Come on the board knew he wanted Dempsey from early in the window. If they had issues with that then why wait until the last day of the window (or even after it shut) to tell him? They were pulling the wool over his eyes until it was too late. They also knew he wanted Siggy and that fell through. Now BR said that was down to his choice. Now I'm not so sure. Look the simple fact is you can't get CL on such a paltry budget. Right? Moyes did it once but only after being given a lot of years and going through a lot of pain to get there. If the owners aren't going to back him with cash they have to back him with time and we all know deep down they won't do that. They set ythe bar too high for KK because he over-achieved in his first 6 months. If they set the bar too high again even after blatantly failing to back "their" man then he's a dead man walking and that to me is tragic.
Bullshit. If they don't trust his judgement...don't give him the job. Thje age thing is just an excuse. They knew he wanted Dempsey from the day the Siggy deal fell thru...we all knew it. Why wait until after the windows shut to tell him. Its a set up and not even a very subtle one.
Bottom line - FSG bought Liverpool football club to make more money. They want to increase their revenue and having a team in the top flight every year will make you money without massive investment. So pay low wages don't spend crazy money and earn without taking the risk of going for glory by spending a fortune. I wonder do they make a living from the sox or are they a drain on finances? I reckon if Liverpool pull in extra revenue for FSG year in year out there will be no selling soon as all they will get back is what they put in, this way at least they are aming for stability of the club even if that is consistently 5th 6th if it earns money... Arsenal..
Doesn't fly with me, that. It was Tom Werner that first voiced an interest in Dempsey, it was their web-site that put up the story that Dempsey had been bought. I find it incredible that they were not interested.
I wonder if Arsenals board tell Wenger who he can and can't sign I think we're more like the new Everton than the new Arsenal ffs how did that happen...
No where near £20m net spend. Made a topic on it before, with all our out goings; contract wages and transfers. It is about £45m cleared, plus any yearly profit the club makes, which includes new (league biggest) deals of warrior and standard chartered. We only brought in about £28m and contracts in addition, it makes up to just under our player sales and cleared contracts. They have made £20m or more this summer.
"And just for the record let's not re-write history here. The rubbish that Kenny bought had us 3 points off Chelsea in 4th place before Suarez/Kenny got shafted by The Fergie Association (and their own employers) and got us to not 1 but 2 cup finals. That was without Lucas, Agger for two months, Gerrard for long periods and Suarez for 9 games." Absolutely! Kenny was never my first choice as anything but caretaker manager, but having given him the funds, and having dispasionately reviewed the season from when it fell to pieces in the league, any fool could see that we would have improved upon 8th this team, had kenny been able to build on Carroll's end-of-season form and Henderson's growing confidence. I have no problems with Brendan and what he's trying to do (I wanted Martinez at the begining of last season, but I accept he's as much a risk as Brendan). I DO appreciate Brendan's tough line on transfers - we've been seen as mugs for middling players since the days of Houlier, let alone Bentez and Kenny - BUT, as has been pointed out, if this is a strategy enforced by the board we mat as well have a dreaded "Director of Football" back to do FSG's bidding, as they don't seem to trust BR. Also, whose stupid idea was it to tell the world of Carroll's WHU loan BEFORE we'd secured a replacement? FFS, Fulham and Spurs damn well knew they had us over a barrel there and the, Not that Dempsey was my choice anyway (but he was Brendan's, and that's all that counts), but even without dempsey it screwed up our negotiating position on any other options that may have been available. And even michael Owen, not that I hope anyone realistically expects that to happen !?, now has a position to up the anto from, say, 20k a week to 50/60k - amd i wouldn't blame him. Omnishambles, as said, H+G 2.0.
