Feeling guilty because I really could give a flying f*** if Liverpool go into admin

[Rusthall Seagull]

Aquilani was 20million Euros, so between £17-£18 million as it was paid in instalments.

Liverpool complete 20m signing of Alberto Aquilani from Roma after stringent medical - Telegraph

most fees are paid in installments anyway....what difference does that make ?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Alonso bought for £10.5 million - sold for £30million

Torres bought for £20 milion - value now maybe upwards of £40 million.

At the end of the day Keane was a terrible bit of business for Liverpool yet Benitez didn't want him in the first place. Yes, they lost £7million in 6 months, but that's not the same as City losing £20million on Robinho in 2 years.

I think your clutching at straws in defending Liverpool's spending. They simply did not have that money to spend regardless of what exchange rates you want to apply.

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

Alonso bought for £10.5 million - sold for £30million

Torres bought for £20 milion - value now maybe upwards of £40 million.

At the end of the day Keane was a terrible bit of business for Liverpool yet Benitez didn't want him in the first place. Yes, they lost £7million in 6 months, but that's not the same as City losing £20million on Robinho in 2 years.

Ryan Babel has been a cracking £10 + signing too

 

[Pavilionaire]

If you read the thread I'm not defending Liverpool's spending, I'm trying to demonstrate that their 'relative' profligacy is not in the same league as Man City's, nor have they had the same detrimental effect on the marketplace as City.

Liverpool have lost just £40million in the transfer market since Hicks and Gillett took over, and if Hodgson sold Torres tomorrow they'd at least have that figure again. The killer has not been transfer activity, it's been the foisting of debt on the club that has cost £80 million to service over the past 2 seasons.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Ryan Babel has been a cracking £10 + signing too

What, like Robinho? Or Wayne Bridge? Or Roque Santa Cruz? Or Jo? Or Rolando Bianchi? Or Craig Bellamy?

That's £102.8million spent in 2 years on players that have either left the club or are still there contributing f*** all.

 

[CHAPPERS]

What point is everyone trying to make? I've lost track.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Liverpool complete 20m signing of Alberto Aquilani from Roma after stringent medical - Telegraph

most fees are paid in installments anyway....what difference does that make ?

There seems to be a lot of confusion over how much Liverpool paid/will eventually pay Roma for the services of Alberto Aquilani. Figures such as £20m, £17m and £5m (!) have been bandied about, but the truth is the total outlay could (potentially) turn out to be much more.

On the 8th August 2009, Roma released official details of Aquilani's transfer fee. The fee is broken down as follows:

Four cash installments:

* €5m upfront
* €3m by 4th January 2010
* €7m by June 30th 2010
* €5m by June 30th 2011.

Base transfer fee = €20m/£18m



Read more: ALBERTO AQUILANI - The truth about his transfer fee. How much will he REALLY cost? | Liverpool-Kop

 

[Acker79]

Liverpool have lost just £40million in the transfer market since Hicks and Gillett took over, and if Hodgson sold Torres tomorrow they'd at least have that figure again.

With his run of injuries, current form, and the public knowledge of their current debt, I think liverpool would struggle to get 30m for Torres, let alone 40m.

 

[Bold Seagull]

If you read the thread I'm not defending Liverpool's spending, I'm trying to demonstrate that their 'relative' profligacy is not in the same league as Man City's, nor have they had the same detrimental effect on the marketplace as City.

Liverpool have lost just £40million in the transfer market since Hicks and Gillett took over, and if Hodgson sold Torres tomorrow they'd at least have that figure again. The killer has not been transfer activity, it's been the foisting of debt on the club that has cost £80 million to service over the past 2 seasons.

That's how much they've lost on transfer activity, but not how much they've spent! How many young players have Liverpool bought through in the last 5 seasons? That would be erm....none! Benitez was happy to go against the owners on all sorts of issues, but he had no interest in bringing young local talent through. I cannot believe a club of Liverpool's stature only has Gerrard and Carragher in their ranks, both 30+, from their youth system.

If the club has debt, why are they spending £16m on a full back one wonders? More than Everton have ever spent on a single player. Of course the transfers have an impact, that debt would be serviceable were it not for the huge outgoings.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What point is everyone trying to make? I've lost track.

The perception is that Liverpool have created a rod for their own back by blowing money on the transfer market creating massive debt which has crippled the club. This 'perception' leads to people taking false delight in the club's demise.

