• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Growing feeling of chuffed??

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43967.msg1274116#msg1274116 date=1296558064]
I think some people have forgotten how close to the brink we actually came.
sure, we had a profit in the transfer window (again) for the 4th time in a row BUT every penny of that money went on transfers rather than paying off debt. that should be cause for celebration.
[/quote]

*sigh*
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43967.msg1275193#msg1275193 date=1296605038]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43967.msg1274116#msg1274116 date=1296558064]
I think some people have forgotten how close to the brink we actually came.
sure, we had a profit in the transfer window (again) for the 4th time in a row BUT every penny of that money went on transfers rather than paying off debt. that should be cause for celebration.
[/quote]

*sigh*
[/quote]

you don't agree?
 
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43967.msg1275196#msg1275196 date=1296605215]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43967.msg1275193#msg1275193 date=1296605038]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43967.msg1274116#msg1274116 date=1296558064]
I think some people have forgotten how close to the brink we actually came.
sure, we had a profit in the transfer window (again) for the 4th time in a row BUT every penny of that money went on transfers rather than paying off debt. that should be cause for celebration.
[/quote]

*sigh*
[/quote]

you don't agree?
[/quote]


You might as well say that it was better that every penny received went on transfers instead of paying for coke and hookers for the squad - it's equally as true.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43967.msg1275193#msg1275193 date=1296605038]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43967.msg1274116#msg1274116 date=1296558064]
I think some people have forgotten how close to the brink we actually came.
sure, we had a profit in the transfer window (again) for the 4th time in a row BUT every penny of that money went on transfers rather than paying off debt. that should be cause for celebration.
[/quote]

*sigh*
[/quote]

i'm sure you've looked at the figures more closely than i have, so i'll not argue that we spent less in interest than H&G put in via their loans, BUT, do you not accept that your argument looks just as flimsy as neil's given that, somehow, are financial means were definitely affected during their ownership? surely it's unarguable that we had less money to spend, in general, and especially given contnued rises in revenues, than before they bought the club, isn't it?

take benitez's reign alone: from 04 to 07 (3 summers, including cisse at £14m) we spent £54m net, or £18m per year. from H&G's first summer to last summer we spent £32m over 4 summers, or £8m per year. that's less than half, even before you factor in rising revenues and associated rising transfer fees.

do you get why people are reluctant to buy your line on this?
 
[quote author=themn link=topic=43967.msg1275191#msg1275191 date=1296604789]
Roy would have bought Carlton Cole.


For £20M.

Then bobby zamora for £30M

Then, the internet would have ended.
[/quote]

Fixed.
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43967.msg1275206#msg1275206 date=1296606646]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43967.msg1275193#msg1275193 date=1296605038]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43967.msg1274116#msg1274116 date=1296558064]
I think some people have forgotten how close to the brink we actually came.
sure, we had a profit in the transfer window (again) for the 4th time in a row BUT every penny of that money went on transfers rather than paying off debt. that should be cause for celebration.
[/quote]

*sigh*
[/quote]

i'm sure you've looked at the figures more closely than i have, so i'll not argue that we spent less in interest than H&G put in via their loans, BUT, do you not accept that your argument looks just as flimsy as neil's given that, somehow, are financial means were definitely affected during their ownership? surely it's unarguable that we had less money to spend, in general, and especially given contnued rises in revenues, than before they bought the club, isn't it?

take benitez's reign alone: from 04 to 07 (3 summers, including cisse at £14m) we spent £54m net, or £18m per year. from H&G's first summer to last summer we spent £32m over 4 summers, or £8m per year. that's less than half, even before you factor in rising revenues and associated rising transfer fees.

do you get why people are reluctant to buy your line on this?
[/quote]

It's not really my line. It's in black and white in the accounts.

People read the papers, not one paper has ever reported the money that the Yanks were forced to stump up. So I'm not surprised the presumption exists that it was the interest that was the problem because that was the argument we were treated to for so long.

