Player transfer fees and wages are going up in line with higher TV revenue.
FSG
- Thread starter Gary25
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Player transfer fees and wages are going up in line with higher TV revenue.
I know this, thats just one revenue stream, its an example of our earning though.
40k a week, not 80.
Still seems high, though.
Edit: maybe not that high given we'd have a few earners over 100k
Echo
Its 80k
208,000,000 divided by 50 divided by 52.
Unless my phone is broke thats 80,000 per player per week.
It cant be right.
Even if you take into account all the stewards, admin etc.
Its from the last set of accounts but probably includes payoffs to Rodgers and his staff.
I'd also love to see how many millions we pay to players we've sold on / loaned out.
Yeah, you're right. Way too high.
It's the figure for players & staff up to May 2016. Pulled from the echo.
The owners have done some good stuff, as said, mainly on dragging us forward commercially and also with regards to redevelopment. We'll reap the rewards of those decisions (even though they were staggeringly obvious ones) for years to come.
The flip side is that their unfamiliarity with the sport is all too obvious, and that's been shown in the appointments they have made along the way, at all levels. From trying to transfer moneyball ideals (mostly unsuccessfully), to amateurish PR and terrible decisions at executive level that have seen us hampered by not having genuine assertive, knowledgeable and ambitious people in key roles.
We've spent fairly evenly, many clubs do, that's normal. Sustainable big clubs build success and spend in proportion to that. We've speculated to accumulate many times with fairly negative outcomes, so it's sort of understandable that we live within our means. What's important is that a club like ours also tries to act with intent at crucial times - you get in the top four and Europe's big competition, so you spend to compound that and to stay there AND to give yourself some chances of success and/or further improvement.
We need to spend big this Summer, now isn't really the time for concentrating on the foundations, it's time for spending for the immediate short term - buy big and act with decisiveness to give yourself every chance of competing with those around you. We did spectacularly well on many levels last season, but that sort of "being more than the sum of your parts" stuff doesn't last in football, eventually class or a lack of will tell, and when your peers and those above you are in the process of adding truly jaw dropping quality players, you have to either be clever about it or just put your money where your mouth is, we too often try to do the former and get it wrong.
People might argue about who our "targets" are, as signalling how ambitious we are, fair enough, but it's only really relevant if you've got the attraction and the intelligence to pull it off. It's no good turning up if you haven't done your homework and put the groundwork in place to get these deals done. For the most part, so far (and yes, I know it's only fucking July), it looks like more of the same with the amateurish approach to VVD and the apparent non-movement on the Kieta deal. One scuppered deal and one over-ambitious one sounds like every other Summer I can remember.
As for the owners, I'm with Oncy, I think they want a sustainable club that will make them money - ticket revenue will achieve that, so the ground work priority more or less tells us that. It goes hand in hand with us improving for the future, but so are the likes of Chelsea and Spurs in terms of attendance, while City, United and Arsenal already have. So it's only really us playing catch up to make sure we don't fall further behind in terms of revenue. It's only when the club start pumping more than a relatively paltry £20m-£30m back into the net spend (when you consider the takings from TV Revenue, gate receipts, merchandising, league finish, etc), that we might start to believe the owners want more than to just line their pockets. Everything they have done commercially has been as much about sound business sense as providing a structure for us to build on - that might sound ungrateful, but it's a relentlessly financially growing sport that requires ambition as much as stability.
The flip side is that their unfamiliarity with the sport is all too obvious, and that's been shown in the appointments they have made along the way, at all levels. From trying to transfer moneyball ideals (mostly unsuccessfully), to amateurish PR and terrible decisions at executive level that have seen us hampered by not having genuine assertive, knowledgeable and ambitious people in key roles.
We've spent fairly evenly, many clubs do, that's normal. Sustainable big clubs build success and spend in proportion to that. We've speculated to accumulate many times with fairly negative outcomes, so it's sort of understandable that we live within our means. What's important is that a club like ours also tries to act with intent at crucial times - you get in the top four and Europe's big competition, so you spend to compound that and to stay there AND to give yourself some chances of success and/or further improvement.
We need to spend big this Summer, now isn't really the time for concentrating on the foundations, it's time for spending for the immediate short term - buy big and act with decisiveness to give yourself every chance of competing with those around you. We did spectacularly well on many levels last season, but that sort of "being more than the sum of your parts" stuff doesn't last in football, eventually class or a lack of will tell, and when your peers and those above you are in the process of adding truly jaw dropping quality players, you have to either be clever about it or just put your money where your mouth is, we too often try to do the former and get it wrong.
