that and we've barely had more than a couple of seasons (with the years before that being used by FSG to stabilize things off the field and put in place the things we need to be a sustainable model - like the Anfield expansion(s))


We CAN'T spend much more than we have.
We have neither the collateral to get the funding for it (again, your "name" and branding can only get you so far), nor I would hope, the recklessness or will to want to do so.
We barely even have the reputation for it now.
We're defending champions - but so were Leicester at one point - and of our 6 EC/ Champions' League wins, 4 came before most fans were even born and the one before the most recent one was over a decade ago when we were a few years prior to being close to going into administration.

I think Liverpool fans have to get some sense of humility, reality and perspective when it comes to our situation.

Do you want to be a club in debt? Because that's what it would take to achieve the spending levels you're craving.
Or do you want to be part of a responsibly managed club that's sustainable enough, so that even if they do decide to sell up, we won't be in a worse off situation?

Because the only other alternative to those two is being the moneybags toy of an Oil baron somewhere in the Middle East or Russia.
And there aren't many of those going around that would be acceptable to most LFC fans.


FSG wanted to furlough staff when the pandemic initially hit - something that they were already paying into like all other tax-paying entities - but they got slammed by fans and many in the press and the punditry class and ex-players as doing something that wasn't "the Liverpool way" (whatever the hell that means).
Not realizing at the time that by forcing them to turn back on that decision would impact their ability to buy new players or reinforce the squad like they had wanted to.

I thought it was stupid at the time (the complaints by fans, not the decision by FSG, which I understood where it was coming from, even if I may not have agreed completely), but now the same people who were slamming me for pointing it out are complaining about the clubs inability to buy new players or compete in mad prices for new players.
Clearly most of these people have never run businesses.

You can't have it both ways.

I do think noods underscores the actual cost of wages for players and back up players. Iirc this came up for example with back up keepers and how much they tend to cost per week in wages, or simply the amount of wages someone like adrian would take home here and improving on him. Kelleher looks a decent prospect and a cheap option. I'd settle for him and alisson.

But I do also think there are a few on here too that really don't appreciate where the club is today.
Fsg have already turned the club around, iirc last Forbes report I read debt was 3% of the club's valuation and that debt included infrastructure. Which I believe relates to the main stand as the training facility has been put through the books, again iirc.
We're not a heavily indebted club, the future of football finances look rather secure in so much as even in a covid era the business is rather secure compared with others.

We have the most brand friendly manager, iconic supporters and the latest Nike deal set to leave us ahead of United on shirt sponsorship.
Signing Mbappe I'd venture is a deal that would develop the commercial and brand strength of lfc. Yet people go on like we couldn't afford him and his wages, when signing him would reap many rewards in terms of sponsorships.
Not the only reason, but ronny going to Juventus and messi staying at barca will have had an impact on their standings in financial terms. Barca still have their commercial cash cow.

The club needs to be in a strong position when their current Nike deal is up for renewal. Keep adding stadium capacity where they can and stay at the top of the game. At present adding stadium capacity might not be the priority. Staying top of the football is more pertinent.

I and 19 also thought it was stupid re the furlough criticism. They pay their taxes and were entitled to apply for the scheme.

People seem to have this tendency to see the state as a new God substitute or something akin and wanted to be on the side of the state versus their own football teams.

Last year our cl exit will have cost us more than covid.
This year our Nike deal is projected to offset much of our gates receipt losses and I believe the pl group has gotten on top of the extra tv games and will have offset each pl teams matchday losses by an increase in tv revenue from these extra games.

Even the echo had a piece about it during the summer, typically I find the echo to be a very pro-lfc and pro-fsg paper but they had said we'd have big spending power again in summer 2021 as a result of the Nike deal and the pl getting on top of the new extra games to be broadcast over a more spread out schedule. Allowing each game to garner more viewers than they'd have done before, consider the amount of games that used to be played at 3 PM on a Saturday - you could only watch one.

