There’s a distinct difference though, as that amount is deferred debt, with the Porto money that doesn’t become due until next year so would be accounted for then.
Either way we aren’t getting either money until next year so if you don’t include 1 you can’t include the other.
Most transfers are staggered payments, but the balance sheet profit / loss on the player is accounted for in the financial year he actually officially leaves on a permanent deal.
Liverpool have confirmed it’s a perm deal in English. I’d assume there is a translation issue of the Portuguese to English of the Porto statement.
None of you wummy little ****wits seem to get that the player has been announced on the official lfc website as permanently leaving liverpool fc. The end.
Ehhhhh you dont have direct access to fc Porto or liverpool's bank accounts then? You must be the only one on here without access.
That just means your not accepting him back The "official" Porto website states they have an option to buy him. Where does that leave the poor lad?
I'm ok mate - just getting inexorably older. I wasn't really looking at the money - I'm sure all clubs have ways of making their accounts look better - just the accumulation of players. The FFP comment was just an observation that now it's definitely screwed, anyone can do more or less what they like, it seems. You definitely did this hoovering up of players in Roman's early days. The tactic may well have been a medium-term financial one, but it certainly had the effect of denying rivals certain players. Do you really need Saul? His comments didn't exactly suggest he was excited about the move - and showed his concerns that he may be played out of position, presumably because he sees that you're already pretty well-stocked without him. This looks like the best squad you've had for a long time. Maybe he'll be unhappy and poison the dressing-room - we can only hope.
Said this before they are doing what AC did back in 80s They buying players so others cant have them, nowt wrong with that, totally down to the player and i can say in all honesty that i am certain that any player that would even consider that is not wanted by Klopp end of. So defo a bullet dodged for us, imho.
Total bullshit conspiracy Why would a club buy players who they will never use in the fear that thay are good enough to make other teams better? They buy young players cheap that look like they will make it at some level so they can turn a profit on them a couple of years later. Good for all party's involved. The young player gets trained/loaned out and has chance to prove them selves and become known, the club makes a profit on their investment. If a club really thought a young player would be a threat if he went to an opponent then they would buy him and keep him "in-house" to improve their own squad.
Yes not sure we fully needed him but there are a lot of games. I really like kovacic and obviously very happy with kante. Jorginho is proving himself to be a good leader but he can be improved upon as he is weak and slow (great at Italian Joe Allen but cycles ball better and better movement). Surprised we have got him but kante has been picking up a lot of niggling injuries and kovacic normally misses a few games to from injury. Haven't read sauls comments but he won't be willing attitude wise if he's been a key part in the simeone machine. Anyway take it easy and may the best team win. Our squad is looking pretty tasty, city is city, United look really strong man for man (crap coach though) and of course you guys have a top first 11 and your backups are fairly decent. Should be an exciting title challenge this season. The crowd being back should be a big factor too
In your opinion it is a total bullshit theory (and probably others) and in my little world it makes perfect sense and both are fine imho. why would Chelsea buy another midfielder at this point in time Can they play all of them in one game ? Will they play them all on a rotation basis ? They already have plenty of competition so i don't believe they need that player How is Danny Drinkwater getting on btw ? i never said it was a bad thing if a player wants to go and sit and be a squad player and take a huge pay day packet - they have earned the right to do that equally if they have gone to just sit in the squad clearly they are a person with the attitude Klopp in particular clearly does not want for us atm, as a team who were continually linked with him and who doesn't have the global commercial power that say utd does or the financial clout behind them that City and Chelsea have we have to cut our cloth. Not to the degree of say a brentford but still we cant go spunking money around like it grows on trees. So with all that in mind I feel for us we dodged a bullet. they do also do what you wrote in the lower half of your post too and they do it very well. i actually think they are a very well run club, however i do think its easier for Chelsea as they can make mistakes as they have someone who can just bankroll a spend if needed, if being the key word. Same for you guys and same for city. i think we are in a period where if we make a mistake in the market we have to tough it out and make the bestof that mistake, but again just an opinion. oh and ftr i am fairly certain that all teams buy players so others cant have them - sort of the point - so if there was ever a sentence to call conspiracy on it really isn't that one imho. Players are not panini stickers….oh hang on lol
they are not a well run club, they are still relying on forgiveness of debt by RA. They have built better than some clubs obviously but this is not a business where it needs to worry about what other businesses worry about therefore they are playing at a different level.
You can only have so many. You can loan him to another team that is no real threat to your position. He can't play against you, but he can possibly play against your rivals. Whether or not they did this is open to debate, but I'm not sure how the logic behind it escapes you so easily. Or perhaps you're just being argumentative - not like you at all...
