• This website uses cookies. More information.
  • The This Is Anfield Forums community is moving to a new home. Click here for more information on the transition.

The Owners

[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
4,028
And to think there are some who actually want FSG out ......
Pretty incredible when you think exactly 5 years ago the fanbase was divided, in turmoil and on the verge of complete revolt against Rodgers, the transfer committee and FSG. I will never forget the 0-3 home loss against West Ham when Anfield emptied silently and in complete resignation to our fate. The turnaround has been nothing short of miraculous.
 

CanuckoLFC

Ghost in the Shell SAC
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
1,762

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
I posted about this in another thread. Liverpool a target though? Haha. I think they've raised about half a billion, they'll need at least 5 times that to get FSG interested.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
Entire thread a really fascinating read. Thanks for posting.

Many nuggets in there but this I found particularly interesting:


The most likely explanation is that we make much higher use of what's called dual agency (/representation) agreements than other clubs. This is where the player's agent negotiates the exit of the player from the club (as well as the player's contract with us). The player's agent is, therefore, incentivise to obtain the selling club's agreement to sell to us.

I'm not a massive fan, but it would help to explain how we're able to pay transfer fees slightly below market value and have a clearer run to a player's signature.

Increased fees to the agent is likely to be the trade-off.
 

EdWood

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
5,985
Thee successive transfer windows without any first team-ready signings does seem a little strange, no? Even if you take into account the current financial climate, it may be taking frugality a bit far I think. We appear to be standing still whilst our main rivals are tooling up. A sell to buy policy is more a poor club's financial reality. We are not a poor club, at least we weren't the last time I looked.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
Thee successive transfer windows without any first team-ready signings does seem a little strange, no? Even if you take into account the current financial climate, it may be taking frugality a bit far I think. We appear to be standing still whilst our main rivals are tooling up. A sell to buy policy is more a poor club's financial reality. We are not a poor club, at least we weren't the last time I looked.
Players who are first team ready for this team are few and far between. They also tend to be expensive and unlikely to actually improve this team by any significant amount.

Which players who have moved clubs in the last 18 months would have improved our first XI? Whose spot do they take?
 

cynicaloldgit

#MbappéonaBosman2022
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
6,688
Thee successive transfer windows without any first team-ready signings does seem a little strange, no? Even if you take into account the current financial climate, it may be taking frugality a bit far I think. We appear to be standing still whilst our main rivals are tooling up. A sell to buy policy is more a poor club's financial reality. We are not a poor club, at least we weren't the last time I looked.
Whilst I understand your frustration, consider the following;

1. Who can we bring in who would improve our “first eleven”?

2. How much will they cost? Not just transfer fee but also wages and agents’ fees.

3. How do we convince a forward, for example, that he will get significant playing time?

4. We cannot just throw money at players to sit on the bench, unlike certain other clubs. How do you convince a “squad player” to join us?

The problem with having such a good team is that it’s hard to make it better.
 

Mascot88

Bootroom Member
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
24,404
Thee successive transfer windows without any first team-ready signings does seem a little strange, no? Even if you take into account the current financial climate, it may be taking frugality a bit far I think. We appear to be standing still whilst our main rivals are tooling up. A sell to buy policy is more a poor club's financial reality. We are not a poor club, at least we weren't the last time I looked.
I think we’re just being very risk adverse, and we have to be aware that society, and football, is not out of the Woods yet. There a version of the next 18 months where we are very thankful FSG didn’t drop 200m on Timo Werner. One where a lot of clubs are in a mess because they’ve spent on the assumption that football would be getting back to normal and it hasn’t.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
Players who are first team ready for this team are few and far between. They also tend to be expensive and unlikely to actually improve this team by any significant amount.

Which players who have moved clubs in the last 18 months would have improved our first XI? Whose spot do they take?
Whilst I understand your frustration, consider the following;

1. Who can we bring in who would improve our “first eleven”?

2. How much will they cost? Not just transfer fee but also wages and agents’ fees.

3. How do we convince a forward, for example, that he will get significant playing time?

4. We cannot just throw money at players to sit on the bench, unlike certain other clubs. How do you convince a “squad player” to join us?

The problem with having such a good team is that it’s hard to make it better.
We've just improved our squad with an astute £12m signing of a player who will be back up to the best in the world in his position. It's not just the starting 11 that matter and you don't have to pay silly fees or wages to achieve it.
 

Red Armada

TIA Regular
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
3,192
There should be a balance; not an all encompasing policy but a case by case decision. For instance choosing not to spend 50 millions on Werner even though both Edwards and Klopp were keen on him seems like a wise choice. On the other hand, playing the waiting game for a player of Thiago's calibre when he can be attained for a cut-price seems ill-advised.

I just hope we don't lose him to another club, particularly one from the PL. The backlash would be really ugly, and not entirely without justification.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
Entire thread a really fascinating read. Thanks for posting.

Many nuggets in there but this I found particularly interesting:


The "unspecified" administrative expenses, (£45.945 million, not £49 million - Chatra forgot to deduct Directors remuneration at £2.9 million) do not include agents fees.

FRS102, Section 18 [Intangible Assets other than Goodwill ] paragraph 10 (see also paragraph 27 of IAS 38) requires that agents fees are included in the cost of the intangible asset, because they are directly attributable to "preparing the asset for its intended use".

