Author Topic: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy  (Read 78062 times)

Offline IndianRed

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,441
  • Derp Derp
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #640 on: February 23, 2012, 08:39:00 pm »
The interesting question is how FSG are going to finance this, They have indicated they dont want to put more of their own money into the business and the business is not making money.

My theory is that at some point they are going to raise money for the business by selling say a 25% stake to someone. That is what I am hoping anyways. If they say inject 100m of fresh capital into Liverpool in return for a 25% stake of the business that is absolutely fine by me. They have said they dont want to leverage the business through debt so it makes sense to leverage the business through equity.

Doesn't the new Warrior deal kick in next year? 25 million quid per season is an amount that can be used to fund a blockbuster signing every summer.

Offline trembles97

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,714
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #641 on: February 23, 2012, 08:45:24 pm »
Lavezzi still has 3 more years left on his contract at the end of this season.

We'd have to fork up a lot of funds for him, definitely north of 30m.

Offline B.Red

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Pray to God but row away from the rocks!
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #642 on: February 23, 2012, 09:02:12 pm »
Lavezzi still has 3 more years left on his contract at the end of this season.

We'd have to fork up a lot of funds for him, definitely north of 30m.

Is that a Van Gogh you're using as your avatar??

Offline megabomberman

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • YNWA to all who wear the red.
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #643 on: February 23, 2012, 09:27:03 pm »
The notion that Chelsea are a business model to follow is laughable.

Also has Aguero been the only expensive player that City have ever signed?? It's as if they have a 100% success record in the transfer market the way people go on here.

Do I have to list the hundreds of millions those fools wasted on foreign flops themselves?

At the very worst the British players we have assembled here, won't be complaining about not seeing their wife in Argentina, or moaning about wanting to go back to Serie A like another shithouse that gets eulogised here regularly...
They also won't be agitating for moves to their boyhood club of Real or Milan if they actually do turn out to have a good season for us either...

Any coincidence that the two longest serving players at our club are from Liverpool? Even if Andy and Jordan are from the North East, if they hit it big here as they progress and we become successful we could have servants for 10+ years... btw I realise Pepe is amazing and loyal but he is a total exception, hence our love of the man.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #644 on: February 23, 2012, 09:47:11 pm »
The notion that Chelsea are a business model to follow is laughable.
Yes very true.

So we will call it a business strategy. And it is a very effective. Spend more than anyone else. Spend as much as it takes to win the League. Be prepared to absorb more losses than anyone else.

So as you rightly say it is not a business model. Losing more than anyone else to win a cup is really just losing.

The other problem is that it isnt a sport. My cat can win the Premiership with enough money. And if you dont believe me you are not giving my cat enough money. It is just an incredibly stupid game.

The problems with City are 1) it is quite efficient in that their wage bill is the same as Chelsea and their squad is much better and 2) they can generate almost infinite amounts of commercial income artificially through their associates.

Offline DanA

  • misses the Eurovision Glory Days.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,127
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #645 on: February 23, 2012, 09:49:04 pm »
I think people are underestimating the increase in commercial revenue. Standard Charter, the Warrior deal and various other smaller deals should see a sizable increase in revenue. If we are not carry the same debt burden we should be in quite a strong position going forward.  We've cut our wage bill pretty significantly and while this year results will be bad with all the bad contracts cleared (players + Hodgeson) in a year or two we're going to look pretty good.

As for the players we signed:
Enrique: Newcastle
Bellamy: Welsh
Downing: Middlesborough
Adam: Blackpool/Scottish
Henderson: Sunderland
Carroll: Newcastle

I think these guys were bought to spend the rest of there careers here. They are all localish lads that likely see Liverpool as there dream club. Suarez was apparently a Liverpool fan, not sure about Coates but it looks to me like we had an emphasis on wanting to be here.

Quote from: hinesy
He hadn't played as if he was on fire, more the slight breeze cutting across New Brighton on a summer's day than El Nino, the force of nature.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #646 on: February 23, 2012, 10:00:33 pm »
I think people are underestimating the increase in commercial revenue. Standard Charter, the Warrior deal and various other smaller deals should see a sizable increase in revenue. If we are not carry the same debt burden we should be in quite a strong position going forward.  We've cut our wage bill pretty significantly and while this year results will be bad with all the bad contracts cleared (players + Hodgson) in a year or two we're going to look pretty good.

As for the players we signed:
Enrique: Newcastle
Bellamy: Welsh
Downing: Middlesborough
Adam: Blackpool/Scottish
Henderson: Sunderland
Carroll: Newcastle

I think these guys were bought to spend the rest of there careers here. They are all localish lads that likely see Liverpool as there dream club. Suarez was apparently a Liverpool fan, not sure about Coates but it looks to me like we had an emphasis on wanting to be here.
Certainly the next set of results will be horrible - losses of maybe 60m.

But there are a lot of exceptionals.

