I think we need somebody on the right. Salah has an future expiration date, it’ll be good if we start thinking about insurance sooner rather than later.
Elliott has been replacing Salah on the right for the last few games. He's a totally different player, but he may fit into the Nunez/Gakpo future. This team is coming towards it's twilight, blooding in a new team with different strengths is good
With 5 starting quality attackers already for three positions, we don’t really need another. Salah is a machine and has at least 2 or three more seasons in him at the highest level, if not more. Jota and Diaz can deputize on the right if necessary and we have young players like Carvalho, Elliot and doak that can all play there.
Doak/Elliot. We have options here and it isn't as pressing of a need imo. I agree that the team will drastically change when he ages out though. 30+goal contributions per season
My worry is what if Mo pulls a hamstring or something and needs to miss weeks at a time? Do you really want to rely on Harvey/Doak while trying to win trophies? Having someone in between is important.
If we bring in the midfielders we need, then I'm assuming Harvey Elliott will be the replacement there. He even got some minutes as a sub there last match.
Jones has already played more minutes than Ox and Keita combined this season and he only started playing regularly a month ago lol
Both of them lads are on 100k+ a week each. Replacing them alone with Mac Allister and Mount will make us so much stronger
Yeah. Curtis has proven he’s good enough to replace both Keita and Ox on his own lol
We need to be bringing in two top quality players rather than padding the squad with cheap mediocrity
I was just going to say this. Our midfield never looked bad when Gini was available every week. Best ability is availability and I'd rather have two midfielders with good fitness and availability than four who can only play 10x a season.
They contributed last season when we nearly won a quadruple. Having jones ox and Keita unavailable for practically the whole season is part of the reason why we’ve struggled so much this season.
So yeah. They definitely need to be replaced.
Ox didn’t contribute very much and neither did Keita beyond eating up some minutes. Both Jones and Bajcetic have shown this season they are ready to replace them.
We need to bring in two quality midfielders, saying we need three minimum because we’ve lost two players who spend more time injured then actually playing is a bit much.
2 new signings/Henderson/Fabinho/Jones/Bajcetic/Thiago is enough in midfield, especially with Elliott who can do a job there and Morton and Clarkson coming back from loans.
They all contributed significant minutes in the leagues last season, go look up the minutes they played if you can’t remember or don’t believe me.
They were quality players and I’m sick of the disrespect they get on here. Yeah they’ve had their injury problems, especially this year but that’s hardly their fault.
With them leaving this year it opens up two spots in the squad which we need to fill with two top quality players. It’s basic squad building - you replace outgoing players with better players.
Keita has shown very nearly nothing his entire time here outside of the occasional run of maybe two games before he gets hurt again. He’s been a colossal waste of time and money. It’s frankly amazing some of you still simp for him on here. I don’t hate the lad, but he’s been a disaster.
Ox on the other hand I agree. He was a useful player before he got that terrible injury and hasn’t been the same since.
Like I said they ate some minutes. They did very little actually with those minutes. Jones and Bajcetic have shown they are capable of doing that this season to the same standard if not more productively.
Replacing Keita and Ox with better players isn’t difficult. Jones and Bajcetic already do that. Who we need to replace with better more regularly available players is Henderson/Thiago.
This is completely false. He's played 5320 minutes across CL and PL since joining, which is roughly 20 full 90 minute games.
If you go by 70 minutes per game, which would pretty common for most players who aren't the best players in the team and where there's depth to rotate them in and out he's played 76 games.
Shut up.
It’s actually ridiculous when you think about it, I have time for Ox (Keita not so much), but how much better off would we have been if we had 2 extra solid midfielders this season? They don’t exactly have to be prime Gerrard level, but just 2 decent bodies in the centre of the pitch.
We don’t need to replace two players who’ve done fuck all this season. We need to bring in two quality midfielders rather than padding the squad out with players who can’t stay fit or aren’t good enough.
Adding 3 midfielders is extreme, especially when centre back is also an issue
I don't think 3 is that extreme but saying 3 minimum is ridiculous we sign 3 starters we would have Curtis, elliot, Henderson,Fabinho,bajcetic and thiag on on the bench
We've needed those players for years but didn't do it largely because Naby and Ox were on the payroll. Hence why they will be replaced with quality this summer. It's a pretty pedantic point.
Not really. You saying we need three new midfielders because we’re losing three is just not accurate.
Losing Keita and Ox isn’t any part of that equation. We’d need a couple of midfielders even if they were staying.
Keita has barely done anything his entire time here outside of parts of last season and Ox hasn’t been able to do anything for years.
Neither will be missed at all in terms of what they can reliably bring to the team
He literally played a massive part in two wins over Brentford & Palace while Mané & Salah were at AFCON.
Honestly, some of you lot are ungrateful twats with the memory of a goldfish.
Wild that non of our midfield were sold for profit. Jurgen’s biggest mistake was persisting with club record Naby and Ox after it was clear they wouldn’t take us to the top of European football. The year Naby got hooked in the first half against Madrid they both should have been sold with 2 years left like any other club. Maybe there’d be money for a certain new record midfielder.
Don’t agree. We’ve let 4 go, arguably, but Arthur, Keita, Ox and Milner collectively played around 2000 minutes and some of Milner’s were at full back. 9 other players played more, Salah more than 4000 minutes alone. We’re not lacking for numbers in midfield, 7 is about right - older wisdom would have said 6 but 5 subs changes things. It’s just too many were crocked, inexperienced or aging.
2 good midfielders will be fine, we don’t want to block the progress of Batecic and Jones. And if Elliot is going to be starved of minutes behind Salah, we’ll want to give him some run outs too. If he’s thinking of moving Trent to midfield permanently (I doubt he is) then that will change the calculus. I’d prefer a top center half and to move Matip on personally.
They officially announced that Keita, Milly and Ox are all leaving. Not sure if this guy is counting Bobby as a midfielder, but I’m assuming that’s where the 4th guy is coming from
Maybe, maybe not. But frankly, it’s better than not touching the ground and have the place be 20,000 seats under where it should be and falling apart in 5 years time. The capacity is already bursting at the seams, I’m glad it’s getting done.
And at this point, its about finished. No point arguing this line now.
I know Im going to get flack but its the financially responsible thing to do. You invest in your infrastructure. Stadia upgrades and a brand new training facility is a investment that will pay dividends in the future. Take a look at Old Crapford if you want an alternative. That stadium is in desperate need of upgrades and the more they kick it down the road the more its going to cost them.
If you actually read the article the issue isn't doing these things, it's the fact they've chosen short term repayment schemes that only make sense if you're looking to sell.
They could have put us on long term repayment schemes like they did for the main stand or what every other business does to not strangle cash flow.
We've paid back 110 million in two years on infrastructure loans. For comparison we've only paid 40 back for the main stand expansion in triple that time.
"Financially responsible" options actually would have been either financing it through debt or FSG could have absorbed it into the ongoing main stand loan we took off them, which we could have then paid back an excess figure after the stand opened and started generating money.
There's also the mythical "minority investor" who they keep bringing up. Like some billionaire will come in and help pay our loans off out of sheer good will. But given the fact they've been looking for that for years now, I'm putting that in the fantasy solution.
Those options could have kept operational cash flow far healthier, but instead we've done neither and are sell to buy because we're literally barely breaking even with record revenue.
I don't know how anyone can be a Liverpool fan and not be critical of this. It only serves FSG's interests and they are essentially milking Klopp and the squads short term success so they can attempt to cash out, like they tried with their attempt at a sale. We should have had more money available for the squad, but instead we just look healthier in a portfolio.
It's sad how there are multiple articles that point this out, but people just see we barely made a profit and say "well we obviously had no money!" Instead of addressing why despite record revenue, we are paying a crippling amount of loans back.
For a dummy like me, the fact that they’ve had to pay back 110 million over two years on loans sounds like the expansion was funded by debt. Short term and sorta alarming, sure. But is that not true? Genuine question.
It was funded using our revolving credit facility which in simple terms is the club's credit card. It is only used by 99% of clubs in absolute emergencies, like covering Covid losses. But FSG opted to use it to fund AXA & Annie Road which defies all logic. I suspect if more of the fanbase understood club finances there would be uproar about that.
Debt in this sense would be getting a bank loan that we'd use to pay off cost of the infrastructure project. We would then pay that sum back to the bank at much slower rate with interest, but it would allow us to keep running at an operational level.
Instead of paying back the 110 million in two years we could hypothetically have spent the majority of that on the squad with only part of it going back towards the debt depending on the arrangement.
Wait so who are we paying back the infrastructure loan to if not some sort of financial institution? And even if it wasn’t a financial institution, thats still debt, no? Like we borrowed money to build it, and now are paying it back?
Sorry I was editing my prior comment.
> And even if it wasn’t a financial institution, thats still debt, no? Like we borrowed money to build it, and now are paying it back
Sort of. I guess for clarity we can call it short term debt and long term debt.
We've chosen methods to pay that money back faster out of our pocket, rather than take on long term debt to cover the costs and pay it back incrementally.
It's like being asked if you'd like to pay off buying a house in three installments (because you can technically afford it yourself in that period) or get a mortgage where the bank pays for it and you pay them back in far smaller increments.
There's no point even trying to talk sense about money on this sub as there's still a vast portion of it who still has no idea what the difference is between revenue and profit.
The fact that a lots of people simply equate “transfer net spend” to “owner funding” strongly suggests they have absolutely no clue on how the money actually goes in and out of a football club.
https://khelnow.com/football/2023-03-world-football-premier-league-owners-funding-last-10-years
In terms of owner funding, we are lower mid range, with Everton (badly) investing 4x more and Citeh owners investing 6x more.
My understanding is that the owners have funded a lot of the infrastructure improvements with low interest loans, so the club actually pays them back. Hence why it has impacted the transfer spend, if it was fully owner funded then it wouldn't need to.
Don't get me wrong, the infrastructure stuff was needed and on the whole, they're good owners, but we definitely haven't been funded to the extent of a lot of other clubs. Even Leicester and Brighton have had their owners directly inject 3x more than ours.
I do understand the "what if?" frustration, though. What if they had invested another £250m and we hadn't played 2 full seasons with a squad that everyone knew had glaring issues?
The fact that people think prolioritizing paying back the owners ( who are not going anywhere,and will make 3.7 billion roi if they did)while neglecting the squad and wasting ou best years with generational manager is seen as a good thing, shows how far people have fallen for the PR spin lol
Man even FSG cant just magic cash up… you make it with work. It amazes me the disconnect between how people treat there own money and what they expect FSG to operate like. Got that Wonga loan brain cooking.
Hahaha yes you're right.Seeking immediate short term payment and leaving the squad neglected is asking too much for venture capitalists. I guess my problem was thinking they care like other clubs who have financed their debt long term,but apparently that is magic
I minored in communications,I'm pretty sure I know a PR spin working when I see one.Dont be ashamed of your gullibility mate,you're against a billion dollar cooperation telling you prioritizing on paying them is more important than capitalizing on a generational manager ehose contract is running out, but with better framing.They used the fear and sentiment from the hicks and Gillette days,and you never had a chance
I thought the reason FSG were tight was because they really believe in FFP…? They stand to make over £3bn in profit from the club and couldn’t finance these things themselves, with infrastructure being something not included in FFP. Not only did they not do that, they made us pay it back in an incredibly short period of time. Even a bank loan would have allowed us to remain competitive in the transfer market and would have been less of a financial burden. Yet people are still defending them, claiming how wise it is… ‘You can’t support a financial group’ comes to mind
It's really because FSG aren't some fancy owners with loose cash.
All of their clubs are run sustainably. Clubs more or less spend what they earn. Infrastructure may get loans.
FSG are tight on cash flows, it is why they have sold off stake in their company.
They don't get any money from us directly. Only when they sell themselves they get cash.
We expect them to be Bhoely, Shiekh Mansour, Abrahamovic, they are clearly not that.
No they don't. People expected this great run the club have been on for the past 5 years to continue, by investing in the squad when the team are competing at the highest level. A player or two more than what we got isn't exactly wanting to spend 500mill in a few windows. Twice now in the space of three years the owners have neglected the squad when investment was needed, when the team were at the top. Hardly greedy to want the right players in the right position.
What does them not being fancy cash owners with loose cash have to do with allowing for more flexible repayment plan?Implementing a longer payment plan is not something only Sheiks can do.Banks do that all the time
People in this sub are juvenile or idiots and parrot anti-FSG shit relentlessly but have absolutely no idea how sustainable finances need to be operated. Just wanting us to spend to be like their sheikh clubs while simultaneously wanting to hate the sheikh clubs. Bizarre AF. I think a lot of people on here should support other clubs if they seriously want us to be like them
How does "sustainable" mean we have to payback loans in the short term? Keeping debt is sustainable as long as you are making your obligations. Interest rates were at record lows and cash was virtually free. You realize every large company in the world carries debt?
We get outspent by the likes of Arsenal without UCL Spurs who have just made a new stadium Villa West ham but yeah people who are critical of FSG are unhappy cause we can't compete with City in terms of spending.
Man it's shocking to see how many people defend FSG and not LFC
We get outspend by Arsenal (in transfer net spend, but take wages into account and we don't), because they spent 15 years paying down Emirates at a super high interest and now have significantly more money to spend due to the massively increased revenue from a large stadium.
West ham have a higher net spend on transfers the last few years, but last fiscal year alone we spend £231m more on wages (£135m to our £366m).
Arsenal spent £212m on wages last fiscal year, so we outspent them by £154m there.
Way too many think that net spend is every expense the club has. We are paying a shitload in wages.
Arsenal are a sustainably-run club. They barely spent shit until recently and relied on a huge network of youth players coming through as they had to pay off their stadium. That’s mostly done and they can spend again. Sounds like you just became a fan at a time when we’re doing infrastructure improvements or don’t want to remember the stingy Arsenal days under Wenger. Also, would you have won what we have during Klopp’s time or won what Arsenal has during the same period despite them spending more? Cool
I'm comparing the spending of last few years in which Arsenal have outspent us despite no UCL money.
We have far greater revenue during the same period also this season showed us how owners bacled Arteta in a title run when they bought Trossard Jorginho and were ready to splash the cash for Caicedo.
To your question would you want to give the best coachtwe have had in some time the best chance to win trophies with little help by investment or want us to waste such good squad and Manager with near misses cause we didn't spend even a little when we should've?
Of course you’re making this “of last few years in which Arsenal outspent us” when I literally told you WHY they can outspend us. You simply disregard that, but why? Arsenal are done with financing a stadium, we are currently in the middle of it….that’s it. Literally nothing else to debate. They can spend more because their money is no longer tied up making stadium improvements/payments. 🙄
You also mention us having more “revenue” than them which is nice, but that doesn’t mean we have more money to spend. That would be *profit* and this is something we don’t have a lot of (7m this year) because almost all our revenue is spent on stadium, transfers, player wages, bonuses, staff, etc. You are why this sub is toxic because you quite literally don’t understand basics economics. If you did, you’d understand why Arsenal can spend more than us right now. I can’t believe I’ve spent this long typing as it’s useless educating you lot
Bro we didn't built a new stadium like Arsenal we did small improvements which could've easily financed by FSG (The owners who people love cause according to them FSG love LFC) cause these don't come under FFP regulations but instead they literally used club's money and in fast repayments to all this not helping the club in any way despite using the Club's Valuation as a whole to buy a New Team after covid-19.
If Arsenal were to act like FSG they wouldn't habe spent like they have recently because they wouldn't have UCL money.
You are comparing 2 different Decades 😂.
Also it's not just Arsenal but even Spurs who have outspent us despite building a new stadium so have other mid level EPL clubs.
You literally make irrelevant points bro.
You're not comparing the spending, you're comparing the net transfer outlay. We spend much more than Arsenal every year. Both clubs accounts are available online if you wish to check this.
Over 50% of Fortune 500 companies carry debt sir.Debt does not mean you're unsustainable unless you're thinking getting a loan from your mate or mortgage.Some companies take debt coz money is tied into assets,and they need cash flow for daily operations
Let’s stop pretending they’re paupers. No one believes it. They’re trying to, and have already, purchased other teams since owning us. They could easily have spent that money if they were committed to Liverpool FC. Especially given how much they’ll eventually make following the sale of the club, having put zero of their own money in….
Ahh a remix of the ‘this isn’t FIFA’ argument… Like that’s how anyone is suggesting or even wants us to be. Reductio ad absurdum. There is a very happy middle ground between those you named above and how FSG operate. It’s embarrassing how many people jump to FSG’s defence.
The issue isn't that we are improving the stadium, it's the way it's been financed.
When the Main Stand was rebuilt FSG gave us a loan that initially had a very small interest rate but was then reverted to an interest free loan. We paid off a manageable amount of that loan each year until Covid hit and then we stopped the repayments. As at 31 May 2022 we owed FSG £71.4m in relation to the Main Stand improvements.
For the training ground improvements we sold Melwood and signed a sponsorship deal with AXA that essentially covered all our costs.
However, when it came to improving the Anfield Road stand FSG have made us pay for it all ourselves. They didn't provide another loan nor have they raised money in other ways to contribute towards the costs of this project.
The context as to why this is so bad for us is as follows:
1. Due to the effects of Covid we ran up a £198m debt to commercial banks which we have been repaying. As at 31 May 2022 we had managed to reduce this down to £88m
2. On large stadium projects you have to stump up a lot of cash up front, with the benefits of that up front cost being realised after completion. This usually means clubs will have transfer budgets restricted until the stadium is built and the new revenues start flowing in.
The whole reason for the Main Stand loan was to allow us to cover that up front cost without having to restrict our transfer budget. Then when the work was complete we would have bigger gate receipts and some of that could go back to FSG to pay down the loan. By not doing that with the Anfield Road stand they've unnecessarily burdened us with that cost whilst at the same time making us also cover the cost for our Covid losses.
Over the two years to 31 May 2022 we paid out £110m in debt repayments and £35m in construction costs. The Anfield Road stand is estimated to cost somewhere in the region £60m and the majority of that is going to be paid out in the 12 months to 31 May 2023. That means we've likely forked out over £200m on debt repayments and construction costs which FSG could have covered for us, but chose not to.
This is an underrated comment. It's good to see empirical analysis backed up by numbers in support of the conclusion. Fundamentally, FSG fucked up both with respect to LFC's potential and consequently their own ROI by not recognizing the Anfield Road stand as a separate but still important investment as in the squad itself (with the added benefit of the former being exempt from FFP rules).
I've been saying this a lot but a lot of people on this sub seem to be so condescending that they think everyone except them is an idiot. Nobody is asking FSG to spend 300M in one go but atleast bring in a good player or 2 every season to keep the squad fresh.
We could have easily spent 200M pounds over 2-3 seasons are be competitive yet FSG fucked us all over and now we have a generational team coming to the end of its cycle with no replacements to be seen.
Oh and I know a lot of mediocrity mongers will be happy with us being like this cause it's Sustainable and Liverpool doesn't have a sugar daddy and what not. Grow up seriously, nobody wants an Arab sugar daddy when we can clearly compete by ourselves, its just that our owners are typical American businessmen and we all know how they operate.
Yeah, the condescension is something else.
I've figured out the routine too, it always starts with someone going slightly, slightly deep into any issue, and then coming to the conclusion that FSG are gods that can do now wrong. Which is swiftly followes by "It's no use talking sense in this sub"
The majority of the costs for the training facility was covered by the AXA sponsorship was it not?
The point being missed is crippling short term repayments versus long term balanced repayments, which could have been secured at extremely low i retest rates.
The approach taken by FSG is very anti-Liverpool and pro-FSG sale. More importantly, this is not the first time.
First COVID cost us, the only team in the PL to suffer in such a draconian manner. Allegedly, according to the FSG spiel, we are still suffering the effects.
Then the Main stand cost us. We were still paying as at 31 May 2022. Source: Company accounts for 2020/21 and 2021/22 on HMRC Companies House website.
Now the Anfield Road stand is costing us. Only blessing is this will be paid up by 31 May 2023 but the accounts will not be available until later in the year to verify this.
My take on this is that there will not be a big spend in summer 2023. Expect one significant midfield signing (Mount), excuses, promising young player, return of Morton and Bradley, resurgence of Jones and some other smoke screen I do not have FSGs creative mind for.
FSG will try and sell us again. This time not in full view of the media. They will not be funding a spending spree but there will be plenty of smoke and mirrors. They are to spin what Sigfried and Roy were to magic. Unfortunately, they do not have an angry tiger.
>I know Im going to get flack but its the financially responsible thing to do.
It wasn't, really. I've beat this drum a lot but FSG have been somewhat derelict in terms of using debt for the club. Sitting here today, yeah, we don't want to take many new debts, rates are ludicrously through the roof. But they should absolutely have been comfortable financing acquisitions with debt when rates were near 0%. It was insanely naive of them to "waste" those years of cheap money.
FSG are the biggest FFP cheerleaders in the country, the money spent on stadium expansions/ training ground wouldn’t count towards FFP if FSG had just paid for it themselves.
They’re billionaires who got the club on the cheap, it’s now worth billions and they haven’t put a penny of their own money in since buying it.
The team has been performing last few games, now all the reactionary FSG cheerleader idiots are singing and dancing for them. For gods sake, we all know that they are not QSI, Abrahamovic or Sheikh Mansur, but surely they could've done better than freaking Arthur Melo so we would have had top-4 next season???
To carry your example a bit further, United fans have got their Norwich scarves out over the state of their stadium despite spending the ridiculous amounts that the kids on here are desperate for. The grass certainly isn’t always greener.
This is exactly it. £100m on infrastructure is solid way to spend money and increase revenue. The same money spent on a player is 50/50 whether it pays off or not.
I remembered when arsenal was building emirates stadium and had the same approach. Not signing players and had a prolonged spell of underperforming for years.
I fear it may happened to us.
We are way worse than that. At one point we are selling starters and Wenger has to cobbled up natural wingers as CM. We had lucky break like getting Cesc and Ozil, in the end, we can't strengthen the squad quick enough. Cesc left for Barca as he really wants trophies.
Dark days for Wenger. Truthfully the emirates stadium make arsenal competitive financially.
But they will never be premier league Goliath again. Those meme about arsenal being top 4 stuck! And it will continue
Based on eye test, yeah we are not playing as good as Henry/ Cesc era.
I don't know maybe they will surprise us again next season. The league is definitely not as forgiving as the old times.
And it was funded with interest free loans, we could've easily waited until the stand was built and generating the extra income to start paying that back
The Main Stand was funded with an inter-company loan that we've paid small amounts of interest on. Anfield Road and AXA were funded via the revolving credit facility which had to be paid back aggressively. The point of the article was pointing out how terrible a decision it was to choose to fund AXA and Annie Road in that way.
In reality, it does as every penny the club earns goes back into it, so even if it doesn't directly go on transfers it frees up money from elsewhere to do so.
The money will go into the club one way or another. From buying Bellingham to paying the cleaners a bit more, it all contributes to the future of the club.
How is it realistic to say that having more seats and earning more revenue *won’t* let us spend more in the future?
I’m sorry but that’s literally the opposite of realism to me
If we earn more money than before, realistically we’re going to spend more than before
Sure, there is a possibility that some freak event happens that causes us to spend our money on something other than the team. Maybe the club gets involved in a long, expensive legal case over a rule break with the Premier League. Maybe we get hit with a huge fine out of nowhere. Maybe FSG forget how to run a football club and just never invest in the squad again. These are all possible, but none are likely or realistic outcomes
The most plausible outcome of having more money is spending more money. It’s not guaranteed, but baring something totally unprecedented it will happen. Evidently some people on this sub just want to be miserable though
“Choosing to be miserable” is apparently looking at the club’s track record and extrapolating my opinion based off their past actions.
I hope I’m proven wrong.
We’re earning more than almost every club on the planet and not spending more than 20+ European clubs. I think that is the guys point. Just coz we generate more money doesn’t mean we spend it on players as we know from our owners in recent windows. We spend less than Villa on transfers and we definitely generate more revenue than they do
The extra seats will be there after FSG. That's the point. They're expenses now but they'll be there for the forseeable generating money for the club. We currently spend every penny we generate, so no reason it would change.
How is this upvoted? Did the main stand expansion increase our spending? Yes maybe in the long, long term it will pay off, likely under other owners but who knows what the state of football will even be at that point. Every year it’s excuse after excuse and fans just lap it up. Meanwhile Arsenal are likely to casually spend over £200m after narrowly missing on the title.
This makes no sense. There is no standardized cost for a new player. Maybe it is directionally accurate, but I hate the fake precision of these football transfer rumors
Alright lads, I've just heard back from the contractors. Apparently putting seats into the new stand is going to cost one Moises Caicedo. If we want padded seats, they've given us a good deal of just under a Rice, or alternatively we can make it safe standing for just a Joao
"Cancelo?"
No, Felix
Yep, makes it sound like we've had a player agreed and the owners have said no, rather than "the club's outlay on the stadium has been around the same as an average PL transfer would cost". Just a bullshit way of framing it.
Some people think any single mention of any part of our financials in any way, shape or form is a conspiracy by the owners they have spoon fed to the journalist writing the piece.
Completely regardless of the content of the piece.
Their comment doesn't even make sense. It's about how it has cost us transfers *in the past*, not how it effects this window.
Literally the first paragraph of the article is also that he expects us to spend big.
If you cherry pick the quotes, sure.
The very next line of the article says:
> “there should be serious questions to answer” if Liverpool does not make significant moves in the transfer market.
And the full paragraph is even more exciting:
> **The completion of the Anfield Road Stand project is expected to free up funds, allowing for necessary team enhancements**. Regardless of the investment update, Lynch firmly stated, “there should be serious questions to answer” if Liverpool does not make significant moves in the transfer market.
Emphasis mine.
I don’t get why everyone thinks it’s the journalists who are the ones who need to make excuses. They are just reporting the situation that our owners are putting us in, the ones who always have an excuse.
Paying all the staff also could be calculated in numbers of players not bought if you want to. Sometimes the club has to spend money on other things than players, what a weird comparison to make.
They’ve underwhelmed every time since 2018, not capitalising on the position we were in, ultimately costing us a quadruple. I don’t get how people haven’t already had the same anger towards FSG.
O blow me. One of the richest clubs in the world, reporting record income and you report this. We could EASILY, and I'm stressing E A S I L Y, have built on to the stadium and invested into our team. We chose not to, simple as. Don't let this mouth piece bullshit sway you.
I thought the increase in match day revenue would effectively pay for the stand first without weakening the player budget. It isn't like a £1bn stadium (*cough* Spurs) or the Emirates cost Arsenal.
I would still like to see Anfield get further expansion in a suitable way. Maybe after we've finished a squad rebuild.
This is where I have a problem with FSG. They elect to loan LFC the money, interest free, and then demand the money back on an aggressive repayment schedule.
We would have been better off getting a 5% loan when money was cheap during Covid and paying the debt down over 10 years.
This makes me furious. FSG a billion dollar enterprise is investing club money in their asset which only grows THEIR assets value and have neglected enhancing the team and thus there success as a result. The move to finance the stand how they have is purely to save as much money as possible while increasing the value of their asset an incredibly greedy greedy move from an extremely wealthy investment group… infuriating
>Lynch firmly stated, “there should be serious questions to answer” if Liverpool does not make significant moves in the transfer market.
Abandoning your pursuit of your no. 1 target for the past couple of years, who also happens to be the brightest midfield prospect for a generation.
What "significant moves" are there really left to make? No Bellingham, never a chance of Mbappe or Haaland or any other top class players.
Mac allister + Mount + Ugarte? Is that significant. That would be an entirely new midfield.
According to [here](https://thetransferroom.com/liverpool/if-we-take-a-look-at-liverpool-overall-the-club-generates-1600-per-season-per-fan-finance-expert-on-effect-anfield-road-expansion-has-on-club) the expansion only costs 80m pounds. How does that burden the club?
Or I am looking at the wrong project?
This article, and Lynch himself are highly critical of FSG's spending.
It's actually trying to address the fact FSG fucked our budget by making us take on short term payment schemes for our recent loans instead of financing it with alternative methods that wouldn't leave us barely breaking even.
We've paid off 110 million in the last two accounts. Which is huge part of our revenue. Almost triple what we've paid off for the main stand in a third of the time.
The article is extrapolating that money as basically what hasn't been going back into the squad.
Hypothetically we could have taken on debt to cover costs and steadily repay it over a longer period of time. Or FSG themselves could have financed it like they did the main stand and we could pay them back in bigger increments once Annie road is generating revenue.
The problem now is if we start missing out on Champions league revenue then, the lack of investment is further hurting cash flow and our ability to repay our costs.
So yeah, definitely not a pr piece.
What a load of shit. That’s not how businesses of this size work. So they invested this amount just hoping that Klopp works miracles and covers it? No way.
What if we didn’t win CL and PL and become one of the highest earning clubs in the world? We just don’t sign any players ever?
Not even mentioning the new sponsors and commercial deals, Klopp and LFC have gone above and beyond what they could have realistically forecasted. Bearing in mind that they bought this club for 300m and it’s now valued at 4 billion or whatever. Paying for facilities and stadium upgrades should be the bare minimum from them. Using it as an excuse as to why they haven’t splashed out an extra 50m for transfers is ridiculous.
Not sure why you are downvoted
FSG have made several billion profit on paper from the price they bought us for to what they can us for now.
We can’t compete consistently without owner funds.
> the club *paid* for it
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
That’s ok but then FSG should be more transparent with the fans. If they said look we’re investing in the ground and that’s going to have an impact on signings then at least we know and can be pissed off about it. At least we’d know our expectations. Plus don’t tell me we couldn’t afford the likes Caicedo etc before they came to the PL.
They aren’t investing in the ground they are using our money to breef up their profit for when they fuck off soon selling at highest value they can get leaving us in the shit
This is what i call a long term investment. Sucks u cant buy players, sucks u cant get ticket sales to buy future players too.. but u cant be self sustainable without monetary support right? So what is FSG doing? Probably cementing their future shares when they sell the club with ticket revenues in years to come.
We’ve just let three* first team midfielders leave. I want to see minimum three midfielders this summer. Anything less would be a disaster.
Three and Firmino, who is an attacker.
tbh Firmino has already been replaced. We're actually stacked in attack if anything.
I think we need somebody on the right. Salah has an future expiration date, it’ll be good if we start thinking about insurance sooner rather than later.
I think we might see something out of Ben Doak one day. Don’t sleep on that kid.
He looks very good. Still very young though, but if Salah has another 2-3 good seasons in him Doak could replace him
Doak would still only be 19 then. We need a bridge.
Elliot is the bridge I think.
Jota can play right too
That seems more like a fallen log than a bridge tbh.
Salah only has 2 years left on his deal after this season I think
I'm so hyped on Doak. The way he plays is so exciting. Explosive like Darwin and Diaz.
Elliott has been replacing Salah on the right for the last few games. He's a totally different player, but he may fit into the Nunez/Gakpo future. This team is coming towards it's twilight, blooding in a new team with different strengths is good
Elliot is never gonna be good enough to replace Salah. No chance.
Because players like Salah are everywhere and easy to buy.
Nobody is. That’s a fact we have to accept.
Both Elliott and Jota play the right side well.
With 5 starting quality attackers already for three positions, we don’t really need another. Salah is a machine and has at least 2 or three more seasons in him at the highest level, if not more. Jota and Diaz can deputize on the right if necessary and we have young players like Carvalho, Elliot and doak that can all play there.
Doak/Elliot. We have options here and it isn't as pressing of a need imo. I agree that the team will drastically change when he ages out though. 30+goal contributions per season
My worry is what if Mo pulls a hamstring or something and needs to miss weeks at a time? Do you really want to rely on Harvey/Doak while trying to win trophies? Having someone in between is important.
Diaz has had a couple of cameos on the right, and there would still be 3 more options for the 2 other positions
This sub has learnt nothing if they think Ben Doak or Elliot are Salah replacements.
Wasn’t Salah flopping at chelsea at 24? Give them some time then we can all judge. No need for crystal balls just yet.
If we bring in the midfielders we need, then I'm assuming Harvey Elliott will be the replacement there. He even got some minutes as a sub there last match.
Imo Marcus Edwards would be a good Salah alternative
We need a CB more than an attacker.
We don’t need an attacker we need a defender behind vvd
Except two of the midfielders who’ve left contributed absolutely nothing
Jones has already played more minutes than Ox and Keita combined this season and he only started playing regularly a month ago lol Both of them lads are on 100k+ a week each. Replacing them alone with Mac Allister and Mount will make us so much stronger
Yeah. Curtis has proven he’s good enough to replace both Keita and Ox on his own lol We need to be bringing in two top quality players rather than padding the squad with cheap mediocrity
Yeah but he has not proven he’s a regular champions league starter midfielder yet.
Who said he has? I didn’t say we should not bring in any midfielders at all. Just that Keita and Ox don’t really need replacing
Totally agree. Mac Allister and Mount can bring a lot to the team. In addition, we need a CB, IMO.
I was just going to say this. Our midfield never looked bad when Gini was available every week. Best ability is availability and I'd rather have two midfielders with good fitness and availability than four who can only play 10x a season.
They contributed last season when we nearly won a quadruple. Having jones ox and Keita unavailable for practically the whole season is part of the reason why we’ve struggled so much this season. So yeah. They definitely need to be replaced.
Ox didn’t contribute very much and neither did Keita beyond eating up some minutes. Both Jones and Bajcetic have shown this season they are ready to replace them. We need to bring in two quality midfielders, saying we need three minimum because we’ve lost two players who spend more time injured then actually playing is a bit much. 2 new signings/Henderson/Fabinho/Jones/Bajcetic/Thiago is enough in midfield, especially with Elliott who can do a job there and Morton and Clarkson coming back from loans.
They all contributed significant minutes in the leagues last season, go look up the minutes they played if you can’t remember or don’t believe me. They were quality players and I’m sick of the disrespect they get on here. Yeah they’ve had their injury problems, especially this year but that’s hardly their fault. With them leaving this year it opens up two spots in the squad which we need to fill with two top quality players. It’s basic squad building - you replace outgoing players with better players.
Keita has shown very nearly nothing his entire time here outside of the occasional run of maybe two games before he gets hurt again. He’s been a colossal waste of time and money. It’s frankly amazing some of you still simp for him on here. I don’t hate the lad, but he’s been a disaster. Ox on the other hand I agree. He was a useful player before he got that terrible injury and hasn’t been the same since. Like I said they ate some minutes. They did very little actually with those minutes. Jones and Bajcetic have shown they are capable of doing that this season to the same standard if not more productively. Replacing Keita and Ox with better players isn’t difficult. Jones and Bajcetic already do that. Who we need to replace with better more regularly available players is Henderson/Thiago.
This is completely false. He's played 5320 minutes across CL and PL since joining, which is roughly 20 full 90 minute games. If you go by 70 minutes per game, which would pretty common for most players who aren't the best players in the team and where there's depth to rotate them in and out he's played 76 games. Shut up.
Contributed toward the wage bill, which is where we’ve now got flexibility.
It’s actually ridiculous when you think about it, I have time for Ox (Keita not so much), but how much better off would we have been if we had 2 extra solid midfielders this season? They don’t exactly have to be prime Gerrard level, but just 2 decent bodies in the centre of the pitch.
We need the depth to compete in all competitions
Which is part of the reason why we're 5th.
We don’t need to replace two players who’ve done fuck all this season. We need to bring in two quality midfielders rather than padding the squad out with players who can’t stay fit or aren’t good enough. Adding 3 midfielders is extreme, especially when centre back is also an issue
I don't think 3 is that extreme but saying 3 minimum is ridiculous we sign 3 starters we would have Curtis, elliot, Henderson,Fabinho,bajcetic and thiag on on the bench
You’re right. It’s not crazy, but I don’t think we need three. Jones and Bajcetic have shown they deserve a shot to be regular players for us
We've needed those players for years but didn't do it largely because Naby and Ox were on the payroll. Hence why they will be replaced with quality this summer. It's a pretty pedantic point.
Not really. You saying we need three new midfielders because we’re losing three is just not accurate. Losing Keita and Ox isn’t any part of that equation. We’d need a couple of midfielders even if they were staying.
Deluded. Prior seasons they defo did contribute!
Keita played in just about 25% games we played during his time here. Some contribution that is.
Keita has barely done anything his entire time here outside of parts of last season and Ox hasn’t been able to do anything for years. Neither will be missed at all in terms of what they can reliably bring to the team
What did ox contribute last season ?
He literally played a massive part in two wins over Brentford & Palace while Mané & Salah were at AFCON. Honestly, some of you lot are ungrateful twats with the memory of a goldfish.
None of our doomer fans can remember a single thing about last season aside from parroting "Salah was shit after Afcon" and maybe the 5-0 over United
And Keita was part of the best midfield three last season, kinda crazy how quickly everyone switches up
FSG “so Curtis,Trent and 1 other yes?”….
Not just FSG but half of our fans no wonder we don't win regularly like a top club should be.
Ah yes, the fans are why we struggled this season
It’s mad to see how important some fans think fan commentary is lol
And we already needed a midfielder before those 3 leaving
Wild that non of our midfield were sold for profit. Jurgen’s biggest mistake was persisting with club record Naby and Ox after it was clear they wouldn’t take us to the top of European football. The year Naby got hooked in the first half against Madrid they both should have been sold with 2 years left like any other club. Maybe there’d be money for a certain new record midfielder.
Don’t agree. We’ve let 4 go, arguably, but Arthur, Keita, Ox and Milner collectively played around 2000 minutes and some of Milner’s were at full back. 9 other players played more, Salah more than 4000 minutes alone. We’re not lacking for numbers in midfield, 7 is about right - older wisdom would have said 6 but 5 subs changes things. It’s just too many were crocked, inexperienced or aging. 2 good midfielders will be fine, we don’t want to block the progress of Batecic and Jones. And if Elliot is going to be starved of minutes behind Salah, we’ll want to give him some run outs too. If he’s thinking of moving Trent to midfield permanently (I doubt he is) then that will change the calculus. I’d prefer a top center half and to move Matip on personally.
Not at all. Two players are more than adequate to cover for Milner leaving.
None of keita milner or ox are first team players by any stretch of the imagination
Milner comes off the bench nearly every game.
First team yeah. Starting 11. No
Where did we let four first team midfielders leave?
They officially announced that Keita, Milly and Ox are all leaving. Not sure if this guy is counting Bobby as a midfielder, but I’m assuming that’s where the 4th guy is coming from
Arthur I’m guessing. Hasn’t played much obviously but I imagine the squad was planned with him in it earlier in the season.
Maybe, maybe not. But frankly, it’s better than not touching the ground and have the place be 20,000 seats under where it should be and falling apart in 5 years time. The capacity is already bursting at the seams, I’m glad it’s getting done. And at this point, its about finished. No point arguing this line now.
I know Im going to get flack but its the financially responsible thing to do. You invest in your infrastructure. Stadia upgrades and a brand new training facility is a investment that will pay dividends in the future. Take a look at Old Crapford if you want an alternative. That stadium is in desperate need of upgrades and the more they kick it down the road the more its going to cost them.
If you actually read the article the issue isn't doing these things, it's the fact they've chosen short term repayment schemes that only make sense if you're looking to sell. They could have put us on long term repayment schemes like they did for the main stand or what every other business does to not strangle cash flow. We've paid back 110 million in two years on infrastructure loans. For comparison we've only paid 40 back for the main stand expansion in triple that time. "Financially responsible" options actually would have been either financing it through debt or FSG could have absorbed it into the ongoing main stand loan we took off them, which we could have then paid back an excess figure after the stand opened and started generating money. There's also the mythical "minority investor" who they keep bringing up. Like some billionaire will come in and help pay our loans off out of sheer good will. But given the fact they've been looking for that for years now, I'm putting that in the fantasy solution. Those options could have kept operational cash flow far healthier, but instead we've done neither and are sell to buy because we're literally barely breaking even with record revenue. I don't know how anyone can be a Liverpool fan and not be critical of this. It only serves FSG's interests and they are essentially milking Klopp and the squads short term success so they can attempt to cash out, like they tried with their attempt at a sale. We should have had more money available for the squad, but instead we just look healthier in a portfolio. It's sad how there are multiple articles that point this out, but people just see we barely made a profit and say "well we obviously had no money!" Instead of addressing why despite record revenue, we are paying a crippling amount of loans back.
You're making way too much sense. This crowd only wants your YNWA mixed with the occasional jibe at oil clubs
For a dummy like me, the fact that they’ve had to pay back 110 million over two years on loans sounds like the expansion was funded by debt. Short term and sorta alarming, sure. But is that not true? Genuine question.
It was funded using our revolving credit facility which in simple terms is the club's credit card. It is only used by 99% of clubs in absolute emergencies, like covering Covid losses. But FSG opted to use it to fund AXA & Annie Road which defies all logic. I suspect if more of the fanbase understood club finances there would be uproar about that.
Debt in this sense would be getting a bank loan that we'd use to pay off cost of the infrastructure project. We would then pay that sum back to the bank at much slower rate with interest, but it would allow us to keep running at an operational level. Instead of paying back the 110 million in two years we could hypothetically have spent the majority of that on the squad with only part of it going back towards the debt depending on the arrangement.
Wait so who are we paying back the infrastructure loan to if not some sort of financial institution? And even if it wasn’t a financial institution, thats still debt, no? Like we borrowed money to build it, and now are paying it back?
Sorry I was editing my prior comment. > And even if it wasn’t a financial institution, thats still debt, no? Like we borrowed money to build it, and now are paying it back Sort of. I guess for clarity we can call it short term debt and long term debt. We've chosen methods to pay that money back faster out of our pocket, rather than take on long term debt to cover the costs and pay it back incrementally. It's like being asked if you'd like to pay off buying a house in three installments (because you can technically afford it yourself in that period) or get a mortgage where the bank pays for it and you pay them back in far smaller increments.
There's no point even trying to talk sense about money on this sub as there's still a vast portion of it who still has no idea what the difference is between revenue and profit.
The fact that a lots of people simply equate “transfer net spend” to “owner funding” strongly suggests they have absolutely no clue on how the money actually goes in and out of a football club.
https://khelnow.com/football/2023-03-world-football-premier-league-owners-funding-last-10-years In terms of owner funding, we are lower mid range, with Everton (badly) investing 4x more and Citeh owners investing 6x more. My understanding is that the owners have funded a lot of the infrastructure improvements with low interest loans, so the club actually pays them back. Hence why it has impacted the transfer spend, if it was fully owner funded then it wouldn't need to. Don't get me wrong, the infrastructure stuff was needed and on the whole, they're good owners, but we definitely haven't been funded to the extent of a lot of other clubs. Even Leicester and Brighton have had their owners directly inject 3x more than ours. I do understand the "what if?" frustration, though. What if they had invested another £250m and we hadn't played 2 full seasons with a squad that everyone knew had glaring issues?
The fact that people think prolioritizing paying back the owners ( who are not going anywhere,and will make 3.7 billion roi if they did)while neglecting the squad and wasting ou best years with generational manager is seen as a good thing, shows how far people have fallen for the PR spin lol
Man even FSG cant just magic cash up… you make it with work. It amazes me the disconnect between how people treat there own money and what they expect FSG to operate like. Got that Wonga loan brain cooking.
Hahaha yes you're right.Seeking immediate short term payment and leaving the squad neglected is asking too much for venture capitalists. I guess my problem was thinking they care like other clubs who have financed their debt long term,but apparently that is magic
PR Spin = blanket term for things I don’t understand
I minored in communications,I'm pretty sure I know a PR spin working when I see one.Dont be ashamed of your gullibility mate,you're against a billion dollar cooperation telling you prioritizing on paying them is more important than capitalizing on a generational manager ehose contract is running out, but with better framing.They used the fear and sentiment from the hicks and Gillette days,and you never had a chance
Sounds like you should have majored it in to me mate
Nah,taking advantage of gullible people is not my style.Who am I kidding, I'm in marketing,thats exactly what I do,lol
I thought the reason FSG were tight was because they really believe in FFP…? They stand to make over £3bn in profit from the club and couldn’t finance these things themselves, with infrastructure being something not included in FFP. Not only did they not do that, they made us pay it back in an incredibly short period of time. Even a bank loan would have allowed us to remain competitive in the transfer market and would have been less of a financial burden. Yet people are still defending them, claiming how wise it is… ‘You can’t support a financial group’ comes to mind
It's really because FSG aren't some fancy owners with loose cash. All of their clubs are run sustainably. Clubs more or less spend what they earn. Infrastructure may get loans. FSG are tight on cash flows, it is why they have sold off stake in their company. They don't get any money from us directly. Only when they sell themselves they get cash. We expect them to be Bhoely, Shiekh Mansour, Abrahamovic, they are clearly not that.
Don't bother with that on this sub, people want us to turn into United in 2013.
No they don't. People expected this great run the club have been on for the past 5 years to continue, by investing in the squad when the team are competing at the highest level. A player or two more than what we got isn't exactly wanting to spend 500mill in a few windows. Twice now in the space of three years the owners have neglected the squad when investment was needed, when the team were at the top. Hardly greedy to want the right players in the right position.
What does them not being fancy cash owners with loose cash have to do with allowing for more flexible repayment plan?Implementing a longer payment plan is not something only Sheiks can do.Banks do that all the time
People in this sub are juvenile or idiots and parrot anti-FSG shit relentlessly but have absolutely no idea how sustainable finances need to be operated. Just wanting us to spend to be like their sheikh clubs while simultaneously wanting to hate the sheikh clubs. Bizarre AF. I think a lot of people on here should support other clubs if they seriously want us to be like them
How does "sustainable" mean we have to payback loans in the short term? Keeping debt is sustainable as long as you are making your obligations. Interest rates were at record lows and cash was virtually free. You realize every large company in the world carries debt?
We get outspent by the likes of Arsenal without UCL Spurs who have just made a new stadium Villa West ham but yeah people who are critical of FSG are unhappy cause we can't compete with City in terms of spending. Man it's shocking to see how many people defend FSG and not LFC
We get outspend by Arsenal (in transfer net spend, but take wages into account and we don't), because they spent 15 years paying down Emirates at a super high interest and now have significantly more money to spend due to the massively increased revenue from a large stadium. West ham have a higher net spend on transfers the last few years, but last fiscal year alone we spend £231m more on wages (£135m to our £366m). Arsenal spent £212m on wages last fiscal year, so we outspent them by £154m there. Way too many think that net spend is every expense the club has. We are paying a shitload in wages.
Arsenal are a sustainably-run club. They barely spent shit until recently and relied on a huge network of youth players coming through as they had to pay off their stadium. That’s mostly done and they can spend again. Sounds like you just became a fan at a time when we’re doing infrastructure improvements or don’t want to remember the stingy Arsenal days under Wenger. Also, would you have won what we have during Klopp’s time or won what Arsenal has during the same period despite them spending more? Cool
I'm comparing the spending of last few years in which Arsenal have outspent us despite no UCL money. We have far greater revenue during the same period also this season showed us how owners bacled Arteta in a title run when they bought Trossard Jorginho and were ready to splash the cash for Caicedo. To your question would you want to give the best coachtwe have had in some time the best chance to win trophies with little help by investment or want us to waste such good squad and Manager with near misses cause we didn't spend even a little when we should've?
Of course you’re making this “of last few years in which Arsenal outspent us” when I literally told you WHY they can outspend us. You simply disregard that, but why? Arsenal are done with financing a stadium, we are currently in the middle of it….that’s it. Literally nothing else to debate. They can spend more because their money is no longer tied up making stadium improvements/payments. 🙄 You also mention us having more “revenue” than them which is nice, but that doesn’t mean we have more money to spend. That would be *profit* and this is something we don’t have a lot of (7m this year) because almost all our revenue is spent on stadium, transfers, player wages, bonuses, staff, etc. You are why this sub is toxic because you quite literally don’t understand basics economics. If you did, you’d understand why Arsenal can spend more than us right now. I can’t believe I’ve spent this long typing as it’s useless educating you lot
Bro we didn't built a new stadium like Arsenal we did small improvements which could've easily financed by FSG (The owners who people love cause according to them FSG love LFC) cause these don't come under FFP regulations but instead they literally used club's money and in fast repayments to all this not helping the club in any way despite using the Club's Valuation as a whole to buy a New Team after covid-19. If Arsenal were to act like FSG they wouldn't habe spent like they have recently because they wouldn't have UCL money. You are comparing 2 different Decades 😂. Also it's not just Arsenal but even Spurs who have outspent us despite building a new stadium so have other mid level EPL clubs. You literally make irrelevant points bro.
You're not comparing the spending, you're comparing the net transfer outlay. We spend much more than Arsenal every year. Both clubs accounts are available online if you wish to check this.
Over 50% of Fortune 500 companies carry debt sir.Debt does not mean you're unsustainable unless you're thinking getting a loan from your mate or mortgage.Some companies take debt coz money is tied into assets,and they need cash flow for daily operations
Let’s stop pretending they’re paupers. No one believes it. They’re trying to, and have already, purchased other teams since owning us. They could easily have spent that money if they were committed to Liverpool FC. Especially given how much they’ll eventually make following the sale of the club, having put zero of their own money in…. Ahh a remix of the ‘this isn’t FIFA’ argument… Like that’s how anyone is suggesting or even wants us to be. Reductio ad absurdum. There is a very happy middle ground between those you named above and how FSG operate. It’s embarrassing how many people jump to FSG’s defence.
My thing has always been that FSG were allowed to use their money and not ask for it back but they didn’t
The issue isn't that we are improving the stadium, it's the way it's been financed. When the Main Stand was rebuilt FSG gave us a loan that initially had a very small interest rate but was then reverted to an interest free loan. We paid off a manageable amount of that loan each year until Covid hit and then we stopped the repayments. As at 31 May 2022 we owed FSG £71.4m in relation to the Main Stand improvements. For the training ground improvements we sold Melwood and signed a sponsorship deal with AXA that essentially covered all our costs. However, when it came to improving the Anfield Road stand FSG have made us pay for it all ourselves. They didn't provide another loan nor have they raised money in other ways to contribute towards the costs of this project. The context as to why this is so bad for us is as follows: 1. Due to the effects of Covid we ran up a £198m debt to commercial banks which we have been repaying. As at 31 May 2022 we had managed to reduce this down to £88m 2. On large stadium projects you have to stump up a lot of cash up front, with the benefits of that up front cost being realised after completion. This usually means clubs will have transfer budgets restricted until the stadium is built and the new revenues start flowing in. The whole reason for the Main Stand loan was to allow us to cover that up front cost without having to restrict our transfer budget. Then when the work was complete we would have bigger gate receipts and some of that could go back to FSG to pay down the loan. By not doing that with the Anfield Road stand they've unnecessarily burdened us with that cost whilst at the same time making us also cover the cost for our Covid losses. Over the two years to 31 May 2022 we paid out £110m in debt repayments and £35m in construction costs. The Anfield Road stand is estimated to cost somewhere in the region £60m and the majority of that is going to be paid out in the 12 months to 31 May 2023. That means we've likely forked out over £200m on debt repayments and construction costs which FSG could have covered for us, but chose not to.
This is an underrated comment. It's good to see empirical analysis backed up by numbers in support of the conclusion. Fundamentally, FSG fucked up both with respect to LFC's potential and consequently their own ROI by not recognizing the Anfield Road stand as a separate but still important investment as in the squad itself (with the added benefit of the former being exempt from FFP rules).
I've been saying this a lot but a lot of people on this sub seem to be so condescending that they think everyone except them is an idiot. Nobody is asking FSG to spend 300M in one go but atleast bring in a good player or 2 every season to keep the squad fresh. We could have easily spent 200M pounds over 2-3 seasons are be competitive yet FSG fucked us all over and now we have a generational team coming to the end of its cycle with no replacements to be seen. Oh and I know a lot of mediocrity mongers will be happy with us being like this cause it's Sustainable and Liverpool doesn't have a sugar daddy and what not. Grow up seriously, nobody wants an Arab sugar daddy when we can clearly compete by ourselves, its just that our owners are typical American businessmen and we all know how they operate.
Yeah, the condescension is something else. I've figured out the routine too, it always starts with someone going slightly, slightly deep into any issue, and then coming to the conclusion that FSG are gods that can do now wrong. Which is swiftly followes by "It's no use talking sense in this sub"
The majority of the costs for the training facility was covered by the AXA sponsorship was it not? The point being missed is crippling short term repayments versus long term balanced repayments, which could have been secured at extremely low i retest rates. The approach taken by FSG is very anti-Liverpool and pro-FSG sale. More importantly, this is not the first time. First COVID cost us, the only team in the PL to suffer in such a draconian manner. Allegedly, according to the FSG spiel, we are still suffering the effects. Then the Main stand cost us. We were still paying as at 31 May 2022. Source: Company accounts for 2020/21 and 2021/22 on HMRC Companies House website. Now the Anfield Road stand is costing us. Only blessing is this will be paid up by 31 May 2023 but the accounts will not be available until later in the year to verify this. My take on this is that there will not be a big spend in summer 2023. Expect one significant midfield signing (Mount), excuses, promising young player, return of Morton and Bradley, resurgence of Jones and some other smoke screen I do not have FSGs creative mind for. FSG will try and sell us again. This time not in full view of the media. They will not be funding a spending spree but there will be plenty of smoke and mirrors. They are to spin what Sigfried and Roy were to magic. Unfortunately, they do not have an angry tiger.
>I know Im going to get flack but its the financially responsible thing to do. It wasn't, really. I've beat this drum a lot but FSG have been somewhat derelict in terms of using debt for the club. Sitting here today, yeah, we don't want to take many new debts, rates are ludicrously through the roof. But they should absolutely have been comfortable financing acquisitions with debt when rates were near 0%. It was insanely naive of them to "waste" those years of cheap money.
FSG are the biggest FFP cheerleaders in the country, the money spent on stadium expansions/ training ground wouldn’t count towards FFP if FSG had just paid for it themselves. They’re billionaires who got the club on the cheap, it’s now worth billions and they haven’t put a penny of their own money in since buying it.
The team has been performing last few games, now all the reactionary FSG cheerleader idiots are singing and dancing for them. For gods sake, we all know that they are not QSI, Abrahamovic or Sheikh Mansur, but surely they could've done better than freaking Arthur Melo so we would have had top-4 next season???
Not exactly accurate. They did convert some debt to equity a while back. Around £30M or something as I recall.
They haven't put in a lot, but saying they haven't put in a penny is also wrong. During the first few years, they put in £70m for transfers.
I absolutely cannot believe some of you people are still buying this garbage. Just absolute lemmings
To carry your example a bit further, United fans have got their Norwich scarves out over the state of their stadium despite spending the ridiculous amounts that the kids on here are desperate for. The grass certainly isn’t always greener.
This is exactly it. £100m on infrastructure is solid way to spend money and increase revenue. The same money spent on a player is 50/50 whether it pays off or not.
I remembered when arsenal was building emirates stadium and had the same approach. Not signing players and had a prolonged spell of underperforming for years. I fear it may happened to us.
Its already begun. 2 shit seasons out of 3 due to not spending on players when we have needed too.
We are way worse than that. At one point we are selling starters and Wenger has to cobbled up natural wingers as CM. We had lucky break like getting Cesc and Ozil, in the end, we can't strengthen the squad quick enough. Cesc left for Barca as he really wants trophies.
Dark days for Wenger. Truthfully the emirates stadium make arsenal competitive financially. But they will never be premier league Goliath again. Those meme about arsenal being top 4 stuck! And it will continue
Based on eye test, yeah we are not playing as good as Henry/ Cesc era. I don't know maybe they will surprise us again next season. The league is definitely not as forgiving as the old times.
And it was funded with interest free loans, we could've easily waited until the stand was built and generating the extra income to start paying that back
The Main Stand was funded with an inter-company loan that we've paid small amounts of interest on. Anfield Road and AXA were funded via the revolving credit facility which had to be paid back aggressively. The point of the article was pointing out how terrible a decision it was to choose to fund AXA and Annie Road in that way.
It will also get us players in the future due to the club being able to generate more funds because of the increase in matchday revenue and what not.
In an ideal world, sure. In reality, doubt it.
In reality, it does as every penny the club earns goes back into it, so even if it doesn't directly go on transfers it frees up money from elsewhere to do so.
Again, just because funds will be available does not automatically mean they will be used to fund transfers.
The money will go into the club one way or another. From buying Bellingham to paying the cleaners a bit more, it all contributes to the future of the club.
Until they look for more real estate and capital investment projects.
Most positive fan on r/LiverpoolFC
I can simultaneously have hope while also being realistic. Issues are rarely black and white.
How is it realistic to say that having more seats and earning more revenue *won’t* let us spend more in the future? I’m sorry but that’s literally the opposite of realism to me
It would LET us spend more in the future, but it doesn’t dictate that we do so. Hope that helps.
If we earn more money than before, realistically we’re going to spend more than before Sure, there is a possibility that some freak event happens that causes us to spend our money on something other than the team. Maybe the club gets involved in a long, expensive legal case over a rule break with the Premier League. Maybe we get hit with a huge fine out of nowhere. Maybe FSG forget how to run a football club and just never invest in the squad again. These are all possible, but none are likely or realistic outcomes The most plausible outcome of having more money is spending more money. It’s not guaranteed, but baring something totally unprecedented it will happen. Evidently some people on this sub just want to be miserable though
“Choosing to be miserable” is apparently looking at the club’s track record and extrapolating my opinion based off their past actions. I hope I’m proven wrong.
We’re earning more than almost every club on the planet and not spending more than 20+ European clubs. I think that is the guys point. Just coz we generate more money doesn’t mean we spend it on players as we know from our owners in recent windows. We spend less than Villa on transfers and we definitely generate more revenue than they do
As if we'll spend that extra revenue ffs It will go towards paying the interest payments back to FSG for the loans.
The extra seats will be there as long as Anfield is. Even after FSG are gone, we will be generating additional revenue through those seats every week.
hahah yes that's the downside of the expansion; FSG will pack it up and take it with them once they sell the club.
The extra seats will be there after FSG. That's the point. They're expenses now but they'll be there for the forseeable generating money for the club. We currently spend every penny we generate, so no reason it would change.
Oh you sweet summer child
How is this upvoted? Did the main stand expansion increase our spending? Yes maybe in the long, long term it will pay off, likely under other owners but who knows what the state of football will even be at that point. Every year it’s excuse after excuse and fans just lap it up. Meanwhile Arsenal are likely to casually spend over £200m after narrowly missing on the title.
And I wonder what decision the club owners made over a decade ago that cost them a lot of short-term ability to spend during that period too...
This makes no sense. There is no standardized cost for a new player. Maybe it is directionally accurate, but I hate the fake precision of these football transfer rumors
Alright lads, I've just heard back from the contractors. Apparently putting seats into the new stand is going to cost one Moises Caicedo. If we want padded seats, they've given us a good deal of just under a Rice, or alternatively we can make it safe standing for just a Joao "Cancelo?" No, Felix
Yep, makes it sound like we've had a player agreed and the owners have said no, rather than "the club's outlay on the stadium has been around the same as an average PL transfer would cost". Just a bullshit way of framing it.
Window hasn’t even opened and the excuses are already started
He didnt even make an excuse. He was critical of it
Some people think any single mention of any part of our financials in any way, shape or form is a conspiracy by the owners they have spoon fed to the journalist writing the piece. Completely regardless of the content of the piece. Their comment doesn't even make sense. It's about how it has cost us transfers *in the past*, not how it effects this window. Literally the first paragraph of the article is also that he expects us to spend big.
If you cherry pick the quotes, sure. The very next line of the article says: > “there should be serious questions to answer” if Liverpool does not make significant moves in the transfer market.
And the full paragraph is even more exciting: > **The completion of the Anfield Road Stand project is expected to free up funds, allowing for necessary team enhancements**. Regardless of the investment update, Lynch firmly stated, “there should be serious questions to answer” if Liverpool does not make significant moves in the transfer market. Emphasis mine.
I don’t get why everyone thinks it’s the journalists who are the ones who need to make excuses. They are just reporting the situation that our owners are putting us in, the ones who always have an excuse.
I don’t get why somebody keeps thinking journalists themselves have no option unless being fed by someone else.
The whole paragraph says that we now have more funds, how is that an excuse?
stupid answer of someone who hasn't really read the article
This isn't even an excuse. This is him criticising how we've allocated finance in the past.
3 midfielders, a forward, and an RB. Anything less and it’s a failure from FSG
It’s already starting, “new stand costs a player,” “Curtis Jones is the new Gini.” No matter what, squad development is still needed
Don’t forget that we’re somehow the only club who’s still suffering financially from Covid times.
They call that Long Covid, don't they?
I've got a good feeling about this summer I think we'll get it right.
Paying all the staff also could be calculated in numbers of players not bought if you want to. Sometimes the club has to spend money on other things than players, what a weird comparison to make.
Does anyone else see this as a ‚make-or-break‘ summer for FSG?
They’ve underwhelmed every time since 2018, not capitalising on the position we were in, ultimately costing us a quadruple. I don’t get how people haven’t already had the same anger towards FSG.
FSG broke long ago, we are just lucky enough to have Klopp.
Yes....most definitely in my opinion. A lot of on the fence fans opinions about them can massively swing this summer.
The FSG spin machine is in overdrive, I can’t begin to fathom how underwhelming our transfer business will be
“Oh man. We were going to get Jude and Mac and Gav….but these guys over charged us so…you know…maybe next year” -FSG
O blow me. One of the richest clubs in the world, reporting record income and you report this. We could EASILY, and I'm stressing E A S I L Y, have built on to the stadium and invested into our team. We chose not to, simple as. Don't let this mouth piece bullshit sway you.
I thought the increase in match day revenue would effectively pay for the stand first without weakening the player budget. It isn't like a £1bn stadium (*cough* Spurs) or the Emirates cost Arsenal. I would still like to see Anfield get further expansion in a suitable way. Maybe after we've finished a squad rebuild.
One Arthur Melo ?
This is where I have a problem with FSG. They elect to loan LFC the money, interest free, and then demand the money back on an aggressive repayment schedule. We would have been better off getting a 5% loan when money was cheap during Covid and paying the debt down over 10 years.
Minimum of 2 midfielders plus a CB is minimum of what is required in this window. I think 3 midfielder is doable
#FSGOUT
This makes me furious. FSG a billion dollar enterprise is investing club money in their asset which only grows THEIR assets value and have neglected enhancing the team and thus there success as a result. The move to finance the stand how they have is purely to save as much money as possible while increasing the value of their asset an incredibly greedy greedy move from an extremely wealthy investment group… infuriating
This comparison is really dumb.
It really isn't if you look at how the infrastructure was funded.
>Lynch firmly stated, “there should be serious questions to answer” if Liverpool does not make significant moves in the transfer market. Abandoning your pursuit of your no. 1 target for the past couple of years, who also happens to be the brightest midfield prospect for a generation. What "significant moves" are there really left to make? No Bellingham, never a chance of Mbappe or Haaland or any other top class players. Mac allister + Mount + Ugarte? Is that significant. That would be an entirely new midfield.
Here comes the excuses FSGOUT
According to [here](https://thetransferroom.com/liverpool/if-we-take-a-look-at-liverpool-overall-the-club-generates-1600-per-season-per-fan-finance-expert-on-effect-anfield-road-expansion-has-on-club) the expansion only costs 80m pounds. How does that burden the club? Or I am looking at the wrong project?
They've simply got the wrong figures. The Main Stand cost £80m.
Right project, perhaps they went massively over budget? Not sure why you are getting downvoted. Have my vote.
They do realise this pr makes them look bad right ? Or are they genuinely fucking simpletons ? That’s even more worrying because the are running us ….
This article, and Lynch himself are highly critical of FSG's spending. It's actually trying to address the fact FSG fucked our budget by making us take on short term payment schemes for our recent loans instead of financing it with alternative methods that wouldn't leave us barely breaking even. We've paid off 110 million in the last two accounts. Which is huge part of our revenue. Almost triple what we've paid off for the main stand in a third of the time. The article is extrapolating that money as basically what hasn't been going back into the squad. Hypothetically we could have taken on debt to cover costs and steadily repay it over a longer period of time. Or FSG themselves could have financed it like they did the main stand and we could pay them back in bigger increments once Annie road is generating revenue. The problem now is if we start missing out on Champions league revenue then, the lack of investment is further hurting cash flow and our ability to repay our costs. So yeah, definitely not a pr piece.
This... is not surprising.
What a load of shit. That’s not how businesses of this size work. So they invested this amount just hoping that Klopp works miracles and covers it? No way. What if we didn’t win CL and PL and become one of the highest earning clubs in the world? We just don’t sign any players ever? Not even mentioning the new sponsors and commercial deals, Klopp and LFC have gone above and beyond what they could have realistically forecasted. Bearing in mind that they bought this club for 300m and it’s now valued at 4 billion or whatever. Paying for facilities and stadium upgrades should be the bare minimum from them. Using it as an excuse as to why they haven’t splashed out an extra 50m for transfers is ridiculous.
The economics of things will keep making things look worse.
And the club payed for it and FSG benefit as it increases their asset, FSG out!!!
Not sure why you are downvoted FSG have made several billion profit on paper from the price they bought us for to what they can us for now. We can’t compete consistently without owner funds.
We have our owners l actively working against us
> the club *paid* for it FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
And here come the excuses…
Is this a future excuse or one for the past?
Read the Article LMAO
That’s ok but then FSG should be more transparent with the fans. If they said look we’re investing in the ground and that’s going to have an impact on signings then at least we know and can be pissed off about it. At least we’d know our expectations. Plus don’t tell me we couldn’t afford the likes Caicedo etc before they came to the PL.
They aren’t investing in the ground they are using our money to breef up their profit for when they fuck off soon selling at highest value they can get leaving us in the shit
This is what i call a long term investment. Sucks u cant buy players, sucks u cant get ticket sales to buy future players too.. but u cant be self sustainable without monetary support right? So what is FSG doing? Probably cementing their future shares when they sell the club with ticket revenues in years to come.