Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
johnsonsbaby said:
You're right unesco can't veto anything but they have removed Liverpool from World Heritage list as a result of the Peel plans, something the Council aren't happy about and are trying to get back. English Heritage have put protection on the site, so the government will back it up which is why I can't see them allowing a stadium on this particular site.

With regard to Peel they have a few investors lined up from what I've heard. There's plans lodged with the Council for an £80m apartment block as part of the Liverpool Waters scheme. It will be interesting to see if it goes ahead because the council really don't want to damage the heritage status and simply can't touch the listed buildings. You only have to look to see the type of developments on the waterfront.
Click to expand...
We'll see how it pans out mate, but the fella who told me reckons its a done deal for the dock and some adjoining land - £20m.

Are you on about the Shanghai Tower there? As it's already had outline planning hasn't it?
 
Tobes said:
We'll see how it pans out mate, but the fella who told me reckons its a done deal for the dock and some adjoining land - £20m.

Are you on about the Shanghai Tower there? As it's already had outline planning hasn't it?
Click to expand...
Not Shanghai tower as far as I know, this one is to be a 34 storey privately rented apartment block.

When you say adjoining land do you mean the Nelson Dock because all that's there is a row of docks. The Bramley Moore is the furthest north before the next dock [Wellington] which is a working dock.
 
johnsonsbaby said:
When you say adjoining land do you mean the Nelson Dock because all that's there is a row of docks. The Bramley Moore is the furthest north before the next dock [Wellington] which is a working dock.
Click to expand...

I never pressed him on it, but I assumed it was where Sound City is and the vacant land over the road
 
Tobes said:
I never pressed him on it, but I assumed it was where Sound City is and the vacant land over the road
Click to expand...
The details don't really matter tobes, I was just curious because there is no adjoining land. If it materialises it will be great for the area and the city. We've been hearing about EFC starting to show ambition now you have a new investor, the summer signings weren't it, but this definitely would be. Put Liverpool [city of] right back on the footballing map <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Saxton
johnsonsbaby said:
The details don't really matter tobes, I was just curious because there is no adjoining land. If it materialises it will be great for the area and the city. We've been hearing about EFC starting to show ambition now you have a new investor, the summer signings weren't it, but this definitely would be. Put Liverpool [city of] right back on the footballing map <ok>
Click to expand...
Indeed mate, it's be fantastic for the City, as iirc the new Cruise liner terminal is just beyond that isn't it?

As a 'football City' it'd be very fitting to have a stadium on the Skyline imho.

We'll see what happens fella <ok>
 
Garlic Klopp said:
Do you not understand "net spend". After allowing for sales we made a profit of £14.5m, City paid out £169.05, Utd paid out £141.05. It's irrelevant how much a team spends, what is important is the net spend
Click to expand...
So the players you sold all arrived at Anfield for free <yikes>
 
Diego said:
Sop the players you sold all arrived at Anfield for free <yikes>
Click to expand...

Again irrelevant to the argument, we are talking about business in the transfer window which has just concluded. In January LFC may buy £50m of players and not sell any, then there business in that transfer window would be - £50m. Using your argument you would have to go back to when all clubs were formed and add up all ins and outs to arrive at a figure, and then make allowance for the length of time each club has existed. I'll leave that calculation for you to do as I am halfway through a bottle of expensive red wine and do not feel up to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: organic red, Jimmy Squarefoot, Solid Air and 1 other person
Garlic Klopp said:
Again irrelevant to the argument, we are talking about business in the transfer window which has just concluded. In January LFC may buy £50m of players and not sell any, then there business in that transfer window would be - £50m. Using your argument you would have to go back to when all clubs were formed and add up all ins and outs to arrive at a figure, and then make allowance for the length of time each club has existed. I'll leave that calculation for you to do as I am halfway through a bottle of expensive red wine and do not feel up to it.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and highly relevant. Whoever thought up this "net spend" bullshit is a total flake, how can you totally discount the players you have lost to sales.
Using my argument other players don't come into it, the question is "how much did a team spend on new players"

It's a bit like when they publish figures for the costliest squads, do you think they take into account all player sales during the building of these squads? Nope, they take the purchase price of all the players in each squad at the time and total them up.
 
Diego said:
Exactly, and highly relevant. Whoever thought up this "net spend" bullshit is a total flake, how can you totally discount the players you have lost to sales.
Using my argument other players don't come into it, the question is "how much did a team spend on new players"

It's a bit like when they publish figures for the costliest squads, do you think they take into account all player sales during the building of these squads? Nope, they take the purchase price of all the players in each squad at the time and total them up.
Click to expand...

My original post was about "net" spend in the recent transfer window, relevant because any business must be concerned about net spend unless you have a bottomless pit of money, like City. We do not at present, but the Chinese interest might change this. If so this will be another nail in football's coffin as prices will escalate further. Eventually only teams with foreign government's money will be able to afford the top players. Even teams like Utd will struggle if they can only buy based on their income as I can't see the likes of the Glaziers or Abramovich being able to keep up.
 
Garlic Klopp said:
My original post was about "net" spend in the recent transfer window, relevant because any business must be concerned about net spend unless you have a bottomless pit of money, like City. We do not at present, but the Chinese interest might change this. If so this will be another nail in football's coffin as prices will escalate further. Eventually only teams with foreign government's money will be able to afford the top players. Even teams like Utd will struggle if they can only buy based on their income as I can't see the likes of the Glaziers or Abramovich being able to keep up.
Click to expand...
Ahh right, sell to buy. Why didn't you just say that <ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back