If we get top4 in the league which is a massive must, we should get past Leipzig and if we could get past the quarters (probably more difficult) and into a semifinal of the CL we'll be well set for the summer transfer window.

If you want to get to the top of football finances you need to win titles, develop your commercial interests and brand. To do so requires the acquisition of a select few players who have that appeal. There are few players who tick the boxes imo.

Maybe Halaand whose a great goalscorer and certainly mbappe whose also a great goalscorer would first that criterion.

Halaands 3rd party ownership is an issue for us, as is agent mino raiola.

Mbappe hasn't got that third party ownership issue, doesn't have that agent, has a former teammate here and has flirted with us in terms of our performances and Klopp. His dad never played for city.

Been a shit season with no fans, our injuries a nightmare. We should be able to get back to where we were next season. Adding a commercial cash cow like mbappe would help the club grow and reach the top end of finances.

For me this is another you can't have it both ways issue, if you want to be top in terms of football and finances you need to add a top player or two with the massive commercial appeal. We've got a few class lads here, Virgil and Mo probably our 2 most valuable in this sense. Mbapoe would be a good way ahead of either of those 2.

[RedNoodle]

Noods, "standing in the world of football" is not equal to nor commensurate with actual wealth.

You do know that, right?

Our so-called 'standing' as a global brand in the football world is built mostly on the reputation of our successful eras in the 70's and 80's during which periods we didn't actually capitalize on that dominance, off the field the way we could have.
Simply because nobody knew how to do that back then and the world (both sporting and wider) wasn't set-up for that at the time.

When the Mancs came along in the 90's under the Fergie era, as much as it pains me to admit it, they hired the right people who knew how to make the most of the success they were enjoying on the field, and built them to be the off-pitch financial brand that we know them to be.
They built the model that every other team now tries to emulate (the non-'Oil Money' teams that are mostly self-sustaining) - specifically those two powerhouses in Spain.

And which we, whether we want to admit it or not ourselves, are also hoping to emulate on some level now.

But it takes more than a decade of mostly continuous, if not uninterrupted success and dominance on the field (and a hell of a whole lot more than just "a global name in world football") alongside responsible custodianship off of it, to achieve that and we've barely had more than a couple of seasons (with the years before that being used by FSG to stabilize things off the field and put in place the things we need to be a sustainable model - like the Anfield expansion(s))


We CAN'T spend much more than we have.
We have neither the collateral to get the funding for it (again, your "name" and branding can only get you so far), nor I would hope, the recklessness or will to want to do so.
We barely even have the reputation for it now.
We're defending champions - but so were Leicester at one point - and of our 6 EC/ Champions' League wins, 4 came before most fans were even born and the one before the most recent one was over a decade ago when we were a few years prior to being close to going into administration.

I think Liverpool fans have to get some sense of humility, reality and perspective when it comes to our situation.

Do you want to be a club in debt? Because that's what it would take to achieve the spending levels you're craving.
Or do you want to be part of a responsibly managed club that's sustainable enough, so that even if they do decide to sell up, we won't be in a worse off situation?

Because the only other alternative to those two is being the moneybags toy of an Oil baron somewhere in the Middle East or Russia.
And there aren't many of those going around that would be acceptable to most LFC fans.


FSG wanted to furlough staff when the pandemic initially hit - something that they were already paying into like all other tax-paying entities - but they got slammed by fans and many in the press and the punditry class and ex-players as doing something that wasn't "the Liverpool way" (whatever the hell that means).
Not realizing at the time that by forcing them to turn back on that decision would impact their ability to buy new players or reinforce the squad like they had wanted to.

I thought it was stupid at the time (the complaints by fans, not the decision by FSG, which I understood where it was coming from, even if I may not have agreed completely), but now the same people who were slamming me for pointing it out are complaining about the clubs inability to buy new players or compete in mad prices for new players.
Clearly most of these people have never run businesses.

You can't have it both ways.

Yet again you have purposely ignored at least one key point I have made in order to go on a massive long winded rant/argument for arguments sake, akin to trying to build a tower block on the foundations supplied by a frozen lake. For your 'benefit' I will repeat what I said in my initial post. Please at least try to take the point on board this time, and not just cherry pick anything which helps/doesn't destroy your baseless 'rants' at the cost of everything else.