I am not that convinced we have cut our wage bill. I think people have been making some fairly optimistic assumptions and I really dont see how our wage bill has gone down. You may however know the finances far better than me. If you can explain the wage bill it would be interesting.

Offline Sangria

  • In trying to be right ends up wrong without fail
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,044
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #647 on: February 23, 2012, 10:04:24 pm »
I think people are underestimating the increase in commercial revenue. Standard Charter, the Warrior deal and various other smaller deals should see a sizable increase in revenue. If we are not carry the same debt burden we should be in quite a strong position going forward.  We've cut our wage bill pretty significantly and while this year results will be bad with all the bad contracts cleared (players + Hodgson) in a year or two we're going to look pretty good.

As for the players we signed:
Enrique: Newcastle
Bellamy: Welsh
Downing: Middlesborough
Adam: Blackpool/Scottish
Henderson: Sunderland
Carroll: Newcastle

I think these guys were bought to spend the rest of there careers here. They are all localish lads that likely see Liverpool as there dream club. Suarez was apparently a Liverpool fan, not sure about Coates but it looks to me like we had an emphasis on wanting to be here.

If that's the precise reasoning, then it's pretty dumb. Players shouldn't be looking to come to Liverpool as the pinnacle of their careers. They should be looking to come to Liverpool to achieve the pinnacle of their careers. The first can lead to players reaching a comfort zone, content there is nothing more to do once they've got here. In managerial terms, that's a Roy Hodgson. The second group should be looking at Liverpool as the stage on which they can pursue their dreams. In managerial terms, Rafa Benitez. PL and UEFA rules apart, locality shouldn't have anything to do with it. Ambition should be of more consequence.
"i just dont think (Lucas is) that type of player that Kenny wants"
Vidocq, 20 January 2011

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267148.msg8032258#msg8032258

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #648 on: February 24, 2012, 05:28:19 am »
If that's the precise reasoning, then it's pretty dumb. Players shouldn't be looking to come to Liverpool as the pinnacle of their careers. They should be looking to come to Liverpool to achieve the pinnacle of their careers. The first can lead to players reaching a comfort zone, content there is nothing more to do once they've got here. In managerial terms, that's a Roy Hodgson. The second group should be looking at Liverpool as the stage on which they can pursue their dreams. In managerial terms, Rafa Benitez. PL and UEFA rules apart, locality shouldn't have anything to do with it. Ambition should be of more consequence.
To be honest I dont ask much out of players these days they are all mercenaries. If I expect anything out of anybody it would be Henderson. I think Liverpool supporters are more patient than most and we bought him as a long term investment with the view he will turn out well over the long term. I think most supporters at LFC believe in him while other supporters wonder why we didnt buy more instant value. So I do believe there is a bit of long term faith on the basis that we expect him to be around for the long term. Actually I think we as supporters like nothing better than a player that develops like Skrtel or Leiva. We are happy to say I got him wrong if we did and appreciate him sticking with us.

Offline JackBurton

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #649 on: February 24, 2012, 05:56:08 am »
If that's the precise reasoning, then it's pretty dumb. Players shouldn't be looking to come to Liverpool as the pinnacle of their careers. They should be looking to come to Liverpool to achieve the pinnacle of their careers. The first can lead to players reaching a comfort zone, content there is nothing more to do once they've got here. In managerial terms, that's a Roy Hodgson. The second group should be looking at Liverpool as the stage on which they can pursue their dreams. In managerial terms, Rafa Benitez. PL and UEFA rules apart, locality shouldn't have anything to do with it. Ambition should be of more consequence.

I felt that was the problem with a lot of Houllier's signings.  They had the attitude of "I've made it!" the second they got here, which is just the wrong way around of thinking about it.  For right or wrong Rafa was always on about players attitudes being equally important when looking to sign somebody, which mostly worked out even if skill-wise they weren't up to scratch.  I think someone like Downing falls into the former category.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #650 on: February 24, 2012, 06:41:12 am »
BTW I am beginning to give up because I think people find me irritating or think I am a bullshitter. But I do honestly have better things to do than bullshit. And while I dont know anything about football I do understand fairly well Henry's investment mind. He is totally logical. The problem for supporters is that investment logic is almost always contra to what they believe. For instance if everyone in the world thought a stockmarket would go up you can guarantee 100% it would go down. If you actually think about it, it is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Anyway a more important statement of investment logic is this. What supporters most want, Henry cannot give you because what you most want you are simply overvaluing. And as you are overvaluing it he will actually give you less. Now please understand that he is being totally logical and maximizing the returns on the business for supporters and it is the supporters who are being illogical by expecting too great returns from something.

