Salah-ng, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye

[dee]

If he runs down his contract as our renewal offer isn’t big enough, it means one more season on his current wages (which I assume is maybe £10m less than he wants). It seems Childs play to get a much bigger signing on fee than that so he’s playing the long game to get the money he wants with the “bonus” of playing for one of the best sides in Europe for one more season

i can see the logic; cake and eat it

 

[StevieM]

It’s not just us that are following the route of keeping players till the end of their contract - it feels like it’s happening everywhere now - with the bigger teams reluctant to let players go to rivals unless they actively agitate for a move.

There must be a calculated reason for it.

 

[Farkmaster]

Its defo not good for us as effectively we pay £100mil extra in return for his services for a season.

That is not the choice in play at all.

We will not get 100million for him if we were to sell him today. After all, any team that wants him can get him the next year for free, and he would be leaving because his wage demands were too high for our wage structure, meaning that he's going to cost a ton on both ends and have zero resale.

But, whatever, lets say he could be bought for 50 million, and would be paid 350k a week, or 18million a year. I'm pulling these numbers out my ass but I think they are realistic. That's about 140 million over 5 years or 28 million a year. Someone may want him at that cost, but I don't see it working out for them.

Let's say we renew his contract. We'd probably be asking for 3 year extension, him for 5? Let's say its 4 years at the same 350k a week. Some numbers quoted have been much higher. That's an extra 21 million in wages, and the opportunity cost of 50 million, since we are assuming he could be sold for that. If your 100 million is in play, then it's even more stupid to renew his contract. There's no doubt that he's a depreciating asset. His value will never increase.

That's 70 million we don't have in our pocket over the deal. 17 million a year. And at the tail end of those years, its entirely possible that he requires replacement and is still on that wage. We will need to replace various members of our squad during that time, however they are still very effective players at the moment, even if they are peaked and possibly declining. In that scenario, I see the sense in getting the one extra year at a discounted rate, over tying yourself into a higher rate. I think we could have our arm twisted if someone thought he was so unbelievably valuable as that they'd meet his wage demands AND transfer fee AND were a club he'd want to go to. But I don't think anyone is, for the same reason we've held strong on renewal. We have a grip on his actual value.

 

[peekay]

It’s not just us that are following the route of keeping players till the end of their contract - it feels like it’s happening everywhere now - with the bigger teams reluctant to let players go to rivals unless they actively agitate for a move.

There must be a calculated reason for it.

Isn't the reason as simple as wages? The wage demands for top-level players have become so exorbitant that one wrong contract can hamper the finances of top non-oil clubs. Look at Bale, Hazard for Madrid, Messi, and Co for Barcelona. Ronaldo for Juventus. From the player's point of view, it is beneficial to move when the contract ends as they can get a nice, fat sign-on fee from clubs who are willing to bear that expense.

Wouldn't be surprised if Salah leaves on a free, signs a 2-3 year contract somewhere else, and at the end of it, if he is still playing at a high level, he will sign another contract with another club. Maybe Zlatan will be the model for such players who can keep fit in their 30s, play for practically all top clubs in Europe with a stint in the US in the middle.

 

[MomoWASright]

I'm not arguing whether its good or not, I'm saying there will be different strategies that develop, and within this, letting players go on a free may be more reasonable.

I misinterpreted the big deal section.

This is going to get ugly for the game. The big clubs will change strategies to mitigate the issues but you’ll see smaller clubs struggling.

All because of the greed of players.

 

[iseered]

Just a pet peeve I have about 'greedy players': Either the player gets the money or the club gets the money. As an employee why on earth wouldn't you want to get as much as possible out of your employer? Everyone's greedy. Why hold football players to a different standard?

 

[bluebell]

CL final to worry about, so forget about what Joyce says... If Salah gets a goal we win, will we fucking care for a few weeks? No we fucking won't.

 

[Frogfish]

Just a pet peeve I have about 'greedy players': Either the player gets the money or the club gets the money. As an employee why on earth wouldn't you want to get as much as possible out of your employer? Everyone's greedy. Why hold football players to a different standard?

Because salaries as a % of most companies' income are nowhere near the 70-80% and PLUS that they are in football. It's a really bad model that football has allowed to get out of hand (again thanks to those oil-backed clubs).

I never begrudge a player moving for more money or asking for what he can get - people are so hypocritical because you can be sure they'd do the exact same if they were so lucky to be in that situation.

However in football (at the top level) the salaries are ridiculous no matter the arguments for or against.

 

[Hyena]

Transfer fees are bullshit.

If you sign a player for five years, then you expect him to go for free after five years.

If he got up at year 3 and said fuck you I'm off to Real, we'd be rightly pissed.
Staying for the length of the Contract and then going for a free is EXACTLY what we agreed. I don't know why people find this surprising.
The money for playing football is supposed to go to the players.