The reality is the increases in the wage bill and the transfers (and how they were structured) was where our money went. Out of 185m turnover in 2009, 100.5m was spent on the wage bill and 60m left the club in payments for current and past transfers.

It looks like we either overspent in earlier years or just didn't budget properly for the future and it caught up with us, and that was magnified by losing CL football. I always felt Mascherano was a transfer we couldn't afford at the time, and if you look at the losses for the past couple of years (excluding interest) they are in the region of the Mascherano fee.

The signs are there at the moment though that things are resolving themselves, and the summer should be indicative in that regard. We should be in a position to spend 20m net, while again trying to keep control over the wage bill.

The rape and pillage that people complain of was clearly H&G's intention, but because they took too big a financial risk it never actually occurred. Poor management at every level of the club was our problem.
 
yes, i'd definitely agree that we'd been overstretching oursleves prior to H&G coming in (i always felt, call it a kind of accountant's hunch, that the early heavy spending of the houllier era was moores' shot at the big time, and we were already struggling by the time benitez arrived), and the subsequent contraction under the americans was largely a result of them refusing to carry on with it.

the £9m loan to buy kuyt is evidence enough of that.

still doesn't excuse what shitty, irresponsible and money-grubbing owners H&G were, though.
 
one thing we have to address in the summer is selling the people on huge wages that hardly ever play.

jove
cole - to be fair cole has been injuried
poulsen
cuntchesky

if they hardly ever play then the 'slack' of their departure can and should be covered by our youth players.
 
So accounting for the past is splattered with red ink but how does the future under new management look like? That is what I am now More concern over.
 
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43967.msg1275264#msg1275264 date=1296634548]
one thing we have to address in the summer is selling the people on huge wages that hardly ever play.

jove
cole - to be fair cole has been injuried
poulsen
cuntchesky

if they hardly ever play then the 'slack' of their departure can and should be covered by our youth players.
[/quote]

i wonder if we'll actually receive fees for konchesky and poulsen...terrible, terrible signings.
 
Did we have to spend it anyway to avoid being hit by tax on the £50m?

Regardless, it's a bold move all round. The owners trusting Kenny's judgement in such a way is massively significant for his future, on the back just a couple of games too. He must have really made an impression.

I hope it come off, Carroll will no doubt hit the ground running in some form, though the expectation on him will now be massive and people will be quicker to judge him on his amount of goals rather than his overall contribution as a centre forward (see Berbatov's first season). The bigger conundrum is whether Suarez is both quick enough and prolific enough to come close to filling the void left by Torres.

It's brilliant we now have two strikers, but if one or the other isn't there, it's a massive ask for the lone striker to be as singlehandedly threatening as Torres 'could' be.

I'm excited though, it's new, fresh and it's Kenny's. Let's hope he's got it bang on.
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43967.msg1275268#msg1275268 date=1296634803]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43967.msg1275264#msg1275264 date=1296634548]
one thing we have to address in the summer is selling the people on huge wages that hardly ever play.

jove
cole - to be fair cole has been injuried
poulsen
cuntchesky

if they hardly ever play then the 'slack' of their departure can and should be covered by our youth players.
[/quote]

i wonder if we'll actually receive fees for konchesky and poulsen...terrible, terrible signings.
[/quote]

jove
poulsen
cuntchesky
aurelio
cole

all signed on roy's watch. aging, slow and expensive much like roy himself and like roy will be expensive to bin off*



hope aurelio stays though 😉
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43967.msg1275268#msg1275268 date=1296634803]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43967.msg1275264#msg1275264 date=1296634548]
one thing we have to address in the summer is selling the people on huge wages that hardly ever play.

jove
cole - to be fair cole has been injuried
poulsen
cuntchesky

if they hardly ever play then the 'slack' of their departure can and should be covered by our youth players.
[/quote]

i wonder if we'll actually receive fees for konchesky and poulsen...terrible, terrible signings.
[/quote]