Strange way of calculating it. We wont see the benefit of saved wages yet as they've only just gone off the books. Hopefully they will mean a higher budget in future put it doesn't put more cash in the bank to spend this summer. I make it we spent 10 mill on Borini 15 mill on Allen 3 million on Ossaidi. Plus any loan fee for Sahin which I'm not aware of. So thats 28 million spent. We got about 1 million for Kuyt, around 6 for Aquilani and 4 for Adam. so recouped 11 Million. I know these are reported figure but I would imagine are roughly correct. Net spend of roughly 17 million with a reported offer of £3 million for Dempsey. I'm no lover of FSG, I think they made a right cock up with Comolli and letting all the Torres money be wasted, but what I'm saying is unless a billionaire is going to buy us whats the point in a change in owner? Nobody else is going to pump their money into the club so they need to make it self sustaining which this summer they've done a good job of while still spending a relatively good amount on trying to improve the squad
I agree, I don't want us to become a chavski or what city are now, but I don't want to go the other way and be an arsenal. Here's what I calculated before:
I agree with this. People are all too quick to say "but we've saved X amount in wages" Really? So, are we not paying the new players? And, as you rightly say, any savings due to wage differentials will be a slow claw back over time, it's not a cash injection like you get from a transfer fee, so including this in any sort of spend figure is totally erroneous.
When does the 'commercial' money from sponsorship's and partnership's get factored in? Or does that money go into FSG's petty cash tin to pay for flights back and forth etc?
Quick answer to that is at the end of the financial year as part of total revenue. However, the cash received can arrive throughout the year as per the contract terms. If the contract is concluded with LFC then it has to be reported as income in LFC's accounts. Any outgoings to FSG have also to be reported. As for the management costs then they to have to be reported in the P&L account.
Nice one dave. I suppose if the money went to a 'club holding company' and then onto FSG it would only show up in our club accounts as far as the holding company? Only asking because i read somewhere the other day that American financial journos are blaming the money spent by FSG at LFC for the Red Sox current financial woes. We're are a seperate entity within FSG right?, if yes why would money spent at LFC effect the Sox?
Yes we are a separate legal entity within the FSG portfolio of companies. As such we have no legal obligation towards the Sox . However, FSG can decide for themselves where the emphasis will be put in terms of their investment spending. I looked at the article you posted last night and it appeared to me that the journalist did not understand what had been happening over here in terms of FSG's spending and therefore merely seeking a convenient peg on which to hang the Sox's woes (the same can be said to be true for the Business Week article). From all of John Henry's statements and reiterated in his open letter, it appears that he is signalling that LFC will be expected to live within its means and that whilst commercial income will be increased it will not be syphoned-off for other activities. Now some have different views but, until his actions prove otherwise, I will accept that this is his intention. Therefore I do not expect to see LFC income being withdrawn. Without becoming too technical, there are plenty of ways that JH and FSG can benefit from owning LFC without withdrawing cash. Therein could lie another can of worms!
Take into account the Meireles cash (and saved wages) too as that was never spent last window. Brings it down further its not exactly backing your new manager is it considering the "extra revenue" coming in.
You may have a point about the owners but can you prove it?? I'm against all this where an American group can come in and buy a British football club with the soul interest of making a profit for themselves that will be pin money compared to what they earn of the red sox. The red sox will always come first and foremost with them and Liverpool will get whats left. I would make it illegal to own more than one club so that you don't get into a conflict of interests. But that is just my personal view and it might work perfectly well i dont know, Maybe your owners will sell to someone else but if they do then they really need to do it now in the early stages of transformation.....Anyway whatever happens i wish liverpool all the best...
That's pure speculation on your part. You don't even know what targets BR had, so it's rather crass to suggest FSG are not exactly backing him. And, again, what has Meireles "saved wages" got to do with it?
FSG backed the manager when we spent £15m and £10m on Allen and Borini - two young, talented but unproven players. They were also willing to back the manager if he wanted to buy a young striker (Sturridge) to the tune of £15m (taken from Tony Barrett who has very close links with the club).
So you're suggesting BR got the targets he wanted? So he didn't want Dempsey after letting Carroll go? That's hardly pure speculation on my part is it? The Meireles wages is relevant because the point in post #28 was that we haven't saved the wages yet on the players we've sold this window. That's a fair point that I can accept but surely then we can factor in the cash made from transfer (approx £12mill although undisclosed) and wages we have saved on a player we sold late in last summers window (as he wasn't replaced). At a low estimate RM was probably on let's say £40000 a week (I would imagine more but don't know for sure) so thats a couple of million saved on top of his (approx) £12million transfer fee. Seems just about enough to buy Joe Allen that wouldn't you say