I said:- "All I and most other Reds want is for us to spend amounts commensurate with our standing in the world of football both on and off the pitch".

Our financial status IS commensurate with our standing in world football. There are plenty of sources available that confirm this. The thing that ISN'T commensurate with BOTH our standing in world football (19 x league champions, 6 x EC/CL winners, one of top 5 most supported clubs in the world etc) AND our financial position is how much we spend on the acquisition of players. Yes we pay high wages for a few of our players, but a) a load of the contracts have recently been increased, never mind bonuses paid out for recent success, so of course our wage bill is going to be quite high, and b) a few of our higher earners wages are/have been more than offset by the fact that we paid little to nothing for them e.g. Milner. So anyone who starts bleating on about any of the above is at best being disingenuous in the extreme.

We have been closing the gap on Manchester United in terms of revenue, and if we don't fall of a cliff (which could happen unless 'we' do something about it asap) that gap will continue to close. If anyone based their opinion of both clubs based solely on what you've written, they'd think we were some mid table team who have delusions of grandeur, whilst the Red Mancs are some unstoppable juggernaut whose success has continued unabated since Fergie won the FA cup for the first time. Both of those things are very far from the truth, and yet again anyone who says/thinks otherwise is at best being very disingenuous.

Yet again you intentionally ignore another crucial point that both myself and others have made, so I'll yet again reiterate that point in the hope that you eventually take it on board. Nobody is asking us to start spending stupid amounts of money so that we end up in a situation similar to what Barcelona currently find themselves in. However there is a sizeable 'middle ground' where we can spend a fair bit more than we currently are (the 14th highest in the PL), but not so much that we end up risking our long term future through throwing stupid money at lots of very expensive players. As I've said many times before, so many people only deal in absolutes these days. If you're not at one end of the spectrum, you must be at the other end, with a diminishing number of those with sense acknowledging that there is a sizeable middle ground.

FSG wanted to furlough staff because it was going to save them even more money, not because they were/are some tiny business and not doing so could/would mean the difference between them surviving, or going to the wall, and in the process laying off a lot of staff. As with other 'reversals', the only reason they backtracked was because of the huge backlash they faced. If you think much, if any of that money would have been put towards playing staff, you're living in cloud cuckoo land, especially as that would have caused even more controversy than their initial decision to try and furlough staff.

You keep saying "you can't have it both ways". You need to explain exactly what you mean by that. Nobody has said they 'want it both ways', by which you may well mean both spending lots of money, but also safeguarding the long term future of the club. In regards to this I'm going to say this once more. Nobody has said that we should gamble our long term future by spending vast sums of money, and certainly not spending way above our means. People just want us to spend an amount that is commensurate with BOTH our FINANCIAL and SPORTING status, not an amount commensurate with a MID TABLE PL club whose main/sole ambition is to stay in the PL.

[CCTV]

Noods, the club pays taxes and was entitled to draw from that furlough scheme.
The club then bowing to media, social media and public pressure withdrew from the scheme.

For me it's much like an insurance policy where the only difference between the two is that people seem to feel it was wrong for the club to withdraw from the state, even when they pay into it. Much like if they needed to claim off insurance having paid into a policy, and people crying about that being wrong.
But they've paid into the state and are like everyone else entitled to draw from the state where the state permits such actions.

Comes up a lot too about people drawing down their child benefit when they are big earners and as a result big tax contributors. That few quid drawn is said to be not needed, but those people are paying large amounts of tax relative to what they get back.

[CCTV]

What was it 200+ non playing staff with a £2500 per month cap. Half a million pound a month, 6 million a year.

[Kev0909]

Last 5 seasons fulham &everton & brighton&wolves&west ham and obviously the top "6" have have higher net?

