The Owners

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,663

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,324

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts.
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
23,811
There is wild speculative talk on city chat rooms that the banks are threatening Spurs with foreclosure after Easter if the season is declared void and Spurs default on their debt payments. Presumably the bank would put the first team up for sale to recover a part of their debt, wipe out the owners equity and try to flog the remainder of the club to a rich Arab or Russian to cover what they can for the rest. This would be a truly seismic event for the premier league.
In a sense, it's excellent news, as this means that the season won't be voided.

It just won't, and so we'll be able to play the remaining games, whenever that will be, probably in a few weeks/months, and crowned champions in a regular way. It will likely take place without any fans in the stands, which will be a bit sad, but it's better than to void the season. Clubs will take a financial hit anyway, but the worst will have been avoided.

That's for the PL clubs. For the lower tier clubs, hopefully a helping scheme will be found. I'm very much for the PL helping these clubs as much as possible. They have already committed 125m to this, which should help a long way I suppose, but if necessary, they can and should give more. And the government will surely step in too. No-one wants football clubs to disappear. There has to be solidarity throughout society in these times, and football, as ever, is a part and a reflection of the worst and also best parts of our societies.
 
Last edited:

RedSeven

On the one road
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
5,902
No club in the top 2/3 divisions is going under because they continue to pay those employees who earn a few hundred quid or less per week.If they go under it's because they continue to pay staff who earn thousands,10's of thousands or hundreds of thousand per week.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,663
No club in the top 2/3 divisions is going under because they continue to pay those employees who earn a few hundred quid or less per week.If they go under it's because they continue to pay staff who earn thousands,10's of thousands or hundreds of thousand per week.
Actually clubs that go into administration tend to have their players owed several months of wages by that point. It's the everyday running costs not being met that are the straw that breaks the camels back and creates the tipping point.
 

RedSeven

On the one road
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
5,902
Actually clubs that go into administration tend to have their players owed several months of wages by that point. It's the everyday running costs not being met that are the straw that breaks the camels back and creates the tipping point.
In this case

"No club in the top 2/3 divisions is going under because they continue to pay those employees who earn a few hundred quid or less per week.If they go under it's because they continue to pay staff who earn thousands,10's of thousands or hundreds of thousand per week."
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,663
In this case

"No club in the top 2/3 divisions is going under because they continue to pay those employees who earn a few hundred quid or less per week.If they go under it's because they continue to pay staff who earn thousands,10's of thousands or hundreds of thousand per week."
maybe I didn't explain it properly. Not paying the players/executives doesn't force a club into administration. Its when they stop paying all the little everyday costs that can't not be paid. Many times when clubs go through financial difficulties, whether they enter administration or avoid it, the players usually end up with a few months pay outstanding by the time its resolved.
 

RedSeven

On the one road
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
5,902
maybe I didn't explain it properly. Not paying the players/executives doesn't force a club into administration. Its when they stop paying all the little everyday costs that can't not be paid. Many times when clubs go through financial difficulties, whether they enter administration or avoid it, the players usually end up with a few months pay outstanding by the time its resolved.
Continueing to pay them does.

It's a bit like suggesting that that last pint got you pissed while forgetting you downed 10 pints beforehand.

In this case,Lfc are not going to go under because we still pay our low earners 700,000 for the year(if it lasts that long).Even if we where to stop paying those low earners but continue to pay all top earners their full whack of over 100,000,000 for the year,we would only drag out the time for entering administration by a few days,but it would still happen..

If you stop paying or cut down the big bucks now,the little bucks can still get paid and it's unlikely to last long enough to finish the club or any club in the top 2/3 divisions.
 
Last edited:

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,663
Continueing to pay them does.

It's a bit like suggesting that that last pint got you pissed while forgetting you downed 10 pints beforehand.

In this case,Lfc are not going to go under because we still pay our low earners 700,000 for the year(if it lasts that long).Even if we where to stop paying those low earners but continue to pay all top earners their full whack of over 100,000,000 for the year,we would only drag out the time for entering administration by a few days,but it would still happen..

If you stop paying or cut down the big bucks now,the little bucks can still get paid and it's unlikely to last long enough to finish the club or any club in the top 2/3 divisions.
That's what I'm saying you don't enter administration when you stop being able to pay the bigger earners. They are usually owed at least two months pay by that time, sometimes as much as six. So continuing to pay up till failure does not cause administration for a club. What forces administration for a club is the "small" fees and payments like those to the none paying staff. 700k per month might seem small compared to the players wages but it needs paying every month whereas clubs in financial difficulties regularly pay the player salaries late.
 

RedSeven

On the one road
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
5,902
That's what I'm saying you don't enter administration when you stop being able to pay the bigger earners. They are usually owed at least two months pay by that time, sometimes as much as six. So continuing to pay up till failure does not cause administration for a club. What forces administration for a club is the "small" fees and payments like those to the none paying staff. 700k per month might seem small compared to the players wages but it needs paying every month whereas clubs in financial difficulties regularly pay the player salaries late.
I thought in the long run what causes administration is more money going out than coming in,in this case none coming in.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,324
if you stop paying the low paid now but continue paying the high earners you still reach a point where that happens.
and fairly quickly anyway. I think only Arsenal and ManU have the cash to get past 3 months.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,309
Honestly quite embarrassed by some of the posts on here, desperate to protect billionaires (not the majority of you I should add). They backed down because of the collective efforts of the supporters of Liverpool Football Club. We are not bootlickers - it's one of the things that makes me proudest to support this club. Outside of this forum, people are overwhelmingly in agreement on this, particularly friends and family in the city.

