• 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 Unreliable Rumours Thread

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
If Klopp, trained club medical personnel and fitness coaches believe there is a reason Gomez is more likely to get injured at RB than CB they would stop playing him there. As it is I'll trust their judgement than the logic presented by fans on a discussion board.
 


Red over the water

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
2,160
I see Gomez as a central defender and hope he resumes his partnership with VVD next season, as it has the lot. Were it not for the unfortunate injury at Burnley he would probably have carried on alongside VVD for the whole season and the way he was going, he might have even got on a few shortlists for player of the year.

Gomez can obviously cover at right back, but the issue is more offensive output, in relation to TAA, than that position being more susceptible to injuries. He could improve that side of his game were he to play more at right back, as he's such a good athlete and all round player, but it's not what I want to see. He's a central defender and hopefully, when he gets back in the side, he performs in such a way as before that he stays there.
 

Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
23,174
If Klopp, trained club medical personnel and fitness coaches believe there is a reason Gomez is more likely to get injured at RB than CB they would stop playing him there. As it is I'll trust their judgement than the logic presented by fans on a discussion board.
By that logic, why bother discussing anything?
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
Haven't we already earned close to £100m from the CL? I could totally see us having nigh on £200m to spend after sales. Also, I don't think the idea that we could spend that much is necessarily at odds with the idea that Klopp may only target 3-4 players. When you think the squad is at the level where we really are shopping at the top end of the market in order to improve the overall quality, combined with the rising cost of those players, 3-4 players in could easily eat up the best part of £200m.

I reckon there'll be at least one (good) surprise in store this summer.
Just taking a simplistic view of it we had a £100m profit up to the end of May 2018 which included a net spend on player transfers of around £35m so potentially without player trading we would have had a profit of around £135m? If we assume we'd do the same again (it will be at least that) then we've got £135m profit generated for the year to end May 2019. However, we had a net spend of approximately £140m last summer so if you put all of last year's profit towards that we've eaten into the money available as at the end of May 2019 to the tune of £40m. So that puts us back to roughly the £100m Mascot used as being available in addition to any monies we bring in from sales.

We've sold Solanke and agreed the sale of Ings. That brings us to £140m. Could further funds be raised with additional sales? Absolutely but I think as a minimum Klopp has £140m to spend...if he wants. We all know that he doesn't feel any compulsion to spend for the sake of it but if he wanted to make a move for a couple of highly sought-after players that he thinks can improve us, with the exception of the likes of Mbappe, I'm pretty certain he won't be constrained by the budget to do so.

Obviously I know I'm over-simplifying it!
 

AussieLad

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
5,117
If Klopp, trained club medical personnel and fitness coaches believe there is a reason Gomez is more likely to get injured at RB than CB they would stop playing him there. As it is I'll trust their judgement than the logic presented by fans on a discussion board.
So your saying some random on the internet could possibly be wrong? :shocked:
 



Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
By that logic, why bother discussing anything?
But different discussing things that are a matter of opinion or "What would you do" over this. Basically a bunch of posters on here that have probably never even touched Gomez have decided that, based on a simple review of his injuries, that he is more susceptible to getting injured playing RB than CB. They could be right but it'd mean a lot of trained/qualified people who spend a lot of time with the player and know all the context regarding the injuries are all wrong. I just see the suggestion made a lot, it's almost viewed as fact by now to some. Find it hard to believe it's that simple and Klopp and his team just haven't noticed yet.
 

Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
23,174
But different discussing things that are a matter of opinion or "What would you do" over this. Basically a bunch of posters on here that have probably never even touched Gomez have decided that, based on a simple review of his injuries, that he is more susceptible to getting injured playing RB than CB. They could be right but it'd mean a lot of trained/qualified people who spend a lot of time with the player and know all the context regarding the injuries are all wrong. I just see the suggestion made a lot, it's almost viewed as fact by now to some. Find it hard to believe it's that simple and Klopp and his team just haven't noticed yet.
ACL injuries can happen to any player in any position, but they're caused by sudden changes of direction. Who is more likely to change their direction suddenly in the course of a game, Trent, getting involved in attack and defence constantly, or someone like VVD, who has most of the game playing out in front of him?

