Discussion in 'Soccer' started by Jussi, Apr 13, 2019.
Also the peak example of this: Choupo-Moting to PSG.
Ander Herrera is making 300k a week at PSG definitely gonna miss him at United but no chance he should be anywhere close to that salary.
English version is that he was going to make another documentary where he announced his departure. What a clown.
It is not a stupid question. Always difficult to tell when teams "got money" or not. Since most transfers are paid in instalments you can splash a lot more cash in one window than what you strictly speaking have, but that means you will be limited in the future windows of course.
Premier League finances: the full club-by-club breakdown and verdict
If you look at Liverpool revenue and salary costs they are not a team that got a lot left. Compare Spurs and Liverpool. Liverpool make around 70m euro more per year than Spurs, but they pay around 80m GBP in salaries (depending on the source a bit - no official number on this - some got a smaller difference). So every year they are left with less money for transfers than Spurs. Obviously Spurs are currently paying for a stadium, but excluding that Liverpool couldn´t spend more than Spurs in the transfer market - but they clearly have over the last windows. Also worth noting that those salary numbers are before adding Allison, Keita, Fabinho etc. - who are most likely not cheap players to pay.
For some reason many fans in here seem to think Liverpool can consistently outspend the giants. Why is it that Arsenal are making more money than Liverpool (not true for last year and probably this one due to Liverpool´s CL runs). They are spending about the same on salaries, but Arsenal got no money to spend, but Liverpool are looking to bring in Mbappe (that is a joke as the report was clearly false, but even then some believed it)?
I don´t have the answer, but I wouldn´t be surprised if the latest rumours that Liverpool haven´t got much left is true. We´ll see.
You actually hit on it and you guys cleared it up. I got confused by what I read. Thank you
Um...I don't think anyone actually believed that. If they did they need to check themselves. That article isn't the best though, it's about a year outdated. This series of tweets is better.
They do have a lot of money, but are they going to spend it when they can't upgrade the first 11? No. They will probably buy one player who could cost anything up to 60 million, another who costs 6-10m, and sell players for about 70 million by getting rid of so many spare parts. Already guaranteed 20 million for Ings.
A lot of the things in this year's accounts would be similar to last year's. They will make a ton on player sales and they just don't need to spend all kinds of money.
This graph says a fair bit about their current financial situation. A lot of those losses after 2010 are from stupid stuff like firing managers and when the current owners had to write off the previous idiots stadium plans. The losses from these owners alone are the ones listed as 2012 and beyond, as the idiots still had the club for a portion of 2010-11. The purpose of this summer is in this order:
1.) Strengthen the financial footing of the club. The owners want to have the money to do whatever they want players/staff/stadium expansion wise. They don't have to go crazy buying players because they don't need them and the manager doesn't like having to manage a huge squad as he thinks it makes players start doubting their role in the team. Someone wrote an article, I don't remember where, but they theorized that Klopp thought having too many players not playing all the time disrupted squad harmony.
2.) Buy one forward and one LB cause we don't have any backup LB we can use, and if one of our front three gets hurt we wouldn't be able to win the league. We have Hoever at RB, nothing similar at LB.
There's so much that goes into the Arsenal part in your post that we could go on for pages. Fact is someone is taking massive amounts of money out of their club somewhere along the line. Not illegal cause they own the club, not stealing because they own the club. Someone's doing it though. The person doing it also doesn't really care because the club is a cash machine they could sell at any time. If you look at their profits over the last ten years or so there's really no excuse for Liverpool to be so far ahead of Arsenal on the pitch. I do suspect however that the profit machine someone gets before selling the club is winding down a little bit.
Because I don't think Auba is a top 5 striker or because I am no fan of PSG?
Both are right.
Yeah people are trying to say Tuchel wants to replace Cavani, but from the looks of it, they want Mbappe there. They'll try to find a RW instead (Pepe is a prime target).
Journalists making some poor links, that's it. Weigl was a need (and was unsettled), Guerreiro could be a need, Auba isn't.
I don´t think that graph is a good representation of reality - because income are on a yearly basis while the cost of players are spread out into the future.
If you look at that graph before Liverpool spent all that money last summer - where did that money come from? If you just read that graph you would "think" the club was close to bankrupt in 2014.
I believe Liverpool will be running at a loss in the years to come, but that it is all planned. How much of a loss they are willing to run is the big question. My guess - as little as possible. As Chelsea, Utd and Arsenal have proven over the last couple of seasons it doesn´t take much in the PL before you are suddenly out of the top 4.
You would find an even more extreme graph for Spurs. Accumulated profits over the last 5 years is around 300m. Still no-one believes Spurs will spend 300m+ this summer (unlike Liverpool Spurs never ran a deficit before those 5 years).
Spurs have been known to extremely control their cost which is in a sense surreal how they were able to remain top 4 for so long. Tottenham now have invested significantly on their new stadium based on their profits from previous years which the cost is also way higher than the 300M you mentioned.
It's just a profit graph by year. For 2015 the money came from the club getting Champions League money and not properly replacing Suarez, a fate I don't think anyone would have hoped for. 2016-17 was from Klopp deciding not to buy players. I think they will run a loss in the 18-19 accounts. I don't know how large as they wound up making 100m from this CL run again and made a ridiculous sale in the winter to recoup more funds. Definitely not in the 19-20 one though, those could be large profit. I do believe they are only going to spend 20m net and with player sales they could raise a lot of funds.