Anything we receive is a bonus and I'm just glad if/when we get rid of them and their wages. If the Wolfsburg offer for Jova had any truth in it he might not turn out to be such a disastrous transfer after all.
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43967.msg1275263#msg1275263 date=1296634483]
yes, i'd definitely agree that we'd been overstretching oursleves prior to H&G coming in (i always felt, call it a kind of accountant's hunch, that the early heavy spending of the houllier era was moores' shot at the big time, and we were already struggling by the time benitez arrived), and the subsequent contraction under the americans was largely a result of them refusing to carry on with it.

the £9m loan to buy kuyt is evidence enough of that.

still doesn't excuse what shitty, irresponsible and money-grubbing owners H&G were, though.
[/quote]

The Houllier spending would have been well taken care of by 2008 /2009 surely ? Unless you're on a wind up ?

Anyway it's clear you'll absolve Benitez of all blame (despite him spending twice as much as Houllier) so I won't bother getting into it, the reason why I think it's actually important to clarify where the real problem was in the past few years is out of fairness to the new owners.

We've already seen complaints of a tiny or negative net spend - that shouldn't really be a major surprise were still in the hangover period from our overspending / bad management. We are where we are and they're making the best of it.

I think the summer will see a further improvement in our situation and I've no doubt we'll get where we need to be under FSG.
 
Had Torres not have left or had we have signed Young, our net spend would've been in excess of 20M.

How does that figure into this debate?
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43967.msg1275274#msg1275274 date=1296635165]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43967.msg1275263#msg1275263 date=1296634483]
yes, i'd definitely agree that we'd been overstretching oursleves prior to H&G coming in (i always felt, call it a kind of accountant's hunch, that the early heavy spending of the houllier era was moores' shot at the big time, and we were already struggling by the time benitez arrived), and the subsequent contraction under the americans was largely a result of them refusing to carry on with it.

the £9m loan to buy kuyt is evidence enough of that.

still doesn't excuse what shitty, irresponsible and money-grubbing owners H&G were, though.
[/quote]

The Houllier spending would have been well taken care of by 2008 /2009 surely ? Unless you're on a wind up ?

Anyway it's clear you'll absolve Benitez of all blame (despite him spending twice as much as Houllier) so I won't bother getting into it, the reason why I think it's actually important to clarify where the real problem was in the past few years is out of fairness to the new owners.

We've already seen complaints of a tiny or negative net spend - that shouldn't really be a major surprise were still in the hangover period from our overspending / bad management. We are where we are and they're making the best of it.

I think the summer will see a further improvement in our situation and I've no doubt we'll get where we need to be under FSG.

[/quote]

i was under the impression that i'd agreed with you for once!
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43967.msg1275274#msg1275274 date=1296635165]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43967.msg1275263#msg1275263 date=1296634483]
yes, i'd definitely agree that we'd been overstretching oursleves prior to H&G coming in (i always felt, call it a kind of accountant's hunch, that the early heavy spending of the houllier era was moores' shot at the big time, and we were already struggling by the time benitez arrived), and the subsequent contraction under the americans was largely a result of them refusing to carry on with it.

the £9m loan to buy kuyt is evidence enough of that.

still doesn't excuse what shitty, irresponsible and money-grubbing owners H&G were, though.
[/quote]

The Houllier spending would have been well taken care of by 2008 /2009 surely ? Unless you're on a wind up ?

Anyway it's clear you'll absolve Benitez of all blame (despite him spending twice as much as Houllier) so I won't bother getting into it, the reason why I think it's actually important to clarify where the real problem was in the past few years is out of fairness to the new owners.

We've already seen complaints of a tiny or negative net spend - that shouldn't really be a major surprise were still in the hangover period from our overspending / bad management. We are where we are and they're making the best of it.

