Is it? I honestly have no idea how much real money the club has - as opposed to published figures which could mean anything - I just know we're run differently to City, Utd, PSG etc... I've said before that I'm not convinced that we need to sell to spend atm - I think we're better off than that, but I'm referring to the massive spend almost every window by the other clubs that we see as our rivals. We can splash out occasionally, but I don't think we can do it as consistently as they do. I agree we should have strengthened the midfield (if possible) this time round, but the usual lot will just get three or four big signings next time and we won't keep up with that. Seems to me this is just how it is, and we won't change it anytime soon.
Chucking a large chunk of cash at one player is a mentality you expect from a small club, especially when that player was threatening to leave on a free if he didn't get what he wanted and he'd been playing **** for months too.
And it's whether Klopp wants to spend it as well. Personally, I think the money is there but Klopp is adamant on certain signings and won't accept the back ups.
And no one is expecting us to go out and spend like City. But we're constantly being outspent by mid table team every year. We're not broke. We're just too stubborn IMO.
lets be clear here. There are tiers of clubs. But those tiers no not really reflect the spending that goes on, simply because some clubs are willing to throw money and run up debt. The best reference should be the deliotte revenue turnover rankings but we are seeing utterly fake revenues being allowed for Man city for example, nobody seems to care a shell company is funnelling cash in sponsorship into these clubs at all. So this shows how man city are actively doping. their revneues have climbed and climbed since the last time they were "caught out" and really its a lot of fake money floowing in as a state company. LFC numbers btw are not for last season they are last reported. I expect them to be higher at 600mil euos at least. Yes real and barca sit on top as they take far more as a % of spanish TV money. Liverpool are now firmly on a par with man utd in revenue. So think about that. In the man utd Financial results this week the club is in 515mil debt and pulled down 40mil in case just to pay the glaziers off. Man utd wages: Cristiano Ronaldo £515,385 David De Gea £375,000 Jadon Sancho £350,000 Raphael Varane £340,000 Carlos Casimiro £300,000 Anthony Martial £250,000 Bruno Fernandes £240,000 Marcus Rashford £200,000 just those above 200k Now LFC Mohamed Salah £350,000 Virgil Van Dijk £220,000 Thiago £200,000 Trent Alexander-Arnold £180,000 Roberto Firmino £180,000 Diogo Jota £180,000 Fabinho Tavares £180,000 Darwin Núñez £180,000 I took 8 players in just to show..... same revenues in, less wages out. What are we doing thats different? simple. Glaziers on average take 2omil a year every year out of man utd. while doing nothing round the club in investment. FSG take 12mil for 10 years to pay for main stand and LFC have paid 50mil for Kirkby and 70mil for anfield road stand. If you want to know why we are tight... its cos we are spending the cash elsewhere. I would now like to point to the Doping at city. I've already highlighted the fake revenue. Take a look at these declared wages and then ask why these players are not screaming to get out of there... fake wages. Kevin De Bruyne £400,000 Erling Haaland F £375,000 Jack Grealish £300,000 John Stones £250,000 Rodrigo £220,000 Ruben Dias £160,000 Bernardo Silva £150,000 Ilkay Gundogan £140,000
it'll be 590mil sterling. Its been forecast for months and months. Its going to be higher than man utd's for the one year. it won't be published til next feb
Bellingham's agent is his dad Mark, he represents both of his sons. He helped Jude make the right move to Dortmund over all the other big clubs who were after him. They appear to be doing things the right way and aren't just chasing the money. Still remains to be seen what happens with his transfer next summer.
He could have moved to us but the price was 30mil for a 17 year old so I'm not so sure about this appearance of doing the right thing. the result from the transfer thus far looks like the lad has put himself in the shop window; but we just do not know of they simply didn't just take the biggest pay day on offer at the time. the result out could have been identifal at LFC or wherever but the money could have been far less. We just don't know that. We do know at 17 Bellingham was getting 50k a week by moving. If it was pure football he could have stays at Birmingham for 2 years and got way less but been just as important a player to that club without any risk of having the move fail (and moving to a foreign country is always a risk) And yes playing CL and Top division in Germany is better than championship and thats all good but lets face it a massive pay cheque came their way with that move and another is coming quite quickly. Same then for the brother.... no desire to stay at birmingham at all. .
Its more tax efficient for clubs to pay the agents fee. Otherwise players would want larger salaries in order to pay it and then everyone is screwed. was a bit article about it a year or two back that remember reading.
I think it was Tobes who put the article up, and it showed it was better for the club and plyer if the agent's fees were paid by the club for tax reasons.
Phillip Degan, remember him? He is friends with Mark Bellingham and gave an inside track interview a couple of years ago on the situation. Going by what he said and from my humble point of view, I think he made the right move. Outstanding young talent moving to a good club with a reputation for developing talent rather than move to a massive club and not play enough or stay at a Championship club and stall the development by not playing at the level you should be. Harvey Elliott did a similar thing.
Birmingham were happy to sell him as they got a payday which would help the continue to exist as a club . Bellinghams agent and family had identified a move to Germany as the best way to progress his development and were not really open to him moving to a top english club as they didn't think he would get enough game time .
Arguing about how much money we've got is fairly pointless, we dont know regardless of what's reported, we will not be whiter than white when it comes to our accounts. I can just go by what I feel, and thats that despite immense success we havnt taken advantage. Similar to 2005 we could of bolsted the team, moved forward but we didn't. I feel we have the revenue and importantly the success to attract the players. If we don't take advantage while it's there, it's a very fine line between a prudent top club and a stepping stone for players to get where they want to go.
I just looked back at a post I made last year containing a link to an article by Daniel Geey, sports lawyer, about agent's fees. This was the conclusion: It’s pretty clear that the way that agents/intermediaries are paid at present is rather complicated. Many believe that the way athletes, say, in the US pay their agents directly is the more straight forward model. However, the current club and player incentives are somewhat misaligned with a combination of: agents commission not being a deductible expense for players; and clubs presumably preferring to pay the player’s agent as a benefit to the player rather than provide more in gross salary to the player. The more complicated structures, as set out above, will likely remain set in stone until some type of football or HMRC intervention. Whilst such an approach is unlikely to change anytime soon, there is big regulatory conflict on the horizon with likely challenge of FIFA’s commission cap. These authors wouldn’t be surprised if this, if not marketed as such, is FIFA’s opening negotiation offer to the various agency representation groups with the ultimate aim of agreeing a capped compromise. FIFA negotiating with the master negotiators promises to make for an interesting next few months.
