- Apr 29, 2008
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+.
Who says Levy is a fool?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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.And I don't remember Klopp saying he had a choice - new contracts to his players or not possible to add new quality players.
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.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 )