FSG’s transfer policy.... My take.

[dmishra]

I think another major factor to consider in our sale strategy is have a re-look at our purchase policy.

Over the last few years, we've exclusively been targeting the 15-18 age bracket and the 21-25 age bracket, while completely avoiding the 18-21 age bracket.

There's obviously a risk-reward rationale for this.

The 15-18 age bracket is where you're getting players for really cheap (0-3 million tops). You're then essentially using the loan system, and if you get really lucky, you can hope to sell the player for 20+ million after a couple of years. We did that with Brewster, and of course Solanke (and of course Sterling as well). Chelsea seem to do that every year. While that's a very good return on investment, in absolute terms, the maximum cash you'll get is about 25-30 million.

The 21-25 age bracket is of course where we like to buy our first teamers. Players in the 30-45 million price range. Players who're already first team ready, and very good players, but not yet superstars. But the point with such a purchase is that you're looking for that player to actually spend 2 contracts (8+ years) with you, and you aren't really looking to sell him. His value to you is what he brings to your immediate playing squad.

What we've abandoned is purchases in the 18-21 age bracket. I can see the logic tbh. The risk is probably the highest because you're looking at players in the say 5-15 million bracket. You hope that player can contribute to the first team. If he does great, but if he doesn't, you have to loan him out, and if it doesn't pan out, chances in 3 years, you won't be making much money on him. At best, you'll just about break even. That's what happened with Grujic, Markovic, Alberto, Ilori and to an extent Can. Since then, we've completely abandoned this age bracket.

Which is fair, but I think you need to start taking more calculated risks in this age bracket, because if you're looking for home run sales, this is where you're going to get them. Imagine if instead of taking the 8 million punt on Minamino, we'd spent 17 million bringing in Haaland. We'd be looking at a 200 million sale in a couple of years.

There are some super interesting players in the market almost every year, and I think the key is to get in a player in a position where you have some playing time available in the senior team. I'd have loved to have signed somebody like Kamaldeen Sulemana or an Adam Hlozek for example (both costing about 15 million). Both would have got playing time in the first team as that's an area we lack depth. Worst case, they don't too well, and in a couple of years, we sell them for what they cost us. But if they hit it, you're quickly looking at a player who's worth 80 million. The real explosion in development and value happens in this age bracket.

 

[MomoWASright]

They’re close to maximising the revenue/value out of the club. They’ve improved the infrastructure with the ground and training facilities. The tv deal hasn’t improved and there is no super league.

 

[StevieM]

I’d say with crowds back at the ground this year and revenue up - a team and manager that safe more than capable of challenging, key players all tied up long term and very little money spent, while we not have a big pile of cash burning a hole in our pockets - surely it sets us up to be able to splurge a bit next year.

It’s a risk... like not signing more players last year was - but if you accept that FSG are never going to dip their hands into their own pockets or, and I think importantly, not likely to sanction debt that’s loaded back onto the club - then is it really a bad thing, once you get the lack of shiny new play things out of the way?

 

[Squiggles]

I’d say with crowds back at the ground this year and revenue up - a team and manager that safe more than capable of challenging, key players all tied up long term and very little money spent, while we not have a big pile of cash burning a hole in our pockets - surely it sets us up to be able to splurge a bit next year.

It’s a risk... like not signing more players last year was - but if you accept that FSG are never going to dip their hands into their own pockets or, and I think importantly, not likely to sanction debt that’s loaded back onto the club - then is it really a bad thing, once you get the lack of shiny new play things out of the way?

Not convinced, TBH. You really want owners who will pump money into the club to mitigate COVID losses. Even if we record decent profits next season, we will still likely be losing money over the 2 year period. We'll know how much ground we have to make up when the accounts for the majority of the COVID period will be released.

 

[Brizzle]

Hope your right on both count (Not a big fan of Gomez)

But to the main one FSG, what is your rationale in think that FSG will be gone (And I hope you are right) in 12-18 months?

It feels to me like the most logical explanation for putting money into contract extensions versus player purchases. They don't want to rock to boat, they don't want to be trying to sell a club where there could be 3 or more key players able to leave on a free.

 

[StevieM]

Not convinced, TBH. You really want owners who will pump money into the club to mitigate COVID losses. Even if we record decent profits next season, we will still likely be losing money over the 2 year period. We'll know how much ground we have to make up when the accounts for the majority of the COVID period will be released.