Apparently according to this even shef Utd do.. (they've only spent 6m more than us mind)

Apart from this season 35m and 18/19 we made a profit from transfers over the last 5

I've said numerous of times can get away with it for so long, not putting money into the team but it'll hit eventually, and I believe it has done now... blown it to stay on top we need money going into the club, that doesn't mean 100's of millions but a top half level of transfer money spent would be nice...

Keep this up the only way is down... you'll see.. starting the season with 3 cb's and 2 of them is matip and Gomez is laughable, just to save a few quid? maybe if FSG are that tight, spend your little bit of charity money you give us for transfers on players that aren't inury prone, or don't pay wages+sign on fees for those free/cheap because they're always injured....???? left with a smaller squad and half injury prone

if we don't see much money given to klopp and the team in summer, I assume they'll look to sell soonish, and run away with big profits that some could of been put into the club, if they gave a shit

[RedNoodle]

Noods, the club pays taxes and was entitled to draw from that furlough scheme.
The club then bowing to media, social media and public pressure withdrew from the scheme.

For me it's much like an insurance policy where the only difference between the two is that people seem to feel it was wrong for the club to withdraw from the state, even when they pay into it. Much like if they needed to claim off insurance having paid into a policy, and people crying about that being wrong.
But they've paid into the state and are like everyone else entitled to draw from the state where the state permits such actions.

Comes up a lot too about people drawing down their child benefit when they are big earners and as a result big tax contributors. That few quid drawn is said to be not needed, but those people are paying large amounts of tax relative to what they get back.

The debate over whether the likes of FSG should have been able to take advantage of the furlough scheme is a sperate issue. My issue with FSG and the furlough scheme is in regards to those who keep trying to use it as some kind of definitive proof that we "don't have a pot to pee in". FSG tried to use the scheme to save money, not because it was essential to safeguard the long term future of the club, which would only have been the case if we had been in an already very precarious financial position.

Spurs also tried to furlough staff and reversed the decision. They did that despite trying to furlough 450 staff vs 200 for us, and that's also despite them also having a billion pound stadium to pay for. If we can't afford players based on the above and all the other things I mentioned, then Spurs must be on the verge of having to sell their entire first team squad.

[Crimson Dynasty]

Yet again you have purposely ignored at least one key point I have made in order to go on a massive long winded rant/argument for arguments sake, akin to trying to build a tower block on the foundations supplied by a frozen lake. For your 'benefit' I will repeat what I said in my initial post. Please at least try to take the point on board this time, and not just cherry pick anything which helps/doesn't destroy your baseless 'rants' at the cost of everything else.

I said:- "All I and most other Reds want is for us to spend amounts commensurate with our standing in the world of football both on and off the pitch".

Our financial status IS commensurate with our standing in world football. There are plenty of sources available that confirm this. The thing that ISN'T commensurate with BOTH our standing in world football (19 x league champions, 6 x EC/CL winners, one of top 5 most supported clubs in the world etc) AND our financial position is how much we spend on the acquisition of players.

I got what you said and I responded to it in literally the first thing I said (which you yourself then ironically ignored)
So I'll repeat it for your benefit.

"Standing in the World of Football" =/= (IS NOT EQUAL TO) "Spendable wealth".

Not matter how much you want it to be.

Just like "Reputation/status" =/= "Actual wealth"
It might help you to get a loan, but that's about it.

Consider the fact that of 18 of our 19 league championships that you're touting came over 30 years ago and 5 of our 6 Champions League/European Championships came over 15 years ago - with 4 of those coming 20 years before that.

That's the textbook definition of living off of one's own reputation rather than off of actual tangible achievements.

"Things I did a literal lifetime ago". Now pay me what I think I'm worth.

Even that on its own doesn't say much for that so-called "Standing in World Football" when the reality is that on a local Premier League) level, you're no better than Leicester or Blackburn who had Premier League title wins before we did and on the continental level we're only a little better than FC Porto (in that timeframe).