So please understand this logic because Henry cannot act in any other way. When Supporters say that qualifying for CL is crucial this year all you are saying to Henry is that you expect too high returns for qualifying for CL. He doesnt have a business plan whereby anything is 'crucial', he must expect both success and failure rather than bet the club on success. The problem the supporters create is by saying that CL qualification is crucial you are expecting too high returns from CL qualification which means you are underestimating how things will turn out without so that he can get better returns for you by betting more capital on you not qualifying for CL. Look if you qualify for CL you will be disappointed because you overestimated the returns while if you do not you will be pleased because you thought the costs were higher. So look he is acting in your best interests by allocating less capital to what you think is most important because you think their is a concept as most important in a business plan.

Anyway, I am trying to say that Henry is one of the most totally logical investors in the world and understanding his stuff is actually just as interesting as football if anyone can be bothered. But you should understand that logic is quirky. And be careful what you wish for.

Offline DanA

  • misses the Eurovision Glory Days.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,127
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #651 on: February 24, 2012, 07:01:06 am »
If that's the precise reasoning, then it's pretty dumb. Players shouldn't be looking to come to Liverpool as the pinnacle of their careers. They should be looking to come to Liverpool to achieve the pinnacle of their careers. The first can lead to players reaching a comfort zone, content there is nothing more to do once they've got here. In managerial terms, that's a Roy Hodgson. The second group should be looking at Liverpool as the stage on which they can pursue their dreams. In managerial terms, Rafa Benitez. PL and UEFA rules apart, locality shouldn't have anything to do with it. Ambition should be of more consequence.

Hang on you're putting words in my mouth. Just because they come to their dream club doesn't mean that they lose all future ambition. All it means is this is where they want to be and they're not going to fuck off to Barcelona or Real Madrid when they come calling. I don't think anybody dreams of sitting on the bench, they dream of days like Istanbul and while some KOP hero's like Alonso leave for Real Madrid, local lads like Gerrard are less likely to make that move and it's not for lack of ambition.


I
Certainly the next set of results will be horrible - losses of maybe 60m.

But there are a lot of exceptionals.

I am not that convinced we have cut our wage bill. I think people have been making some fairly optimistic assumptions and I really dont see how our wage bill has gone down. You may however know the finances far better than me. If you can explain the wage bill it would be interesting.

I agree with the bad results but I think there is a fair chance the wage bill has been cut. Adam, Henderson, Carroll and Downing were on long contracts at much smaller clubs. Enrique & Suarez were coming towards the end of their contract so are probably on a bit more but I think Coates is unlikely to be on big money too. I know City are paying some of Bellamy's wages too.  I think most of them represent a high transfer cost but comparatively low wages.

 
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 07:02:38 am by DanA »
Quote from: hinesy
He hadn't played as if he was on fire, more the slight breeze cutting across New Brighton on a summer's day than El Nino, the force of nature.

Offline surfer. Fuck you generator.

  • surgood. As good as Suarez but CBA to play for us. Takes it on the chin and never holds a pointless grudge for several months.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,173
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #652 on: February 24, 2012, 07:06:14 am »
BTW I am beginning to give up because I think people find me irritating or think I am a bullshitter. But I do honestly have better things to do than bullshit. And while I dont know anything about football I do understand fairly well Henry's investment mind. He is totally logical. The problem for supporters is that investment logic is almost always contra to what they believe. For instance if everyone in the world thought a stockmarket would go up you can guarantee 100% it would go down. If you actually think about it, it is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Anyway a more important statement of investment logic is this. What supporters most want, Henry cannot give you because what you most want you are simply overvaluing. And as you are overvaluing it he will actually give you less. Now please understand that he is being totally logical and maximizing the returns on the business for supporters and it is the supporters who are being illogical by expecting too great returns from something.

So please understand this logic because Henry cannot act in any other way. When Supporters say that qualifying for CL is crucial this year all you are saying to Henry is that you expect too high returns for qualifying for CL. He doesnt have a business plan whereby anything is 'crucial', he must expect both success and failure rather than bet the club on success. The problem the supporters create is by saying that CL qualification is crucial you are expecting too high returns from CL qualification which means you are underestimating how things will turn out without so that he can get better returns for you by betting more capital on you not qualifying for CL. Look if you qualify for CL you will be disappointed because you overestimated the returns while if you do not you will be pleased because you thought the costs were higher. So look he is acting in your best interests by allocating less capital to what you think is most important because you think their is a concept as most important in a business plan.

Anyway, I am trying to say that Henry is one of the most totally logical investors in the world and understanding his stuff is actually just as interesting as football if anyone can be bothered. But you should understand that logic is quirky. And be careful what you wish for.

It's fine reading your posts mate ; besides I know for a fact that you know that area of knowledge quite well due to the pms some time back. I try to see the substance of what you're saying because it's you, but someone with barely any idea of your history on here is going to see the words, see the potential to throw a comic comment in, and have fun.

I think it'll be a lot simpler for you if you stated your take on the issue once, and left it at that. It's not really necessary for you to try to convince people by trying to explain it more and more, it's not your job and is a waste of time.