Well... here’s where we are now :

The owners are not going to pump money in.

There are only maybe 5 teams in the world now who will pay £100m+ for one of our players in order to fund a rebuild.

That’s not that different than before - only really Barca have dropped out of that top buying tier - but 3 of that 5 are direct rivals- and most seem to have moved to overpaying for younger players.

Our wages structure means we’re paying good wages - so it’s less attractive for players to move.

I think that was the point alluded to earlier - we aren’t in a position to sell off to fund a rebuild and we’re not playing the exponentially increasing spend game.

We’re reverse Moneyballing - there’s little value in signing our players - but we need to shift some- we’re not going to get the £££ we want for any of our players.

Where I think we’ll land is buying 1 or 2 £30m-£40m players a season and balancing that by selling a mixture of 2 or 3 younger and 1 or 2 older all in and around the £10m-£20m range.

What’ll likely happen, is those players will get younger and younger - and maybe we’ll find one that’s young enough for the big money teams to overpay for.

 

[Donavan Ried]

It feels to me like the most logical explanation for putting money into contract extensions versus player purchases. They don't want to rock to boat, they don't want to be trying to sell a club where there could be 3 or more key players able to leave on a free.

Makes sense... Thanks for that

 

[tomasjj]

Mbappe to Real and Salah to PSG is happening next summer.

 

[Donavan Ried]

Where I think we’ll land is buying 1 or 2 £30m-£40m players a season and balancing that by selling a mixture of 2 or 3 younger and 1 or 2 older all in and around the £10m-£20m range.

What’ll likely happen, is those players will get younger and younger - and maybe we’ll find one that’s young enough for the big money teams to overpay for.

You make an intresting point there

 

[Donavan Ried]

Mbappe to Real and Salah to PSG is happening next summer.

Could very well happen 🙂

 

[tombrown]

The strategy is obviously to wait for the likes of Utd, Spurs, Arsenal etc to go bankrupt after throwing good money after bad for a few seasons.

Couple that with the collapse of the oil market due to the success of the circular economy, and the return of the Bolsheviks in Russia, with a list of "unfavourables" for the firing squad, and we will be riding high

 

[mwake]

At eh risk of sounding like an FSG apologist, I'm confused about the hysterics over the lack of player spending. We spend a lot on wages. I think we are in the top 3 spenders in the PL and in the top 10 in Europe.

There's only the oil clubs (and Man Utd) that can afford to pay high wages for players AND continually fork out big transfers for players without worrying about outgoings.

Clubs that DO try to toe to toe with the oil clubs usually fail hard (Barcelona) or have to take a season or two breather in the transfer market to gather themselves (Real Madrid, Juventus).

Unlike the oil clubs, we have to balance, real life isn't Football Manager cheat-coding. Barcelona tried to do the Football Manager cheat-coding and it bit them in the arse good and proper. They went from Messi-Neymar-Saurez to Braithwaite-Depay-Luik de Jong. Sure it would be nice to have more cover in certain areas but I also don't think the sqaud is THAT bad. If managed to finish 3rd last year considering the crap show we went through then we are definitely stronger than we think we are. Also, there's no guarantee that the other clubs new signings will work out, new signings don't always mean better success, as we know in players like Keita and Minamino.

 

[peekay]

I think another major factor to consider in our sale strategy is have a re-look at our purchase policy.

Over the last few years, we've exclusively been targeting the 15-18 age bracket and the 21-25 age bracket, while completely avoiding the 18-21 age bracket.

There's obviously a risk-reward rationale for this.

The 15-18 age bracket is where you're getting players for really cheap (0-3 million tops). You're then essentially using the loan system, and if you get really lucky, you can hope to sell the player for 20+ million after a couple of years. We did that with Brewster, and of course Solanke (and of course Sterling as well). Chelsea seem to do that every year. While that's a very good return on investment, in absolute terms, the maximum cash you'll get is about 25-30 million.

The 21-25 age bracket is of course where we like to buy our first teamers. Players in the 30-45 million price range. Players who're already first team ready, and very good players, but not yet superstars. But the point with such a purchase is that you're looking for that player to actually spend 2 contracts (8+ years) with you, and you aren't really looking to sell him. His value to you is what he brings to your immediate playing squad.

