new liverpool thread - everyone loves them (2 Viewers)

[washingcattle]

In fairness to cormac and washingcattle, they're completely financially illiterate... the sad thing is that liverpool and united supporters have ended up having to learn how this all works.

I read the part about 'not needing a manager' last night. as has been said already it's just a provocative way of making a bigger point. i'll copy a part out over lunch.

that interview's interesting, but why does he think the titanic was built in liverpool?

Excuse me ? I'm what now ?

You're the one that can't see the wood for the fucking trees here.

 

[oh shit]

Excuse me ? I'm what now ?

You're the one that can't see the wood for the fucking trees here.

And yet we're all still waiting on your evidence, or indeed any evidence whatsoever that you have even a remote understanding of what you're talking about.

 

[washingcattle]

So am I.

 

[Hector Grey]

don't think that's entirely true. he made champions of utter shit. there's skill in that. after all, madrid don't win everything every season.

 

[oh shit]

Indeed.

 

[oh shit]

United were also the first team floated on the stock market at that key point - that was a massive cash injection that won't ever be repeated.

 

[Cormcolash]

Excuse me ? I'm what now ?

You're the one that can't see the wood for the fucking trees here.

Don't worry about it. They're Liverpool fans, you know, the new version of Newcastle fans, they can't see things that are bloody obvious like the fact that their club has been buying a load of shite players for a long time even when they are in the process of getting relegated, stuff like that, you can't expect them to understand reasonable views about why their club can't compete any more.

 

[oh shit]

Cormac, you haven't got a clue either. You do understand the difference between acquisition debt and income revenue? The club takes in more than double the money it did four years ago. None of that is going to be diverted into interest payments any longer. Therefore the club suddenly has a lot more money free to spend on transfers and wages. The club is financially one of the most competitive in the league, despite lower stadium capacity, which will be increased in the next two years. Do you see how that works? Or would you like someone to draw you a wee picture?

 

[washingcattle]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iAdTpAzQ0...ABX0/gNSHurM3qiU/s1600-h/Turnover+figures.png

That seems pretty clear to me.

 

[oh shit]

Yes, it clearly shows that the operating costs were 80% of the income over ten years. In other words there is more income coming in than going out. Every single year the club's revenue income was higher than its income costs. That is a perfectly healthy balance sheet for a football club and is a different issue to acquisition debt, which was the problem. Football clubs don't exist to make profits for owners, unless your name is Malcolm Glazer, as H&G found out. A net loss after tax is actually irrelevant to the competitiveness of the club, which will remain solvent and able to use higher revenues than most other English clubs to remain competitive.

So where is the excess spending you were talking about?

 

[washingcattle]

It also clearly shows that the club made a £22 million loss. Which is spending £22 million too much. That's not excessive enough ? I'm confused again by your logic.

 

[oh shit]

That's because you're confusing operating profit with net profit. £2.2m a year net loss, over ten years, is not a lot of money. You'll have no problems financing that because the business is solvent. It's operating profits are fine. That's why only rich people buy clubs - they can finance it with loans or put in their own money. No one should buy a football club to make a net profit for themselves. Liverpool's spending has not been 'excessive'.

You also are using the past to judge the new situation. The £40m of debt that we were servicing from our operating profits is now gone. The new owners have paid it off, and what's more NESV have said that any net profits will come from success on the pitch, not from trying to sell it off or refinance it. They don't seek to take dividend payments from the operating profit, they plough it all back into the team, like with the Red Sox.

By the way how much have everton lost, net, over the last ten years? Got any idea?

 

[Unicron]

United were also the first team floated on the stock market at that key point - that was a massive cash injection that won't ever be repeated.

Also true

 

[washingcattle]

Yup we have an unhealthy £40 million plus debt. but that's down from a far bigger figure in the late 90s early 2000s Which is why we rarely buy players and have sold big Dunc Francis Jeffers and Wayne Rooney over the years. But that's hardly the point. I said Liverpool spent beyond it's means and it did. You've posted loads of banking and financial jargon and it took me one google search to find the figure of £22 million in losses. I really don't see why you're so adamant about that figure being insignificant.

 

[washingcattle]

Of course I'm talking about the fucking past. I said Liverpool spent past tense.

 

[oh shit]

It didn't spend beyond its means, it is not in administration, and Everton is not spending beyond its means either. It's not jargon, it's just how it works - I mean do you really think football clubs should make a net profit? Only Arsenal do that, and that's largely thanks to having an economist as your manager with genius for the transfer market, a competitive team that (used to) win things, and north London's absurd property prices.