 

[iseered]

Because salaries as a % of most companies' income are nowhere near the 70-80% and PLUS that they are in football. It's a really bad model that football has allowed to get out of hand (again thanks to those oil-backed clubs).

I never begrudge a player moving for more money or asking for what he can get - people are so hypocritical because you can be sure they'd do the exact same if they were so lucky to be in that situation.

However in football (at the top level) the salaries are ridiculous no matter the arguments for or against.

Maybe football's got it right and the salary % is wrong everywhere else... Anyway, you can't just compare top level football with any other random business. As a rule of thumb your wage reflects how easy you would be to replace. Salah = very hard to replace, me = not so much, ergo our wages are quite different.

Edit to add: even well run, profitable clubs pay 'ridiculous' wages

 

[jimmycase]

At what point does the footie bubble implode? PSG and Shitty will keep on spending but some of the rest - like Utd and Barca - are leveraged up to their eyeballs. Like someone else said, one stupid contract away from oblivion. Or a change in interest rates, which we're seeing now.

If top clubs are struggling financially there seem to be lots of buyers still so guess it carries on. More of a money pit for super rich, vain men than a viable business or, God forbid, part fan ownership like in Germany. Think they might be the first losers. Their rules largely prevent megawealthy clubs but think we're already seeing them less relevant in European competition than they were. Guess the transfer business backs up theyre not able to compete in wages with the PL. Only PSG and Real can compete with it really so its there or nowhere for Mo.

 

[Beamrider]

I am increasingly of the opinion that football clubs are basically tangible versions of NFTs. Sooner or later, people will realise that these things that hardly ever make any money for their shareholders (except when they are sold sold from owner to owner at crazy prices) are actually worth fuck all (in a financial sense, at least).

 

[peekay]

Maybe football's got it right and the salary % is wrong everywhere else... Anyway, you can't just compare top level football with any other random business. As a rule of thumb your wage reflects how easy you would be to replace. Salah = very hard to replace, me = not so much, ergo our wages are quite different.

Edit to add: even well run, profitable clubs pay 'ridiculous' wages

But the ridiculous wages are driven by the need to keep pace with the state-funded clubs which blatantly cook the books. If Chelsea, PSG, and City did not have new ownership, I am fairly confident the wages being paid to top-level players in Europe would be lower.

 

[ctlovesred]

It's like owning a classic car - looks amazing, rarely an ROI, but it sure gives your buddies and neighbors something cool to look at while drinking beers.

 

[juniormember]

I am increasingly of the opinion that football clubs are basically tangible versions of NFTs. Sooner or later, people will realise that these things that hardly ever make any money for their shareholders (except when they are sold sold from owner to owner at crazy prices) are actually worth fuck all (in a financial sense, at least).

The Glazers with their latest 11M pound dividend would probably disagree. Spent fuck all to purchase the club, keeps getting millions and millions out of the club.

 

[Hyena]

The Glazers with their latest 11M pound dividend would probably disagree. Spent fuck all to purchase the club, keeps getting millions and millions out of the club.

The Glazers are doing it right. That's the correct way to run a company, at the macro level

 

[RedStar]

The owners seem oddly relaxed about players' contracts running out and them leaving for free. It's happened a few times.

Okay, none of them were anywhere near as good or as valuable as Salah, but still, a good few years ago it seemed like it was something that had to be avoided at all cost.

I assume its because from a financial perspective a players transfer fee is amortized over the course of their contract. So if Salah sees out his contract then from a financial perspective we have written down the value of that asset and there is no actual loss. Fans speculation about "we'd lose £100m if he leaves" is all nonsense from the perspective of balancing the books.

 

[Beamrider]

I’ve talked about this before, but what we’re seeing is a step change in our club from a stepping stone to a destination.
Where once the likes of Coutinho or Suarez saw us as a springboard to one of the game’s biggest clubs, and we, in turn, expected to make a profit, now players arrive here and realise that, in a footballing sense, it doesn’t get much better. Klopp, trophies, CL finals, adoring fans. Where else can they go where they’ll get all that? Are Real and Farcelona really a step up anymore, other than romantically in the eyes of South American players?
So the desire to leave only comes about if they’re not playing, have a romantic attachment to another club or want more money. None of those circumstances lends itself to a sale at a big profit.
When we sold Suarez, Coutinho, even Sterling, we were losing some of our best players because we weren’t successful enough to keep them. They went to clubs where they were going to win stuff, and get more money as well. Now, players will want to stay until they have little re-sale value due to age or no longer being good enough to get in the team. And if they are good enough to stay in the team, we’ll be happy to keep them. So the only ones who will want to leave, and who we will want to keep, will leave because of money.
And it makes basic financial sense for them to run their contracts down to get it. It’s not new.
Mo might just be the most high profile (Liverpool) player to do that.
What makes me angry is the idea that we, as one of the most successful clubs in world football in recent years, cannot afford to keep them because we.re run properly. The idea that onlookers thought it was a joke that one of the world’s most successful clubs might sign one of the world’s best young players in Mbappé tells you that the game is fucked.