What we've abandoned is purchases in the 18-21 age bracket. I can see the logic tbh. The risk is probably the highest because you're looking at players in the say 5-15 million bracket. You hope that player can contribute to the first team. If he does great, but if he doesn't, you have to loan him out, and if it doesn't pan out, chances in 3 years, you won't be making much money on him. At best, you'll just about break even. That's what happened with Grujic, Markovic, Alberto, Ilori and to an extent Can. Since then, we've completely abandoned this age bracket.

Which is fair, but I think you need to start taking more calculated risks in this age bracket, because if you're looking for home run sales, this is where you're going to get them. Imagine if instead of taking the 8 million punt on Minamino, we'd spent 17 million bringing in Haaland. We'd be looking at a 200 million sale in a couple of years.

There are some super interesting players in the market almost every year, and I think the key is to get in a player in a position where you have some playing time available in the senior team. I'd have loved to have signed somebody like Kamaldeen Sulemana or an Adam Hlozek for example (both costing about 15 million). Both would have got playing time in the first team as that's an area we lack depth. Worst case, they don't too well, and in a couple of years, we sell them for what they cost us. But if they hit it, you're quickly looking at a player who's worth 80 million. The real explosion in development and value happens in this age bracket.

Great post. I do have some minor disagreements on focusing on the 18-21 bracket aspect. I remember reading an article or maybe it was a reddit post with good statistics that the risk-reward ratio skewed too much towards the risky side in that age range? Because of the inflation in transfer prices, might be better to pay 10-20 more and focus on the 21-25 bracket.

Camavinga went for 30 millionish, not cheap and he had only one year left on his contract. I feel like you shouldn't be using Haaland as an example as he looks to be on the trajectory to be an all-time great. An exception. Also, I think part of the reason Haaland went to Dortmund was the 60 million release clause agreement, which I highly doubt Edwards would have agreed to. If we were to really understand the risks then we need to list players like Zaha, Depay, Markovic, Joe Gomez, Pedri (to be fair, he also looks to be on the trajectory to be an all-time great), etc who transferred to big clubs in that age range and look at the success rates.

I feel like there is a lot of value focusing on late bloomers or players with regular career trajectories in the 21-25 year range - Jota, Salah, Suarez, Mane. A 20-year Salah with the same statistics at Roma as a 24-year-old Salah would potentially cost 70-80 million compared to the 35 million we paid. Of course, there is the angle that the 20 year old Salah would theoretically be able to play for us for longer, but there is no guarantee of that in this day and age. There is also the aspect that for 21-25 year old players, we have more data points - would have played under more than one manager and their adaptability to different tactics, attitude, training, mentality, etc.

By the way, Origi was a success (depending on how you define success) from the 18-21 bracket investment. Depending on how you define the boundary of 18-21 and 21-25, Henderson is another success story. But then again, he took his time to prove his worth whereas others who were more solid in the 21-25 range had an immediate impact.

 

[bluebell]

At eh risk of sounding like an FSG apologist, I'm confused about the hysterics over the lack of player spending. We spend a lot on wages. I think we are in the top 3 spenders in the PL and in the top 10 in Europe.

There's only the oil clubs (and Man Utd) that can afford to pay high wages for players AND continually fork out big transfers for players without worrying about outgoings.

Clubs that DO try to toe to toe with the oil clubs usually fail hard (Barcelona) or have to take a season or two breather in the transfer market to gather themselves (Real Madrid, Juventus).

Unlike the oil clubs, we have to balance, real life isn't Football Manager cheat-coding. Barcelona tried to do the Football Manager cheat-coding and it bit them in the arse good and proper. They went from Messi-Neymar-Saurez to Braithwaite-Depay-Luik de Jong. Sure it would be nice to have more cover in certain areas but I also don't think the sqaud is THAT bad. If managed to finish 3rd last year considering the crap show we went through then we are definitely stronger than we think we are. Also, there's no guarantee that the other clubs new signings will work out, new signings don't always mean better success, as we know in players like Keita and Minamino.

