Liverpool transfers in/out and rumours 22/23 + Contracts

[Taksin]

Were our ownership, JwH, LeBron etc to spend within FFP compliance limits (more)
And see a return on their investment as Roman saw at Chelsea,
Increasing the odds of us winning titles,

How would that be selling the soul of the club ?

Firstly I don't think Roman saw much of a return on his investment (having the club stolen off him set aside). The club owed him 1.2 billion pounds or something. That wasn't the point for him. Nor was it the point in Paris or at City, nor will it be at Newcastle.

Secondly, pouring huge amounts into a club is good economically for the club to some extent, sometimes to a great extent. But money can't buy you everything, including self-respect.

Thirdly, I don't think we could spend more within FFP limits, except with pure gifts that don't form an ongoing part of expenditure. As things stand, we spend everything we earn. The other option would be to lie, as City have done. But for that to happen you need owners who want to throw their money away, which FSG and Lebron don't want. I have no problem with that.

I didn't say your hypothetical situation would be selling the soul of the club. I said the team who beat us sold their soul in the act of massively overspending their budget. In order to spend that way, someone else was getting something out of it - the sovereign wealth fund of the UAE who have attached their identity and prestige to the success of their club, which has become their play thing and everyone knows it. Man City have not earned the right to spend that money, the Royal family of Abu Dhabi have earned that right.

As it happens, FSG and Lebron have put their own money into the club. 320 million or something. They have invested in a business in the understanding that they could move it forwards with skill and improve its value. The improvement in its value is what they were seeking. Not the improved image of a dodgy country, an airline or a childish prince. When they leave, no one will even remember who they are. They will remember what LFC achieved or didn't achieve. And they will notice that our standing in the world of football is far higher, hopefully.

Had our owners signed say Bellingham last summer, how would that ruin the soul of the club?

This is a silly question really. There are so many variables involved in the question of why they didn't, but you are implying the only one that counts is miserliness.

Our club is run well enough to know that, if buying him is possible and if everyone believes he is the right purchase, we stand a good chance of getting our man, even if he costs 100 million euros.

To expect that to be a formality, especially when there are so many of these sugar daddy clubs around, is to be spoiled in my view. If we don't get him, we'll get someone else, but I still fancy us to pull it off.

[Taksin]

We contact Diaz, he wants to come, we're stalling. Spurs enter the scene

I don't read it that way. It seems we planned to buy him in the summer. Plenty of reasons why that might be the plan. We are told they'd been working on the purchase for a month and a half so there had already been lots of contact and planning. Spurs entering the picture caused us to bring it forward and we succeeded.

[CCTV]

Firstly I don't think Roman saw much of a return on his investment (having the club stolen off him set aside). The club owed him 1.2 billion pounds or something. That wasn't the point for him. Nor was it the point in Paris or at City, nor will it be at Newcastle.

Secondly, pouring huge amounts into a club is good economically for the club to some extent, sometimes to a great extent. But money can't buy you everything, including self-respect.

Thirdly, I don't think we could spend more within FFP limits, except with pure gifts that don't form an ongoing part of expenditure. As things stand, we spend everything we earn. The other option would be to lie, as City have done. But for that to happen you need owners who want to throw their money away, which FSG and Lebron don't want. I have no problem with that.

I didn't say your hypothetical situation would be selling the soul of the club. I said the team who beat us sold their soul in the act of massively overspending their budget. In order to spend that way, someone else was getting something out of it - the sovereign wealth fund of the UAE who have attached their identity and prestige to the success of their club, which has become their play thing and everyone knows it. Man City have not earned the right to spend that money, the Royal family of Abu Dhabi have earned that right.

As it happens, FSG and Lebron have put their own money into the club. 320 million or something. They have invested in a business in the understanding that they could move it forwards with skill and improve its value. The improvement in its value is what they were seeking. Not the improved image of a dodgy country, an airline or a childish prince. When they leave, no one will even remember who they are. They will remember what LFC achieved or didn't achieve. And they will notice that our standing in the world of football is far higher, hopefully.



This is a silly question really. There are so many variables involved in the question of why they didn't, but you are implying the only one that counts is miserliness.

Our club is run well enough to know that, if buying him is possible and if everyone believes he is the right purchase, we stand a good chance of getting our man, even if he costs 100 million euros.

To expect that to be a formality, especially when there are so many of these sugar daddy clubs around, is to be spoiled in my view. If we don't get him, we'll get someone else, but I still fancy us to pull it off.

The forced sale of Chelsea fetched 3.2 billion dollars. Around 2.64 billion pounds.
Club bought for £140mill + debt from spending of £1.5billion.
That's a rough billion pound profit from point of purchase, Big spending and through to its sale.
Leaving the club in a reasonably better space to compete.

One of the 3 oil clubs chelsea, shows a billion pound profit over 20 years of crazy spending at its point of sale, forced and all.