The actual reality is somewhat different, with corporate debt associated with the acquisition of Liverpool by Hicks and Gillette being the real killer.

We all like to see a football giant come a cropper, but seeing a football institution f***ed over by greedy fuckers is disgusting. Moores realised £77 million by selling the club to the Yanks, Rick Parry walked away with c. £5million and they BOTH turned down a cast iron bid from Dubai Investment Capital that had a much better asset base.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The perception is that Liverpool have created a rod for their own back by blowing money on the transfer market creating massive debt which has crippled the club. This 'perception' leads to people taking false delight in the club's demise.

The actual reality is somewhat different, with corporate debt associated with the acquisition of Liverpool by Hicks and Gillette being the real killer.

We all like to see a football giant come a cropper, but seeing a football institution f***ed over by greedy fuckers is disgusting. Moores realised £77 million by selling the club to the Yanks, Rick Parry walked away with c. £5million and they BOTH turned down a cast iron bid from Dubai Investment Capital that had a much better asset base.

But that is the point I'm trying make, Liverpool FC demanded more from Moores who couldn't financially keep up with ManU, Chelsea etc. It was constant pressure from the fans not to be overshadowed, especially from ManU whose stadium was up to 60k or so at that stage.

To blame it all on the yanks is to miss the whole culture at Liverpool and the belief that runs through that club, including all the ex players in the media, that they are somehow the only footballing institution.

All debt is serviceable if you keep your outgoing's low and maximise your income. Glen Johnson was the clincher for me, when they paid £16m for him, I thought that was a joke given we all knew about the debt at that point. £16m for a dodgy right back, I mean, I ask you!!??

 

[sten_super]

We all like to see a football giant come a cropper, but seeing a football institution f***ed over by greedy fuckers is disgusting. Moores realised £77 million by selling the club to the Yanks, Rick Parry walked away with c. £5million and they BOTH turned down a cast iron bid from Dubai Investment Capital that had a much better asset base.

The most disturbing part of the whole tale is that Gillett and Hicks are trying to do exactly the same again now; turn down a bid which is clearly beneficial to the club in favour of one (or at least the promise of one) which may be better to them as individuals.

Let's face it; they would have been successful in their plan of making a killing out of the football club based on very little actual capital of their own had it not been for the global financial crisis and subsequent hike in interest rates on loans. The Glazers may yet make a success of it at Man Utd, in spite of the same issues. If G&H lose their money (£140m I think is the reported figure) then it may serve as a warning to future investors, but its unlikely to stop it altogether.

 

[Pavilionaire]

That's how much they've lost on transfer activity, but not how much they've spent! How many young players have Liverpool bought through in the last 5 seasons? That would be erm....none! Benitez was happy to go against the owners on all sorts of issues, but he had no interest in bringing young local talent through. I cannot believe a club of Liverpool's stature only has Gerrard and Carragher in their ranks, both 30+, from their youth system.

If the club has debt, why are they spending £16m on a full back one wonders? More than Everton have ever spent on a single player. Of course the transfers have an impact, that debt would be serviceable were it not for the huge outgoings.

And how many kids have Chelsea brought through to be 1st XI regulars recently? Or Man Utd? Or Spurs? About the same number.

Benitez is not alone in his failure to bring through kids but in Reina, Johnson, Agger, Mascherano, Kuyt, Torres, Xabi Alonso he brought in some good players in his time.

 

[Pavilionaire]

But that is the point I'm trying make, Liverpool FC demanded more from Moores who couldn't financially keep up with ManU, Chelsea etc. It was constant pressure from the fans not to be overshadowed, especially from ManU whose stadium was up to 60k or so at that stage.

To blame it all on the yanks is to miss the whole culture at Liverpool and the belief that runs through that club, including all the ex players in the media, that they are somehow the only footballing institution.

All debt is serviceable if you keep your outgoing's low and maximise your income. Glen Johnson was the clincher for me, when they paid £16m for him, I thought that was a joke given we all knew about the debt at that point. £16m for a dodgy right back, I mean, I ask you!!??

Oh, poor Mr. Moores! He buys a controlling interest for £12million and the fans expectation "forces" him to sell so he makes a £65million profit. Such pressure!

The point is HE SOLD TO THE WRONG GUYS. DIC were good buyers hacked by the Dubai royal family but Hicks and Gillette offered more money, even though they lied about the ground and lied that the acquisition wouldn't be financed by bank debt (which it was).