I don't think anyone's under the illusion we could compete with the likes of Man U Chelsea and City for transfers. However, our net spend is less than Spurs on average. so when Spurs really push the boat out, we are busy trying to break even. Why couldn't Henry have given an extra £30-40m to Klopp, instead we go into this window with 2 less senior MF

 

[Beamrider]

I don't think anyone's under the illusion we could compete with the likes of Man U Chelsea and City for transfers. However, our net spend is less than Spurs on average. so when Spurs really push the boat out, we are busy trying to break even. Why couldn't Henry have given an extra £30-40m to Klopp, instead we go into this window with 2 less senior MF

From 2014 to 2020 (6 years), per their accounts, Tottenham have spent out a total net cash amount of £44.8m on players (£390.9m spent, less £346.1m received).
Over the same period, per our accounts, we've paid out a total net cash amount of £333.1m (£742.2m out, £409.1m in).
We've spent £288.3m net more than them.
In each of those 6 years, we spent more than they did on both gross and net levels.

 

[Beamrider]

To be fair, it's a valid point, but Spurs was the wrong club to choose for comparison - Arsenal outspent us (net) by £18.3m over the same period.

 

[Beamrider]

Six year comparison of transfer spending. This is cash movement per accounts, not headline fees due. Runs up to 2020.
Some clubs may include spend on Ladies' teams which won't be much. City's figures don't include their other non-UK clubs as far as I can tell.



[xtable=skin1|border:0|cellpadding:0|cellspacing:0|421x@]
{colgroup}
{col=145x@}{/col}
{/colgroup}{colgroup}
{col=span:3|92x@}{/col}
{/colgroup}
{tbody}
{tr}
{td=145x19}£'000{/td}
{td=92x@}Cash in{/td}
{td=92x@}Cash out{/td}
{td=92x@}Net cash out{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Man United{/td}
{td=right}

229,758​

{/td}

{td=right}

-1,003,070​

{/td}

{td=right}

-773,312​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Man City{/td}
{td=right}

383,250​

{/td}

{td=right}

-1,006,762​

{/td}

{td=right}

-623,512​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Chelsea{/td}
{td=right}

552,353​

{/td}

{td=right}

-939,812​

{/td}

{td=right}

-387,459​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Arsenal{/td}
{td=right}

227,147​

{/td}

{td=right}

-578,570​

{/td}

{td=right}

-351,423​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}LFC{/td}
{td=right}

409,047​

{/td}

{td=right}

-742,173​

{/td}

{td=right}

-333,126​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Everton{/td}
{td=right}

265,402​

{/td}

{td=right}

-549,976​

{/td}

{td=right}

-284,574​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Spurs{/td}
{td=right}

346,085​

{/td}

{td=right}

-390,921​

{/td}

{td=right}

-44,836​

{/td}
{/tr}
{/tbody}
[/xtable]

 

[bluebell]

From 2014 to 2020 (6 years), per their accounts, Tottenham have spent out a total net cash amount of £44.8m on players (£390.9m spent, less £346.1m received).
Over the same period, per our accounts, we've paid out a total net cash amount of £333.1m (£742.2m out, £409.1m in).
We've spent £288.3m net more than them.
In each of those 6 years, we spent more than they did on both gross and net levels.

i'm only going by the tables I see, and over 5 years, our net spend is less than theirs

This is transfermkt, other tables have us with a +ve net spend for this season. I think the comparison with Spurs is valid as they operate a similar model where they have generate their own transfer fund. This season they're in a comp where the prize money is tiny, and their debt is the largest in PL