I think the summer will see a further improvement in our situation and I've no doubt we'll get where we need to be under FSG.

[/quote]

I certainly don't absolve rafa of;

keane
aqualini

two 20m signings that contributed next to nothing and had no real place on the team.
that money could have been used on wide players, a position that desparately needed addressing, but what's done is done
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43967.msg1275277#msg1275277 date=1296635561]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43967.msg1275274#msg1275274 date=1296635165]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43967.msg1275263#msg1275263 date=1296634483]
yes, i'd definitely agree that we'd been overstretching oursleves prior to H&G coming in (i always felt, call it a kind of accountant's hunch, that the early heavy spending of the houllier era was moores' shot at the big time, and we were already struggling by the time benitez arrived), and the subsequent contraction under the americans was largely a result of them refusing to carry on with it.

the £9m loan to buy kuyt is evidence enough of that.

still doesn't excuse what shitty, irresponsible and money-grubbing owners H&G were, though.
[/quote]

The Houllier spending would have been well taken care of by 2008 /2009 surely ? Unless you're on a wind up ?

Anyway it's clear you'll absolve Benitez of all blame (despite him spending twice as much as Houllier) so I won't bother getting into it, the reason why I think it's actually important to clarify where the real problem was in the past few years is out of fairness to the new owners.

We've already seen complaints of a tiny or negative net spend - that shouldn't really be a major surprise were still in the hangover period from our overspending / bad management. We are where we are and they're making the best of it.

I think the summer will see a further improvement in our situation and I've no doubt we'll get where we need to be under FSG.

[/quote]

i was under the impression that i'd agreed with you for once!
[/quote]
We were but Benitez will always split us.
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=43967.msg1275275#msg1275275 date=1296635369]
Had Torres not have left or had we have signed Young, our net spend would've been in excess of 20M.

How does that figure into this debate?
[/quote]

I think it might have been in MC I said this but I said I cit wouldn't be a major surprise if we had a net spend (and this is by no means an exact science because we're working off financial figures that are incomplete and out of date) of around 15m w so long as it was done in a manner that didn't raise the wage bill significantly.

Torres let slip that we had been talking to Chelsea for two weeks before the deal was concluded - that probably ties in with the time we raised our bid for Suarez (does it ?) and neither Suarez or Carroll were done and dusted until the club knew they were about to sell Torres.

Had we got either Adam or Young (I wonder whether both were possible) then it would have been around right.

The only reason why i persist with this is that I can see at the end of the summer window people wondering where our 40m net spend was, because we've been told all along that the interest was eating up profits and stopping our ability to spend. We will definitely have a positive net spend in the summer though.
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=43967.msg1275275#msg1275275 date=1296635369]
Had Torres not have left or had we have signed Young, our net spend would've been in excess of 20M.

How does that figure into this debate?
[/quote]

if we would have had have signed young i reckon FSG's true colours would have had have been better understood, personally.
 
They've come out of selling Torres pretty well, haven't they ?

That would have been unfathomable very recently.
 
I suspect come the summer we're to sell several players (who contribute little) for losses purely to get the wage bill down. after the summer transfer window I expect the squad to be leaner with every single one of the purchases we make going straight into the first team. squad players should be made up by the likes of kuyt and lucas when they are pushed out of the first team (if they aren't sold).
 
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=43967.msg1275270#msg1275270 date=1296634973]
Did we have to spend it anyway to avoid being hit by tax on the £50m?

Regardless, it's a bold move all round. The owners trusting Kenny's judgement in such a way is massively significant for his future, on the back just a couple of games too. He must have really made an impression.

I hope it come off, Carroll will no doubt hit the ground running in some form, though the expectation on him will now be massive and people will be quicker to judge him on his amount of goals rather than his overall contribution as a centre forward (see Berbatov's first season). The bigger conundrum is whether Suarez is both quick enough and prolific enough to come close to filling the void left by Torres.

