• 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.

John W Henry: Newcastle made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way

Status
Not open for further replies.

iseered

Well-Known
Member
John W Henry: Newcastle made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way

Liverpool's owner questions Chelsea's commitment to financial fair-play rules and explains his desire to self-generate funds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/04/john-w-henry-interview-liverpool

On the day Fernando Torres was unveiled as a Chelsea player, Liverpool's American owner, John Henry, has criticised Chelsea for their extravagant transfer window spending, questioning Chelsea's commitment of Roman Abramovich's club to Uefa's financial fair-play rules. In an interview granted exclusively to the Guardian, Henry suggested Chelsea may be planning to "evade" the rules and called on the governing body to ensure they are strictly followed by all clubs. The fair-play rules, which require clubs to spend only the income they make and not rely on subsidies from owners, come into effect from next season to 2014.

"I was surprised Monday morning to receive an offer [from Chelsea for Fernando Torres] in that amount [£50m] at the same time they were announcing such large losses [£71m for 2009-10]," Henry said. "The big question is just how effective the financial fair-play rules are going to be. Perhaps some clubs support the concept in order to limit the spending of other clubs, while implementing activities specifically designed to evade the rules they publicly support. We can only hope that Uefa has the ability and determination to enforce what they have proposed."

Chelsea have insisted since signing Torres and David Luiz that they firmly intend to comply with financial fair play and that the £71m outlay was within overall progress towards cutting costs.

Henry, setting out his thoughts on Liverpool's direction almost four months since his Fenway Sports Group bought the club by paying off the £200m debts Tom Hicks's and George Gillett's "leveraged" takeover had loaded on to Liverpool, said he is committed to the club living within its income. "We've always spent money we've generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool," he said, referring to the group's ownership of the Boston Red Sox baseball team. "It's up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that."

That commitment to sound financial management was followed, not breached, Henry asserted, in the £35m Liverpool paid Newcastle United for Andy Carroll, a fee that astonished English football. Henry said the £35m made financial sense because Liverpool were only paying to Newcastle what they were to receive from Chelsea by selling Torres, whom they allowed to leave because he had become too evidently unhappy at Anfield.

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres. Together with the £6m sale of Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim, that effectively financed Liverpool's £22.8m signing of Luis Suárez, meaning the club bought two strikers but net, spent almost nothing. "The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle," Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."

Saying Kenny Dalglish has "exceeded our expectations" as the club's caretaker manager, Henry explained that Liverpool retain ambitions to qualify for European competition this season, so insisted they had to sign a replacement striker, preferably Carroll, if Torres was to go. "We weren't going to write off Champions League and Europa League for the sake of someone's happiness," Henry said of Torres. "The striker position had to be filled, by someone who made sense for the long term. With about 24 hours remaining, the possibility of Andy, who was No1 on our list of possibilities for the summer, emerged."

Henry explained how Carroll, even at £35m, fits into FSG's philosophy, which famously learns from the strategy honed by Billy Beane, the general manager at baseball's Oakland Athletics. As described in the book Moneyball, by Michael Lewis, players are assessed from performance statistics, not solely by scouts rating how good they look. Henry, however, said this did not mean they were not prepared to spend big fees on the right players, as the group has done when turning the Red Sox into a World Series-winning baseball team again.

"The Moneyball approach is about poor decision-making in baseball, based on anecdotal evidence [about players' qualities] as opposed to hard, statistical evidence. If the Red Sox are a Moneyball team it has to be noted that we are second in spending over the last decade within Major League Baseball. We have been successful through spending and through securing and developing young players."

That, he said, will be Liverpool's two-pronged approach to rebuilding the squad, which will be financed only out of its income; he and his fellow investors in Fenway will not be pouring cash in. "We intend to get younger, deeper and play positive football. Adding two top players [Carroll and Suárez] who have just turned 22 and 24 is a good first step."

Henry lavished praise on Dalglish, although he declined to say whether Dalglish is likely to be offered the job permanently. "We didn't know Kenny well prior to him coming aboard as manager," Henry said. "But he has exceeded our expectations on all fronts. It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on what happens beyond the end of this season."

FSG is, Henry confirmed, studying the possibility of expanding Anfield rather than building the long-mooted new stadium on Stanley Park, a plan which he criticised. "It's not a coincidence that the last two ownership groups could not get a new stadium built," he argued pointedly. "What they proposed or hoped for just didn't make any economic sense or they would have been built. A lot of time and effort is being put into study and creatively looking at all options."

