Topic: LFC announces financial results for year to May 2016

[killer-heels]

Agree.
I'd say milner is only on what's he's on because of the free transfer. I imagine matip is on a lot too. Rest of the players I agree. Lallana worth £110k just as this will be his peak contract.

Not sure how Mignolet and Lovren get pay rises though. To me there's looking after your asset then making them unsellable as no one will pay them like we do.

Not sure why if we really want to extend their contracts offer then the same wage. If they say no then fine. It's not like any other club would pay them that.

The Mignolet contract extension was mad. That said he probably would also be off at the end of the season if Karius was any good. Lovren is probably on really high wages as it is so another rise seems equally mad.

[classycarra]

The Mignolet contract extension was mad. That said he probably would also be off at the end of the season if Karius was any good. Lovren is probably on really high wages as it is so another rise seems equally mad.

Yet you'd probably be in here whinging about us not paying players or prospective signings enough if we didn't have this angle of unpopular players to go for

[killer-heels]

Yet you'd probably be in here whinging about us not paying players or prospective signings enough if we didn't have this angle of unpopular players to go for

I dont care what we pay them as long as they perform. I dont really care about the link between league places and wages and if anything this just further strengthens the point i support that we have massively underachieved in the last 6-7years.

[classycarra]

I dont care what we pay them as long as they perform.

Is that really true though? You just used Milner as an example. Do you think he's not performed this season?

Or Lovren? (obviously not ideal example given injuries and other uncontrolled absences)

[kundalini]

£42m increase in wages is surprising.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

Lloris and Aiderweirald signed new contracts this season so they could be on more now.

The Spurs wage cap is set at 120k, of which Kane is currently at the top. I imagine that Lloris is on something similar, and Alderweirald is in one bracket below. To wit, I think Mignolet and Lovren are in similar pay brackets to the afforementioned duo.

[The Woolster]

The signing on fees aren't accounted for in the wages, this is noted in the accounts.

Are you referring to note 1.9? If so, that's not my reading of it. Says  signing on fees are charged to admin expenses over the life of the player's contract, and wages are classified as Admin expense in the P&L, and my guess is that is where they are allocated.

But as they are accounted for over the contract length, I'd have thought they wouldn't get close to explaining the big increase in wages

[CraigDS]

Are you referring to note 1.9? If so, that's not my reading of it. Says  signing on fees are charged to admin expenses over the life of the player's contract, and wages are classified as Admin expense in the P&L, and my guess is that is where they are allocated.

But as they are accounted for over the contract length, I'd have thought they wouldn't get close to explaining the big increase in wages

Possibly mate, I only glossed over it as I was scrolling through it before heading out.

Like you say though, hardly enough to account for such a large increase.

[The Woolster]

Scratch that, realised there is a £26m gap between what listed in the notes under Admin expenses + wages, and the £330m that we see in the P&L as Admin Expenses. Could well be in there (amongst other things) so that we don't get to see what they pay in signing on fees

[rich87]

£42m increase in wages is surprising.

Depends if the owners are paying themselves a wage

[CraigDS]

Depends if the owners are paying themselves a wage

Director's wages are listed elsewhere.

[rocco]

Personally 69% Is huge worry no matter what way it came about
If it's due to the bonus incentive set up , it need looking at , as we've won fuck all .

Going to effect out transfer dealings .

Anything over 55% is to much imo .

[classycarra]

Anything over 55% is to much imo .

How seriously should we take your opinion? Have you run a football club before? Why 55%?

[rocco]

How seriously should we take your opinion? Have you run a football club before? Why 55%?

Remembering reading a article on Swiss ramble about anything over that puts huge strain on transfers and the club in general

[rocco]

I'd be interested to read posters thoughts on the wage increase been possibly down to the bonus incentive wage contracts at the club ( 2 finals )

[killer-heels]

Personally 69% Is huge worry no matter what way it came about
If it's due to the bonus incentive set up , it need looking at , as we've won fuck all .

Going to effect out transfer dealings .

Anything over 55% is to much imo .

That could reduce a lot with Champions League football and the increased in commercial, tv and competition revenue. But yes 69% is a lot.

[DonkeyWan]

Personally 69% Is huge worry no matter what way it came about
If it's due to the bonus incentive set up , it need looking at , as we've won fuck all .

Going to effect out transfer dealings .

Anything over 55% is to much imo .

It's probably anticipating the rise in revenue next year though. You can expect a massive hike with the TV revenue and you will also see the new stand beginning to contribute. That will bring wages much closer to the 55% mark.