It's brilliant we now have two strikers, but if one or the other isn't there, it's a massive ask for the lone striker to be as singlehandedly threatening as Torres 'could' be.

I'm excited though, it's new, fresh and it's Kenny's. Let's hope he's got it bang on.
[/quote]

Mark, I'm excited and backing Kenny to get the post permanently. He doesn't often get things wrong and the shift in the club and the way we are doing things gives me great confidence.

The owners have been brilliant in their backing. Remember we went in for Richards (20M), Young (16M) and Adam (10M).

I have no doubts about our ambition and do believe that Suarez and Carroll will be a hit that will give us an instant goal return.

Kenny will be ruthless and continue the cull by shiping out players and they basically have until the end of the season to prove that they are worthy of Liverpool.
 
James Lawton: While Anfield mourns loss of a star, Dalglish is building sparkling future


Wednesday, 2 February 2011

Kenny Dalglish (above) is capable of helping Andy Carroll to fulfil his potential
Some of of the more sensitive Liverpool fans may feel hurt, even marginalised, by the announcement of Fernando Torres that he was so pleased to be joining a "top-level" club.


They shouldn't. Rather they should take a lot of comfort in the knowledge that if Roman Abramovich gets through on behalf of Chelsea every rouble he has collected from the mineral rights of the Russian people he will almost certainly still be short of half a clue as to how you build any kind of consistent success at the highest level, and still less the knack of winning not one but five European Cups.

Yes, that's history, we know, but ever since it went bad under Rafa Benitez and a dysfunctional, tapped-out ownership, and left problems well beyond the capacity or the style of Roy Hodgson to fix even in the short term, there has been one point of redemption for Liverpool.

It is that they do have a model. Their experience tells them how you build an ethos, a dynamic of success, and if I was a Liverpool fan right now I would face the future with far more relish than trepidation.

Yes, it is always painful to part with a talent of the order of Torres. Maybe his self-absorption had turned poisonous but that doesn't take away the memory of how he once reduced arguably the best pure defender in English football, Nemanja Vidic, to small pieces, or put his new club to the most glittering sword just a few months ago.

But if Liverpool have lost Torres, it is only in the formality of it – he gave up at Anfield, essentially, at least a year ago – and if the men who replace him, Andy Carroll and Luis Suarez, are less than cold certainties, they do have some thrilling potential and, you have to believe, an investment in playing better than they ever done before. This is not saying so little.

Suarez was a waspish, persistently dangerous performer for Uruguay in the World Cup and notably unfazed by the fact that he inflamed most of Africa when his goal-line handling shut the door on Ghana.

Carroll has a lot to prove about the stability of his nature but his raw talent is there for anyone to see. Alan Shearer credits Kenny Dalglish with vital help in the scoring art when they were at Blackburn. Dalglish is plainly capable of doing at least as much for the big, long-striding Geordie who has already inflicted plenty of legitimate terror on defences concerned about his height, his force and some deceptive ground skills.

Of course, Chelsea fans can preen over the superior qualities of their new thoroughbred acquisition. But can they be as sanguine about his enduring competitive instincts, his willingness to blend into a team which has developed a fierce dressing-room comradeship over the years – or his ability to fight clear of injuries which in recent years have threatened to become endemic?

Chelsea cannot be hugely confident when they answer any of these questions.

The new Liverpool owners have conceded the point of Dalglish, his meaning, at least for the moment, and have given him some means to fuel his work. They may not be hell-bent on throwing around their money but they have already proved that they know how to remake a great sports institution. Boston Red Sox have two World Series titles to prove it.

Saying adios to Torres was a wrench, for all kinds of reasons, but, soon enough, you have to suspect, it may prove not to have been the worst goodbye.
 
A hack he is but his opinions are often based on having some principles, he calls a spade a spade. Obviously being a journalist he gets things wrong often and likes the sound of his voice too much but nonetheless.... one of the few i like reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom