liverpools owners not put a penny in to fund transfers..

Status
Not open for further replies.


kildaremackem said:
according to this..https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2020/feb/22/liverpool-finanacial-fair-play-manchester-city-uefa

only cash they put in was for stadium..

they posted a large profit today as well so owners can have some of the cash back..

owners talk about sustainable and self sufficiency as well..

thats how a club should be run..transfers funded by revenues owners funding long term capex alone..
Click to expand...
Oh dear, people are so naive.
City get a European ban because (amongst other things) their shirt sponsor is “paying over the odds” - a sponsor owned by their owner.
Liverpool are well run because (amongst other things) their shirt sponsor is paying the same as City’s - but is a sponsor owned by their owners best mate :)
 
Gaz said:
Its a lot easier to run the club well and reduce losses in league 1. What happens if we go up to championship or prem again? Where does the money come from next season to rebuild the squad again if we go up, investment or more debt?
Click to expand...
well in the prem most clubs make a profit so thats where the money comes from..the club generates it..its only if you want a new stand or something the owner needs rto step in..
the challenge is champo=pionship..thats why SD said from day one he would need backers at the champo stage..

but also...we would be horrific in the prem with SD making the football decisions he makes now..he isnt very good and thats a huge problem..potetially more worrying than the money side of it.,.
Gaz said:
Its a lot easier to run the club well and reduce losses in league 1. What happens if we go up to championship or prem again? Where does the money come from next season to rebuild the squad again if we go up, investment or more debt?
Click to expand...
liverpool ran a club and reduced losses and debt in the premier league..thats the point..bigger losses and more external debt than we have ever had..
 
Last edited:
Kent Boy 2 said:
Oh dear, people are so naive.
City get a European ban because (amongst other things) their shirt sponsor is “paying over the odds” - a sponsor owned by their owner.
Liverpool are well run because (amongst other things) their shirt sponsor is paying the same as City’s - but is a sponsor owned by their owners best mate :)
Click to expand...
is it still standard chartered a global bank that isnt doing very well? whats the connection between bill wineters the ceo there and the liverpool guys?
also bill winters hasnt the luxury of throwing money at his mates..the bank is doing shit and he is under pressure..

liverpool shirt sponsor are getting an absolute bargain if they are only paying the same as city..liverpool have vastly more fans than city..so their shirt deal should be vastly more..

thats the problem with city's...the deasl wasnt on economic terms..
 
Kent Boy 2 said:
Oh dear, people are so naive.
City get a European ban because (amongst other things) their shirt sponsor is “paying over the odds” - a sponsor owned by their owner.
Liverpool are well run because (amongst other things) their shirt sponsor is paying the same as City’s - but is a sponsor owned by their owners best mate :)
Click to expand...

New Balance and FSG are traditionally friendly - in so far they're both based in Boston and had a tie up with the Red Sox before Warrior/NB took on Liverpool. The kit deal you refer to, however, is with Nike. The court case last year was to boot NB for Nike. All very matey: Liverpool win legal battle over New Balance deal
 
TDalt said:
One million per cent. Look at Alonso. We had him on loan and could have gone perm for what? 6 mill? What did Chelsea pay? What about M’Villa? Instead we spaffed money up the prems ass on Lens, N’Dong, Borini, Kone, Gordon, Wickham, Gardner and on and on and on.
Click to expand...

Had on. Gordon was immense for us before he got injured. That's unfair, he won points for us on his own.
 
The big chance we blew to be sustainable in the Premier League was under Reidy in the two 7th place seasons. That was the huge mismanagement that saw us relegated two years later, just when the PL was really starting to become the big money earner.

So sad looking back that we could have been a consistent Top 10 club, of better with the right type of investment on and off the pitch at that time.
 
kildaremackem said:
they had £200m of debt..were losing tens of millions..

money they had none..

almost all prem clubs make a profi now..including some that are smaller than safc..

they didnt pur cash in though..they sold players and bought players..raised money from commercial sources.

in the prem safc didnt even have a commercial director for a while...

they bought the club off rbs because rbs owned it..

the article speciifcally states the dont use moneyball now..andy carroll was a moneyball signing and obviously didnt work so went a different way..

of course they are..but when ypu are losing £20m a year and the vbank foreclsoed on your £200m of debt being famous isnt worth shit..

yes but thats now..they didnt have that when they started doing this and were lsoing money..the point of the article is the jourjrnwey to here...not the jre.
and they got here..from £20m a year losses and £200m of debt..without the owners paying for a player..
Click to expand...
BS .... RBS stole the club force the sale. My best friend knew The Whole story through Gillette. You do not know what your talking about.....Commercial payments is another words inflated £££ pounds under the table....
 
earning 600m a year as a club helps a bit mind

for comparison they get 100m a year more than Spurs and 400m every single season more than the likes of us, Everton and Newcastle
 
jlaws said:
Ibe paid 50k, sold 16.2m
Solanke paid 0, sold 19m
Benteke paid 18m, sold 28m
Allen paid 17m, sold 14m

Not quite 100m but still decent business with c42m profit on those four. But paying 37m for AC and selling for 16m, wipes out half of that!
Click to expand...
Bought Sterling for £1 or 2m, doubled their money on Suarez, sold a left back to Bournemouth for a fair bit
bomber said:
and will get another £20 million for 31 year old lallana
Click to expand...
He's out of contract so they won't but I wouldn't be surprised if Origi and Shaqiri left and they'll get good returns on those two compared to what they paid
 
Last edited:
horselover said:
They've also wasted millions on shite, like Andy Carroll for instance, works both ways tbf
Click to expand...
yeah they abandoned the moneyball strategy after carroll...
cbwhu said:
earning 600m a year as a club helps a bit mind

for comparison they get 100m a year more than Spurs and 400m every single season more than the likes of us, Everton and Newcastle
Click to expand...
it does now..but they didnt get that when these guys took over and they werent european champions...in fact they were losing tens of millions a year..
 
cbwhu said:
earning 600m a year as a club helps a bit mind

for comparison they get 100m a year more than Spurs and 400m every single season more than the likes of us, Everton and Newcastle
Click to expand...

Liverpool don’t actually earn £600m a year their annual revenue for 2018/19 season has just been released it was £533m for the 2018/19 season which was an increase of £78m from the previous season and £73m more than Spurs, Tottenham will officially release their own financial results within the next month or so, for 2018/19 season annual revenue will be £460m an increase of £80m from the previous season which is impressive growth financially speaking , meanwhile the Spurs team is mostly utterly shit and has been for well over a year now. :cry:

 
Last edited:
I saw the last Liverpool team to play in the old second division. August 1961, we were promotion favourites, they came to Roker and gave us a lesson, beat us 4-1 and (I think) 3-0 away. Their manager, Bill Shankley, wanted the Sunderland job, the directors said he wasn’t a gentleman and gave it to Alan Brown. The rest we all know about, typical Sunderland.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top