From my readings, to be updated, we could net spend quite a bit and still be FFP compliant. As can real Madrid.

Why should FSG, LeBron etc be losing money...
Why assume they are losing money when they invest it in their company.

Would bringing in Diaz & Bellingham last summer have cost you/whoever their sense of respect ?

The global football market is only going one way. The price valuations of top clubs in a decades time with further growth... astronomical. A very robust market within an increasingly digital age.

The idea of sports washing only applying to certain folks, seems a little biased.
For me the objective interest is the market, asset and growth.

[CCTV]

I don't read it that way. It seems we planned to buy him in the summer. Plenty of reasons why that might be the plan. We are told they'd been working on the purchase for a month and a half so there had already been lots of contact and planning. Spurs entering the picture caused us to bring it forward and we succeeded.

I'd like a chat with Diaz's agent

We moved when we had to, which kind of proved we could. According to Pep that was very difficult to get from the owners and SD prior to Spurs interests.

Luckily for us id speculate, Diaz arrived thanks to Spurs.
Diaz is an example of bringing in a player earlier than planned, reaping a nice dividend as he played his part over half a season roughly.

The argument is whether more of this, can return a profit on investment.
So far you seem certain it could only lose our owners money.

[Taksin]

The prices and valuations go one way until they stop going one way. Then they go the other way.

The Chlelsea sale is for a surprisingly high valuation (it’s more than double what I was expecting and even more so because of the circumstances) and has the feel to it of the last buyer at the top of the market, after which there will be no one left to buy. We shall see - these Arabs have changed the market.

I would still maintain that Roman’s investment, the whole thing, was not motivated by profits present or future. Obviously he knows it’s not all down the drain but I doubt he saw himself building a 3 billion dollar asset.

Sports washing is a specific term for a specific phenomenon. FSG are not doing it.

I have also had thoughts about why FSG have not used debt in their model and I can also speculate as to why that might be. The difference is, I don’t see evidence that shows them to be failing the club.

I have never spent 100 million euros on an 18 year old boy and I doubt you have. Don’t answer that actually. But sitting around saying what they should have done is all well and good - they have their pudding and it proves they know what they’re doing.

[sydenham red]

will you 2 either fuck up or fuck off. this forum needs a daily/monthly post or character amount limit. Enough mentals on here as it is

[Taksin]

The argument is whether more of this, can return a profit on investment.
So far you seem certain it could only lose our owners money.

No, the argument is whether our success can all be put down to Klopp or whether the owners have actually created it, employing Klopp to assist them with their aims.

I have expressed no such certainty. I have only defended their methods as one way of building a successful football team. I don’t think that can be argued with now.

What you’re saying is
1) things could be better
(hardly a mind blowing revelation)
2) you think you can see where they are letting us down

This is an exercise in self-congratulation, which is ironic as they don’t seem to get much congratulations on here for what they have actually achieved. They have achieved what we have been hoping someone would achieve for thirty years and they can fuck off as far as we’re concerned

[Taksin]

will you 2 either fuck up or fuck off. this forum needs a daily/monthly post or character amount limit. Enough mentals on here as it is

You’re worried about a character limit?

[Kev0909]

19x Enters the chat

[CCTV]

The prices and valuations go one way until they stop going one way. Then they go the other way.

The Chlelsea sale is for a surprisingly high valuation (it’s more than double what I was expecting and even more so because of the circumstances) and has the feel to it of the last buyer at the top of the market, after which there will be no one left to buy. We shall see - these Arabs have changed the market.

I would still maintain that Roman’s investment, the whole thing, was not motivated by profits present or future. Obviously he knows it’s not all down the drain but I doubt he saw himself building a 3 billion dollar asset.

Sports washing is a specific term for a specific phenomenon. FSG are not doing it.

I have also had thoughts about why FSG have not used debt in their model and I can also speculate as to why that might be. The difference is, I don’t see evidence that shows them to be failing the club.

I have never spent 100 million euros on an 18 year old boy and I doubt you have. Don’t answer that actually. But sitting around saying what they should have done is all well and good - they have their pudding and it proves they know what they’re doing.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/chelsea/?sh=5a5c7eeb3725

According to forbes they sold for close to their market value of 3.1 billion dollars. Down 3% on their previous years valuation.
(Ours was up 9%, and greater than Chelseas, though I used Chelseas sale price for our owners profit should they sell)

The global growth is set to continue. More people watching & following in the digital economy.
During the ESL I argued fans groups should be leveraging their position to get much cheaper tickets.
The pandemic & lockdown showed how the game has changed with respect to finances already.

JwH knew what he was buying for the price he paid. I doubt he'd be selling it anytime soon as the idea of a 4 billion buyout today, would seem criminal with future growth in the market.

Well I've argued this point in a thread on the Saudis, will bump that when I get a chance over the weekend.

I can think of better rebranding efforts if that's their intent, or desire.