EPL, European & FIFA World club Champions❤✊
- Jul 2, 2006
If it is to do with international clearence, then it will be a fine. Sunderland got done for the same in 2014 with a fine, so precedence is setApparently an issue with international clearance for a player. Seems to be either Chirivella or VDB. Think it will most likely be a fine instead of being kicked out though.
Can't imagine a team without Bobby.Mané Firmino Mbappe
Mané Mbappe Sancho
Mané Mbappe Salah
but Haverz is an (attacking) midfielder and not a replacement for our Front3.
Havertz + one of Ox, Wijnaldum or Keita
and Fabinho behind them.
While we’re at it - who could potentially replace Mané?
Not 100% sure but I thought I read that, despite the same owners being involved, the clubs are in no sense financially related.So, I just want to put this out there as a nugget to consider in the context of our future transfer dealings.
As I'm sure most of you are aware, FSG also owns the Boston Red Sox, one of baseball's historic franchises and the 2018 champions. They have an extraordinary payroll, to the point that they're in the luxury tax - a payroll threshold where they'll have to pay anywhere from 20%-50% on any payroll above the tax threshold. Because the Red Sox are a twice-repeat offender, they'll be paying over $13 million in taxes this coming year after paying roughly the same amount in 2018. That penalty could increase next year if they don't shed payroll.
As a consequence. they have mandated that their front office cut salary this coming season. That includes the significant possibility of the unthinkable - that they'd sell (trade) their best player (and one of the best in baseball, period) in order to get under the tax threshold. That's the kind of decision that NO team would make unless they feel strongly that they cannot afford to continue to pay the tax.
I bring this up only to consider why they did not spend this past summer, and to consider whether FSG would sanction any significant purchases next summer without a significant sale - think Mo, or Sadio. It makes me wonder if they are going to tighten the budget for the near future.
I mean, if they are owned by the same owners, they are unequivocally financially related, despite any firewalls they may place in business operations. The money still comes from and goes to the same group of people.Not 100% sure but I thought I read that, despite the same owners being involved, the clubs are in no sense financially related.
That's still on the low end of his market value. He would probably make 40 million a year if he was an unrestricted free agent. But what's striking is that the Red Sox are one of those teams that has never balked at paying for high quality talent since FSG came over. For them to do so at this point with that player - especially after handing out some of the other contracts they've given over the last couple years - suggests that their financial picture might be more murky than advertised.Loads of Albatros contracts in that organisation I see. Besides that, they gave Mookie Betts in his second arbitration year a raise from 10 to 20 mil, what will be his third arb be, 30 mil?
That's absolutely a concern, but I would guess that their gate revenue is probably only a quarter of their general revenue. Their TV deal brings in a significant portion of their revenue - probably more than $100M per year. They also get significant cuts of MLB revenue, sponsorships, and memorabilia. I read recently that they've made over $500m in revenue in 2018. Even with their payroll, it makes me wonder what other debts are on their balance sheet that would cause them to want to move their best player...and how that would impact our Reds next summer.I'm not surprised that they came to the end of the rope. Fenway is a small ballpark, almost 38.000, and you can only raise the ticket, beer and food prices so many times. Been there a few times in the past, about 10 years ago, to watch my Orioles play the Sox and I thought the prices where outrages even back then, I reckon nowadays it is even worse.
I mean, if they are owned by the same owners, they are unequivocally financially related, despite any firewalls they may place in business operations. The money still comes from and goes to the same group of people.
I'm guessing they probably make more money from gameday operations at Fenway Park than they do at Anfield. But player wages - especially at the top - are higher in baseball, and you don't "sell" players for big wads of cash in the major American sports leagues. International revenue obviously tips towards Liverpool, too.
Agreed. LFC and the Red Sox are separate entities with separate payrolls and financial structures in place. One has nothing to do with the other.Not 100% sure but I thought I read that, despite the same owners being involved, the clubs are in no sense financially related.
Also I would have thought Liverpool make more money than the Red Sox in advertising etc worldwide. You won't find too many non-Americans who can name 10 baseball players. It would surely be more important to keep Liverpool competitive than the Red Sox.
Stan Kroenke was tight with Arsenal because that is his ownership strategy. It had little to do with being stretched by his ownership of the Rams. I thought much of the stadium cost was being paid for by the state, not by him.I admit that my theory is just a bit of galaxy-brained speculation. But I can see how the dots could connect between Liverpool and the Red Sox. It's been theorized that the reason why Stan Kroenke was cheap with Arsenal for a couple windows was because of his significant financial investments in the LA Rams - including a billion dollar stadium. I don't think you can firewall the financial implications of assets that easily.
I should say that I believe Liverpool is a well-run club and I credit FSG for their direction since they appointed Edwards and Klopp. I do not mean to suggest some sort of evil plot on their part.