With his first, extraordinary, transfer window done, in which Liverpool managed to part with English football's most astonishing fee ever while spending nothing overall, Henry argued the new American owners' strategy, to refashion Liverpool as a major club, is on course. "Our goal in Liverpool is to create the kind of stability that the Red Sox enjoy," he said. "We are committed to building for the long term."
 
Incredibly clever reasoning - we get screwed, we screw you over:

That commitment to sound financial management was followed, not breached, Henry asserted, in the £35m Liverpool paid Newcastle United for Andy Carroll, a fee that astonished English football. Henry said the £35m made financial sense because Liverpool were only paying to Newcastle what they were to receive from Chelsea by selling Torres, whom they allowed to leave because he had become too evidently unhappy at Anfield.

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres. Together with the £6m sale of Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim, that effectively financed Liverpool's £22.8m signing of Luis Suárez, meaning the club bought two strikers but net, spent almost nothing. "The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle," Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."

Prefer that Chelski get screwed over, and the Geordies get the money. £50m (IF these fair play measures actually happen and are inforced) will really affect the classless bastards.

I also love the way we worked: "How much? £50m"

"We'll give you £38m."

"£50m"

"come on for fucks sake, you need to meet us somewhere in the middle. £42m"

"£50m"

"Fucking hell, £45m our final offer"

"£50m"

"Pricks." *signs cheque*

We have been screwed so many times in the past, nice to be the one asking them to bend over and lube up.
 
[size=12pt]in which Liverpool managed to part with English football's most astonishing fee ever while spending nothing overall, [/size]

I fuckin LOVE that line, what a difference to other rags
 
Apart from the fact we spent approximately fuck all, anyone know how much we have saved in wages per week having got rid of Babel, Konchesky and Torres, and getting in Suarez & Carroll?
 
I reckon the price of Carroll plus 15m thing is crap, designed to make Chelsea look like the (only) crazies.
 
[quote author=IanTheRed link=topic=44054.msg1278354#msg1278354 date=1296844333]
Apart from the fact we spent approximately fuck all, anyone know how much we have saved in wages per week having got rid of Babel, Konchesky and Torres, and getting in Suarez & Carroll?
[/quote]

Apparently Suarez and Carroll combined are on roughly what Torres was on.
 
We should have given Man City a call try to get an auction going. The bidding starts at £50m, the clock is ticking.
 
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=44054.msg1278368#msg1278368 date=1296845799]
We should have given Man City a call try to get an auction going. The bidding starts at £50m, the clock is ticking.
[/quote]

Thats another reason for disliking Torres. If the transfer request were handed in during December, we could have planned a lot better and longer (although I don't think we could have got a better result in hindsight).

We could have easily risen the Torres fee to £60-70m if Man City hadn't bought Dzeko, they would have chewed our hands off for the chance to buy a truely world class player.
 
[quote author=IanTheRed link=topic=44054.msg1278375#msg1278375 date=1296846753]
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=44054.msg1278368#msg1278368 date=1296845799]
We should have given Man City a call try to get an auction going. The bidding starts at £50m, the clock is ticking.
[/quote]

Thats another reason for disliking Torres. If the transfer request were handed in during December, we could have planned a lot better and longer (although I don't think we could have got a better result in hindsight).

We could have easily risen the Torres fee to £60-70m if Man City hadn't bought Dzeko, they would have chewed our hands off for the chance to buy a truely world class player.
[/quote]

Would he have gone there though? From everything he's said, it all sounds very short term, he wanted a chance of winning the CL this season, I don't think he would have waited around for City.
 
He had already knocked Citeh back once (when they offered us 70M) = he wouldn't have gone to Citeh. We did well under the circumstances.
 
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=44054.msg1278378#msg1278378 date=1296846887]
[quote author=IanTheRed link=topic=44054.msg1278375#msg1278375 date=1296846753]
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=44054.msg1278368#msg1278368 date=1296845799]
We should have given Man City a call try to get an auction going. The bidding starts at £50m, the clock is ticking.
[/quote]

Thats another reason for disliking Torres. If the transfer request were handed in during December, we could have planned a lot better and longer (although I don't think we could have got a better result in hindsight).