TRANSFER ACTIVITY OF THE LAST 5 YEARS

[xtable]
{thead}
{tr}
{th=colspan:2}Club{/th}
{th}21/22{/th}
{th}20/21{/th}
{th}19/20{/th}
{th}18/19{/th}
{th}17/18{/th}
{th}Total{/th}
{/tr}
{/thead}
{tfoot}
{tr}
{td=colspan:2} {/td}
{td}£-641.37m{/td}
{td}£-719.64m{/td}
{td}£-668.40m{/td}
{td}£-675.37m{/td}
{td}£-611.71m{/td}
{td}£-3,316.49m{/td}
{/tr}
{/tfoot}
{tbody}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Arsenal FC{/td}
{td}£-121.23m{/td}
{td}£-60.17m{/td}
{td}£-96.08m{/td}
{td}£-63.95m{/td}
{td}£4.64m{/td}
{td}£-336.78m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Aston Villa{/td}
{td}£24.46m{/td}
{td}£-88.72m{/td}
{td}£-140.85m{/td}
{td}£-2.66m{/td}
{td}£13.53m{/td}
{td}£-194.24m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Brentford FC{/td}
{td}£-34.38m{/td}
{td}£49.23m{/td}
{td}£5.64m{/td}
{td}£25.56m{/td}
{td}£3.46m{/td}
{td}£49.52m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Brighton & Hove Albion{/td}
{td}£4.95m{/td}
{td}£-7.11m{/td}
{td}£-59.80m{/td}
{td}£-66.24m{/td}
{td}£-59.49m{/td}
{td}£-187.69m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Burnley FC{/td}
{td}£-20.34m{/td}
{td}£1.08m{/td}
{td}£-9.27m{/td}
{td}£-22.50m{/td}
{td}£12.83m{/td}
{td}£-38.20m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Chelsea FC{/td}
{td}£2.12m{/td}
{td}£-169.56m{/td}
{td}£101.04m{/td}
{td}£-113.00m{/td}
{td}£-59.31m{/td}
{td}£-238.71m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Crystal Palace{/td}
{td}£-66.09m{/td}
{td}£-2.16m{/td}
{td}£43.00m{/td}
{td}£-10.35m{/td}
{td}£-41.36m{/td}
{td}£-76.96m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Everton FC{/td}
{td}£5.40m{/td}
{td}£-63.40m{/td}
{td}£-29.88m{/td}
{td}£-64.04m{/td}
{td}£-69.14m{/td}
{td}£-221.05m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Leeds United{/td}
{td}£-53.01m{/td}
{td}£-95.22m{/td}
{td}£27.36m{/td}
{td}£-3.69m{/td}
{td}£-9.84m{/td}
{td}£-134.40m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Leicester City{/td}
{td}£-57.24m{/td}
{td}£-3.80m{/td}
{td}£-14.22m{/td}
{td}£-16.92m{/td}
{td}£-30.37m{/td}
{td}£-122.55m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Liverpool FC{/td}
{td}£-11.25m{/td}
{td}£-58.91m{/td}
{td}£30.69m{/td}
{td}£-126.79m{/td}
{td}£9.56m{/td}
{td}£-156.70m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Manchester City{/td}
{td}£-79.83m{/td}
{td}£-90.14m{/td}
{td}£-79.67m{/td}
{td}£-18.89m{/td}
{td}£-203.54m{/td}
{td}£-472.06m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Manchester United{/td}
{td}£-99.81m{/td}
{td}£-58.32m{/td}
{td}£-138.26m{/td}
{td}£-46.94m{/td}
{td}£-137.61m{/td}
{td}£-480.93m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Newcastle United{/td}
{td}£-26.46m{/td}
{td}£-34.85m{/td}
{td}£-33.53m{/td}
{td}£-7.83m{/td}
{td}£-22.75m{/td}
{td}£-125.43m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Norwich City{/td}
{td}£-24.98m{/td}
{td}£27.64m{/td}
{td}£-5.95m{/td}
{td}£28.94m{/td}
{td}£16.67m{/td}
{td}£42.32m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Southampton FC{/td}
{td}£13.74m{/td}
{td}£-9.90m{/td}
{td}£-30.78m{/td}
{td}£-32.54m{/td}
{td}£33.39m{/td}
{td}£-26.08m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Tottenham Hotspur{/td}
{td}£-30.78m{/td}
{td}£-87.48m{/td}
{td}£-75.60m{/td}
{td}£4.82m{/td}
{td}£-17.73m{/td}
{td}£-206.78m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Watford FC{/td}
{td}£-6.98m{/td}
{td}£45.54m{/td}
{td}£-20.79m{/td}
{td}£19.57m{/td}
{td}£-49.19m{/td}
{td}£-11.85m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}West Ham United{/td}
{td}£-64.35m{/td}
{td}£-8.36m{/td}
{td}£-58.11m{/td}
{td}£-77.43m{/td}
{td}£11.00m{/td}
{td}£-197.26m{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}{/td}
{td}Wolverhampton Wanderers{/td}
{td}£4.68m{/td}
{td}£-5.04m{/td}
{td}£-83.34m{/td}
{td}£-80.51m{/td}
{td}£-16.46m{/td}
{td}£-180.67m{/td}
{/tr}
{/tbody}
[/xtable]

 

[Beamrider]

My figures are from the accounts. They are actual cash spent, calculated by the people who spent it.
Transfer market is based on guesswork and takes no account of timing of spending.
That’s the point I’m trying to make - all these stats you see quoted in press articles and social media are a combination of guesswork and incomplete information (they don’t even include agents fees and levies, never mind contingency payments / receipts). As such, you can’t rely on them.