Offline kaz1983

  • "Bloody Memory Wavers" Currently in debt with RAWK.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,505
  • Well dunno what to say, honest
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #653 on: February 24, 2012, 07:15:18 am »
That does  not mean I dont understand the situation in which we find ourselves now I'm just stating my personal preference the fact the world may have to tilt on its axis to make it happen is just an inconvenience. Much like Barcelona if any club should be fan owned it is this one.

Make the clubs fan owned, constrain them to spend what they earn and the current plutocracy becomes a meritocracy or at least more like one than the nonsense we have now. There would still be big clubs, United and Liverpool would do very well from such an arrangement but I hope I'd feel the same way even if I supported Southend United.

That the thing, Barcalona are owned by the fans but are heaped with lots of debt..... how does that work, did the fans decide to heap debt on the club?

Serious question...

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #654 on: February 24, 2012, 07:35:34 am »
I agree with the bad results but I think there is a fair chance the wage bill has been cut. Adam, Henderson, Carroll and Downing were on long contracts at much smaller clubs. Enrique & Suarez were coming towards the end of their contract so are probably on a bit more but I think Coates is unlikely to be on big money too. I know City are paying some of Bellamy's wages too.  I think most of them represent a high transfer cost but comparatively low wages.
But we still have most of Cole and I think quite a lot of Aquilani. So where were the savings? Konchesky, Poulsen, Meireles, Torres I guess a couple of others. I do agree though that over time having a wage policy cap that we recruit people who want to play for us on decent wages and dont mind the cost is better than having Cole's around at 90k a week. And ultimately we will be able to pay players 150k a week but we wont be buying them in the market - it will be players like Suarez who have joined us and proved their worth. Controlling the wage base is crucial because everything is relative. Spurs success is due to their wage cost control.

BTW I suspect you are right about our revenues - I saw the Deloittes numbers and they were higher than I expected. To get the business cash flow positive is simply a question of a couple of years. The problems we have is that we could really do with an extra 100m in the team and that a new stadium would probably absorb all cash flow for ten years as it pays down debt. Henry isnt going to wait that long so I suspect he has a plan to accelerate the growth. I mean 200m additional capital and we are talking business and we really need that money before Spurs get it.

Offline BobbyDavro

  • can't skate
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,628
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #655 on: February 24, 2012, 07:47:24 am »
BTW I am beginning to give up because I think people find me irritating or think I am a bullshitter. But I do honestly have better things to do than bullshit. And while I dont know anything about football I do understand fairly well Henry's investment mind. He is totally logical. The problem for supporters is that investment logic is almost always contra to what they believe. For instance if everyone in the world thought a stockmarket would go up you can guarantee 100% it would go down. If you actually think about it, it is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

First off, keep writing - anyone saying anything different is what keeps me coming on here.
But secondly, is that statement right?  If everyone believes the stockmarket will go up, surely it will go up?  It's all about confidence, and if you have 100% confidence, surely the share prices will inevitably rise?

On our strategy, I don't like it and it's not just because i don't trust it.
We needed instant quality otherwise the gravy train pulls out of the station.
We're now fighting for one place out of 4, when we should have been right in the mix, and more quality now would have improved our chances of that.
Henderson is a nice tidy player, but who very rarely influences a result.
For Ł16m I'd have rather have had an effective midfielder for now and the next 5 years, than one that will be effective in a year or so, and then remain effective for more like the next 8 years.
We had nowhere near a good enough squad to be planning instantly for the future.  Fix the here and now and then start planning for the future -  because years out of the top 4 will kill us.

Offline Baz Smythe

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,922
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #656 on: February 24, 2012, 08:05:18 am »
But we still have most of Cole and I think quite a lot of Aquilani. So where were the savings? Konchesky, Poulsen, Meireles, Torres I guess a couple of others. I do agree though that over time having a wage policy cap that we recruit people who want to play for us on decent wages and dont mind the cost is better than having Cole's around at 90k a week. And ultimately we will be able to pay players 150k a week but we wont be buying them in the market - it will be players like Suarez who have joined us and proved their worth. Controlling the wage base is crucial because everything is relative. Spurs success is due to their wage cost control.

BTW I suspect you are right about our revenues - I saw the Deloittes numbers and they were higher than I expected. To get the business cash flow positive is simply a question of a couple of years. The problems we have is that we could really do with an extra 100m in the team and that a new stadium would probably absorb all cash flow for ten years as it pays down debt. Henry isnt going to wait that long so I suspect he has a plan to accelerate the growth. I mean 200m additional capital and we are talking business and we really need that money before Spurs get it.