We could have easily risen the Torres fee to £60-70m if Man City hadn't bought Dzeko, they would have chewed our hands off for the chance to buy a truely world class player.
[/quote]

Would he have gone there though? From everything he's said, it all sounds very short term, he wanted a chance of winning the CL this season, I don't think he would have waited around for City.
[/quote]

Possibly not, but a bidding war would have ensued and if Citeh bid £60m, and we knocked back the £50m, would Chelski have increased the bid. We weren't desperate to sell, so could play hard ball, and giving us just 72 hours royally screwed us.

To be honest, would Torres the whore have knocked back City now? Almost guaranteed CL footy next season, and another £100m plus to spend.

As frog said, we did well to get £50m though. We could have screwed them for more given time.
 
[quote author=IanTheRed link=topic=44054.msg1278386#msg1278386 date=1296848165]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=44054.msg1278378#msg1278378 date=1296846887]
[quote author=IanTheRed link=topic=44054.msg1278375#msg1278375 date=1296846753]
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=44054.msg1278368#msg1278368 date=1296845799]
We should have given Man City a call try to get an auction going. The bidding starts at £50m, the clock is ticking.
[/quote]

Thats another reason for disliking Torres. If the transfer request were handed in during December, we could have planned a lot better and longer (although I don't think we could have got a better result in hindsight).

We could have easily risen the Torres fee to £60-70m if Man City hadn't bought Dzeko, they would have chewed our hands off for the chance to buy a truely world class player.
[/quote]

Would he have gone there though? From everything he's said, it all sounds very short term, he wanted a chance of winning the CL this season, I don't think he would have waited around for City.
[/quote]

Possibly not, but a bidding war would have ensued and if Citeh bid £60m, and we knocked back the £50m, would Chelski have increased the bid. We weren't desperate to sell, so could play hard ball, and giving us just 72 hours royally screwed us.

To be honest, would Torres the whore have knocked back City now? Almost guaranteed CL footy next season, and another £100m plus to spend.

As frog said, we did well to get £50m though. We could have screwed them for more given time.
[/quote]

We got the best end of the deal definitely. A £60m strike force handpicked by King Kenny, who wanted to play for us for a striker out of form for 18 months, at a price that was close to in-form, who asked to leave, all for a net spend of less than £2m. Genius. Bring on summer lets get Hazard and Arda Turan.

If you think about it Torres was/is playing crap almost as long as he's played brilliantly. He stunk the place the place out at the World cup too. He's had surgery twice, who's to say he'll ever get it back? My bold prediction is that Suarez will make us forget him and be a legend for us. Newcastle did well they got good money and made profit. They still have to spend it though. I'm hoping Nando doesn't go the way of Sheva down south. Or maybe I am. Betrayal hurts.
 
The deals done stop fucking whinging, if Carroll has a boss end to the season nobody will give a fuck.
 
[quote author=IanTheRed link=topic=44054.msg1278350#msg1278350 date=1296844065]
Incredibly clever reasoning - we get screwed, we screw you over:

That commitment to sound financial management was followed, not breached, Henry asserted, in the £35m Liverpool paid Newcastle United for Andy Carroll, a fee that astonished English football. Henry said the £35m made financial sense because Liverpool were only paying to Newcastle what they were to receive from Chelsea by selling Torres, whom they allowed to leave because he had become too evidently unhappy at Anfield.

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres. Together with the £6m sale of Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim, that effectively financed Liverpool's £22.8m signing of Luis Suárez, meaning the club bought two strikers but net, spent almost nothing. "The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle," Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."

Prefer that Chelski get screwed over, and the Geordies get the money. £50m (IF these fair play measures actually happen and are inforced) will really affect the classless bastards.

I also love the way we worked: "How much? £50m"

"We'll give you £38m."

"£50m"

"come on for fucks sake, you need to meet us somewhere in the middle. £42m"

"£50m"

"Fucking hell, £45m our final offer"

"£50m"

"Pricks." *signs cheque*

We have been screwed so many times in the past, nice to be the one asking them to bend over and lube up.
[/quote]

Comic Genius Bernie Mac in Bad Santa
 
I'm liking our new owners.

Very shrewd and intelligent businessmen. Tactically clever too.

