Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Len Rum said:
Agreed.
Someone needs to tell Jordan that our owner ploughs more money back into the club than Liverpool's.
All in accordance with the rules and makes good business sense for our owner.
If Liverpool 's owners don't wish to do that it's also fine.
What's the problem Simon?
Click to expand...
Spot on. Net spend is a nonsensical measure. Utterly meaningless.
 
Len Rum said:
Agreed.
Someone needs to tell Jordan that our owner ploughs more money back into the club than Liverpool's.
All in accordance with the rules and makes good business sense for our owner.
If Liverpool 's owners don't wish to do that it's also fine.
What's the problem Simon?
Click to expand...

Dippers don't want to hear that ?
 
The net spend argument is a non starter though. Liverpool have had players over the years, in their prime wanting to leave them for other clubs, returning good amount of money. We lost kompany aguero Yaya and silva, all on frees as they gave us their careers. I’d rather it that way, get world class players committing their peak years at your club. Yes please. We’ve only really had Torres and sane leave in recent times against our wishes, Torres being a squad player also.
 
Pollocksheader said:
The net spend argument is a non starter though. Liverpool have had players over the years, in their prime wanting to leave them for other clubs, returning good amount of money. We lost kompany aguero Yaya and silva, all on frees as they gave us their careers. I’d rather it that way, get world class players committing their peak years at your club. Yes please. We’ve only really had Torres and sane leave in recent times against our wishes, Torres being a squad player also.
Click to expand...
Our "net spend" over the last 10 or so years is because we were shit when Sheikh Mansour took us over. We had no one decent to sell and needed a lot of money spending on the squad. By doing that, we've been successful thanks to good management, which has earned us lots of prize money and commercial revenue, which we've then reinvested fully in more good players. To the point where we're now spending what we earn.

Compare it to 2 people going into a Rolls-Royce dealer, one of who has a 12-month old Rolls-Royce and the other a 10-year-old Ford Fiesta. If they both buy the identical new model, one will have a significantly higher "net spend" than the other, but they've got cars of identical value. If they both do the same next year, their net spend will be the same.

Looking at it another way, if you get a player on a free, and pay him £300k a week, and sell an academy player on £20k a week for £10m, people would claim a negative net spend but the overall player cost has increased from £1m a year to £15m.

You can demonstrate this with actual figures from our accounts. In summer 2017, when we spent over £200m on players, with a "net spend" of around £120m, our wages and amortisation had only increased by £8m over that financial year, plus we'd made a £39m profit on sale. So we'd improved our bottom line by over £30m. Even if you knock off the previous year's profit on sale (which was £34.5m), we'd still only increased our bottom line by £3.5m despite having spent over £200m on new players. The reason is that the wages and amortisation of the players who left pretty well balanced out the wages and amortisation of those coming in. And we'd increased turnover, which absorbed that small increase in wages and amortisation.
 
Last edited:
Gorton_Tubster said:
No he didnt. He said net spend for Pep is four times that of Klopp. I have no idea if true. Gonna check now.

But Jordan hates us with every inch of his soul. He even got upset during that tirade about how City's net spend is now becoming on par with lfc - He was genuinly gutted that he wont be able to have that go to argument.
Click to expand...

I don't think this net spend bollocks holds any water anyway. What difference does it make where the money comes from? It still inflates the market when you spend 75M on a centre half, and 66M on a goalkeeper. Jordan's argument against City, is that other clubs look at what we spend on a particular player, and ask a pro rata price when someone comes calling for one of their players in a similar position. I can't see, for example, Burnley not adding a few million more on Tarkowski's value, because the cult bought Van Dyke with the never ending Coutinho money. It's all smoke and mirrors to suit an agenda.
 
Net spend is a stupid stat that only exists because Liverpool fans were desperate to justify some of the absolute shit they spent money on prior to Klopp.

Incoming transfer fees are not the only justified funds to use for transfer fees and I dont get why that even became a point of discussion.

Liverpool are kitted by Nike and sponsored by Standard Chartered. They aren't some mom and pop organisation trying to balance the bills.

Incidentally, the other team their owners run have a habit of historically acting like they're the lovable underdogs despite spending obscene amounts to improve the team.
 
bluealf said:
Well if you wear a certain shade of blue.
Click to expand...
Yes. Normally you would expect all the media with the Mail at the front to be very pro City in a case where The Hun got caught out for using dodgy evidence.
We saw how the media all got behind the dippers against the French supporting them despite the clear evidence I saw.
I will wear my certain shade of blue shirt all the more.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Our "net spend" over the last 10 or so years is because we were shit when Sheikh Mansour took us over. We had no one decent to sell and needed a lot of money spending on the squad. By doing that, we've been successful thanks to good management, which has earned us lots of prize money and commercial revenue, which we've then reinvested fully in more good players. To the point where we're now spending what we earn.

Compare it to 2 people going into a Rolls-Royce dealer, one of who has a 12-month old Rolls-Royce and the other a 10-year-old Ford Fiesta. If they both buy the identical new model, one will have a significantly higher "net spend" than the other, but they've got cars of identical value. If they both do the same next year, their net spend will be the same.

Looking at it another way, if you get a player on a free, and pay him £300k a week, and sell an academy player on £20k a week for £10m, people would claim a negative net spend but the overall player cost has increased from £1m a year to £15m.

You can demonstrate this with actual figures from our accounts. In summer 2017, when we spent over £200m on players, with a "net spend" of around £120m, our wages and amortisation had only increased by £8m over that financial year, plus we'd made a £39m profit on sale. So we'd improved our bottom line by over £30m. Even if you knock off the previous year's profit on sale (which was £34.5m), we'd still only increased our bottom line by £3.5m despite having spent over £200m on new players. The reason is that the wages and amortisation of the players who left pretty well balanced out the wages and amortisation of those coming in. And we'd increased turnover, which absorbed that small increase in wages and amortisation.
Click to expand...
Put it another way, fuck ‘em!
 
Len Rum said:
I think Simon wants to base league positions on actual positions subject to retrospective accounting adjustments like net spend and possibly other factors.
This would probably mean league positions would not be known until some time after completion of the fixtures.
At least though it would ( in his world) be fair.
Click to expand...
I don't suppose he mentions how the Glazers took over United putting the club into debt to finance it all. I don't suppose he ever mentions debt at all.
 
Bonzo Nododo said:
I don't suppose he mentions how the Glazers took over United putting the club into debt to finance it all. I don't suppose he ever mentions debt at all.
Click to expand...
Football is a bizarre world where building a business on a mountain of debt (owed to overseas banks) is good but it is evil to invest your own capital to grow and develop your own business. Apparently United gained their money from "organic growth" so that's all fine but they never seem to pay their debts back so it's not really a sustainable model at all.
 
Pollocksheader said:
The net spend argument is a non starter though. Liverpool have had players over the years, in their prime wanting to leave them for other clubs, returning good amount of money. We lost kompany aguero Yaya and silva, all on frees as they gave us their careers. I’d rather it that way, get world class players committing their peak years at your club. Yes please. We’ve only really had Torres and sane leave in recent times against our wishes, Torres being a squad player also.
Click to expand...
It just proves they're a selling club
 
richardtheref said:
This morning Ally McCoist said the only poor buy LiVARpool have made under Klippity was Karius and "he only had 1 bad game". Couldn't think of those 2 fools they got in at center half last year or would have text them
Click to expand...
I like McCoist but I don't really think he looked in to this one. Keita for north of £50 million is shite business and whatever they paid for Minamino was too much. When the hype dies down about Garcia they'll realise they wasted money there too
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top