LFC net V gross

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/how-liverpool-fcs-balance-sheet-9663946

spare a thought for Foredeckdave as you read this and the annual argument over LFC finances... Great sport.

Tobes opinion PLEASE!


...................

my own opinion is the echo have ****ed up firmino's fee by including all add ons while taking out Sterlings

 

It doesn't add up either way - either at the £49m or the £44m. Typical of that ****ing red ****e rag. I woundnt wipe me arse on it

 

Doesn't that add up to £48.6m...?

£49m - £8.8m = £40.2m

£40.2m + £4.4m + £4m = £48.6m

 

We won't get £49m for Sterling, that requires City to win the CL in the next 3 years. We will likely get £46m.

 

Irrelevant but thanks

 

As long as you can sell a player for for 75 and 50 million every season you should be fine

 

Those figures in the Echo are a million miles off! Profit? Not even close.

When you factor in tax, agent fees, tax on agent fees, signing on fees to the supposed free transfers, tax on the signing fees and any additional costs like appearances, the Sterling transfer covers closer to half of what we've spent.

We're not swimming in money like people claim which is even more a reason why the Benteke signing would be such a huge gamble.

 

Even if it's a lie, someone tell me we didn't pay Big Mama Shady Ward one ****ing penny.

 

Why the **** would we pay an agent to transfer a player away from us?

 

So you don't have the app then?

 

The buying club pays the agent fees and tax on it. Ward got nothing from us as far as I can tell...

 

Manager should be judged on gross spend.

Owners/Money men should be judged on net spend.

 

I'm judging a manager on results, regardless of what he spends.

 

True but I was referring to the finances of the club.

 

which in reality, matter very little to us fans.

 

True, especially when fans try to justify giving Milner £150k a week or spending £32.5m on Benteke ...

 

I will remember you said that

Seriously though, Jimmy is spot on.
Managers should be judged on what they have spent overall, regardless of what sales have recouped.
Because at the end of the day they have still spent that money, and should get results from it.
This is an argument I tried to make with Liverpool fans about 5 years ago about Benitez when I was told he should be judged on net spend.
And I argued that gross spend and player turnover were more pertinent.

 

In Rafa's defence, the amount he spent was over the course of 6 years and he had to sell in order to spend. But nonetheless, he still wasted a fair bit of money.

Rodgers doesn't have to sell - he's been given a lot and he's spent so much in a short amount of time and with little success.

 

I'm quite consistent in my approach to this kind of thing, I'm not interested in the financial side of football, fans have got too wrapped up in this over the years. Our job is to support the team, what is spent by the manager or the net v gross nonsense (imo) is dull as **** and is not what football is about. Regardless of what the manager is given to spend I expect results.

 

Indeed, this season will most likely take Rodgers gross spend since taking over as manager to £300m.
You really would expect a return on that this season.

I think though, that unless he gets top 4 and/or wins a trophy this season, he will be gone.