Yes, FSG run Liverpool better than most football owners, but that doesn't mean football as a business hasn't become unregulated, hypercapitalistic and unbearably corrupt. It's not been the working man's game for a long time. Times like these are important for putting a line in the sand. Fans have done that and can hold their heads high.

Now let's get staff paid, follow guidance and get this title won the second we're permitted :cool:
I wouldn't desperately protect billionaires, but I could see the sense of the original decision. And if that causes you embarrassment or distress then do be it.
 

Prolix

Long Time Nemesis™
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
3,201
Honestly quite embarrassed by some of the posts on here, desperate to protect billionaires (not the majority of you I should add). They backed down because of the collective efforts of the supporters of Liverpool Football Club. We are not bootlickers - it's one of the things that makes me proudest to support this club. Outside of this forum, people are overwhelmingly in agreement on this, particularly friends and family in the city.

Yes, FSG run Liverpool better than most football owners, but that doesn't mean football as a business hasn't become unregulated, hypercapitalistic and unbearably corrupt. It's not been the working man's game for a long time. Times like these are important for putting a line in the sand. Fans have done that and can hold their heads high.

Now let's get staff paid, follow guidance and get this title won the second we're permitted :cool:
The working class staff are arguably in a more vulnerable position now that the club has reversed its decision on government-subsidised furlough. There is nothing socialist about making individual demands on the largesse of capitalists.

And now the expectation is that the players-- the labor in a very real sense-- be the ones to tighten their belts for having the audacity to earn a bigger chunk of the pie than workers in other industries. Of course an arrangement will have to be found, but this whole situation has been farcical.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,663
Not really the right place but as it came up a lot in the discussions on here the player initiative to help the NHS has gone live. I have more confidence in footballers achieving good things for vulnerable people with their money than I would the politicians in power if they were given that money. Sad world we live in.
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
15,920
Interesting discussion yesterday between Marcotti and Julian Laurens on their podcast. Laurens has been very critical of liverpool over this and has even suggested that if Liverpool want to claim they need to use the government scheme then they should have a transfer ban imposed as a reflection of their poor financial health. In that context Marcotti has always tried to offer the counter argument. Yesterday he tried to work through what he thought was the liverpool decision process and made an offhand comment that he thinks he knows whose decision it was to use this scheme, but wasnt going to say. Laurens immediately jumped in to claim that the person has been fired.

Anyone got idea what he was alluding to?
 

Prolix

Long Time Nemesis™
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
3,201
Laurens has been very critical of liverpool over this and has even suggested that if Liverpool want to claim they need to use the government scheme then they should have a transfer ban imposed as a reflection of their poor financial health.
I know this isn't your point/question, but what an astonishingly stupid opinion.
 

Mascot88

Bootroom Member
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
23,748
I’m going to put this here, because I think it’s actually relevant to last weeks conversation on club finances.


Sounds like Arsenal in the shit, owing to their 60% wage bill and gambling on reaching the CL.

Another PL club in a precarious situation, and not actually rolling in cash as thought.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,324
I’m going to put this here, because I think it’s actually relevant to last weeks conversation on club finances.


Sounds like Arsenal in the shit, owing to their 60% wage bill and gambling on reaching the CL.

Another PL club in a precarious situation, and not actually rolling in cash as thought.
Interesting - about 5 years ago, they had more cash than the rest of the league put together barring ManU, over £250M. I guess revenue being squeezed and paying some of those larger contracts ran it down significantly.

A wage bill of 60% is not that high though. LFC's cannot be too far off that, and there are multiple clubs rather higher.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,627
Interesting - about 5 years ago, they had more cash than the rest of the league put together barring ManU, over £250M. I guess revenue being squeezed and paying some of those larger contracts ran it down significantly.

A wage bill of 60% is not that high though. LFC's cannot be too far off that, and there are multiple clubs rather higher.
LFC's is 59 or 58% I think. Anything 60 or under is absolutely fine...normally.

I think it's a bit harsh to say how precarious most club's finances are, you know, when they can't even cope with a global pandemic that shuts everything down for months on end.

No, they can't. But nor can the vast majority of businesses because it's simply not something that most businesses will have felt necessary to factor into their yearly projections.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,324
LFC's is 59 or 58% I think. Anything 60 or under is absolutely fine...normally.

I think it's a bit harsh to say how precarious most club's finances are, you know, when they can't even cope with a global pandemic that shuts everything down for months on end.

No, they can't. But nor can the vast majority of businesses because it's simply not something that most businesses will have felt necessary to factor into their yearly projections.
That was my thinking as well - the stadium is paid for, their wage to turnover is probably on the low end, and they are in some real difficulty. Just looking at summaries from a year ago, there are many clubs at 70%+, perhaps a third of the league. Spurs actually had the lowest (39%), but have a unique problem of their own.
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
15,920
I read a piece by James Pearce over the weekend that suggested that Liverpool felt backed into a corned in releasing their initial statement because private discussions they had with another club (maybe multiple clubs) were leaked so they felt they had to jump out to get ahead of the story without having had the chance to do the ground work to prepare people for it. That seems like a big revelation, yet was stated almost as an aside to the article.

That is second weird thing I have read/heard about this in a few days.