Technically that wasn't a sale. The money was tribunal over a 'free' transfer because of a youth contract.
in the end guys this spend is one aspect but not all the factors. 1. net spend makes fsg look like turds 2. player wages https://www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/ - 4 highest playing staff wages. 3. total wages: Some clubs segregate wages and holding companies take the stadium staff so that the money is paid out of different pocket. again. fsg put all the money on the club in the same accounts 4. Investment builds. FSG- 120mil, 50mil 80mil all gone on LFC books. 12mil per year to fsg to pay for main stand. other clubs? city don't pay a penny for any development. its outside ffp. however... its about cash flow. the cash for transfer sis not there cos it is paying this 5. debt: LFC net debt 88million to outside FSG, Debt to FSG stands at 71.4mil (main stand) other clubs? take your pick of numbers ranging for 500mil to 1 billion If you look at things in the round FSG are careful owners but stingy owners. Others would write off that stadium debt in a heartbeat. Others would fund various elements out of another holding compay to get round the finances, others would put money in to drive the club success and exploit the resulting commercial gains. others would run up massive debts and shrug. FSG do none of these things. this is a saleable asset with low debts and high revenues, they value it at a very high number and expect it to sustain itself while they exploit is globally on their own commercial arm. (why is lebron james into LFC, cos every time he wear LFC kit, his own merch is actually sold more to the global audience) Just saying FSG just don't put enough into transfers is not even half the truth. They are hamstringing the club left right and centre. We would be probabaly better off as a selling club, stop paying the high wages to the thaigos etc and by 22-24 year olds on 90-100k and just flip them on for a profit while getting some results out of them in only the league and CL. aka be a more successful brighton. We cna pay more than brighton just on our revenues (3x brightons) so we can buy up players and then flip them. lets face it, we would have been bette roff now buying bellingham for 30mil and paying him 90k a week thus putting dortmund out of the picture then sell him on to real for 80mil. instead we give henderson a far too long contract on high money and pay baout the same plus 200k a week to thiago.
Great post, I agree. FSG are cautious but we are in competition with clubs who virtually have no limits on how much they can spend. This is a make or break Summer, another season like this and we will be in real trouble, Klopp will either leave or be sacked which will be a huge blow, there are no better managers out there given the budget. FSG are taking a gamble, the value of the club they bought has rocketed, but poor results and no CL, no trophies and no ambition will devalue the club quickly. The Bellingham saga has been a PR disaster for us as we are openly admitting that we cannot afford to compete at the highest level. The gap in quality between us and City was visible and painful in the recent match, without the highest quality players, the gap will only increase
Think they just ****ed up on the numbers tbh. Loking at transfer market Fulham have sold a few over last few years (admittedly not loads though) Carvahlo to us in the summer. Anguissa to napoli Couple of chores deals Year before sessegnon to spurs for 20m before that Button to Brighton before that So been a few sales
Don’t think it’s that we can’t compete at highest level. I think idea was we’d get through this season and then spend majority of budget on Bellingham. Always knew would cost 100m. However as seasons been a bit of a horror have realised need more than just 1 player. So makes more logical sense to get 3 players in for 150m than 1 for 120. Let’s be honest, can’t still get some very good players for 50m. Look at some of the midfielders brought by others for 20-30m. Yes may be lfc tax on them but 50m can still get you a very good player, just not one that’s in the prem as you pay prem tax on them.
Excellent post. However, that's exactly how all clubs should be run. The problem isn't FSG, the problem is how football clubs are allowed to get away with being poorly run.
you can get amazing players for nothing for 5mil, 10mil or 50mil. it's about risk taking. if you are developing them up after buying and don't have the same glare and demands then what Brighton have done in getting players, loaning them and then playing them can work. we don't need to be Chelsea. we need to be benfica (Enzo fernandez fee. Darwin nunez fee etc) we are that cautious that we are automatically limiting ourselves to competing for the scraps off the big clubs tables at times. mane - utd rejected move gakpo - utd rejected move salah - chav reject. Robertson- relegated wijnaldum - relegated most of our buys are not thaigos on high money but b list players others don't really want. the second you heard touchameni and Real madrid last season that was off. the second Bellingham played for England he was a 100mil player. that was off. we have to work a bit harder on loans and buying players to develop using them. we have to work a lot harder in scouting and bringing in guys and we have to be a lot more ruthless in dispatching the dead wood. the fact ox and keita and Phillips have stunk the place out has killed us here. a deadwood cull might have cost us a couple of domestic cups (minamino and origi won us those in early rounds) but we would have a better squad. it's high time to stop pretending we can compete on all 4 fronts and get back to the focus and tight squad. use the cups to blood kids again exclusively.
If you've got a tight budget, you don't gamble. Or, at least, you take lower risks and go for the more likely to succeed deals. That's what we've been doing and that's why we don't sign anyone if the first, second and sometimes third target isn't available or willing to join. Players are usually cheap for a reason so buying them in the hope of finding a gem is high risk.
Well, our factors.seem to be wanting to see a player in a major tournament or in Europe or in the prem. the major signings all have this in common. diaz, jota, nunez, gakpo are all well proven in Europe and internationals. we then go spend round the edges on carvalho and ramsay which are the level of risk. Brighton have picked up 3 or 4 that have turned onto the next big things and are now prem proven so will cost 100mil. nunez was a 10mil player once. diaz was less caicedo was 8mil this is the risk we are not willing to take it seems. the funny thing is we have made some profits off these types of players like awoniyi, we seem to be less willing now since brexit to buy and loan. we need to come back with a new game plan new cos paying massive wages is only hurting us. Phillips on 60k ffs.
For every Nunez, Diaz or Caicedo, there are a dozen more that are just plain ****. It's easy to pick out the successes with hindsight and say "we should sign players like this".
I think my issue is I can no longer really see the strategy behind our transfer policy. We want proven players, but don't want to spend money on them. We'd like to pay less in transfers and wages but don't want to take a risk. You've got a few kids knocking about, then some at the right age that cost a good wedge, then the thiagos and Hendersons getting a massive wage for little return. From being almost laser like in its prescion our recruitment and retention policy now seems just a bit scattergun.
What we need to do is go back to the data / analytics approach when it comes to transfers. We lost this when a certain someone left and left Klopp / his team free rein on transfers. There are plenty of players out there and at affordable prices. We don't need to spend like City or Chelsea - we just needed to keep topping up the squad to keep it fresh, young, hungry and maintain high levels. What we're asking for is the owners to spend money to help us address the issues in the squad. Now the owners can take some of the blame, Klopp needs to take the rest because it's his decision not to sign midfielders and turn down the alternatives
Tbf I think the FSG model works, it's proved as much. The problem is not replacing like for like in a timely fashion to keep it working. So many analogies you could make about expecting the same consistency from an aging product that you got when it was new.
We went from being arguably the best run club from 2017-2020 to one of the worst run clubs. It does not take a genius to figure out what changed from 2020 onwards ...