 

[darkstarexodus]

At eh risk of sounding like an FSG apologist, I'm confused about the hysterics over the lack of player spending. We spend a lot on wages. I think we are in the top 3 spenders in the PL and in the top 10 in Europe.

There's only the oil clubs (and Man Utd) that can afford to pay high wages for players AND continually fork out big transfers for players without worrying about outgoings.

Clubs that DO try to toe to toe with the oil clubs usually fail hard (Barcelona) or have to take a season or two breather in the transfer market to gather themselves (Real Madrid, Juventus).

Unlike the oil clubs, we have to balance, real life isn't Football Manager cheat-coding. Barcelona tried to do the Football Manager cheat-coding and it bit them in the arse good and proper. They went from Messi-Neymar-Saurez to Braithwaite-Depay-Luik de Jong. Sure it would be nice to have more cover in certain areas but I also don't think the sqaud is THAT bad. If managed to finish 3rd last year considering the crap show we went through then we are definitely stronger than we think we are. Also, there's no guarantee that the other clubs new signings will work out, new signings don't always mean better success, as we know in players like Keita and Minamino.

Dunno. We're going to be shit and skint again at some point. I'd rather we have more trophies in the case and memories to look back on when we are, rather than admiring a fiscally responsible transfer window.

TBF, this was also my approach to personal finance in my 20s and it wasn't a good one.

 

[moron]

The ultimate truth is - FSG have actually delivered for this club despite what we all think of them. To list their achievements:

1) Immediate change in manager
2) Initially made funds available when appointing Kenny
3) Been ruthless when necessary like removing Kenny with Rodgers.
4) Getting Klopp - yes they did that.
5) Re-organising and bringing in modern methods
6) Providing Klopp necessary funds year-on-year initially to build a team capable of winning the title - regardless of how the funding was managed for this.
7) We have got CL footy
8) Getting to CL final, and then again and winning it
9) Winning the Title
10) Adding to the stadium plus building new training center.
11) Growing the commercial side of our club, and being ruthless in sorting out contracts, and moving on players that are not needed.

Since they took charge the single biggest issues with them have been:

a) ticket price issue which they then rolled back on
b) super league issue
c) frugal on transfers and how they run this club
d) no one knows them really do they ? - hands-off type of management leaving it to their hires to run the show.

Clearly we are all upset ( I fucking am) - with point c and especially point b. But the one thing missing in all this is that we never as a group lay the finger on Klopp do we ? - I have noticed that Klopp is beyond any type of fault on here, seems to just go along with what FSG say/do with regards to transfers. Perhaps there is an understanding on his part that this season the kitty is just empty due to the loss of income from the Covid stuff. He is also very stubborn, in his approach - I could argue the following:

a) He needs to fight a bit more for the players we need and demand the funds in a reasonable way.
b) I hold him responsible for not winning the title the year we won the CL - yes we lost to City but we gave up the advantage in those draws we had with Everton / United and probably a few others.
c) Last season we kept on playing our best mids in defence when perhaps he should have taken the chance with actual defenders as Matt proved to be adequate with Fab in front.
d) The Origi situation I blame totally on him - he denies him so much game time that the guy probably really can't be fucking bothered with it anymore. Last season when our front men were firing blanks he should have played him in more games to get his form up and try something different rather than 10 minutes here and 5 minutes there.

We all love Klopp some of the fault lies with him being really stuck.

My biggest fear of FSG is do they want an Arsenal type model under Wenger ? just qualify for CL every year to get the money and not worry about winning the big ones by investing in a squad that can challenge our current rivals that include City/Chelsea/ManUnited ? - just playing for CL money is not what this club has ever been about -we need to be the ones challenging every fucking season for PL/CL. Not winning those two for a period of time can become a bad habit.

 

[rurikbird]

I think another major factor to consider in our sale strategy is have a re-look at our purchase policy.

Over the last few years, we've exclusively been targeting the 15-18 age bracket and the 21-25 age bracket, while completely avoiding the 18-21 age bracket.

There's obviously a risk-reward rationale for this.

The 15-18 age bracket is where you're getting players for really cheap (0-3 million tops). You're then essentially using the loan system, and if you get really lucky, you can hope to sell the player for 20+ million after a couple of years. We did that with Brewster, and of course Solanke (and of course Sterling as well). Chelsea seem to do that every year. While that's a very good return on investment, in absolute terms, the maximum cash you'll get is about 25-30 million.

The 21-25 age bracket is of course where we like to buy our first teamers. Players in the 30-45 million price range. Players who're already first team ready, and very good players, but not yet superstars. But the point with such a purchase is that you're looking for that player to actually spend 2 contracts (8+ years) with you, and you aren't really looking to sell him. His value to you is what he brings to your immediate playing squad.

What we've abandoned is purchases in the 18-21 age bracket. I can see the logic tbh. The risk is probably the highest because you're looking at players in the say 5-15 million bracket. You hope that player can contribute to the first team. If he does great, but if he doesn't, you have to loan him out, and if it doesn't pan out, chances in 3 years, you won't be making much money on him. At best, you'll just about break even. That's what happened with Grujic, Markovic, Alberto, Ilori and to an extent Can. Since then, we've completely abandoned this age bracket.

Which is fair, but I think you need to start taking more calculated risks in this age bracket, because if you're looking for home run sales, this is where you're going to get them. Imagine if instead of taking the 8 million punt on Minamino, we'd spent 17 million bringing in Haaland. We'd be looking at a 200 million sale in a couple of years.

There are some super interesting players in the market almost every year, and I think the key is to get in a player in a position where you have some playing time available in the senior team. I'd have loved to have signed somebody like Kamaldeen Sulemana or an Adam Hlozek for example (both costing about 15 million). Both would have got playing time in the first team as that's an area we lack depth. Worst case, they don't too well, and in a couple of years, we sell them for what they cost us. But if they hit it, you're quickly looking at a player who's worth 80 million. The real explosion in development and value happens in this age bracket.

I think the problem with 18-21 bracket is that very few players in that age group will be genuinely good enough to play at the absolute top level we’re trying to compete at. So if your strategy is investing in those kinds of players and giving them adequate time to develop (otherwise what’s the point?), you need to become Dortmund or Salzburg or Ajax - clubs prioritizing development over results and/or playing in lower quality leagues (I actually think this is the model that would suit Arsenal - they should look to become the Dortmund of the EPL). But for a manager like Klopp football intelligence and tactical nous are paramount and so most positions in the team will be taken up by players 25 and older.

 

[King Binny]

The economics of big-5 league transfers: past decade and post-pandemic

 

[bluebell]

The economics of big-5 league transfers: past decade and post-pandemic

View attachment 1998

A) Where is Real Madrid B) @Beamrider might have issues with those figures. I think he's an accountant, so has credibility.

 

[peekay]

A) Where is Real Madrid B)

The answer is in the link which @King Binny posted. They have raised a lot of money in sales over the nine years.

 

[Beamrider]

A) Where is Real Madrid B) @Beamrider might have issues with those figures. I think he's an accountant, so has credibility.

Opening line to this report:

Since its creation in 2005, the CIES Football Observatory has been monitoring the transfer of players through information published by clubs and the media.

That last bit is the issue.

LFC-based example: Suarez sale to Barca - £75m per the media. £64.89m per the actual transfer agreement.£10m difference. As for other deals - Agent fees? Levies? Contingent payments? Solidarity payments? Lots of “undisclosed fee” transactions for which these guys use figures briefed to club-friendly journos. Anything which includes media info is going to be inaccurate. Plus it ignores payment profiles. But the numbers are presented as definitive. If you want definitive, go to the accounts, but you’ll be up to 2 years behind based on publication times.

The stuff in this report about post pandemic windows is interesting, but it’s just informed guesswork.

 

[Beamrider]

I expanded my previous analysis to go back 10 years (so it covers seasons 2010-11 through to 2019-20) - so this covers most of the actual information available since FSG took over. Figures are below. The order of the clubs is similar, We're still outspending Tottenham (and also above Arsenal over the longer time frame).


[xtable=skin1|border:0|cellpadding:0|cellspacing:0|421x@]
{colgroup}
{col=145x@}{/col}
{/colgroup}{colgroup}
{col=span:3|92x@}{/col}
{/colgroup}
{tbody}
{tr}
{td=145x19}£'000{/td}
{td=92x@}Cash in{/td}
{td=92x@}Cash out{/td}
{td=92x@}Net cash out{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Man City{/td}
{td=right}

479,049​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,501,940)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,022,891)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Man United{/td}
{td=right}

276,794​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,226,349)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(949,555)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Chelsea{/td}
{td=right}

663,855​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,325,950)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(662,095)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}LFC{/td}
{td=right}

517,599​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,002,841)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(485,242)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Arsenal{/td}
{td=right}

378,225​

{/td}

{td=right}

(769,997)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(391,772)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Everton{/td}
{td=right}

328,351​

{/td}

{td=right}

(613,438)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(285,087)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Spurs{/td}
{td=right}

496,137​

{/td}

{td=right}

(601,232)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(105,095)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{/tbody}
[/xtable]

 

[bluebell]

I expanded my previous analysis to go back 10 years (so it covers seasons 2010-11 through to 2019-20) - so this covers most of the actual information available since FSG took over. Figures are below. The order of the clubs is similar, We're still outspending Tottenham (and also above Arsenal over the longer time frame).



[xtable=skin1|border:0|cellpadding:0|cellspacing:0|421x@]
{colgroup}
{col=145x@}{/col}
{/colgroup}{colgroup}
{col=span:3|92x@}{/col}
{/colgroup}
{tbody}
{tr}
{td=145x19}£'000{/td}
{td=92x@}Cash in{/td}
{td=92x@}Cash out{/td}
{td=92x@}Net cash out{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Man City{/td}
{td=right}

479,049​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,501,940)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,022,891)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Man United{/td}
{td=right}

276,794​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,226,349)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(949,555)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Chelsea{/td}
{td=right}

663,855​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,325,950)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(662,095)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}LFC{/td}
{td=right}

517,599​

{/td}

{td=right}

(1,002,841)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(485,242)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Arsenal{/td}
{td=right}

378,225​

{/td}

{td=right}

(769,997)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(391,772)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Everton{/td}
{td=right}

328,351​

{/td}

{td=right}

(613,438)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(285,087)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td=@x19}Spurs{/td}
{td=right}

496,137​

{/td}

{td=right}

(601,232)​

{/td}

{td=right}

(105,095)​

{/td}
{/tr}
{/tbody}
[/xtable]

So an average of £50m a season, a large chunk of that is agent fees I guess

 

[Beamrider]

So an average of £50m a season, a large chunk of that is agent fees I guess

It will be a sizeable amount, but it's difficult to tell. The spending on agent fees is reported annually and we're usually near the top of the table at around £25m-£30m (although we were 4th last year (up to 31 Jan 2021) at around £21m), but a fair chunk of that will be fees paid on behalf of players. The player's proportion goes through the wages line in the account so it isn't part of our transfer spending figures (i.e. not included in my numbers above, they only include the fees paid to agents on behalf of the club). On most deals, the agent's fee will be split broadly 50:50 between the club and the player (so if the agent "earns" £6m, £3m will be paid by the club and £1m of that will be in the cash-out number in the year the deal is done - due to instalment effect).
Our lower-than-usual fees disclosure for last year reflects the lower spending on transfers over the transfer windows in that period, but it will include instalments on fees from deals in the previous 2 and a bit years (usually 3 instalments, 12 months apart on all deals).

A final point on the cash payments v headline transfer fees. Over the 10 years I reported, the net spend, ignoring the timing impact of cash payments, is £503.2m. This represents, in accounts speak, additions to intangible fixed assets, less proceeds from their sale. It's not massively different to the cash payments figures, BUT the figures for the last 2 years are wildly different to the headline fee numbers for those years (net cash out was £104.1m lower in 2018-19 and £89.6m higher in 2019-20).
These figures underline how wildly different the cash can be compared to the figures you see reported in the media.
The difference for 2018-19 is probably largely due to accelerating the Coutinho receipt (which I still think was driven by Barca and not by us). In 2019-20, it's higher due to making deferred payments on the signings in the previous 2 seasons (mostly VVD, Salah, Ox, Robbo, Keita, Alisson, Fabinho, Shaqiri) but without money coming in from Coutinho to offset those payments.

 

[MomoWASright]

Nerd