Also, being ".. one of top 5 most supported clubs in the world " means literally NOTHING in terms of our (current) financial standing considering the fact that the vast majority of those global fans don't (directly) pay a single cent towards the financial well-being of the club.
The fact of the matter is that the fans who attend matches at Anfield mean vastly more to the club (and indeed to FSG) than a kid wearing an LFC t-shirt in Jakarta or Djibouti, because only one of those two situations represents real actual money while the other represent a potential for a revenue stream that may never really exist at all.

It's great that we're a globally popular club, but so fucking what?

It all means nothing if you don't have the means to capitalize on it and until we got sponsorship and marketing partners like Nike (who actually DO have a global reach in terms of their ability to monetize a global fanbase), it was nothing more than "wealth" on paper rather than actual spend-able wealth.

"wealth on paper" doesn't buy you new players or pay wages.
Maybe it gets you loans and financing.

Yes we pay high wages for a few of our players, but a) a load of the contracts have recently been increased, never mind bonuses paid out for recent success, so of course our wage bill is going to be quite high, and b) a few of our higher earners wages are/have been more than offset by the fact that we paid little to nothing for them e.g. Milner. So anyone who starts bleating on about any of the above is at best being disingenuous in the extreme.

And other than Milner, which other players in our squad (preferably starting 11) did we get on a 'free'?
(and who didn't come from the academy system)

You said "a few"
Okay then, name them.
"Higher wage earners"
I'll put the cut-off mark at 90,000 per week, which seems more than reasonable.

There's a reason why you only came up with just his name alone when you were making that example and that argument.

Try to see if you can figure out what it is.

We have been closing the gap on Manchester United in terms of revenue,....

No we haven't,
Certainly not before the last couple of years (5-7).
Not even close.

They still have a MASSIVE 15-25 year headstart over us in terms of their financial viability that we can never hope to match with just a few years of sporadic success on the field while not doing anything off it to stabilise those revenue streams.
Which is what FSG are trying to do especially with efforts like continuing their Anfield expansion plans and seeking better marketing partners with better deals.

.....and if we don't fall of a cliff (which could happen unless 'we' do something about it asap) that gap will continue to close. If anyone based their opinion of both clubs based solely on what you've written, they'd think we were some mid table team who have delusions of grandeur, whilst the Red Mancs are some unstoppable juggernaut whose success has continued unabated since Fergie won the FA cup for the first time. Both of those things are very far from the truth, and yet again anyone who says/thinks otherwise is at best being very disingenuous.

I hate to break it to you, but prior to the last couple of years of the Klopp era, we WERE a mid-table team that had had a few odd years of sporadic success and 'almost(but-not-quite)-success' - mostly in cup competitions, and essentially being a slightly richer man's version of Arsenal only good enough to just qualify for the CL but not much else (and even they had won the league a couple of those times during the Wenger era. Which is more than we could claim).

'Delusions of grandeur' was perfectly correct in describing most Liverpool fans with our "This is our year/Maybe next year" mantra that we became famous for being mocked by other clubs for year after year after year after year after year.....- ....as we lived on the fumes of our past glories from so long ago that the majority of people drinking that Kool-Aid weren't even alive to witness them.

That's exactly what a delusional person looks like from the outside.

Yet again you intentionally ignore another crucial point that both myself and others have made, so I'll yet again reiterate that point in the hope that you eventually take it on board. Nobody is asking us to start spending stupid amounts of money so that we end up in a situation similar to what Barcelona currently find themselves in. However there is a sizeable 'middle ground' where we can spend a fair bit more than we currently are (the 14th highest in the PL), but not so much that we end up risking our long term future through throwing stupid money at lots of very expensive players. As I've said many times before, so many people only deal in absolutes these days. If you're not at one end of the spectrum, you must be at the other end, with a diminishing number of those with sense acknowledging that there is a sizeable middle ground.

And what's that 'middle ground'?
What's the spending you'd have loved to see the club spend after a season in which they went over a third of the final end of it without any gate revenue and without Champion's League money while paying stafff full salary to keep running at full capacity with no money coming in - and on top of bringing in Jota, Thiago, and Tsimikas

Werner?
Ziyech?
Upemecano?