People might argue about who our "targets" are, as signalling how ambitious we are, fair enough, but it's only really relevant if you've got the attraction and the intelligence to pull it off. It's no good turning up if you haven't done your homework and put the groundwork in place to get these deals done. For the most part, so far (and yes, I know it's only fucking July), it looks like more of the same with the amateurish approach to VVD and the apparent non-movement on the Kieta deal. One scuppered deal and one over-ambitious one sounds like every other Summer I can remember.
As for the owners, I'm with Oncy, I think they want a sustainable club that will make them money - ticket revenue will achieve that, so the ground work priority more or less tells us that. It goes hand in hand with us improving for the future, but so are the likes of Chelsea and Spurs in terms of attendance, while City, United and Arsenal already have. So it's only really us playing catch up to make sure we don't fall further behind in terms of revenue. It's only when the club start pumping more than a relatively paltry £20m-£30m back into the net spend (when you consider the takings from TV Revenue, gate receipts, merchandising, league finish, etc), that we might start to believe the owners want more than to just line their pockets. Everything they have done commercially has been as much about sound business sense as providing a structure for us to build on - that might sound ungrateful, but it's a relentlessly financially growing sport that requires ambition as much as stability.
The net spend debate is a weird one though. We've sold 50% of the players bought by FSG, and some of them have been for a decent fee as well. That will obviously effect the net spend. It doesnt change the fact that they've spent more than enough to be competitive.
Just look at Spurs. They're 18th or something in the net spend table. Would you say that their owners arent setting them up for success because of it?
Just look at Spurs. They're 18th or something in the net spend table. Would you say that their owners arent setting them up for success because of it?
Fixed.
LOL
I can't wait for us to sign Keita and VdV asap so this thread can die an instant death.
Sent from my iPhone 8 Plus using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone 8 Plus using Tapatalk
I can understand their prudence in not spending more. Whenever we have splurged, the money has been largely wasted. So I can understand their reluctance. But then coming back to Binny's point, the money has been wasted by people they appointed.
Even if we had spent a 100 million more under King Kenny's or under Brendan, I am not that confident our squad would look that much better. This is not an attack on the managers by the way. I am blaming the entire recruitment system under FSG.
Their record in other sports here in the US clearly show that they are not averse to spending. They are by no means poor custodians of sports teams if you look at their US record. Red Sox always have reasonably high wages. I just dont think they have figured out football (or not interested in figuring out football) the way they have done with Baseball.
It should be an attack on those managers; they certainly shouldn't be absolved of any blame. A lot of the recruitment under them both was appalling.
WhIle much of their player recruitment spend has been wasted, they hired the people who made those recruitment decisions.
Ultimately the buck still rests with ownership to have the right people in place to make those decisions and the jury is definitely still out.
Which appointment(s) did/do you not agree with? Kenny? Rodgers? Klopp? All three?
Why is it only the managers that you ask about ?
What?
No doubt about it. By no means, am I absolving FSG of blame.
The committee, scouts, managers, they all share the blame. The owners brought in a collective bunch of people they thought were right, and we squandered considerable amounts of money through poor decisions from top to bottom. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with certain appointments, it's the whole structure. You can have the right manager but completely the wrong people around him, or the wrong system in place to identify and secure players. And vice versa, you can have people who know what they're doing and they end up at loggerheads with a manager, or wasting those recommendations on the wrong manager.
I thought that was fairly obvious - "they hired the people who made those recruitment decisions". It's not just about managers, the setup is or has been proven to be poor, repeatedly. You can't really pin that on a single manager or staff member, because it's been common throughout.
All three managers were just fine (although I had sone skepticism of Rodgers and he ended up a bit cringeworthy at times) - it's everyone else involved in player acquisition and the structure they operated under that was at fault. They own that 100%.
So the managers are/were fine and player recruitment is solely on the owners? Is that what you are saying?
The player recruitment buck, for me, stops firmly at the manager. I would wager quite heavily that no player was forced on any of them.
I have no affinity with these - or any - owners, but the lengths people are going to blame them for stuff is quite bizarre.
I guess it comes down to who you think has the biggest say in recruitment. And, for me, it's the manager.
Saying that, there is no exact science to recruitment. Look how much money the oil clubs and Utd have wasted. It's phenomenal.
Did Rodgers have the final say? People seemed to selectively pick which players could be attributed to him and which couldn't, so it wasn't as straightforward (at least on the face of it) as the manager having the final say. Maybe that's more the case now, because of Klopp's pedigree, but it certainly hasn't always been that way.
I think he did. I think they all did.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