You talk of cutting your cloth but the reality is Liverpool's losses have arisen because of the interest on the corporate debt, not because they bought Glen Johnson.

 

[Bold Seagull]

And how many kids have Chelsea brought through to be 1st XI regulars recently? Or Man Utd? Or Spurs? About the same number.

Benitez is not alone in his failure to bring through kids but in Reina, Johnson, Agger, Mascherano, Kuyt, Torres, Xabi Alonso he brought in some good players in his time.

You are, in your own way confirming my argument. As with many Liverpool fans (i'm not suggesting you are one) they do compare themselves with Chelsea, ManUtd, Spurs, but they simply don't have the spending power. Liverpool should be comparing themselves to Arsenal or Everton and what they spend, and the young players they bring through at a fraction of the cost.

On several posts you have compared Liverpool to Chelsea / ManUtd, and that is my point, they are not even remotely in the same financial category as those clubs, and yet they spent like they were.

 

[Pavilionaire]

1. Big clubs, by and large, don't bring kids through into the 1st XI.

2. It's not about how much you spend on transfers, but by how much you're up or down. Liverpool, in this regard, are dwarfed by Man City and Chelsea and on a par with Spurs, but then Benitez, like Mancini and Ancelloti, works more effectively with established stars.

3. Liverpool, by dint of their history and achievements, ARE above Everton, Villa and Spurs. I agree with Hicks and Gillette that Liverpool's cache and brand IS worth something significant, and it doesn't surprise me a Singapore bidder has emerged with a £320million bid in the last 24 hours.

 

[Bold Seagull]

1. Big clubs, by and large, don't bring kids through into the 1st XI.

2. It's not about how much you spend on transfers, but by how much you're up or down. Liverpool, in this regard, are dwarfed by Man City and Chelsea and on a par with Spurs, but then Benitez, like Mancini and Ancelloti, works more effectively with established stars.

3. Liverpool, by dint of their history and achievements, ARE above Everton, Villa and Spurs. I agree with Hicks and Gillette that Liverpool's cache and brand IS worth something significant, and it doesn't surprise me a Singapore bidder has emerged with a £320million bid in the last 24 hours.

What, ManUre have never bought any kids through, who are you, Alan Hansen!?

 

[sten_super]

You are, in your own way confirming my argument. As with many Liverpool fans (i'm not suggesting you are one) they do compare themselves with Chelsea, ManUtd, Spurs, but they simply don't have the spending power. Liverpool should be comparing themselves to Arsenal or Everton and what they spend, and the young players they bring through at a fraction of the cost.

On several posts you have compared Liverpool to Chelsea / ManUtd, and that is my point, they are not even remotely in the same financial category as those clubs, and yet they spent like they were.

I'm sorry, but you are fundamentally not correct. The football club made an operating profit last year, and has done there-or-thereabouts in recent years (see the below link); certainly the difference between profit and loss appears to be player tradings. The holding company is making horrendous losses because of the interest being charged on the loans that they took out to buy the football club. Fundamentally, the football club could afford to spend £16m on Glen Johnson, the holding company could not.

Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds plc | The Political Economy of Football

 

[WhingForPresident]

£8m on Lucas was a cracking signing as well.
as was the £20m on Keane
It is partly Benitez' fault for signing shit players for too much money, partly the owners fault for bringing all their debts into the club.
I find most Liverpool fans to be argumentative wankers who think they have more right to support the club than anyone else. Anyone from outside Liverpool is a "plastic", of course.
I find it all quite amusing.

 

[SI 4 BHA]

Increased bid from Peter Lim, but will the scousers be concerned about his close links with MUFC?

Singapore billionaire Peter Lim, who plans to make an improved bid for Liverpool, is a shrewd investor and football fan whose name is more often associated with Manchester United, the Merseyside club's biggest rival.


Related LinksLim confirms Liverpool interest
Liverpool ownership battle in court
..Lim, 57, ranked as the eighth-richest Singaporean with an estimated wealth of £1.01 billion by Forbes, has exclusive rights to own and operate a chain of Manchester United-themed restaurants and bars in Asia.

Singapore-listed fashion retailer FJ Benjamin , in which Lim is the second-largest shareholder, previously operated the Manchester United Theatre of Dreams stores in the city-state.