By pinning the blame partially on Chelsea, Henry's indirectly putting pressure on the FA and UEFA (or is it FIFA ?) and the media to direct the spotlight on Chelsea in the hope that the financial fair play rules will curb their spending spree. If Chelsea continues to spend big (and they have to, with that aging team of theirs - they'd have to rebuild sooner than later), that would increase the gap between ourselves and them in terms of quality.

So he reminds big teams like Chelsea to play by the same rules. At the same time, reminding UEFA/FIFA to be serious with their enforcement of the fair play rules.
 
Finally, FINALLY, we have people leading this club in a proper way, for the first time since Sir John Smith retired in the early 1990s.

I could kill something when I think of all the underachieving years in between, but hey - better late than never.
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=44054.msg1278361#msg1278361 date=1296845227]
It's ridiculous logic anyways.
[/quote]

But a lot of posters here are trying very hard to justify it.
By this logic, if we sold torres to Man City for 70M, they would be okay to buy carroll for 55M, when they probably called you idiot if you want to buy him for 20M last saturday.

Instead of getting screwed after screwing someone else, isn't smart businessmen would find something value for money, just like what inter did when they sold Ibrahimovic?
 
There's no getting around the fact that it was and is a massive gamble; however this is a gamble that will pay off, hopefully.

We paid hugely over the odds for potential; but Carroll is going to be potentially very good for us, and at his age there's a very good chance that even if he leaves in say 4 years at the age 26-27 of that we'll be seing at least a significant portion of that investment realised if he moves on at the peak of his career.
 
We had 24 hours to sign someone if we hadn't this place and every other site would be in meltdown looking the Americans out. Newcastle had us by the balls and knew it fair play to them and fair play to the club for backing Daglish.

United paid silly money at the time for Ferdinand with most shocked at the price tag and he's justified every penny of it hopefully Carroll will do likewise
 
Considering we had about 3 days to get 2 deals in place, I think it was a good logic. But if we had more time then I think we would have stuck to a price limit they had in place. They are clearly thinking long term though and assuming that we now don't need to address the strike force for a good few years minimum and can now concentrate all transfer efforts on other problem areas.
 
Yep, Carroll has to stay a very long time and score a lot of goals to ever justify the fee.

The less he reads about the fee the better though.
 
Interesting article and there are plenty of things to like and maybe one or two things to not like...

I thought the Carroll's fee plus 15m pounds is a bit ridiculous to me too and Henry isn't given me the impression that we will be spending big in the Summer unless we find some ways to offload a few of the players we have on the books. 🙁 Maybe without the interest payments on the acquisitional debt, we will have more money for transfers and wages.

It's good Henry highlighted the UEFA financial fair play rules, though, and trying to put more of the spotlight on it, if it isn't already. I wonder which clubs will be genuinely for it?

Ourselves, Arsenal and Spurs certainly. Man United, not sure... I would imagine Chelsea and City would not be. And how about in Europe?

The German clubs I would have thought would be as they are financially well run, aren't they? Not sure about the Italian clubs and I'm not sure about Barca and Real.

UEFA have made enough fuss about it and I hope they keep to their word because without the financial fair-play rules, it would be difficult for us to get back to where we belong as Henry is keen for us to be ran prudently.
 
Someone made the point (somewhere today maybe on here?) that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to regulate.

One example given is Abramovich or Citys owners sponsoring Chelsea with one of his own companies for an unrealistic amount, but how can FIFA stop them?

The name on the shirt would be legit, the sponsorship deal unbeleivable
 
It's not about money, forget about the fucking money, it's about improving the team, you have to speculate to accumulate.

We sold Torres and Babel for near enough what brought Suarez and Carroll for. From where I am standing we have got the best deal out of that by a long way, and hopefully a pairing that will knit together and be lethal strike partnership for at least the next five years. If you want to talk about money we have wages to spare too when we want to re-negotiate contracts for them too in a few years

We could not afford to fuck about, we identified our man and struck swiftly and decisively. That is what big team do, and something we have not been doing of late.

JH is not stupid, not like the other two , who were content to see their investment visibly shrinking and do nothing about it in the last two years. JH knows to keep the investment in good order and increase it's value you have to make it successful and to do that you need results. Come the summer when Kenny and Comolli have had more time to think about things and identify targets that we need, we may not be spending big, the best targets for us may not particularly be the most expensive, but I am pretty certain now that if we identify target or targets that will improve us JH will spend money again.

regards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom