• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

The Owners

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
13,441
Well according to TIA Sturridge's wages were exactly 120 000 pounds per week.

I might be wrong. However, wages reported in the media arent consistent and dont usually differentiate between basic and figures including bonuses or add ons - these are pulled from god knows where and therefore probably compare different sorts of numbers. We know Studge wasnt playing a lot of minutes, and had little in the way of goals or assists - so if that 120k wasnt basic, he wasnt getting all of it. Secondly, I recall reading that FSG negotiated contracts that pay more in early years but dip in the final year. I also recall reading that the club made £100k the wage for first team regulars but i note there are players such as Alisson there below that. I'd also be surprised if the captain is on a lower salary than Keita, having just renegotiated a contract, when he was already said to be earning £100k+.

Levy is not a fool, it does not work like that - spending huge and then thinking ''wow, we have huge loan to pay!''. Actually Levy is a very, very smart businessman and he has a clear idea what he is doing.
Who says Levy is a fool?

And I don't know how we are in a smilar position with Spurs, they have to pay 1 billion pounds for their new stadium, so according to you last season Poch had a choice and he decided to keep their best players.
So you cant see a similarity between two clubs who pay out increased contracts on 6 of their key first team players, then dont sign anyone that summer while both sets of managers highlight the importance of spending on the current squad?

We have to pay considerably smaller bills and for the last 3 seasons Liverpool Football Club is a very profitable from a financial point of view. And I don't remember Klopp saying he had a choice - new contracts to his players or not possible to add new quality players.
Spurs wage ratio until last season was just over 40%. Having won nothing, their bonuses are probably not that great relatively speaking. Our wage ratio is just below 60% and having had deep runs in the CL have incurred sizeable bonuses, no? Our wage bill was reported to have jumped 25% before the new contracts where done. We're also paying on a new stand, and for all we know, some money may be being kept back to go towards ARE and the new training complex.

And I don't remember Klopp saying he had a choice - new contracts to his players or not possible to add new quality players.
I didnt say it stopped him adding quality players. I'm saying it had an impact on the clubs willingness to do business, especially for players who are not seen as making a significant improvement to the squad.

So, according to your 2 posts, the club won 200 mln. pounds from the CL, but the problem was that they gave new contracts to several players, paid increased bonuses and that is why we can't spend big? New contracts and bonuses ate all our earnings :))
er..no, I was pretty explicit in my posts that it is probably (in my opinion) a contributing factor - not the most significant factor, as to why we havent spent much in this market. I believe there are funds available if Klopp wants to spend, and depending on the importance of the player that the club would spend to get them. The CL money isnt free money. As Klopp says, the club has bills to pay. There are also a number of other factors ranging from target availability and planning for transfers next summer etc.
 


lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,056
Don't think one should be proud to draw similarities between us and Spurs in our operations.
 



redbj

hurry up, July 1st, let's get the show on the road
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
17,545
remember years ago that PR guy who stuffed up....michael Chan or somesuch


feels like a lifetime ago.
 

Billy Biskix

TIA Youth Team
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
2,753



Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923

Red over the water

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
2,180
I like Peter Moore but I wouldn't be talking about the perch thing, at the least not until we've won the Premier League.

As it stands, Man Utd have 20 league titles to our 18.

Yes, we are much the better side at present, and I know we are a lot more successful in Europe, and I know the total trophy argument too, but a couple of league titles would be most welcome.
 

koptician

We'll go again!
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
2,806
Peter, you didn't have to go there. At least wait until we'd won the league again or perhaps caught up with or surpassed United's league trophy haul.

This one has really annoyed me. We are getting started. We haven't even won the league in 30 years. Let's at least do that first! Sheesh! Just asking to get lambasted in the media
 

fspencer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
531
This one has really annoyed me. We are getting started. We haven't even won the league in 30 years. Let's at least do that first! Sheesh! Just asking to get lambasted in the media

there is more to the interview than was published on the BBC but no mention of the perch .
 

CanuckoLFC

Ghost in the Shell SAC
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
192
Did not really like to see us giving ammunition and addition motivations for other clubs trying to beat us. However, the "back on our perch" could be taken out of context. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag however it was originally said.
 



fspencer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
531
Did not really like to see us giving ammunition and addition motivations for other clubs trying to beat us. However, the "back on our perch" could be taken out of context. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag however it was originally said.
he appears to be talking mainly about off the pitch activities - sponsorship etc.
 

fspencer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
531

Nikola

"Oh, history writer, don't close the pages yet!"
Admin
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
18,507
Moore's words are factually wrong and unnecessary. We aren't 'back on our perch' yet. Utd have more league title wins than us and we need to correct that.

Please save that arrogance for when we will have won at least a couple of league titles, Peter.
And keep it for himself. We're not kids anymore, I'd have been the first to jump on this bandwagon fifteen or twenty years ago had that been the case. This is something regular supporters would say, not the CEO of the club. Anyway, until club start winning trophies regularly, they can't be considered that, even if I could hardly be more pleased with how the last year or so panned out.
 



rupzzz

TIA Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,987
So the trademark application failed - club has made the following statement;

Liverpool Football Club can confirm its application to trademark the word 'Liverpool' in the context of football products and services has been unsuccessful.

The club accepts the decision that has been taken by the Intellectual Property Office, due primarily to what the official judgement cites as “the geographical significance” of Liverpool as a city in comparison to place names that have been trademarked by other football clubs in the UK.
We will, however, continue to aggressively pursue those large-scale operations which seek to illegally exploit our intellectual property and would urge the relevant authorities to take decisive action against such criminal activity wherever it exists.

Peter Moore, LFC’s chief executive officer, said: “It should be stressed that our application was put forward in good faith and with the sole aim of protecting and furthering the best interests of the club and its supporters. Nevertheless, we accept the decision and the spirit in which it has been made.


“I would also like to take the opportunity to reiterate our thanks to all those who engaged with us throughout this process, most notably independent traders and local football clubs.”

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/366323-liverpool-fc-statement-on-trademark-application

Personally, I continue to trust those in charge. Not a fan of the idea of "Liverpool" being trademarked, as its about the city and its people, but accept that commercially, they have to try to protect the club from a business point of view.
 

Speckydodge

TIA Squad Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
2,598
So the trademark application failed - club has made the following statement;

Liverpool Football Club can confirm its application to trademark the word 'Liverpool' in the context of football products and services has been unsuccessful.

The club accepts the decision that has been taken by the Intellectual Property Office, due primarily to what the official judgement cites as “the geographical significance” of Liverpool as a city in comparison to place names that have been trademarked by other football clubs in the UK.
We will, however, continue to aggressively pursue those large-scale operations which seek to illegally exploit our intellectual property and would urge the relevant authorities to take decisive action against such criminal activity wherever it exists.

Peter Moore, LFC’s chief executive officer, said: “It should be stressed that our application was put forward in good faith and with the sole aim of protecting and furthering the best interests of the club and its supporters. Nevertheless, we accept the decision and the spirit in which it has been made.


“I would also like to take the opportunity to reiterate our thanks to all those who engaged with us throughout this process, most notably independent traders and local football clubs.”

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/366323-liverpool-fc-statement-on-trademark-application

Personally, I continue to trust those in charge. Not a fan of the idea of "Liverpool" being trademarked, as its about the city and its people, but accept that commercially, they have to try to protect the club from a business point of view.
At least they differentiated between large scale operations and local independent traders.
 

Red Armada

TIA Regular
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
2,907

there is more to the interview than was published on the BBC but no mention of the perch .
Quote:
“I was a few days into the job, I’d been away for 40 years. And we were trying to sign Virgil Van Dijk for the first time and we’d got ourselves into a little bit of mess with Southampton, we’d issued an apology because we’d allegedly gone about things the wrong way. I’d gone out for coffee, and I’d found the Starbucks and was walking back with a coffee in each hand and all of a sudden a scouser coming down the road shouts at me : ‘Instead of buying Starbucks you should have bought fucking Van Dijk you fucking wanker”. So there I was with a coffee in each hand and i was right back with the acerbic scouse wit”.
 



treboeth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
5,242

Noo Noo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
3,500
Pity we don't have anyone on the forum that could break down what it means and the likelihood of any repercussions.
Oh, just realised what you were on about there. That is unfortunate and a shame.

Part of me says that if there is some kind of legal agreement in place then its done and dusted. Unless the FA / whoever want to take direct action on it for contravening some particular rule or whatever. Maybe that was tied up in the agreement as well?

The really sad issue is that someone in the club appears to have been caught doing something stupid. Paying compensation / fine is pretty much an admission of some level of guilt (if different levels of guilt are possible. City fans seem tot think so with regard to FFP)
 

The Elusive 19th

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
4,772
@Noo Noo @treboeth

The PL encourage clubs to sort out disputes between themselves under Rule K that deals with Arbitration so I don't see the lack of PL involvement that unusual. In addition I wouldn't be surprised if any settlement disposed of a whole host of potential issues that may have been raised at that time and vague suspicious of City's database being compromised made up only part of that. Specifically I'm referring to potential claims by City of tortious interference and inducing individuals to act in breach of contract. It was quite the coup to take, en bloc, several key members of their recruitment team at once (or within a short period). It's certainly suggestive of individuals actually breaking, or being encouraged to break, contractual obligations.

It makes sense on all sides to try and wrap up as many potentially contentious issues as possible all at once. I think there may also have been some objections raised about how some youth transfers were brought about.

As for timing it's noticeable that the revelation has been made just over (and not before) six years after the agreement was reached. Six years being the limitation period for bringing claims for breach of contract.
 

The Elusive 19th

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
4,772
Also from sky.
"It appears neither the FA nor the Premier League knew about this payment before it was reported by the media late last month.

Premier League rules state they need a complaint from a club to hold their own investigation - something that has not been received to date.

But FA rules state: "A participant should at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute.""

So, maybe FA wants a share of that pie. Or they are just plain old biased.