Also, would wages of builders etc be included in that £42m hike? I.e. those who were involved inthe stand build?

[CraigDS]

Also, would wages of builders etc be included in that £42m hike? I.e. those who were involved inthe stand build?

Nah, they would not have been employed directly by the club. Nothing of that note in the accounts.

[clinical]

I'd be interested to read posters thoughts on the wage increase been possibly down to the bonus incentive wage contracts at the club ( 2 finals )

Something has happened because although we did have lots of players last year I can't understand how this leads to the 69%. Because don't forget getting to the finals generates money too.

What I can now understand is why FSG want to get wages down

What I don't understand is how some of our players are paid so much, yet offer little. Yet again I think this is down to rewarding players after a short good spell.

I assume our wage bill will be lower this year?

Benteke Skrtel Balotelli etc gone

[CraigDS]

What I can now understand is why FSG want to get wages down

You've simply made this up, as there is nothing to suggest they want it down.

I assume our wage bill will be lower this year?

Benteke Skrtel Balotelli etc gone

Few players gone and no European wage bonuses, however will have a full year of Klopp on the wage bill (plus his new deal, not sure if he got a pay rise), new deals for a good few players with pay jumps, and all the signings from last summer.

Can't see it dropping too much to be honest.

[Tiz Lad]

I'd be interested to read posters thoughts on the wage increase been possibly down to the bonus incentive wage contracts at the club ( 2 finals )

There are another 64 staff on the books, plus there's Rodgers and his staff wages from June to October as well as Klopps, so nowhere near all the increase is down to player wages

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpools-wage-bill-rockets-25-12700881

[CraigDS]

There are another 64 staff on the books, plus there's Rodgers and his staff wages from June to October as well as Klopps, so nowhere near all the increase is down to player wages

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpools-wage-bill-rockets-25-12700881

Klopp will have taken some of the increase, for sure. However it was only part of the year.

The additional commercial staff, even if all on £100k a year (they won't be), will have only taken up approx £6.2m of the increase (off set by a decrease in scouting and coaching staff by approx 40 people), so still plenty which must have gone on playing staff.

[DonkeyWan]

Klopp will have taken some of the increase, for sure. However it was only part of the year.

The additional commercial staff, even if all on £100k a year (they won't be), will have only taken up approx £6.2m of the increase (off set by a decrease in scouting and coaching staff by approx 40 people), so still plenty which must have gone on playing staff.

Why are they decreasing the scouts and coaching? What are the 62 new people for if not that?

[CraigDS]

Why are they decreasing the scouts and coaching? What are the 62 new people for if not that?

Commercial and operations side of the club.

No idea why the scouts and coaches (part time) are being cut - potentially shifted into another company (Academy? Womens? Football Schools?), or potentially seeing them not be employed directly by the club but brought in freelance as and when needed.

[DonkeyWan]

Commercial and operations side of the club.

No idea why the scouts and coaches (part time) are being cut - potentially shifted into another company (Academy? Womens? Football Schools?), or potentially seeing them not be employed directly by the club but brought in freelance as and when needed.

Don't see that as a positive if I'm honest.

[CraigDS]

Don't see that as a positive if I'm honest.

You don't see them shifting to another form of employing the use of part time scouts/coaches as a positive?

How could you have an opinion on it at all, good or bad, without really knowing what the deal is?

[clinical]

I can believe that we pay more than Arsenal or about the same once they hand out new contracts. But to have more than Man City. That has got to be pure bollocks. No chance. They have several players on over £200k a week if not more.

[Suareznumber7]

Commercial and operations side of the club.

No idea why the scouts and coaches (part time) are being cut - potentially shifted into another company (Academy? Womens? Football Schools?), or potentially seeing them not be employed directly by the club but brought in freelance as and when needed.

Coaches being cut likely because we cut back on the number of players in the academy. 

[Tiz Lad]

Klopp will have taken some of the increase, for sure. However it was only part of the year.

The additional commercial staff, even if all on £100k a year (they won't be), will have only taken up approx £6.2m of the increase (off set by a decrease in scouting and coaching staff by approx 40 people), so still plenty which must have gone on playing staff.

Nobody is saying it isn't, but some have taken it as all spent on players, and as a reason to sing FSG praises.

Plus there's the wages for Rodgers and staff from June to November, so it's not the case that they've pumped it all into players wages

[Tiz Lad]

Klopp will have taken some of the increase, for sure. However it was only part of the year.