Why are you so insistent that a new stadium is going to drastically reduce our spending. It happened to Arsenal only because they did a shitty deal with Emirates that's already been dumped on 4 times over by City. Granted that's a dodgy deal but that is now the standard that all future naming rights deals will be set at. Say a stadium costs us Ł450 million pound maybe less as we're not in London but I think this is a fair estimation, now if City can get a Ł400 million pound naming rights deal I fully expect Ayre to magic up a top deal of at least 300-350 million, maybe he could even get us 400, but let's just say Ł300 for arguments sake over 10 years. That's 3/4 of the stadium paid off without having to dip into any of our current spenditure. Then we move onto naming a couple stands, we'll keep the Kop for starters so that leaves 3 that can be sponsored, say the Addidas west stand, the Miller light North stand and the Coca Cola east stand, easily would generate 50-100 mil over the next ten years. Then we can move onto the businesses side all the boxes and meetings rented which is where United make a ton of cash and one place I expect us to take full advantage of which can easily generate another 50 mil over ten years. And there are also other areas to exploit like the Audi seats at OT, the extra money from more seats.
I just don't see this as a problem really, I fully expect them to exploit every area to pay off this stadium, just because Arsenal haven't doesn't mean we won't. And this is only over ten years, without even dipping into our Standard chartered or Warrior deals
Follow me on twitter.

https://twitter.com/1chrissmith1

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #657 on: February 24, 2012, 08:23:37 am »

Why are you so insistent that a new stadium is going to drastically reduce our spending. It happened to Arsenal only because they did a shitty deal with Emirates that's already been dumped on 4 times over by City. Granted that's a dodgy deal but that is now the standard that all future naming rights deals will be set at. Say a stadium costs us Ł450 million pound maybe less as we're not in London but I think this is a fair estimation, now if City can get a Ł400 million pound naming rights deal I fully expect Ayre to magic up a top deal of at least 300-350 million, maybe he could even get us 400, but let's just say Ł300 for arguments sake over 10 years. That's 3/4 of the stadium paid off without having to dip into any of our current spenditure. Then we move onto naming a couple stands, we'll keep the Kop for starters so that leaves 3 that can be sponsored, say the Addidas west stand, the Miller light North stand and the Coca Cola east stand, easily would generate 50-100 mil over the next ten years. Then we can move onto the businesses side all the boxes and meetings rented which is where United make a ton of cash and one place I expect us to take full advantage of which can easily generate another 50 mil over ten years. And there are also other areas to exploit like the Audi seats at OT, the extra money from more seats.
I just don't see this as a problem really, I fully expect them to exploit every area to pay off this stadium, just because Arsenal haven't doesn't mean we won't. And this is only over ten years, without even dipping into our Standard chartered or Warrior deals
Look if it was easy to finance it would have been financed. If Ayre finds 350m all credit to him.

But essentially the problem with stadiums is....
1) If you dont get the debt back the club will simply spend the cash flow elsewhere.
2) There is virtually no resell value if the business goes under
3) You are essentially financing an asset through people who will not be the ultimate owners (as in supporters verses shareholders)

And look Arsenal has 100m of matchday plus CL every year and you say we can finance a stadium quicker. Essentially a stadium is a dividend to shareholders. I would be very surprised if Henry made supporters pay down debt over ten years. I think he will come up with something.

Offline LFCncRED

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #658 on: February 24, 2012, 08:27:40 am »
BTW I am beginning to give up because I think people find me irritating or think I am a bullshitter. But I do honestly have better things to do than bullshit. And while I dont know anything about football I do understand fairly well Henry's investment mind. He is totally logical. The problem for supporters is that investment logic is almost always contra to what they believe. For instance if everyone in the world thought a stockmarket would go up you can guarantee 100% it would go down. If you actually think about it, it is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

I rarely post - usually don't have much useful to say  :) - but please keep on posting as far as I'm concerned, enjoy reading your posts. They provide a different and challenging perspective from the usual herd mentality at RAWK towers - even if I don't always agree with all of them  ;)
We have to change from doubters to believers. Now!

Offline trembles97

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,714
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #659 on: February 24, 2012, 08:42:47 am »
Is that a Van Gogh you're using as your avatar??

Yes, I like the stars.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #660 on: February 24, 2012, 08:56:37 am »
First off, keep writing - anyone saying anything different is what keeps me coming on here.
But secondly, is that statement right?  If everyone believes the stockmarket will go up, surely it will go up?  It's all about confidence, and if you have 100% confidence, surely the share prices will inevitably rise?
Look if you have 100% confidence I will guarantee all you really gave is too much confidence.

And if everyone thinks the market is going up, they have all logically bought and perhaps someone is going to sell because they think it might go down. Afterall if everyone thinks it is going up there are no sellers and you cannot get less than that.

Offline BobbyDavro

  • can't skate
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,628
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #661 on: February 24, 2012, 10:05:45 am »
If everyone has confidence the market is going up, then people are buying, demand is high, the price rises etc and so on.

I appreciate that there's always an end, but positive cycles are driven by high confidence.

Offline Gainsbarre

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,064
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #662 on: February 24, 2012, 10:09:04 am »
Quote
BTW I am beginning to give up because I think people find me irritating or think I am a bullshitter. But I do honestly have better things to do than bullshit. And while I dont know anything about football I do understand fairly well Henry's investment mind. He is totally logical.

Modern world ... footall forum where each and every accountant believes he's smarter than everybody else..
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 04:58:11 pm by Gainsbarre »
"Blackstone was targeted by Internet terrorists," Hicks said. "It absolutely had an impact on them."

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #663 on: February 24, 2012, 11:29:26 am »
Not really, Henderson has not been doing the job he was brought for, which is assists and goals. He has a decent player at best but stretchingTh it if we believe he has been a good player. Meireles of course contributed more to our season as seen from last year or even this year. Meireles as a Liverpool player has more assists than Downing this premier league season . Now that is a sad fact but that's another story. The point is getting Henderson was not a signing which we really needed and it was more about following our English transfer policy.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, mate. My points were basically these:

Henderson has been a good player, he will almost certainly become a better one. Ł16m looks about right at the moment, and could look like a bargain in a few years time.

He will contribute more over the next four years than Meireles would have.

He wasn't signed to replace Meireles so the comparison is fairly meaningless.


Quote
So, firstly had Carroll been performing, we would have been in Europe last season. And surely with Torres last season, we would have reached Europe. Carroll's performances have been a major reason for our failure last season and potential this season on the 4th spot.

Not sure what point you think I made that this has anything to do with?

And which of Torres' two goals from last season would have taken us into Europe? Obvious bollocks.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #664 on: February 24, 2012, 11:32:25 am »
Is Manchester United really the model we want to be following? I think they are procariously placed financially and it won't take a lot for it to fall apart. They are carrying too much debt just as we were and have been well run but fortunate with the sale of Ronaldo, ongoing success and a stable management. If some of that stops working then they could be in really trouble. The debt they are carrying is no doubt weighing heavily around there neck.

In terms of managing the club, growing revenue and so on they are miles ahead of anyone. We don't have their levels of debt to worry about any more, so if we can catch up in the other areas, we'll be miles ahead.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #665 on: February 24, 2012, 11:46:51 am »
You dont obviously need any home grown players so that you can win the league with 17 players. However, a team with 25 players is more likely to win it than a team with 24.

Not true. There was never a limit on player numbers before last season, but I'd be very surprised if you found any clear correlation between squad size and success in the table. You certainly don't see that at the moment with only 4 or 5 clubs having 25 players registered. I'd be surprised if all of those players get more than a couple of games at the clubs where this is the case.

You don't sign players just to make up squad numbers to an arbitrary limit, you sign what you think you need to get the job done. If you can afford to pay 5 players 20k a week, you can afford to pay one, much better, player 100k a week. You can only involve 14 players in a match, anything else the club has beyond what you need on the pitch is a costly drain on resources, which could be more effectively spent elsewhere.

There's a certain amount of gambling here over fitness and form, hence why we have no proper cover for Lucas or Enrique, so far that's cost us with Lucas, but we've managed to keep Enrique ticking over. It's not an exact science, but there's nothing special about having 25 players registered, there's no advantage to it in itself since the weakest four or five of those 25 players are always far less likely to get game time than the U21s in the squad.

Mourinho, when he was at Chelsea, said that he thought a squad of 22 should be enough to win the league.

The "home grown" thing is also a bit of a distraction. When it was brought in last season, only one player was de-registered as a direct consquence, and that was an English player, Woodgate. That rule was to prevent the status quo from shifting towards more foreign trained players than there are already, most clubs had 8 home grown players on the books, or just registered a smaller squad. Chelsea, if I remember rightly, were the only club to register less than 8 home grown players.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline kaz1983

  • "Bloody Memory Wavers" Currently in debt with RAWK.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,505
  • Well dunno what to say, honest
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #666 on: February 24, 2012, 11:50:00 am »
If everyone has confidence the market is going up, then people are buying, demand is high, the price rises etc and so on.

I appreciate that there's always an end, but positive cycles are driven by high confidence.

The good example of over confidence would be the dot com bubble.

Offline joe ®

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #667 on: February 24, 2012, 11:53:06 am »
The good example of over confidence would be the dot com bubble.

Doesn't mean that a lot of people didn't lost money by betting on the dotcom bubble bursting. They just did it too early.

Timing is everything in trading. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #668 on: February 24, 2012, 11:53:21 am »
Look I agree getting the timing right is difficult.

However you know 100% that when City is losing 195m in a year, that the timing is wrong. I dont care whether FFP is going to work, they certainly will not increase their cost base. Apparently nobody gives a toss and thinks we should go on spending. As you say timing is difficult but you can say it aint going to get any worse.

And look I dont want to get all moral but if City are losing 195m a year winning, just how much are we expecting our shareholders to lose in order to win. I just wouldnt want them to spend 150m winning because you cant justify it. You can put 150m to serious use rather than paying it to footballers.

And I get told to fuck off because I am interested in Liverpools finances while my cat could probably win the league if it was allowed to lose 195m in a year. Look if you are not interested in finances then simply support City on the basis that they will spend whatever it takes to win the league. If you dont care that they lost 195m to win a cup and they are losers not winners then fine but you do believe you are following a sport rather than a bank account.

Again, you demonstrate that you have little or no understanding of why people support the teams they do.
Support a club because they will spend more money? No thanks, I already have a club. That doesn't change.

And, as you've said yourself, if you can't afford to buy and run a club, you have no business owning one.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Sangria

  • In trying to be right ends up wrong without fail
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,044
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #669 on: February 24, 2012, 11:59:01 am »
The "home grown" thing is also a bit of a distraction. When it was brought in last season, only one player was de-registered as a direct consquence, and that was an English player, Woodgate. That rule was to prevent the status quo from shifting towards more foreign trained players than there are already, most clubs had 8 home grown players on the books, or just registered a smaller squad. Chelsea, if I remember rightly, were the only club to register less than 8 home grown players.

The geniuses who ran our club bought more homegrown players because we were short, and the rules required at least 8 homegrowns in every squad.
"i just dont think (Lucas is) that type of player that Kenny wants"
Vidocq, 20 January 2011

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267148.msg8032258#msg8032258

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #670 on: February 24, 2012, 12:00:24 pm »
The geniuses who ran our club bought more homegrown players because we were short, and the rules required at least 8 homegrowns in every squad.

No they don't. The rules say you can have up to 25 players, with 8 places reserved for homegrowns. You can put in a list of 17 non-homegrown players if you like.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Sangria

  • In trying to be right ends up wrong without fail
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,044
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #671 on: February 24, 2012, 12:03:57 pm »
No they don't. The rules say you can have up to 25 players, with 8 places reserved for homegrowns. You can put in a list of 17 non-homegrown players if you like.

That's my point. See who the geniuses were who ran our club at the time, who made that argument, and who made the decisions. They're out of the club now, thank god.
"i just dont think (Lucas is) that type of player that Kenny wants"
Vidocq, 20 January 2011

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267148.msg8032258#msg8032258

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #672 on: February 24, 2012, 12:09:40 pm »
That's my point. See who the geniuses were who ran our club at the time, who made that argument, and who made the decisions. They're out of the club now, thank god.

I see.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #673 on: February 24, 2012, 12:23:15 pm »
Not true. There was never a limit on player numbers before last season, but I'd be very surprised if you found any clear correlation between squad size and success in the table. You certainly don't see that at the moment with only 4 or 5 clubs having 25 players registered. I'd be surprised if all of those players get more than a couple of games at the clubs where this is the case.

You don't sign players just to make up squad numbers to an arbitrary limit, you sign what you think you need to get the job done. If you can afford to pay 5 players 20k a week, you can afford to pay one, much better, player 100k a week. You can only involve 14 players in a match, anything else the club has beyond what you need on the pitch is a costly drain on resources, which could be more effectively spent elsewhere.

There's a certain amount of gambling here over fitness and form, hence why we have no proper cover for Lucas or Enrique, so far that's cost us with Lucas, but we've managed to keep Enrique ticking over. It's not an exact science, but there's nothing special about having 25 players registered, there's no advantage to it in itself since the weakest four or five of those 25 players are always far less likely to get game time than the U21s in the squad.

Mourinho, when he was at Chelsea, said that he thought a squad of 22 should be enough to win the league.

The "home grown" thing is also a bit of a distraction. When it was brought in last season, only one player was de-registered as a direct consquence, and that was an English player, Woodgate. That rule was to prevent the status quo from shifting towards more foreign trained players than there are already, most clubs had 8 home grown players on the books, or just registered a smaller squad. Chelsea, if I remember rightly, were the only club to register less than 8 home grown players.
Nessy if your perfect squad size with your finances is 24 it must be a better squad if you had more finances and 25. So the fact that you have 24 reflects the fact that you dont have enough finances rather than enough players. And if you cant afford 25 players why shoulld you own a club when you are allowed 25 players. I mean I only have 18 players because I can only afford 18 players is actually stating that you cannot afford the club. Look 25 is better than 24 we know that. So I can win the league with 18 players who are much better isnt responsible. It is a simple statement of fact that 25 is better than 24. If you wish to argue that an efficient use of capital with 18 players is better you are wrong because all it is saying is that you dony have enough capital. You should provide 25 players because you are financing a squad not playing a game of capital efficiency. Look the one thing I can guarantee with 100% certainty is 25 is more than 24. You might tell me your squad of 18 is much better but I would simply point out that you are only telling me that you cannot afford 25 players so you shouldnt own a club. Because even you know that your 18 players + 7 more is better. So look if I want to win a football tournament and I am allowed 25 players the assumption that I can win it with less is a poor one.You would assume you would need 25. You could of course win it with 11.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 12:25:22 pm by Abrak »

Offline kaz1983

  • "Bloody Memory Wavers" Currently in debt with RAWK.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,505
  • Well dunno what to say, honest
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #674 on: February 24, 2012, 12:32:06 pm »
Doesn't mean that a lot of people didn't lost money by betting on the dotcom bubble bursting. They just did it too early.

Timing is everything in trading. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

I agree, just when I read the words confidence and stock market - the dot com bubble came to mind.

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #675 on: February 24, 2012, 12:52:12 pm »
Nessy if your perfect squad size with your finances is 24 it must be a better squad if you had more finances and 25. So the fact that you have 24 reflects the fact that you dont have enough finances rather than enough players. And if you cant afford 25 players why shoulld you own a club when you are allowed 25 players. I mean I only have 18 players because I can only afford 18 players is actually stating that you cannot afford the club. Look 25 is better than 24 we know that.

No, we don't know that at all. If that was so blindingly obvious, then why do so few clubs have that many players? Why, before the ruling came in, did teams not recruit dozens or even hundreds of players?

There are many reasons why 25 might not be better than 24.

That 25th player is very unlikely to get a game. His wages could be put to better use improving the scouting network, or go towards improving the stadium. Instead you have a man on the payroll, a drain on resources, who is going to realise pretty quickly that he has no place in the manager's plans.

He'll get pissed off. He might miss training, who could blame him? But then, if he does that, how do the other players react? Maybe some of your more important players follow his example. Maybe they don't, maybe they just get really pissed off with him and it escalates into a brawl, someone gets injured or suspended. All because some twat in the finance department thinks he knows the manager's job and that 25 players must be better than 24. Based on sod all.

Even managers who like to rotate don't get through that many players, it disrupts the side to have that many players come in and out. And it means everyone else gets less game-time. Players don't like that. If they aren't getting enough time, they'll leave for another club where they will. Or perhaps you'd prefer the manager to weaken his team by selecting players who he doesn't believe are good enough?

There is nothing magic about the number 25, it's one the Premier League pulled out of their arses so as not to upset the clubs when they decided they wanted to make a statement about not having foreigners over-run the game, because it wouldn't actually affect the clubs. It isn't based on analysis of what makes an optimum squad. No club has ever won the league with a squad that size. Even if Man City change that this year, you'll find plenty of players in their 25 man squad who haven't really made a contribution.

Yet again, you view players purely as a commodity. They aren't. They are people. They need to be managed, not stacked on a shelf like a product. And I'm surprised that you of all people are so keen for the club to waste so much of that lovely money you are so fond of.

You might be able to "afford" 25 players, but you'll always be able to find ten better players than twenty of those. Football clubs can always spend more money, it isn't a case of how many you can afford, it's how you spend the money available to deliver optimum quality. Yes, we could afford a hundred players if we paid League Two wages, but then we'd get League Two players, just lots of them. Fuck all use in qualifying for Europe.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 12:56:32 pm by Nessy76 »
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Haemoglobin

  • The Phantom Drive-By Dunker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,513
  • Nunca Caminarás Solo
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #676 on: February 24, 2012, 01:10:39 pm »
25 24 100% guaranteed 6 players winning 4 places losing 25 100% certainty 24 6 players 25 100% 4 winning losing places guaranteed 24 100% players 6  25 100 4 places % winners losing 24% 6 players 100 places 4 guaranteed losing winners %100 certainty 25.
"under-promise and over-deliver"

Offline exiledinyorkshire

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,699
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #677 on: February 24, 2012, 01:26:38 pm »
To be honest I dont ask much out of players these days they are all mercenaries. If I expect anything out of anybody it would be Henderson. I think Liverpool supporters are more patient than most and we bought him as a long term investment with the view he will turn out well over the long term. I think most supporters at LFC believe in him while other supporters wonder why we didnt buy more instant value. So I do believe there is a bit of long term faith on the basis that we expect him to be around for the long term. Actually I think we as supporters like nothing better than a player that develops like Skrtel or Leiva. We are happy to say I got him wrong if we did and appreciate him sticking with us.


Not picking holes , but Skertl was excellent when he arrived.

Offline Suareznumber7

  • Gullible. Lost in the modern world, thinks all tweets are true.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,897
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #678 on: February 24, 2012, 01:27:17 pm »
I'm just not smart enough to understand most of what is being said in here.  But please don't stop.  It's pretty interesting. 

Offline BobbyDavro

  • can't skate
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,628
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #679 on: February 24, 2012, 01:38:16 pm »
I'm a bit confused about the 24 players vs 25 debate.
i see the point that you should be able to afford 25, but still.  Money is finite, even for City, and I'd far rather have 24 players of a higher quality than 25 of a lower one.
In fact, I'd much rather have 22 of higher quality, and if you're ever down to picking #23 just cycle one of the reserves or youth team in.
I think one of Benitez's downfalls was his aim to have as large a squad as possible, and he'd have been far better served just caring about the first 18.
Right now, I think if you numbered the players in order of importance, we've got lots that would be in the double figures, and not enough worth of being in the 1-9.