What young, promising but top prospect player would you have loved the club to bring in but who wouldn't have seen us reamed royally by the club selling him knowing that they too weren't getting any revenue coming in and these kinds of sales were their only means of making good money - and all fitting within our transfer policy/wage structure while not breaking the bank (read : incurring heavy debt)?

Remember that Chelsea were able to spend what they did because they didn't spend anything the 2 windows prior thanks to their ban. On top of their oil money.
City had Oil money.
The Mancs (United) were the Mancs.
And Leicester have a good recruitment policy.

FSG wanted to furlough staff because it was going to save them even more money, not because they were/are some tiny business and not doing so could/would mean the difference between them surviving, or going to the wall, and in the process laying off a lot of staff. As with other 'reversals', the only reason they backtracked was because of the huge backlash they faced. If you think much, if any of that money would have been put towards playing staff, you're living in cloud cuckoo land, especially as that would have caused even more controversy than their initial decision to try and furlough staff.

And if you truly believe there is no link between their decision to reverse the furloughing decision and the lack of funds to finance any major outright buys in the transfer window later on that summer (outside of the "clever" deals we made for Jota and Thiago) then you truly are delusional and emblematic of the type of Liverpool fan I talked about who have no clue how a business is run without falling into debt.

Earl(ier than expected) Champion's League exit + No gate receipts and revenue from Anfield for over a third of the season (thanks to the lockdown) + paying staff to keep the lights on while nothing was running (or open) during a lockdown.

Do the maths on that.

You keep saying "you can't have it both ways". You need to explain exactly what you mean by that. Nobody has said they 'want it both ways', by which you may well mean both spending lots of money, but also safeguarding the long term future of the club. In regards to this I'm going to say this once more. Nobody has said that we should gamble our long term future by spending vast sums of money, and certainly not spending way above our means. People just want us to spend an amount that is commensurate with BOTH our FINANCIAL and SPORTING status, not an amount commensurate with a MID TABLE PL club whose main/sole ambition is to stay in the PL.

Then it's YOU who needs to be more clear on what's "vast sums of money" actually means or what "spending way above our means" really is.

The club spend money and brought in players (Jota, Thiago, Tsimikas) during the past transfer window when the vast majority of clubs (not owned by oil barons or not named Manchester United) were understandably tight with their own wallets thanks to the pandemic.

Clearly that wasn't enough for you.

So what would be?

I'll repeat:

"Status" is NOT wealth.
"Reputation" is NOT wealth.
"Standing" is NOT wealth.

I'll keep repeating it again and again, for as long as it takes to hammer the point home or for as long as you keep baselessly perpetuating that nonsense.

At BEST, it's the perception (or more accurately, the delusion) of wealth.

It doesn't pay the bills.
It doesn't buy you players.
It certainly doesn't pay wages.

[RedNoodle]

Our financial standing IS commensurate with our standing within the world of football as a sport, so you continually saying otherwise is a load of disingenuous nonsense. For other clubs that may not be the case, but that is not who we are discussing, however if we were you would find that the fans of a few other clubs are also not happy with the same thing i.e. being one of the wealthiest, if not most successful and/or recognisable clubs in the world, but being reluctant to spend 'reasonable' sums on playing staff.

[Steveo]

I think this list freely available at Transfermarkt tells the story of actual net spend the best.






Link below:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/prem...wettbewerb/GB1

[Taksin]

Good job he did right...?

Who knows.. arguing from the hypothetical is always futile.

The question is does the manager get the signings he wants. I’m pretty sure the answer is yes.

Keita and Minamino haven’t worked out.
We’ve improved significantly on last years record breaking squad.
One of the problems seems to be he can’t pick a team without the established front three. That looks like the managers problem, not the owners.

If you want to blame the owners when things go wrong best of luck to you but it might not be what the actual problem is.

The squad is tired, badly hit by injury, we haven’t had our fans in the season, we’ve had a string of bad VAR decisions. Sometimes things don’t go your way. Getting the pitchforks out might just be a stupid reaction.