The capitalised fees are amortised over the contract period.

A similar accounting treatment applies for fees paid to agents for renegotiating extensions to players’ contracts.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,932
There should be a balance; not an all encompasing policy but a case by case decision. For instance choosing not to spend 50 millions on Werner even though both Edwards and Klopp were keen on him seems like a wise choice. On the other hand, playing the waiting game for a player of Thiago's calibre when he can be attained for a cut-price seems ill-advised.

I just hope we don't lose him to another club, particularly one from the PL. The backlash would be really ugly, and not entirely without justification.
It most likely is being decided on a case by case basis. People seem to forget the recruitment are in contact with the people they need to be, and so have an idea as to what other interest there is and how long a player is prepared to wait for us.
 

Not Worthy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,763
The "unspecified" administrative expenses, (£45.945 million, not £49 million - Chatra forgot to deduct Directors remuneration at £2.9 million) do not include agents fees.

FRS102, Section 18 [Intangible Assets other than Goodwill ] paragraph 10 (see also paragraph 27 of IAS 38) requires that agents fees are included in the cost of the intangible asset, because they are directly attributable to "preparing the asset for its intended use".

The capitalised fees are amortised over the contract period.

A similar accounting treatment applies for fees paid to agents for renegotiating extensions to players’ contracts.
In short, we're locking the back door: keeping what works and, 'speculating' , with what money is spare to invest in choices, made by a well run and supported (by the manager and FSG) recruitment team ?

Sounds like a path to 30 years of hurt.....
 

Neukolln

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
4,240
The "unspecified" administrative expenses, (£45.945 million, not £49 million - Chatra forgot to deduct Directors remuneration at £2.9 million) do not include agents fees.

FRS102, Section 18 [Intangible Assets other than Goodwill ] paragraph 10 (see also paragraph 27 of IAS 38) requires that agents fees are included in the cost of the intangible asset, because they are directly attributable to "preparing the asset for its intended use".

The capitalised fees are amortised over the contract period.

A similar accounting treatment applies for fees paid to agents for renegotiating extensions to players’ contracts.
Also interesting. And for the record, my post was very much made in a vacuum, with no opinion of what FSG is doing with their money. I had no idea such an exorbitant ‘intermediary’ line item existed, as @Kopstar eloquently pointed out.

I’m genuinely interested in the economics and business side of football. So when I say “interesting” I mean it as plainly as that.
 

Billy Biskix

TIA Youth Team
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
3,102
Thee successive transfer windows without any first team-ready signings does seem a little strange, no? Even if you take into account the current financial climate, it may be taking frugality a bit far I think. We appear to be standing still whilst our main rivals are tooling up. A sell to buy policy is more a poor club's financial reality. We are not a poor club, at least we weren't the last time I looked.
It's a reasonable question but the counter-argument would be that in the last 2 windows we didn't really need to buy anyone. The squad was essentially complete with the exception of a LB maybe. This window has been ruined by Covid. Had it not been for Covid Timo Werner would be a Liverpool player, we wouldn't be dithering over Thiago and we'd probably have a couple more in the bag.

FSG are ultra cautious at the best of times. The last 3 tweets in that series posted by @redfanman summed it all up. They don't use their own money for transfers and they won't borrow money to buy players (which is what a lot of other clubs are now doing) because it exposes them to too much risk. So it's probably sell to buy for the foreseeable. I'm cutting them some slack given the unique circumstances and because the squad is already pretty good anyway. If it's still the same in a year's time then alarm bells will be ringing because the first team will be in danger of growing old together at that point. Until then we will have to accept that for the next 12 months we are probably going to be wheeling and dealing.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
Worth bearing this in mind;


As perfect as Klopp is and as good as FSG are in many aspects neither have had to face the challenge of staying on top and dominating once they've got to the top. Football is different from other sports like Baseball and Klopp wasn't going to stand a chance in Germany due to the lack of support. We've just got to hope the learning curve isn't a steep one.
 

NYRhockey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
1,650
Worth bearing this in mind;


As perfect as Klopp is and as good as FSG are in many aspects neither have had to face the challenge of staying on top and dominating once they've got to the top. Football is different from other sports like Baseball and Klopp wasn't going to stand a chance in Germany due to the lack of support. We've just got to hope the learning curve isn't a steep one.
On the flip side, i also believe this is basically the first time in his career where Klopp is actually able to keep his best players instead of going into a summer window looking to fill major gaps left by departures.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
Worth bearing this in mind;


As perfect as Klopp is and as good as FSG are in many aspects neither have had to face the challenge of staying on top and dominating once they've got to the top. Football is different from other sports like Baseball and Klopp wasn't going to stand a chance in Germany due to the lack of support. We've just got to hope the learning curve isn't a steep one.
Is Souness the exception that proves the rule? Tony Evans getting in a preemptive assault on FSG.

Fairly confident that the club and Klopp are fully aware we can't stand still.
 

Mascot88

Bootroom Member
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
24,404
dont want to take away from this telling picture, but the “net spenders” inadvertently penalize the team for being superb at negotiating prices and being able to command high prices for sales and lower prices for purchases.
I honestly think a lot of those Twitter bellends would be happier if we had exactly the squad we have now, but spent twice as much on the incomings, and received half as much on the outgoings.

The reason we have the best side in the world off a £100m net spend is because everyone at the club is really, really good at their jobs.