You can't really bring in 5-6 first teamers to sit on the bench though ... So we have to sell and replace ... I just hope we can get good value ...
I assume next summer, Salah or Mane will go, replaced by x ...
Thiago.... Ja ????
- Thread starter HC
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
You can't really bring in 5-6 first teamers to sit on the bench though ... So we have to sell and replace ... I just hope we can get good value ...
I assume next summer, Salah or Mane will go, replaced by x ...
Fjortoft likes to think he’s in the know, but I dont think he has many sources outside Germany.
The one he is quoting here, another Norwegian journo. Works for one of the shittest newspapers in Norway, and their sport coverage is awful.
No it really isn't, we're operating within a budget, if we were to keep spending and go over that budget we'd be overextended.
I do agree it's strange for us to go for Thiago given his age, but I guess we must deem its economically smart as maybe they feel he'll hold value better.
Yeah but you're saying we're spending our budget for player signings on wages (I don't think that's true tbh).
And that wouldn't be sustainable, because all big clubs make regular investments in players if they want to remain successful.
The fact that Mane and VVD haven't been offered massive new contracts despite popular opinion suggesting we should shows that perhaps we already are being. I don't think all those will leave, but we will slowly phase them out, I guess that starts with Gini, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Mane leave next summer either.
I just don't think we have two budgets, like transfer fees and wages, it's just one pot. At the moment we're spending it all on tying down some of the best players in the world, when they start to leave, we'll use that space in the budget and sign a replacement. The replacement won't be earning £300k a week straight away, which leaves the club room to put it towards a transfer fee which will budgeted against the length of the contract the new player signs, it all ends up costing the same.
Of course your Man Citys, Chelsea and PSGs don't work like that, but economically ours is the only sustainable model, the investments have to come out of a budget at the end of the day, unless you have a benefactor and don't care about FFP.
Have you actually got any evidence that this is what we're doing?
Who's on 300k a week? I thought Salah was our top earner on about 200k.
From memory our wage to turnover ratio looks ok, and comparable to prior years. I think it's around 60% which is manageable, and doesn't imply that we're directing the capital budget towards it.
What you're suggesting we're doing would be unsustainable, literally by design.
That model would require a cycle whereby we try to get players in relatively cheaply and then improve them, to the point where they demand higher and higher wages and more of the total pot is used just to pay them. The whole idea is predicated on quite long periods of rebuilding and effectively gambling on cheaper, younger players.
It's inherently unstable and risky. I struggle to believe that's actually our strategy.
Agree. FSG are all about the club running itself.
The wage bill (very high) and transfer fees are one pot and the player amortisation means we are still likely paying for the likes of Fabinho, Keita and Allison.
Bumping up the pay packets of our existing lot is why, for once, we've managed to keep some of our top players and not sell the likes of Mane, Salah, Van Dijk.. as we did with Alonso, Mascherano, Torres, Suarez.
We've also got a training ground to pay for, a stadium we're expanding and lost revenue to account for after Covid-19.
What's really needed is for us to sell our deadwood around the squad and reinvest it in better players.
I don't think it's strange and I don't think the Thiago for Gini move is justified by economic reasoning. And it doesn't need to be.
We have a successful team with a window of opportunity to win more titles. The strategy now can only be to make decisions that keep that window of opportunity open. That's why if Gini wants out Thiago is the sensible replacement
The reason we're paying players more is cos our revenues have grown due to consistent CL participation and much improved commercial and match day income.
Unless someone can present evidence, I refuse to believe we're spending the money needed to sustain the squad on inflated salaries, cos that would be nuts.
For a start, the reported wages aren't even that high. 200k a week for world class forwards like Salah is actually modest. Comparable players get way more at other clubs. So the argument that we can only hold onto them by paying more than we can afford doesn't stack up.
No, I'm posting an opinion on a forum!
£300k comes from an article posted on here a week or two ago saying that Salah is taking home close to £300k due to his highly incentivised contract, even though yes, his base is much lower.
You're ignoring the key point I made, and thats that we sell them before they become a deadweight we can't shift. It's not unsustainable, it's literally how we've operated for the last twenty years, Alonso, Macherano, Torres, Suarez, Coutinho, we sign players cheap, improve them, and then keep them here until just before their value is about to decline or they kick and scream to leave. The difference we have now is that as we're one of the best sides in Europe, we can keep the best players longer, so the decision comes down to the club more not to sign up players on big contracts late into their 30s, which is exactly what we're doing with Gini.
It's a fantastic signing if it happens, but I thought you'd have been one of the first to agree it's strange in that it goes against FSGs usual track record with signings.