 

[jimmycase]

Mbappe's is a new way of doing things - running your contract down to get a £150m signing on bonus to stay at a club.

Looking at it that way, why wouldn't Mo run his contract down even if he wanted to stay?

 

[RedStar]

Mbappe's is a new way of doing things - running your contract down to get a £150m signing on bonus to stay at a club.

Looking at it that way, why wouldn't Mo run his contract down even if he wanted to stay?

Exactly, this will become the norm for top players. Once a player has run down their deal they are free to stay at the club, but they may want a signing on fee which is equivalent to a transfer fee to stay.

Let's say next summer Salah says "I'm willing to sign and agrees to the wages but wants £50m signing fee everybody would say he was mad. But how much would you pay for a signing to replace him. Once he's run out his contract we'd be essentially getting him on a free to resign, why would he do that knowing another club would offer a huge signing bonus.

As I see when a player signs for a club they give that club the rights to sell their registration to the highest bidder if and when they want to sell. When the contract expires those rights revert back to the player, he's then free to sell his registration to the highest bidder including the club he was previously signed to.

 

[MomoWASright]

That will destroy football as we know it. The money will by syphoned off to players rather than trickle its way down. That £50 million will end up buying a players great grandchild Rolexes and Bugattis. Not keeping smaller clubs in business.

 

[refugee]

That will destroy football as we know it. The money will by syphoned off to players rather than trickle its way down. That £50 million will end up buying a players great grandchild Rolexes and Bugattis. Not keeping smaller clubs in business.

Football was destroyed a long time ago.

 

[MomoWASright]

That’s true

 

[dee]

That will destroy football as we know it. The money will by syphoned off to players rather than trickle its way down. That £50 million will end up buying a players great grandchild Rolexes and Bugattis. Not keeping smaller clubs in business.

No

Because as soon as you drop out of the Elite in the Elite leagues the reward for early moves is always there. A player isn’t going to sit in Swindon for 3 years if they know a move to Notts Forest and double the wages is on the table, ditto the guy at NF who is suddenly on Southamptons radar

Future Robertson wouldnt drag his heals and stay at Hull when Future Liverpool come calling

 

[MomoWASright]

Those lower league teams won’t have the revenue to buy players because of the trickle down. The impact of us getting the Coutinho money didn’t just go to Southampton’s and Roma’s account. They spent it. And so on.

You start losing those big ticket sales it will have a knock on effect.

 

[RedStar]

That will destroy football as we know it. The money will by syphoned off to players rather than trickle its way down. That £50 million will end up buying a players great grandchild Rolexes and Bugattis. Not keeping smaller clubs in business.

This argument was made 30 years ago after the Bosman case

 

[dee]

Those lower league teams won’t have the revenue to buy players because of the trickle down. The impact of us getting the Coutinho money didn’t just go to Southampton’s and Roma’s account. They spent it. And so on.

You start losing those big ticket sales it will have a knock on effect.

The scenario you are talking about is still the exception and not the rule.

Money will be spent by someone on touch-a-many, he won’t be running down his contract to go on a free. This is the norm

 

[StevieM]

Those lower league teams won’t have the revenue to buy players because of the trickle down. The impact of us getting the Coutinho money didn’t just go to Southampton’s and Roma’s account. They spent it. And so on.

You start losing those big ticket sales it will have a knock on effect.

Not sure I’m with you on this one.

Clubs will evolve - smaller clubs may invest more in development than, contracts will change - maybe longer, with more break or buy-out clauses.

The Australian League is an interesting one - there are no transfers, people just move clubs after contracts run out and clubs have salary caps with limited exemptions for “marquee player” salaries.

Not saying it’ll evolve that way - but less transfer fees might actually end up benefiting the game… if, and it is a big if, those that run the game out in frameworks to level the playing field for clubs.

 

[MomoWASright]

I know I’m in the minority (or the only one) but Mbappe will be the turning point. Followed by Mo. Once a player gets to a certain stature in the game they’ll run down their contract and claim an 8 figure signing on fee.

 

[737Max]

I know I’m in the minority (or the only one) but Mbappe will be the turning point. Followed by Mo. Once a player gets to a certain stature in the game they’ll run down their contract and claim an 8 figure signing on fee.

The difference being mbappe won't have even reached his peak by the time the new deal ends and Mo will be 31