The long-term goal of the club is to expand Anfield to 60,000 seats. Would cost 60m which what do you know they have because they supposedly aren't spending more than 20m net.
Moving Mpabbe to the middle and finding a replacement RW would actually be a shrewd move if they are intent on selling Cavani.
Sure, but the stadium will not be paid off in one go. It will be paid off over 50 years. The yearly cost is around 50m including interest. If they can sell the naming rights for somewhere around 20m, NFL agreement, concerts etc. the yearly cost of that stadium is marginal going forward. I am also looking forward to see how much the club is getting back from the hotel, apartments etc. The cost media quotes for the stadium at around 1B includes a hotel, 500+ apartments etc.
For 18/19 I wouldn't be surprised if Spurs would be close to 200m in profit.
My guess is that Liverpool and Spurs are at two different places in the "cycle". Liverpool have invested heavily over the last 2 years (1 year offset by Countinho to a large extent). As these transfers are being paid over 3-4 years they will be facing stable high costs outside of salaries. Spurs have done the opposite building up a buffer due to the new stadium and the uncertainty around it. There is still some uncertainty left as a naming right agreement is still not signed, but the uncertainty is far less then it was. If Spurs had gone out during the group stages this year plus not qualifying for next year they would have had a lot less income which they had to account for (the uncertainty of it). Now they already have generated a lot more money this year then what they could expect, and they are secured at least some CL money for next season (and I guess seeded in at least group 2 which will improve chances for another run next year). Not to mention how much easier it should be to sell those naming rights now.
I guess this is getting a bit off topic.
Bottom line is I think there is a fairly decent possibility that Liverpool won't spend much. And that Spurs actually could. Both teams can afford to be picky though - which is a good thing. Money doesn't have to be spent - even if it often sounds like it from many fans (as if money disappears after every window when not spent).
Yeah I think Cavani is pushed away because Mbappe is scoring like crazy at CF. He has a goal a game since he was moved there (during Cavani's injury).
Liverpool will probably bring in close to 100 million just off sales this summer. That's not counting the wages that are coming off the books.
Liverpool could generate £100m as Klopp makes transfer decisions (though just like the graph, I'm sure you'll say, "I don't think that's a good representation of reality". It must be nice to just say eh I don't believe it because I don't agree with it).
They won't go out and spend like mad men, but to act like they couldn't spend, that's silly. They did not factor the CL money into most of the revenue forecasts, at least not beyond getting out of groups, so for the past two seasons, that's been a large windfall of extra money. They've been relatively financially conservative prior to now, and they're going to continue to do so. I don't think they intend on spending crazy money on players, largely because they don't need to do so.
The factor you're ignoring is that Liverpool are also starting to move into many new commercial deals. They're going to have a new kit manufacture deal signed in the next season. They just switched to a new training kit sponsor. Being in the CL is offering other untapped revenue streams for their margins. While they're spending a bunch to expand a training complex right now, for FFP manners, infrastructure investments don't count in the same pool. They'll also make money selling Melwood on.
Haha. I explained why I didn't agree with it so why the sarcasm? I wasn't disrespectful or anything to you post.
The rest is just straw man. I haven't said Liverpool can't spend. I have said that maybe the reports coming from that BBC-journalist (or whoever it was) could be true?
If you disagree fine. But I don't really see the need for calling my view "silly" (I guess you think it is silly because you don't agree with it - but why not explain why my analysis is wrong then?).
I'm not ignoring anything. But yes - I am open to people (in this case you) convincing me that I'm wrong or haven't understood the full picture. To say I'm ignoring something implies I have willfully decided not to include something I have knowledge about. That is not the case.
I am no saint, but that is a poor poor post Chimaera.
16 year old phenom Hannibal Mejbri is in full conflict with his team Monaco. His parents are trying to breach the contract. He hasn't trained with the team in three weeks.
Manchester United are already trying to sign him on a free if the contract with Monaco is voided.
On the day OGS has been out in the media saying "the best players are the best people" or something like that
Not that you have to be a bad person to be in conflict with Monaco.
I saw that as well. I was hoping United would keep him, but if that's the kind of money he was being offered, letting him go was the right move.
Good for him. Get that cash.
Arsenal are linked to Walter Kannemann
@John Pedro Need your help again. What's your opinion on him?
Also they're linked with Djene Dakonam. Any La Liga viewers that can offer their opinion on him? He seems short for a CB.
Players on a free get insane money.
Yeah, I like it. Instead of the clubs getting it, the team they sign with still invests the same, but it actually goes to the player.
That's the one thing keeping me from breaking down when I think of Rambo going on a free from Arsena;; "at least he gets super rich for giving it his all in some dark times at the Club"
Yeah, it would definitely be bitter sweet if Hazard stayed and left for free, but I have to give credit to some of the players for forcing their own NA style of free agency.
Yeah it's a great thing to see compared to a lot of the slimy going ons that occur in the world of football. It just hurts all the same when your team cannot go and buy a premium player because of a lack of funds....
But hey win some lose some I guess
Separate names with a comma.