Klopp may decide it's a risk worth taking, in my eyes there's no doubt it carries that higher risk.
 



jgw_geneseo

deeply superficial
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
2,753
Liverpool believe their team's effectively complete, but there's a need to strengthen at left-back. Bristol City's Lloyd Kelly has been looked at. Decisions are to be made on various loan players including Harry Wilson, who Derby may try to sign if they go up. [@_pauljoyce] #LFC
That's not on Joyce's timeline anywhere. Where did you get this from?
 

Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
23,174
Of course, but cost would be incurred into bonuses for players for taking us to this level?
Not really sure what you're driving at Ed, we earn a vast amount through telly money for the league, not to mention prize money for finishing 2nd, I'd imagine those are more than enough to cover whatever running costs are required.
 

Speckydodge

TIA Squad Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
2,598



Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,119
Not really sure what you're driving at Ed, we earn a vast amount through telly money for the league, not to mention prize money for finishing 2nd, I'd imagine those are more than enough to cover whatever running costs are required.
I think the point that Ed is trying to make is that although we made a profit of £106 million last season, that does not mean we have a £106 million pot of cash in the bank available to be spent on players.

Profit does not equate to cash.

Last season, our turnover was £455 million.

After deducting operating costs (cost of sales, wages, interest payments etc.), there was a cash balance of £101.2 million. (i.e. adding back non cash-flow items e.g. depreciation and amortisation to the operating profit and interest paid)

Out of this we had to pay for investments in tangible fixed assets (£15.9 million), and the payments for the purchase of intangible fixed assets i.e. players (£154 million). This expenditure was offset by receipts from the sale of intangible fixed assets (£104.9 million).

Overall this resulted in a net cash outflow of £65 million leaving a cash balance of £36 million.

Some of this was used to we reduce bank debt by £17 million and intercompany debt by £12.9 million, which left £6.26 million, which together with the £4 million we already had in the bank, left the club with a bank balance of £10.3 million.

This should, in my opinion, be the starting point for any discussion on the available transfer pot.

To this we can add the cash surplus made from this season's operations, plus revenues generated from this summer's player sales (and the balance of any instalments from past player sales/purchases) together with an amount from the remaining £95 million bank availability.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
I think the point that Ed is trying to make is that although we made a profit of £106 million last season, that does not mean we have a £106 million pot of cash in the bank available to be spent on players.

Profit does not equate to cash.

Last season, our turnover was £455 million.

After deducting operating costs (cost of sales, wages, interest payments etc.), there was a cash balance of £101.2 million. (i.e. adding back non cash-flow items e.g. depreciation and amortisation to the operating profit and interest paid)

Out of this we had to pay for investments in tangible fixed assets (£15.9 million), and the payments for the purchase of intangible fixed assets i.e. players (£154 million). This expenditure was offset by receipts from the sale of intangible fixed assets (£104.9 million).

Overall this resulted in a net cash outflow of £65 million leaving a cash balance of £36 million.

Some of this was used to we reduce bank debt by £17 million and intercompany debt by £12.9 million, which left £6.26 million, which together with the £4 million we already had in the bank, left the club with a bank balance of £10.3 million.

This should, in my opinion, be the starting point for any discussion on the available transfer pot.

To this we can add the cash surplus made from this season's operations, plus revenues generated from this summer's player sales (and the balance of any instalments from past player sales/purchases) together with an amount from the remaining £95 million bank availability.
He was driving at all of that with...

Of course, but cost would be incurred into bonuses for players for taking us to this level?
?

Eddie's point would imply there's no financial benefit in doing well in the CL because all that extra revenue gets swallowed by related performance bonuses. Riiigghhht.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,119
He was driving at all of that with...



?

Eddie's point would imply there's no financial benefit in doing well in the CL because all that extra revenue gets swallowed by related performance bonuses. Riiigghhht.
I was referring to Ed's post:
I am quite sure there are other cost which the £100m needed to cover to run the club.
 



Red over the water

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
2,160
To save all the accountants speculating about how much we have to spend, why don’t we just take it as a given that Klopp can spend £100M plus sales, if he so chooses? It was the premise we had in another thread about potential transfers and shaping the squad this summer.

Plus Solanke, plus Ings, so as pointed out above, we are up to £140M. If Klopp wants to spend it. And it’s easy to list other fringe players to take the total to £200M, as many have done in other threads.

It’s not worth arguing over the amount to the penny, as we simply don’t have all the facts. An educated guess would be something like this amount. We won’t be in for Neymar. Or Mbappe, despite the fake link earlier! But thankfully these days there are very few players we wouldn’t have the financial ability to sign, if we wanted to.

We’re in a great position. No overhaul needed, but we will likely strengthen in a couple of key places, plus the usual smattering of young players with very high potential ceilings. Usually we are sweating and trying to play catch up, but this summer is different.
 

redbj

hurry up, July 1st, let's get the show on the road
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
17,540
I am quite sure there are other cost which the £100m needed to cover to run the club.
bloody Gladys and her incessant demands for increased wages....

comes across as a sweet little lady with a sturdy but economic drinks cart........but we all know where the truth lies....
 

Incognito

The Normal One
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
2,428
No that's the point people keep missing, impact injuries are not the same as muscle injuries. Gomez was fine until he broke a bone in his foot from a shithouse tackle. Nothing to do with playing right back, I don't want Gomez as right back but for other reasons (better central defender, no where near the offensive output of TAA etc.)
While the tackle can happen anywhere on the pitch, doesn't the chance increase when playing as a fullback and being exposed to more tackles than at a CB position?
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,050
Eddie's point would imply there's no financial benefit in doing well in the CL because all that extra revenue gets swallowed by related performance bonuses. Riiigghhht.
My point is there are cost incurred, never once mentioned no additional revenue. So to assume £100m revenue directly goes into the transfer coffer would be wrong. I am actually having my breakfast, so my mouth is munching some food. Try not feed more words into my mouth, shall we?

Thanks @Lowton_Red for a much needed and very detailed explanation as to how revenue don't directly translate to profit, therefore enable the club to simply throw in as part of the transfer budget. There are people who seemed to love to interpret my post the way they feel like.... but hey, I might have to show evidence of my claim.
 
Last edited:

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
My point is there are cost incurred, never once mentioned no additional revenue. So to assume £100m revenue directly goes into the transfer coffer would be wrong. I am actually having my breakfast, so my mouth is munching some food. Try not feed more words into my mouth, shall we?

Thanks @Lowton_Red for a much needed and very detailed explanation as to how revenue don't directly translate to profit, therefore enable the club to simply throw in as part of the transfer budget. There are people who seemed to love to interpret my post the way they feel like.... but hey, I might have to show evidence of my claim.
@Zinedine Biscan was clearly not assuming that all CL revenue went into a transfer budget, that was your false inference.

You then doubled down on your first response with your second.

If you want your posts to be interpreted in the way you later claim them to have been intended (often entirely contrary to their natural interpretation), you should work on making yourself more intelligible.
 



Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
23,174
Yes, it was just shorthand really. in 17/18 we made just shy of £150m from PL TV revenue alone (which may well have gone up further this season), throw in the supposed £100m from the CL plus all other forms of income... I think it is reasonable to suggest a fund of £100m or thereabouts will be made available for signings with sales to go on top of that, indeed that's the whole premise of the transfer thread Mascot opened a week or two ago.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
Yes, it was just shorthand really. in 17/18 we made just shy of £150m from PL TV revenue alone (which may well have gone up further this season), throw in the supposed £100m from the CL plus all other forms of income... I think it is reasonable to suggest a fund of £100m or thereabouts will be made available for signings with sales to go on top of that, indeed that's the whole premise of the transfer thread Mascot opened a week or two ago.
Presumably that's because you don't expect our costs to have grown faster than our revenue?

I mean, I know that's obviously what you're saying, but for some people it needs to be spelt out.