The additional commercial staff, even if all on £100k a year (they won't be), will have only taken up approx £6.2m of the increase (off set by a decrease in scouting and coaching staff by approx 40 people), so still plenty which must have gone on playing staff.

The article confirms that the overall staff levels have increased by 64, from 636 to 700

[CraigDS]

The article confirms that the overall staff levels have increased by 64, from 636 to 700

Yes, full time members. Ground staff up 8, football staff down 6, admin/commercial staff up 62.

Part time scouts and coaches are down from 67 to 27.

[CraigDS]

Nobody is saying it isn't, but some have taken it as all spent on players, and as a reason to sing FSG praises.

The vast majority (probably £28m+) has gone on playing staff. If you don't want to be happy about that then no worries.

[qupte]
Plus there's the wages for Rodgers and staff from June to November, so it's not the case that they've pumped it all into players wages
[/quote]

What you on about? He was paid the previous June to November, so it won't be an increase from the year before.

[RedSince86]

I can believe that we pay more than Arsenal or about the same once they hand out new contracts. But to have more than Man City. That has got to be pure bollocks. No chance. They have several players on over £200k a week if not more.

Didn't City make another Company house to take a chunk % of wage bill to get round FFP,if its true they are great at finding loopholes and Uefa don't give a shit.

I read something about that a couple of years ago.

[killer-heels]

Nobody is saying it isn't, but some have taken it as all spent on players, and as a reason to sing FSG praises.

Plus there's the wages for Rodgers and staff from June to November, so it's not the case that they've pumped it all into players wages

Most have gone on player wages. The management and players have underachieved at this club of that there is no doubt. Constantly people banged on about wages being the determinate.

Maybe the questions now need to be asked of the scouts and football side?

[Zeb]

Didn't City make another Company house to take a chunk % of wage bill to get round FFP,if its true they are great at finding loopholes and Uefa don't give a shit.

I read something about that a couple of years ago.

They do. Have to look at the next tier up in their corporate structure for their comparison. It's like 50 million more than our's again.

It does look like something more is going on with our wages. Whether it's bonuses or how we've done signings is unknowable without the club commenting on it. There will be wage inflation, it's inevitable with the new tv deal even with the Premier League rules and FFP, but surely not that much.

[Zeb]

Most have gone on player wages. The management and players have underachieved at this club of that there is no doubt. Constantly people banged on about wages being the determinate.

Maybe the questions now need to be asked of the scouts and football side?

That's not really a helpful way to view that comment on the relationship between finances and success. It's as bad as those who banged on about "we're top of the league - the idea that the richest clubs win the league more is wrong". If we're consistently outspending everyone else over years and failing to win anything then the fault is certainly going to be in what the club is doing. It's not even mutually exclusive with asking questions about the football side when we're spending less. If it were as simplistic as you try to portray it there, I'd be all up for signing Paul Konchesky on a £300m a year contract to win the league.

[killer-heels]

That's not really a helpful way to view that comment on the relationship between finances and success. It's as bad as those who banged on about "we're top of the league - the idea that the richest clubs win the league more is wrong". If we're consistently outspending everyone else over years and failing to win anything then the fault is certainly going to be in what the club is doing. It's not even mutually exclusive with asking questions about the football side when we're spending less. If it were as simplistic as you try to portray it there, I'd be all up for signing Paul Konchesky on a £300m a year contract to win the league.

Oh yeah i agree. I have been saying we should be doing better and thats when we all thought we had the 5th highest wage structure but for lots it was us playing a rigged game and overachieving if we came top 4. Thats been blown out of the water now.

When i mentioned the football side i also mean the people who scout, identify players and who arrange the contracts but they are all the decision of FSG.

[Zeb]

Oh yeah i agree. I have been saying we should be doing better and thats when we all thought we had the 5th highest wage structure but for lots it was us playing a rigged game and overachieving if we came top 4. Thats been blown out of the water now.

When i mentioned the football side i also mean the people who scout, identify players and who arrange the contracts but they are all the decision of FSG.

Even if this wasn't a huge wage bill for that season, we obviously badly underperformed in it by finishing eighth. But I don't think the idea of one, exceptionally anomalous, season is going to throw out the general correlation between spending and success in football. Even City took a couple of solid years of spending to get up the table.

Absolutely agree with your underlying point that it shouldn't be used to mask failings or even just ways to improve and do things better. And how we've done transfers over the past few years has been all over the place at times even using the most generous of measures - and we'll be doing some big changes again this summer it would seem.