Rodgers safe, DoF in and some transfer talk

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Don't think you included the money they make from sponsors and partners.

http://www.liverpoolfc.com/corporate/partners

Or the kit deal or the money we made from tv appearances last season and the money from finishing 2nd.

We're better for them than they are for us(so far), their philosophy of telling Rodgers to by young players and build a young team over time could be seen as a cheapskate option when we should be buying established players with experience but they tend to cost more and want salaries that FSG baulk at.

But fair play to them for using the Suarez money on recruitments, pity it was squandered away.

Just the cash from two players that was pissed away, £125m for Torres and Suarez and what did we get in return. Just the fees we got for those two show how ****ing wasteful we've been in the transfer market, let alone the other £100m+ we pissed up a wall in that time.

How much ****e have we signed in the last decade?

 

[johnsonsbaby]

But fair play to them for using the Suarez money on recruitments, pity it was squandered away.

And for fighting to keep hold of him for that extra year.

 

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

The accounts include everything mate, and they were subsidising losses of circa £50m for 3 years fella.

They've invested right to the limits (and beyond imo as they bent the rules) as FFP would allow them to do. What more do you expect from them?

The fruits of that investment arrived with the CL place this season, and they threw another £117m at players to strengthen your overall squad, this season you've blown it, largely down to poor player investment last summer.

To blame them, when all they've done is invest from players to your stadium is beyond harsh imo.

The cheques are made out to FSG not LFC, we're part of a group of sports outlets under one corporation, there financial targets are aimed at making money for themselves in the long run.

Don't think they'd deny that because its true, the Glazers had it easy fnacially during the Fergie years but they ain't complaining now that they have to splash the cash to where they want to and expect to be, difference is there's a successful manager with a wealth of experience doing the spending.

They chose Rodgers who was IMO a cheap option at the time and they appear to be sticking by him, but he'll have to accept less say transfers because there's no way he's getting anything like he did last summer, the baseball heads from Boston kicked up a **** storm last season when they saw how much we were getting to spend on transfers and FSG will keep the punters of their first love happy before us.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Just the cash from two players that was pissed away, £125m for Torres and Suarez and what did we get in return. Just the fees we got for those two show how ****ing wasteful we've been in the transfer market, let alone the other £100m+ we pissed up a wall in that time.

How much ****e have we signed in the last decade?

yeah the separate point is if you are in a place where such VAST profits can be attained thier business model makes sense if you are out to make cash.... after all if jimmy would just say hey look at seville selling and building thier team and winning stuff. that'd be fine... hist buy suarez 23 mil sell 75.. buy sterling 500k sell 50mil... thats the thing.. why the **** did they allow 25mil on lallana then... a nonce could have told him thats more than he top of his ultimate price bracket.

10 mil on can is good buiness, cannot lose on him.. same on origi really.. some mug will pay it to us. I'm thinking had coates not done his knee and had 2 years left sunderland would pay his 7mil back... alberto crazily supposed to be 13mil to malaga... nuts..

Erikson to spures for 12mil... half lallan fee... ffs.. what was rodgers thinking there?

 

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

And for fighting to keep hold of him for that extra year.

Yeah, that extra season for Suarez ended up earning Brendan an extra £35m less one penny to squander.

 

[Hash.]

can you give me a good link to said accounts and point out where you have this 50mil a year being put in. there was a "one off" stadium loos once and accoridng to ayre we broke even last year. IF you can show be different in numbers i'd like to hear it. [HASHTAG]#openmind[/HASHTAG]

50m for stadium loos

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

solid gold mate... none of that plating for our lot.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

yeah the separate point is if you are in a place where such VAST profits can be attained thier business model makes sense if you are out to make cash.... after all if jimmy would just say hey look at seville selling and building thier team and winning stuff. that'd be fine... hist buy suarez 23 mil sell 75.. buy sterling 500k sell 50mil... thats the thing.. why the **** did they allow 25mil on lallana then... a nonce could have told him thats more than he top of his ultimate price bracket.

10 mil on can is good buiness, cannot lose on him.. same on origi really.. some mug will pay it to us. I'm thinking had coates not done his knee and had 2 years left sunderland would pay his 7mil back... alberto crazily supposed to be 13mil to malaga... nuts..

Erikson to spures for 12mil... half lallan fee... ffs.. what was rodgers thinking there?

They allowed 25m on Lallana because they trusted Rodgers. For me Lallana has never shown 25m kind of worth ever. But then again Lovren, he has had one half decent season in his career and again the owners trusted Rodgers, after coming second by a ****hair he was given enough rope and well, he's gone and hung himself with it

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

They allowed 25m on Lallana because they trusted Rodgers. For me Lallana has never shown 25m kind of worth ever. But then again Lovren, he has had one half decent season in his career and again the owners trusted Rodgers, after coming second by a ****hair he was given enough rope and well, he's gone and hung himself with it

yup

 

[Jimmy Squarefoot]

They allowed 25m on Lallana because they trusted Rodgers. For me Lallana has never shown 25m kind of worth ever. But then again Lovren, he has had one half decent season in his career and again the owners trusted Rodgers, after coming second by a ****hair he was given enough rope and well, he's gone and hung himself with it

We can't be so sure that Rodger's was behind those signings. The committee are at fault as well.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

We can't be so sure that Rodger's was behind those signings. The committee are at fault as well.

who knows, but either way Brod can say yay or nay to signings. But if there is some credability to this committee thing then it might be why ROdgers still has a job

 

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

We can't be so sure that Rodger's was behind those signings. The committee are at fault as well.

Nice bit of sarcasm there Jimmy.

 

[Tobes]

can you give me a good link to said accounts and point out where you have this 50mil a year being put in. there was a "one off" stadium loos once and accoridng to ayre we broke even last year. IF you can show be different in numbers i'd like to hear it. [HASHTAG]#openmind[/HASHTAG]

2011 - £49.4m loss (stadium costs - lol)

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/exclusive-liverpool-fc-accounts-show-3343827

2012 - £40.5m loss

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-accounts-debts-up-3008725

2013 - £49.8m loss

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/inco...013 Accounts submitted to Companies House.pdf

2014 - £1m profit but a £12m increase in net debt.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-accounts-show-club-8764089

 

[johnsonsbaby]

Harry Kewell .... yes Harry Kewell is doing his coaching badges and come out and said he'd like to manage Liverpool one day.

''I would love to coach Liverpool; I’m sure every player, every manager out there would love to manage probably the biggest club in the world.''

 

[Tobes]

The cheques are made out to FSG not LFC, we're part of a group of sports outlets under one corporation, there financial targets are aimed at making money for themselves in the long run.

Don't think they'd deny that because its true, the Glazers had it easy fnacially during the Fergie years but they ain't complaining now that they have to splash the cash to where they want to and expect to be, difference is there's a successful manager with a wealth of experience doing the spending.

They chose Rodgers who was IMO a cheap option at the time and they appear to be sticking by him, but he'll have to accept less say transfers because there's no way he's getting anything like he did last summer, the baseball heads from Boston kicked up a **** storm last season when they saw how much we were getting to spend on transfers and FSG will keep the punters of their first love happy before us.

Sorry but until you can post something that says that your corporate sponsors cheques don't land in LFC's coffers but in some holding companies account, I'm not having that mate.

 

[Germlands Nozzer]

Harry Kewell .... yes Harry Kewell is doing his coaching badges and come out and said he'd like to manage Liverpool one day.

''I would love to coach Liverpool; I’m sure every player, every manager out there would love to manage probably the biggest club in the world.''

I'm sure he would.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

I'm sure he would.

We've got a lot of club loyalty all over the world which is great, we just need a big name to take a chance on us and add themselves to the list .... having guided us to the title of course

You'd think it would be a challenge that someone like Klopp would be up for. They would be instant legends but it seems their egos aren't up to it.

 

[Germlands Nozzer]

We've got a lot of club loyalty all over the world which is great, we just need a big name to take a chance on us and add themselves to the list .... having guided us to the title of course

You'd think it would be a challenge that someone like Klopp would be up for. They would be instant legends but it seems their egos aren't up to it.

Klopp's already a legend at Dortmund and Mainz; does he need Liverpool? And with that sort of calibre of manager, that may be a factor, but if there's any easier oute to success and money, why not take it? I.e. if we're competing with clubs that can offer easier routes to success and money, why not go there instead? They also have loyal fanbases (well, mostly...).

 

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

Sorry but until you can post something that says that your corporate sponsors cheques don't land in LFC's coffers but in some holding companies account, I'm not having that mate.

Ah come on Tobes stop being naive, you don't honestly think FSG as a company make nothing, have you ever heard of FSM as opposed to FSG?

FSM is also a part of FSG and their star man is a feller called Mark Lev, his job is to tie up deals for the mother company.

http://www.sportsmarketing360.com/speakers/mark-lev

He's not employed by LFC but was responsible for the kit deal with NB, was his salary or his staff's wages taken into consideration in the accounts?, there's more to a company with more than one asset than we see with money being shifted between different parts of the organisation and the fitted to suit by company accountants.

 

[Tobes]

Ah come on Tobes stop being naive, you don't honestly think FSG as a company make nothing, have you ever heard of FSM as opposed to FSG?

FSM is also a part of FSG and their star man is a feller called Mark Lev, his job is to tie up deals for the mother company.

http://www.sportsmarketing360.com/speakers/mark-lev

He's not employed by LFC but was responsible for the kit deal with NB, was his salary or his staff's wages taken into consideration in the accounts?, there's more to a company with more than one asset than we see with money being shifted between different parts of the organisation and the fitted to suit by company accountants.

Sorry mate, but you're talking out your hoop here.

The commercial revenues generated by LFC with their corporate partners goes into the LFC accounts.

The dramatic rise in commercial revenues in the accounts since they took over proves this point.

There'd be no benefit for FSG to shovel sponsorship revenues into a different companies pot, when they've been desperately trying to stay the right side of the line over FFP.