You know Alan Sugar made Spurs work entirely within their own operating revenues in the 1990s? And as a result their operating profits actually started to decline, rather than improve. The reason was that they became really really boring to watch and hovered in the middle of the table, and people stopped filling the stadium every week. Paradox isn't it. You put a bit in and you get more out. Bigger clubs can finance bigger wages and higher costs without going bust.

 

[Janer]

Impressive or scary?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[washingcattle]

It didn't spend beyond its means, it is not in administration, and Everton is not spending beyond its means either. It's not jargon, it's just how it works - I mean do you really think football clubs should make a net profit? Only Arsenal do that, and that's largely thanks to having an economist as your manager with genius for the transfer market, a competitive team that (used to) win things, and north London's absurd property prices.

You know Alan Sugar made Spurs work entirely within their own operating revenues in the 1990s? And as a result their operating profits actually started to decline, rather than improve. The reason was that they became really really boring to watch and hovered in the middle of the table, and people stopped filling the stadium every week. Paradox isn't it. You put a bit in and you get more out. Bigger clubs can finance bigger wages and higher costs without going bust.

It's not jargon it's how it doesn't work. more accurately Spurs and Arsenal are example of how it can. Perhaps we can agree on this and leave it at that.

Impressive or scary?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Scary three fans were stabbed last night.

 

[Cormcolash]

Cormac, you haven't got a clue either. You do understand the difference between acquisition debt and income revenue? The club takes in more than double the money it did four years ago. None of that is going to be diverted into interest payments any longer. Therefore the club suddenly has a lot more money free to spend on transfers and wages. The club is financially one of the most competitive in the league, despite lower stadium capacity, which will be increased in the next two years. Do you see how that works? Or would you like someone to draw you a wee picture?

None of that has anything to do with what I was saying.
The closest any of you Liverpool fans have come to addressing what I was actually saying accurately, is the couple of people that pointed out the situation didn't occur so we wouldn't know for sure either way (although I still believe Benitez would have put the club into debt buying players to try and win the league given the opportunity).

Your argument is about the state of the club's current finances, and you are moronically trying to equate that to something I said about if the club hadn't been taken over by Gillette in the first place.
The two debates are completely separate, and why you are trying to put them together is beyond me, because that's a fucking stupid idea.
Then again, like a lot of Liverpool fans, you're not overly concerned with listening to what is actually being said, you're more interested in trying to portray Liverpool as a club that currently still has a chance of winning the league sometime in the next couple of years, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I mean, let's take this statement sure:

'the club is financially one of the most competitive in the league'

What a load of fucking nonsense. There are at least FOUR teams ahead of you when it comes to that, possibly more, i.e you're not even in the top 10%. So in other words, that statement doesn't even equate to a Champions League place, yet you're trying to make it look like it gives you a chance of winning the league?

Kop on.

 

[Cormcolash]

It didn't spend beyond its means, it is not in administration, and Everton is not spending beyond its means either. It's not jargon, it's just how it works - I mean do you really think football clubs should make a net profit? Only Arsenal do that, and that's largely thanks to having an economist as your manager with genius for the transfer market, a competitive team that (used to) win things, and north London's absurd property prices.

You know Alan Sugar made Spurs work entirely within their own operating revenues in the 1990s? And as a result their operating profits actually started to decline, rather than improve. The reason was that they became really really boring to watch and hovered in the middle of the table, and people stopped filling the stadium every week. Paradox isn't it. You put a bit in and you get more out. Bigger clubs can finance bigger wages and higher costs without going bust.

You are seriously mental. Anyone that's been following football over the past few years can tell you that football clubs SHOULD try their best to operate on a net profit. If you actually MAKE money from interest, you have EVEN MORE cash to spend on players.
Your idea that football clubs shouldn't be run at a profit is not only nonsense, but it's something that even UEFA and FIFA are looking at doing away with where possible so that they can try and avoid having so many clubs going into administration. Portsmouth in fact are the ultimate proof of this, as they showed that even a Premier League club getting millions in TV revenue etc. can go tits up if they don't take care of their cash.
This idea that it's okay to run at a loss is such a load of bollocks like. What do you do if for instance Torres, your record signing, gets such a badly broken leg that he can't play football ever again? You're fucked! You've paid 25 million for him, and it's just been thrown down the drain. That's half of the Gillette debt, and you've been running at a loss so you have no reserves to try and rectify the situation. Total madness.

Watch United over the next few years, I wouldn't be surprised if all sorts of madness starts happening there. After all, what happened to that 80 million or whatever it was they got for Ronaldo? It hasn't been spent on new signings, that's for fucking sure.