If he's on an incentivised contract then that money comes from the additional income we get from him meeting those incentives, so that explains that.
For the rest, I've no issue at all with us selling stars when they still have some value, that's all sound.
I just wouldn't want us to spend the money we need for new players on wages needed to keep hold of top players. That's pretty much the definition of a club living beyond its means.
And that point is important, because it seems to be increasingly used to rationalise us not spending on players.
So you'd rather have sold Salah in 2018/19 and bought in someone like Werner, instead of tying him up for the best years of his career?
Evidence?
This guy went through our latest accounts and gives good reason as to why we are not spending a lot:
Lol that's not even remotely what I said.
I don't want us spending the money we need to regenerate the squad on wages, which you claim we're doing and justifies us not spending on transfers. That would mean we can't afford to replace them once we move them on.
Our revenues had increased but they're likely looking ahead too. I can't see much of next season being played in front of crowds and if it is it will be socially distant crowds. The loss of a season and half of match day revenue will be massive.
It's certainly what you implied as Salah signed a new expensive deal in 2018, and you're here saying you'd rather we didn't spend the money on wages to keep our best players and reinvested it instead.
It's pretty well known that most of our transfer fees are amortised, so if we were to lose a highly paid player, we'd use a combination of the fee received, and also use the difference in wages to offset the fee over the length of their contract.
Increasing the salaries of best players (which is the right thing to do) will impact future transfer budgets. It's pretty much as simple as that.
What's the point in having an investor if they don't invest? Venture capitalists don't throw in for annual dividends, they invest for asset growth. The asset has blown up to ten times it's original size. At this point, where there's a blip that's happened that was out of the control of the business, you'd expect the people who've made all that money to chip in.
He invested pretty heavily in the stadium, probably the single biggest thing which will increase value.
It does. Because strategy has to change when circumstances do.
If we're fighting for top four places but really want to win titles there's no point in signing expensive 29 year olds. We just end up in the cycle we were previously in.
Where you've just won a title and are losing an important midfielder you want to bring in a replacement who is at least as good and can be relied upon from day 1 to contribute.
This is all about adding pieces that contribute now to another tilt at the league.
Could Thiago be signed for the next 2-3 seasons to sell on once Curtis Jones is completely ready?
I am asking the following questions because I am clueless about valuations and business and not because I am disputing or disagreeing with you.
I know we have a valuation of the order of 1 or 2 billion. But how realistic is that in terms of getting cash. Are there folks out there who are willing to part with 1 or 2 billion to own us. Maybe the Saudis or some other folks of that ilk. But even from their perspective, it seems the better strategy would be to buy someone like Newcastle for 300 million and then invest as needed to increase the value. Ten- twelve years ago, we were valued at what 200-300 million and we were actively looking to be sold. It is not like we had suitors lining at our doorstep. Even for part ownership will people part with 200 million to get 10% ownership of our club?
FSG didn't pay a market valuation, they just cleared the debt. I haven't got a clue how that works but they got us at a steal.
In terms of valuation, a Chinese group bought 13% of Man City for 265 million a few years ago. About the same as the total cost to FSG for LFC.
In terms of valuation, a Chinese group bought 13% of Man City for 265 million a few years ago. About the same as the total cost to FSG for LFC.
Epic swindle is the preferred nomenclature.
I don't really know how to be clearer. I don't want us to spend the money normally reserved for transfers on wages. Cos that would be storing up trouble for the future. That just seems obvious to me.
I don't really know what your point is re amortisation. Most people don't have a clue about its significance, but to keep it simple, it's purely an accounting thing. It really makes no real world difference, except in the narrow sense of how your accounts look. But then anyone actually making decisions based on accounts knows what they're looking at anyway and makes allowances for accounting entries like that.
No it's not. Obviously there's only one pot of money ultimately, so it's true in that narrow sense.
But that doesn't mean there doesn't need to be appropriate budgets for the different needs of the business, and that using one to prop up another isn't going to lead to problems.
This just reminds me of people trying to make an argument for why a Downing or a Pennant is a good signing just because they happen to be signing for us. If this was happening at a differnet club, I really doubt we'd have as many people arguing how shrewd and strategic the club's management are being.
As Woland said in another thread, FSG have had an almost satanic amount of good luck. The way we luck out of this situation without spending is if Jones and Brewster both have monster break out seasons and end up showing they can be TAA level first-teamers. That'd be something, eh...
As Woland said in another thread, FSG have had an almost satanic amount of good luck. The way we luck out of this situation without spending is if Jones and Brewster both have monster break out seasons and end up showing they can be TAA level first-teamers. That'd be something, eh...
- Status
